Catholics for 2,000 years, since Christ instituted it himself, have been partaking in the blood and body of their Lord and Savior at each and every Mass. Protestants on the other hand just make fun of the sacrament the way they make fun of anything Catholics do. High Anglicans, the part of the Anglican Church that retained most of the customs and liturgy of the Catholic Church after Henry the 8th made his own religion called the Anglican Church, of course believe in the Real Presence. Any REAL christian does.
Even if they believe in the Real Presence, they do not partake of It; because all their "priests" are mere laymen. I recommend you read Apostolicae Curae.
Again you are resorting to supporting error based upon who many believe it, which is due to cultic devotion to self proclaimed infallible teachers, versus what Scripture reveals, which manifestly is not that of a church in which priests dispense transubstantiated bread and wine to accomplish redemption, providing spiritual and eternal life, around which eating all else revolves. That remains and invisible church in the NT.
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil..." (Exodus 23:2)
High Anglicans, the part of the Anglican Church that retained most of the customs and liturgy of the Catholic Church after Henry the 8th made his own religion called the Anglican Church, of course believe in the Real Presence. Any REAL christian does.
Anglican Eucharistic theology is neither uniform nor technically precise, and while some Anglicans can hold doctrines close to Catholic transubstantiation, yet according to Rome there are no valid Eucharists in Protestant churches as it requires priests who were ordained as priests via apostolic succession.
Which of course eliminates the NT church as having Catholic Eucharists as absolutely zero NT pastors were ever distinctively ordained as men called "priests," never being called that or shown or described as dispensing bread and wine, or otherwise distinctively as offering sacrifices, which the primary function of priests. Thus Rome imposed this title on pastors as she developed her neo pagan idea of the Lord's supper.
For "priest" "comes" from "presbyteros" by imputed theological function, resulting in it being defended by an etymological fallacy.
As R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) states while also trying to defend the use of priest - states:
"The Greek word for this office is ‘ιερευς (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest took on its definition." http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html
Catholic writer Greg Dues in “Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide” states,
"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."
Yet it is understood that “the Latin word presbyter has no lingual or morphological relationship with the Latin word sacerdos, but only an inherited semantical relationship.” As a result of this change, “presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice. “(http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=744379.0;wap2z http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm)
Likewise Raymond Brown (Sulpician Father and a prominent Biblical scholar): "So far as i know, it was only ca. 200 that the term “priest” started to be applied to the bishop and only still later was it applied to the presbyter. This observation explains why some Protestant churches which insist on using New Testament language alone refuse to call their ministers priests. When in the post-New Testament period the language of priesthood did begin to be applied to the bishops and presbyters, it brought with it a certain Old Testament background of sacrificing Levitical priesthood.
The introduction of that language was logically tied in to the development of the language for the eucharist as a sacrifice. (...I think there were sacrificial aspects in the early understanding of the eucharist, but I have no indication that the eucharist was called a sacrifice before the beginning of the second century.) When the eucharist began to be thought of as a sacrifice, the person assigned to preside at the eucharist (bishop and later presbyter) would soon be called a priest, since priests were involved with sacrifice." — Raymond Brown, Q 95 Questions and Answers on the Bible, p. 125, with Imprimatur.