Quite possibly, but the critical difference I’m seeing is that Roman Catholics, as well as Orthodox Christians, see the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice, while for Anglicans, at least some kinds of Anglicans, it is not.
*“The early English Reformers universally accepted the Eucharist was a sacrifice of thankful remembrance, but universally rejected the description “propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead”, and thus deleted, as A.C. notes, all references to such sacrifice by the priest. . .
However, they affirmed that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, and that it also sacramentally represents and commemorates the Sacrifice of the Cross. In this context we apply the benefits of that One Sacrifice by intercessory prayer to the whole Church, and by Communion to receivers of the Sacrament.” *
anglicancatholic.org/critique-of-apostolicae-curae?class=greenlink
The Joint Affirmation of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America (2001) says:
*“It is also affirmed that the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, was instituted by Christ to be a true partaking of his Body and Blood, a sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and growth in him, and a pledge of our communion with him and with each other as members of his mystical body. There is but one sacrifice for sin–the “one oblation of [Christ] once offered” upon the Cross. This one offering is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Thus, the Eucharist cannot be said to be a propitiatory sacrifice to the God the Father.” *
stbarnabasrec.org/beliefs.htm
On the other hand, the Council of Trent said:
“CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.”
thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
The topic makes interesting study, though, and I know I’ve just scratched the surface. One article I read points to problems with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer that my church uses
“The changes that the 1928 revision introduced into the American Prayer Book were far-reaching and even radical. A number of these alterations and additions in the Communion office brought the doctrine of the 1928 revision into conflict with the doctrine of the Articles. These changes had strong historical associations with the Medieval Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation, eucharistic sacrifice, and the sacerdotal character of the priesthood. The liturgical elements that they introduced into the Communion office are open to interpretation as teaching these doctrines.”
anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/07/lords-supper-sacrament-or-sacrifice.html
An interesting book mentioned in the article just quoted is The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today by Packer and Beckwith. One user review on Amazon said, “Packer was most helpful in helping me get a better grasp of the three major traditions inside Anglicanism.”
