Bp Barron immediately changed the topic of his upcoming address to the Religious Education Congress to the Real Presence. On the other hand, he's a highly intelligent man, and I suspect questions like sample size or even what the Pew survey called a "catholic" occurred to him. Nevertheless, he felt called to re-emphasize the doctrine. The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, well, not so much. In fact, there would be a major flap if he did. At least nobody denounced Bp Barron for being non-inclusive, huh? But there's a start on the Anglican position.
My regular correspondent said,
The requirement for Church of Emgland clergy to subscribe to the 39 Articles was toned down in the 19th century. Rites which imply a belief in the Real Presence—-Reservation., Adoration, Benediction, a “watch” from Holy Thursday to Good Friday, Corpus Christi parades, etc have been part of the Anglo-Catholic movement for at least 150 years. There are propers for Corpus Christi in the latest edition of Common Worship, one of the official worship texts of the Church of England. So I do not think that belief in the Real Presence is just a symptom of disciplinary laxity in the Anglican world.Well, since we're mostly in the jurisdiction of the North American ordinariate among visitors here, and they're coming from North American Anglican jurisdictions in most cases, I think it's easiest to refer to TEC, the ACC, and the ACNA. I would say that at least in the case of TEC, belief in the Real Presence is tolerated but certainly not compulsory. The 1979 BCP made the XXXIX Articles a "Historical Document of the Church", thus distancing itself from them.
However, continued reliance on the Articles as a credal stateemnt is generally regarded as a litmus for Low Church Anglicanism, which definitely continues. The ACNA is generally regarded as a Low Church movement. The "continuing" groups use the 1928 BCP, which places the Articles more integrally as a credal statement.
In addition, until recent decades and at least since the late 19th century, The Episcopal Church has not enforced doctrine of any sort. The closest it came was with Bp James Pike, who denied the Trinity in public statements and began his homilies with "in the name of God the Father". He resigned as bishop under the threat of a heresy trial but was basically prevailed on to withdraw in order to limit controversy, so there was never actual enforcement.
A continued policy of non-enforcement emerged from the 1990s Righter trial, in which a bishop was acquitted of canonical violation for ordaining an actively gay and same-sex partnered candidate. But this was far from traditional questions of doctrine like the Real Presence. If Bp Love is convicted in his upcoming trial of refusing to perform same-sex marriage, this will be a matter of actively enforcing a new doctrine, while one would assume TEC would never consider enforcing or not enforcing any doctrine regarding the Real Presence, or for that matter the Trinity or the Incarnation.
Whether Anglo-Catholic parishes celebrate a Corpus Christi liturgy, reserve the Sacrament, elevate it, or make any effort to mop up spilled wine isn't really a question, as this is entirely a matter of style, rather than active belief. There's simply an element of camp in Anglo-Catholic celebration.
Beyond that, the discovery of King Tut's tomb had an immense effect on Western architecture and style that continues today. Adoption of ancient Egyptian style, profoundly religious in its implication, nevertheless carries no doctrinal importance for those who visit, say, the Los Angeles Public Library-- its architect, Bertram Goodhue, was inspired by Gothic churches until he changed to King Tut.
So why has Bp Lopes never felt, like Bp Barron, the need to emphasize the Real Presence?
