Actually, to my understanding, it’s difficult to identify a single ‘Anglican belief’ with respect to the Eucharist, since there are a number of Anglican theologies of the Eucharist! (Namely, some believe that the spiritual presence of the Eucharist exists in the physical presence of the bread and wine when a believer believes in them; others believe in transubstantiation, in which the physical elements remain but the substance is changed into the substance of Christ; and still others believe in consubstantiation, in which the physical elements and substance of bread and wine remain, but the substance of Christ joins them.)
The Anglican believe is that the elements remain the same they look, taste, and smell like bread and wine. So they remain bread and wine. The change is in the substance where it can’t be seen.
This is ‘transubstantiation’.
I think the Catholic belief is after consecration nothing remain of the elements they are now the body and blood of Christ.
If by ‘elements’ you mean ‘physical elements’, then no, that’s not what Catholics believe. In fact, Catholic teaching asserts ‘transubstantiation’.
We see the elements but know the substance is Christ.
I guess I’d ask you what you mean by ‘knowing the substance is Christ’? If the substance is Christ, then the Eucharist is Christ.
You see the bread and the same way we do but you claim it isn’t bread and wine. How can you say it isn’t there if you see withyour eyes?
We see ‘accidents’ – that is, physical properties. Catholics would say that we continue to see the physical properties of bread and wine, but that the substance of these is the substance of Christ, and therefore, what we see is Christ.
Have you ever seen food that looks like something that it’s not? For instance, a hamburger that’s really a cake, or candy that’s really sushi? Would you look at it and say “how can you say that this isn’t a hamburger? It looks like a hamburger!” The response you’d get is “but, although it looks like a hamburger, it is actually a cake!”