I see lots of discussion in the Anglican world about the nature of sacraments, in particular the Eucharist.
Nothing causes more friction at a gathering of Anglicans than the mention of the word Transubstantiation. Say that, and the urbane soirée turns into the final battle in Return of the Jedi.
Is the Real Presence of Christ spiritual, physical, corporeal, or symbolic? Does it matter? Yes, of course it does, and the ink ( and blood! ) that has been spilt on this very issue shows that it cuts to the very heart of one's relationship with God. How on earth can Anglicans be reconciled if they differ so much on this issue?
Let's turn the problem around and look at on what Anglicans, and given the breadth of what Anglicans believe, what most Christians agree on.
First, the Eucharist is important enough not to compromise one's belief on. It is commanded by Christ, and somehow bread and wine take on something of Christ in some way. For many Christians, the bread and wine take on the full identity of Christ as an objective locus of His Presence at the expense of their identity as bread and wine. There are disagreements as to how this identity is to be recognised and the nature of the locus. Is it spiritual? Is it a memorial, by which I mean something more than a simple remembring but a relication of one's experience in time? Is it physical? Is it metaphysical? It does matter what we believe, but we have to hold fast to what we believe unless the Holy Ghost compels us to believe.
This brings issues in that the one who believes in Transubstantiation could be accused of idolatry by one who believes in a spiritual presence. Yet, the one who believes in the spiritual presence could be accused of faithlessness and rejection of the words of Christ by the one who accepts Transubstantiation. Notice that I say could be accused. That doesn't mean that we have to accuse. Remember that the literal translation of Satan is "the accuser". What we must each do is to be true to our sincere belief, constantly thrashing our intellect against the Rock of Christ so that we do not become Kripkean in our dogmatism. If this means that we cannot be present at the same Altar in this Time, so be it. But we must trust in the same One Christ that we believe in with the same One Faith being members of the same One Church that we, and those with whom we disagree, are going to be together at the same altar in Heaven. Indeed, many of us believe that this happens at every valid Mass anyway!
Second, we must remember that there is no Anglican Church, no Roman Catholic Church, no Anglican Catholic Church, no Orthodox Church, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That's it. Some of us may be Anglican as a noun by the doctrine of the prayer book and the formularies. Some of us may be Anglican as an adjective by history or by succession. Some of us may be Roman by location, by doctrine, or just by being in communion with the Holy Father. Again, that's just us. We can and should argue but not to convince, but rather to explain. Debates become tedious when they're very old. The Church Fathers say nothing conclusive about the nature of the Eucharist, save that Christ is really and objectively present following His promise to us. A promise that He keeps even when we do not keep ours. Christ's promise works for the salvation of the faithful be they Anglican, Roman, Orthodox, or Protestant. In Christ we are all brothers and sisters, yet we seem to accuse and abuse each other on the same level as the sons of King David!
Third, we should not compromise our liturgy. These words bind us in time with those who have gone before. If we say the prayer book rite whether it be the 1549 Canon, or the 1928 Canon, or if we use the Missal, whether it be English, Anglican, Sarum, or even Roman, or if we use one of the ancient Orthodox liturgies then we should remember that at the very least they agree about the words of consecration. The same intention is there in every rite - to make present the body and blood of Christ. There are, indeed, some truly terrible modern liturgies out there, but they are only invalidated if they do not embrace the true Christ as proclaimed in the great Creeds of the Church. If one's intention is to dumb things down to make it "accessible" rather than allow the great words said by so many unlearned folk throughout the ages, then one is compromising one's integrity for the fashionable by introducing a disconnection. The old language is still good enough for Shakespeare: it is still good enough for the majesty of the Holy Sacraments.
Fourthly, this brings me to the fact that the old language is a source of Anglican unity for those who seek to hold that connection with the Reformers. We do have that in common, and it won't do to forget it. I remember being picked up on the words "miserable offender" by Deacon Christopher Little. I had forgotten that the word "miserable" had changed meaning. Perhaps each Christian needs to ensure that they do not compromise on the language that they speak, but commit to learning that language as thoroughly as possible. One we truly understand our own language, then we have a better basis by which we can translate for each other. It has often been said that the English and the American are separated by a common language: let Anglicans then be united by their common language . Whether Cranmer is heretic or hero, he is certainly to be venerated for his translation and use of liturgical language.
We should not compromise on our sincere belief in Christ, but we must be prepared to suffer for that lack of compromise. If we recognise that suffering in others, then perhaps that is enough for us to come together in suffering, mutual support, mutual protection, and continue to point to that One Christ. All Catholics have the same Nicene Creed (preferably without the filioque), pray the same Our Father, and agree on 66 books of the Holy Scriptures. We all have received the same commandments from the same Christ. That should be the basis of our unity in Christ.