I think I heard a protestant say that he believed in the real presence, but that he didn’t believe that you have to be a priest to consecrate it. Do some protestants actually believe this? Maybe i heard him wrong. I know that some believe this about confession, but i’m not sure about this.
Most of the mainstream protestant denominations believe in the real prescence but their understanding will differ from the Catholic view of transubstantiation. Some Anglicans believe in the latter. I am not aware of any denominations where the Eucharistic liturgy can be led by anyone other than a priest or minister.
According to Apostolicae Curae, it was an invalid ordination form, as found in the Edwardine Ordinal, coupled with an assumed invalid intent, (not stated, but assumed to be the sacramental intent of those who consecrated Archbishop Parker in 1559), which resulted in a break in apostolic succession. The invalid form was cured in 1662, but, according to the RCC, Anglicans do not possess valid holy orders.
(as GKC knows)
…And re-introduction in the 1930’s -1960’s of having Union of Ultrecht / Old Catholic Bishops at Episcopal (meaning Bishop) Ordinations “just in case” and therefore re-introducing succession even if the previous were not valid. So, if the RCC chose to look at it, the orders would probably be considered “valid but not licit” for men ordained since then, in my understanding.
The liturgy had been changed as GKC said 1662 to speak about the sacrifice.
The answer to this is no, only a validly ordained priest can make Christ present under the species of bread and wine. It does not matter what Protestants " believe. " It is the Catholic Church which defines the validity of priestly ordination. See this article by Jimmy Akin for a more detailed discussion.
Lutheran’s believe in the full reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. As said earlier, we describe the “how” of that as a mystery - simply saying that it IS the body and blood, echoing our Lord’s own words. How is this His body and blood? He makes it so.
True, that, mostly. But it was not a just in case. It was a full agreement of inter-communion, which had been being discussed/worked on for many years.
The official agreement between the Anglican Church and the OCs of Utrecht, following the Agreement of Bonn, provided for co-consecrations of bishops between the two jurisdictions, which began, for Anglicans, in June 1932. Later this agreement was extended to the PNCC in the US and the Episcopal Church (1946). The point, which is often confused, is that this would (theoretically) infuse the valid, but illicit (as you say) episcopal lines of the OCs into Anglicanism, from whence they would be further passed, as the Anglicans bishops so consecrated performed their episcopal duty. The question of form was not a factor by then, as the form was changed (for different and unconnected reasons) in the 1662 Book.
AFAIK, this Dutch touch would logically follow (valid/illicit), but again, AFAIK, the RCC has not made an official comment on it.
History, is indeed complicated. This subject is yet more complicated than has been discussed here.
GKC is too polite to say that Rome is studiously pretending not to notice the issue!
Then again, they may just have decided to wait long enough for it to be a moot point since Anglican episcopal lines are increasingly severed by attempts to ordain women as bishops. Time may eliminate the need for them to figure out what happened.
As I often say, the Anglican Communion’s widespread belief that they are ordaining/consecrating female priests/bishops, possessing valid holy orders, in the sense the undivided Church has understood that sacrament ab origine, makes Apostolicae Curae a prematurely prescient document. The concept of female bishops is a black hole at the center of Anglican sacramental order which will eventually render the judgment in AC quite accurate.
Which is why I have nothing to do with the Anglican Communion.
Officially speaking, Lutherans who subscribe to the Book of Concord do not believe in Consubstantiation. If any term is really used, it is that of Sacramental Union, which means that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present in the Eucharist, but along with the bread and wine. Another favorite phrase used is “in, with, and under the forms of bread and wine”. The whole idea of Sacramental Union is viewed analogously to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Just as Jesus is truly Divine and Human, and in no way does either Nature subsume or obliterate each other, but are rather perfectly and without mingling united together, so then also are the Eucharistic elements and Christ’s Body and Blood.
When you boil it down, it comes out to this:
We don’t attempt to define the means of how Christ’s Body and Blood are made present within the Sacrament of the Altar. Jesus says this bread is His Body, therefore it is; Jesus says this is His Blood, and therefore it is. We know this because Jesus is the Logos of God, and all things are brought into being through the command of the very same.
Therefore, just as it was said “Let there be light” and it was, and just as it was said “Go, your sins are forgiven” and they were, and just as it was said “Lazarus, arise and come forth” and Lazarus rose from the dead, so to then when it is said “This bread is my Body broken for you; This wine is my Blood of the New Covenant”, so it is.