St. Paul writes (1 Cor. 11:27-30, RSVCE)
I think what the poster meant is that nothing negative happens if he received through invincible ignorance. IF he had no idea about how sacred the Eucharist is then his culpability would be lessened if not removed. Jesus is still present in the Host and he is still receiving the Real Presence of our Lord but not under what Saint Paul prescribes. As far as the family is concerned, each member would have to be examined to also see their understanding of the Eucharist AND the ability for them to convey this to him. They might know but he is not willing to listen or believe what they are telling him.
Lacking what I have boldfaced in your post, by definition of the three requirements for mortal sin, he would most likely not be in the state of mortal sin. Not every Protestant is in the state of mortal sin simply because they so not have access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. They obviously have not been properly instructed or they would be in the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. All Christians can be formed in virtue but limited to the capacity that they can understand and have accepted…
I totally agree!
I am not assuming you have bad intentions, but this post seems awfully lighthearted on a subject that is to be taken very seriously. Considering that some of the harshest words of the Bible are those that address it, it’s nothing to joke about,He gets excommunicated.
No, actually nothing happens. It’s a serious sign of disrespect, if such a person knows what he is doing. And communion should be refused, if the priest realizes the situation. But beyond that, nothing happens.
Look, I honestly found the question funny – no offense, OP. The reason I found it funny was that, as other posters and yourself have pointed out, people are generally not held accountable by God for wrongs they did not know were wrong. Moreover, since the man was a Baptist, he clearly did not believe that the Eucharist was the body of Christ, and therefore he *could not *have believed there was any sacrilege involved. If he knew the rule, he should have understood his action to be disrespectful, but he would not imagine it sacrilegious.
teachccd, on what do you base this likelihood? One doesn’t have to be well formed in the faith to commit mortal sin. The law of God is written on our hearts (Rom. 2:15). One *does *need instruction to know when to abstain from Communion, which was my point. Please note: I didn’t say most Protestants are in mortal sin, but that the person in question *could *be.
I have known protestants who will occasionally go to a Catholic church with friends or relatives (or even alone for one reason or another) and receive communion. They have told me they do so and that it isn’t any of the Church’s business whether or not they do. Even if they do not know WHY it is wrong for them to receive the Eucharist, they know they shouldn’t (if for no other reason than in the interest of charity).
Have you looked at the context of this quote? It seems to be discussing something else entirely, and I’m not sure what. Moreover, there were no Protestants when it was written, so that every Christian had the same Eucharist.
“Could” is the operative word here. We cannot judge people who receive Communion and I was using my observation of the original post to discern that there most likely was not an intent to be offensive to the Sacrament. It seems that we agree here but are just approaching it from different angles. God bless…teachccd