Protestants excommunicated?

[on_the_hill]

Are Protestants excommunicated/ineligble to receive Holy Communion by default?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Protestants aren’t excommunicated in the sense that they were previously in communion (unless they were Catholics, I supposed.) The etymology of the term is ex-communio - meaning outside of communion. And yes, anyone who is outside of communion with the Church should not receive communion for their own sake. The reason is because in the Church, part of the sacrament is a sign of communion with the Church, that one assents to the the teachings of the faith. To reject the Church and participate in the sacrament of Communion is essentially to commit a lie of sorts. Of course, we would welcome any and all to learn about the faith and then receive the Eucharist properly because of the unseen graces delivered to that soul and the world.

 

[Gorgias]

And yes, anyone who is outside of communion with the Church should not receive communion for their own sake.

There is, of course, an exception to that norm – in a particular exceptional case, it is possible for a Catholic minister to licitly distribute communion to a non-Catholic Christian (see canon Can. 844 §4). Of course, this is presumed to be a rare occurrence; in general, non-Catholic Christians should not receive the Eucharist, even if they believe it to be the true presence of Christ…

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is, of course, an exception to that norm – in a particular exceptional case, it is possible for a Catholic minister to licitly distribute communion to a non-Catholic Christian (see canon Can. 844 §4). Of course, this is presumed to be a rare occurrence; in general, non-Catholic Christians should not receive the Eucharist, even if they believe it to be the true presence of Christ…

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Qoeleth]

There is, of course, an exception to that norm – in a particular exceptional case, it is possible for a Catholic minister to licitly distribute communion to a non-Catholic Christian (see canon Can. 844 §4). Of course, this is presumed to be a rare occurrence; in general, non-Catholic Christians should not receive the Eucharist, even if they believe it to be the true presence of Christ…

Does that apply only to Orthodox and Syriac Church of the East? I did not think it included Protestants?

However, what about the case of a person baptized in a Protestant community who (without having any any ceremony) simply decides “I now accept the Catholic Church’s Ecclesiology and Sacramental Theology. I rennounce all my former heretical views.” Would they then ipso facto be a Catholic (albeit an uncofirmed one?)

 

[Gorgias]

Does that apply only to Orthodox and Syriac Church of the East? I did not think it included Protestants?

Keep in mind that paragraph four deals with exceptional circumstances. Paragraphs two and three are more oriented toward the eastern churches; Beal/Coriden/Green point out, in this context, the words of Orientalium Ecclesiarum: “when Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church request it of their own accord and are rightly disposed, they may be admitted to the sacraments of penance, eucharist, and anointing. Moreover, Catholics may request these same sacraments of ministers of other Eastern Churches having valid sacraments on any occasion of need or genuine spiritual benefit when access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible.”

However, what about the case of a person baptized in a Protestant community who (without having any any ceremony) simply decides “I now accept the Catholic Church’s Ecclesiology and Sacramental Theology. I rennounce all my former heretical views.” Would they then ipso facto be a Catholic (albeit an uncofirmed one?)

No. And c. 844 §4 wouldn’t apply in that case anyway, since it requires “danger of death… or some other grave necessity” among its conditions.