What happens when non-Roman Catholics accidently receive the Body of Christ?

[VikingGirlTBird]

What happens when non-Roman Catholics (Me.), Protestants, Unbaptized Christians (Me.), people who have committed mortal sins (Me.), and Non-Christians purposely (They knew that they could not participate in the Eucharist but, participated anyways.) or accidently (They did not know that they could not participate in the Eucharist and accidently participated.) receive a host/consecrated sacramental bread? Do they accidently receive all or some of the spiritual benefits, God’s grace, and Jesus Christ’s actual body like Roman Catholics do or do they don’t receive any spiritual benefits, God’s grace, and Jesus Christ’s actual body because the spiritual benefits and God’s grace disappear and the Jesus Christ’s actual body turns back into unconsecrated bread again?

The reason why I am asking these questions is because when I was very little, my Nana (Who is a Roman Catholic.), either purposely or accidently gave a host to me (The consecrated sacramental bread that represents Jesus Christ’s Body during the Eucharist.) at her Roman Catholic Church during the Eucharist (Holy Communion.). I accidently ate it because I did not know at the time that non-Roman Catholics, Protestants, Unbaptized Christians, people who have committed mortal sins, and Non-Christians were not suppose to participate in the Eucharist for many various religious/spiritual reasons.

PS: I know that many of the molecules from Jesus Christ’s actual body/the consecrated sacramental bread/host that came directly into my body and are still in my body and will not come out of my body unless I die and completely decompose. So, in a way Jesus Christ’s actual body is forever inside of me and can never ever be gotten rid of unless I die and completely decompose. If so, does that mean most or some of God’s grace in Jesus Christ’s body are still inside of forever and will remain active? I know this is extremely unfortunite/serious for all of you guys but, I am just extremely curious about all that happened. I am extremely sorry about all this and I really do not mean to offend anyone!

 

[Inquiringperson]

What happens when non-Roman Catholics (Me.), Protestants, Unbaptized Christians (Me.), people who have committed mortal sins (Me.), and Non-Christians purposely (They knew that they could not participate in the Eucharist but, participated anyways.) or accidently (They did not know that they could not participate in the Eucharist and accidently participated.) receive a host/consecrated sacramental bread? Do they accidently receive all or some of the spiritual benefits, God’s grace, and Jesus Christ’s actual body like Roman Catholics do or do they don’t receive any spiritual benefits, God’s grace, and Jesus Christ’s actual body because the spiritual benefits and God’s grace disappear and the Jesus Christ’s actual body turns back into unconsecrated bread again?

The reason why I am asking these questions is because when I was very little, my Nana (Who is a Roman Catholic.), either purposely or accidently gave a host to me (The consecrated sacramental bread that represents Jesus Christ’s Body during the Eucharist.) at her Roman Catholic Church during the Eucharist (Holy Communion.). I accidently ate it because I did not know at the time that non-Roman Catholics, Protestants, Unbaptized Christians, people who have committed mortal sins, and Non-Christians were not suppose to participate in the Eucharist for many various religious/spiritual reasons.

PS: **I know that many of the molecules from Jesus Christ’s actual body/the consecrated sacramental bread/host that came directly into my body and are still in my body and will not come out of my body unless I die and completely decompose. So, in a way Jesus Christ’s actual body is forever inside of me and can never ever be gotten rid of unless I die and completely decompose. If so, does that mean most or some of God’s grace in Jesus Christ’s body are still inside of forever and will remain active? I know this is extremely unfortunite/serious for all of you guys but, I am just extremely curious about all that happened. I am extremely sorry about all this and I really do not mean to offend anyone! **

Actually, Jesus’s body isn’t in you anymore. Catholics believe that once the consecrated host does not assume the “accident” of bread (“accident” of bread simply means that the consecrated host looks like bread but it’s actually Jesus), then Jesus isn’t present anymore. Every time Catholics receive communion, Jesus is in them for several minutes until the host is completely digested.

I will let someone else address your other questions as I’m not exactly sure what the answer is.

 

[VikingGirlTBird]

Actually, Jesus’s body isn’t in you anymore. Catholics believe that once the consecrated host does not assume the “accident” of bread (“accident” of bread simply means that the consecrated host looks like bread but it’s actually Jesus), then Jesus isn’t present anymore. Every time Catholics receive communion, Jesus is in them for several minutes until the host is completely digested.

I will let someone else address your other questions as I’m not exactly sure what the answer is.

Hi Inquiringperson!

How are you?

Thanks so much for the extremely helpful information! God bless you always! Amen! Peace!

Love,
VikingGirlTBird!

 

[maltmom]

The Eucharist is the Body of Christ, it doesn’t just “represent” His Body.

Like Inquiringperson I can’t answer the rest of your question. I’m interested in hearing what others have to say.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Hi Inquiringperson!

How are you?

Thanks so much for the extremely helpful information! God bless you always! Amen! Peace!

Love,
VikingGirlTBird!

God bless you too.

Edit: BTW, I’m doing great. I hope you spending time at Catholic Answers Forums.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Us non-Roman (Ukrainian) Catholics receive the Body of Christ just fine.

 

[maltmom]

I forgot to say that you have asked really good questions. I think the fact that you were very little will make a difference in the answers you received. You were too young to know that you were not supposed to receive.

God Bless!

 

[Edmundus1581]

Jesus Christ is always fully present in the eucharist, regardless of the disposition of the recipient.

You did not sin because you did not have the slightest reason to think that you should not receive communion when your nanna invited you to, and you haven’t offended anyone.

I once received communion in a Catholic church when I was an adult Anglican, and I went up for communion deliberately. At the time I was not aware of the rules about inter-communion and once I became aware of the rules I observed them (while disagreeing with them, as many non-Catholics do). I have never worried about that communion which I did receive, as I know that it was done in good faith. Perhaps it helped me to become a Catholic

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Without full knowledge and intent to sin, you can’t sin. You were also well before the age where you could even really make a fully informed decision on something.

 

[marian_love]

I also accidentally recieved the Eucharist. Approximately ten years ago I dated a Catholic who mistakenly informed me that I could recieve the sacrament.

I personally believe that any grace attached to recieving the sacrament is held over until we attain a state worthy of receiving the sacrament in the first place.

Obviously this isn’t true if you know you aren’t supposed to recieve but do anyway.

 

[Elizium23]

Without full knowledge and intent to sin, you can’t sin. You were also well before the age where you could even really make a fully informed decision on something.

Without full knowledge and intent, a mortal sin may be venial, but it does not cease to be sin. The OP sinned indeed, but only venially.
Catechism:

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

 

[Edmundus1581]

Without full knowledge and intent, a mortal sin may be venial, but it does not cease to be sin. The OP sinned indeed, but only venially.

… But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.

The moral law “written in the conscience of every man” is the Ten Commandments.

The rules on inter-communion are not moral law, but Church discipline. Nobody, adult or child, is expected to know them from introspection.

No sin.

 

[april32010]

no sin,no problem

 

[Elizium23]

The moral law “written in the conscience of every man” is the Ten Commandments.

The rules on inter-communion are not moral law, but Church discipline. Nobody, adult or child, is expected to know them from introspection.

No sin.

Incorrect. Canon law is one expression of the moral law, which encompasses far more than the Ten Commandments.

The Moral Law

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3
1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

Furthermore, if one is unbaptized, one cannot validly receive the other sacraments. It is not a question of intercommunion discipline, it is a matter of ontological reality.
Code of Canon Law:

Can. 842 §1 A person who has not received baptism cannot validly be admitted to the other sacraments.

This entry in Canon Law is only a clarification, a determination of how sacraments work; if it were not written down it would still have force due to the ontology of baptism and how the sacraments operate.

A baptized Christian unable to avail himself of Confession would ordinarily be in a state of mortal sin. Again, it is not mere Canon Law which prevents him from receiving the Eucharist worthily. It is sacramental theology which was present in the New Testament, 1 Cor 11:29. This was clearly known in the Apostolic Age long before any Code of Canon Law was developed.

 

[aicirt]

You didn’t sin so don’t worry about it. I’m sure Grandma, however missed directed, meant well. Maybe she thought the grace coming to you would inspire you to become a Catholic. Did she want you baptized?

As far as accidentally taking Communion when one isn’t a Catholic, how does that happen? Certainly one would have questions about the proper way to receive before approaching the altar. Father Z, on his blog, reported a non Catholic who came to the altar and, having been given the Host, took the Host and turned it over to examine it. He, or the person assisting him, reached out saying, “Oh, I’ll take that.” Totally evident the person should not have been receiving.

A non-Catholic approaching the altar to receive, for the purpose of showing that he can get away with something, is committing a sin.

 

[VikingGirlTBird]

You didn’t sin so don’t worry about it. I’m sure Grandma, however missed directed, meant well. Maybe she thought the grace coming to you would inspire you to become a Catholic. Did she want you baptized?

As far as accidentally taking Communion when one isn’t a Catholic, how does that happen? Certainly one would have questions about the proper way to receive before approaching the altar. Father Z, on his blog, reported a non Catholic who came to the altar and, having been given the Host, took the Host and turned it over to examine it. He, or the person assisting him, reached out saying, “Oh, I’ll take that.” Totally evident the person should not have been receiving.

A non-Catholic approaching the altar to receive, for the purpose of showing that he can get away with something, is committing a sin.

Hi Aicirt!

How are you? I really don’t know if she wanted me to become a Catholic and be baptized or not. Maybe she was just being nice to me, even though she sin in doing so.

 

[aicirt]

Hi Aicirt!

How are you? I really don’t know if she wanted me to become a Catholic and be baptized or not. Maybe she was just being nice to me, even though she sin in doing so.

I’m fine! How are you? I’m sure she thought what she was doing was okay for some reason. And if she’s passed, I’m sure God accepted her explanation of what she was thinking about that day.

 

[VikingGirlTBird]

I’m fine! How are you? I’m sure she thought what she was doing was okay for some reason. And if she’s passed, I’m sure God accepted her explanation of what she was thinking about that day.

Hi Aicirt!

I am great! My Nana is still alive and doing great but, she is not Catholic anymore (Even though she was at the time.).

 

[aicirt]

Hi Aicirt!

I am great! My Nana is still alive and doing great but, she is not Catholic anymore (Even though she was at the time.).

Glad to hear Nana is doing great. Why not ask her about the incident? I’m curious as to how she was able to obtain two Hosts. Maybe you could offer to take her to church. When you get to a certain age, you think about God and maybe she’d like to come back.

 

[VikingGirlTBird]

Glad to hear Nana is doing great. Why not ask her about the incident? I’m curious as to how she was able to obtain two Hosts. Maybe you could offer to take her to church. When you get to a certain age, you think about God and maybe she’d like to come back.

I will most definently ask her about the incident. All I remember is that I walked up with her while she was going to receive Holy Communion and the priest handed a host to her to eat and she gave that host to me and I ate it. I don’t know if the priest said anything or what happened afterwards. She said that she was thinking about reverting to Catholicism when her brother died but, then afterward she changed her mind afterwards. I will also most definently talk to her about her decission and if she would really like to become a Catholic again.