The Eucharist certainly has this communal aspect; it is correct to point out that one burdened by a social sin, for example, of uncharity, should confess it before receiving and if he did not, he would be taking the Eucharist in condemnation of himself, unworthily.
But there is no warrant in the context to reduce the warning to mere social sin. The discourse in 1 Cor. 11 specially makes reference not to the mystical body of Christ, that is His Church, but rather to His historical, physical, real body (1 Cor. 11:23-24). That real body is the body that died, and the call to discern it most naturally refers to it, and not to the social body of the Church referred to elsewhere.
So while the essay you posted makes valid points regarding the social aspect of the Holy Communion, it is still overall is an exercise in masking the critical parts of the scripture in order to make it fit the Protestant desacralized theology.
The context of the passage is the question of table fellowship and the hypocrisy of the church ritually symbolizing their unity in eating the bread while their praxis was social division. It was not a theological teaching; just a practical remonstrance to a chaotic church.
From Paul's Jewish tradition, he looked at communion as he did the Passover feast. Both symbolized freedom from bondage. The lamb of the first Passover did not mysteriously become the lamb of each celebration and the Lamb of the first Lord's Supper did not mysteriously become the bread of each communion celebration. Both continuous celebrations actualize the first in that the celebrants relive the first celebrations.
“Protestant desacralized theology”
There is no “Protestant desacralized theology”. We believe just as Jesus promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name there He is in the midst of them.