Did Mary ever receive Jesus in communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pyjamarama
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pyjamarama

Guest
Transubstantiation would have been around after Jesus went to Heaven and the apostles would have had Mass in some form. Mary was around so would she have received Jesus Christ in this manner?
 
I don’t know what the rules were back then, maybe at first only the apostles received or maybe just men?
 
I don’t get the impression that women were left out of the early Christian Masses, when St Paul is lecturing them about their behavior at Mass. I also am not aware of any tradition of Jesus’ flesh and blood being reserved for men. When Jesus said “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you”, my impression was that he was speaking to a large group of mixed gender.
 
I’ve never heard anything like that before. I can’t imagine only men received.
 
She went to St John the Apostle’s Mass and received Our Lord for sure. And probably others as well
 
Pyjamarama said:
maybe at first only the apostles received or maybe just men?
Click to expand...
Why would Our Lord forbid Christian women and Christians who weren’t among the original 12 apostles to receive His Body? When I contemplate the Life of Mary after Our Lord’s Ascension, I always think about her receiving the Holy Eucharist. According to some visionaries and mystics, Our Lady received Holy Communion everyday whenever St. John offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
 
Last edited:
GioG12 said:
Why would Our Lord forbid women and Christians who weren’t among the original 12 apostles to receive His Body?
Click to expand...
Because there were millions of people on the Earth but only 12 apostles which would be impossible at that time for everyone to receive.
 
Pyjamarama said:
Because there were millions of people on the Earth but only 12 apostles which would be impossible at that time for everyone to receive.
Click to expand...
Well yes. Not everyone can receive communion, but your original question was about Mary receiving communion. I don’t see why they would forbid her. She wasn’t unworthy, especially with the fact the she bore The Lord in her womb.
 
My question to the OP would be, how could she have not received Jesus in Holy Communion??? In the history of the Church, was there anyone ever more worthy to receive than Mary? She is the most perfect creature ever created, so yes she most definitely received Jesus!
 
Last edited:
You know, I’ve wondered the very same thing myself. There is really no reason she would not have received… it just seems, at first blush, a little bizarre why Our Lady, who gave Our Lord His Flesh and Blood, would then receive It back. But that is just a gut feeling with nothing to back it up. The only other reason she would not have received Him in the Eucharist is that she was already preserved from original sin, never sinned herself, and was guaranteed heaven, and His words about not having life in you, if you did not eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, would not have applied to her.

I think it’s a pretty fair bet she received the Eucharist, but I have nothing to back this up either. If I had to guess, I would say that either “she received” or “she did not receive” could be considered an opinio tolerata.
 
If you believe in private revelation Mary of Agreda’s mystical city of God says she did…and not only that, since Mary never sinned either she had Jesus in her (in the form of the Eucharist) since the very first time she received him. So yes, she received the Eucharist IMO.
 
Gorgias said:
Yeah, but there weren’t millions of Christians at the time. 😉
Click to expand...
Yeah, there was just a small community in Jerusalem. When they branched out, the Apostles no doubt ordained more priests as needed, so each area would have priests to say Mass and distribute Communion.

Mary lived the remainder of her life with the Apostle John, who outlived her, so she could always attend the Mass celebrated by John and receive communion.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
When they branched out, the Apostles no doubt ordained more priests as needed, so each area would have priests to say Mass and distribute Communion.
Click to expand...
If memory serves, they ordained local bishops, and only later ordained priests to help bishops, once the numbers of Christians (and the geographical spread of Christians) made it impossible for the bishops to celebrate Mass for them all.
 
Pyjamarama said:
Transubstantiation would have been around after Jesus went to Heaven and the apostles would have had Mass in some form. Mary was around so would she have received Jesus Christ in this manner?
Click to expand...
This is an excellent question.

The first part is Was Mary baptized? She had all the grace of baptism from the earliest moment of her life, so she did not need to be baptized in the flesh. If she was baptized, it was not the grace conferring ritual that others experience. It would have been to “fulfill all righteousness” as they say of Jesus in MT.

I think an analogous argument could be made for the Eucharist. The intimacy of her union with Christ preserved her from sin throughout her life; the sword pierced her heart already, uniting her to her son’s suffering and death. It would make the Eucharist different for her, because it affirms her union but does not create it.

But I think she would have received in solidarity with the other Christians around her. Communion in Christ may not have affected her relationship with Christ, but would have served to strengthen the life of Christ through his people.

This is all speculation on my part, which I may completely rethink later. But thankk you for the question, it is an interesting one.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Our Lady, who gave Our Lord His Flesh and Blood, would then receive It back
Click to expand...
I think there is a beautiful and compelling argument for that. Simply put, God calls us to a mutual relationship of love. God loves us, and we love God. As we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, He is in us, and we are in Him.

Any sort of reciprocity between man and God would be presumptuous, even ludicrous, if it were not for God’s great gifts of the Incarnation (Jesus takes on human flesh, becomes fully human) and the Eucharist (Jesus gives us Himself entire, His humanity and His divinity). In this mutual sharing between God and man, Mary holds a unique place because she gave Jesus that flesh from her very own.

For the notion of reciprocity, I find support in John 17, in which Jesus prays to the Father “that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us,” and “that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one,” and “that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”

In that last quotation, the love with which the Father loved the Son may itself be the Holy Spirit, and Jesus prays that it may be in us.

John 17 describes a love, oneness, and in-ness (“you in me, and I in you”) which, through Christ, begins here on earth and will be perfected in heaven. It seems to me that Mary’s uniquely reciprocal participation here on earth prefigures the relationship God is preparing for us in heaven.
 
Dovekin said:
48.png
Pyjamarama:
Transubstantiation would have been around after Jesus went to Heaven and the apostles would have had Mass in some form. Mary was around so would she have received Jesus Christ in this manner?
Click to expand...
This is an excellent question.

The first part is Was Mary baptized? She had all the grace of baptism from the earliest moment of her life, so she did not need to be baptized in the flesh . If she was baptized, it was not the grace conferring ritual that others experience. It would have been to “fulfill all righteousness” as they say of Jesus in MT.

I think an analogous argument could be made for the Eucharist. The intimacy of her union with Christ preserved her from sin throughout her life; the sword pierced her heart already, uniting her to her son’s suffering and death. It would make the Eucharist different for her, because it affirms her union but does not create it.

But I think she would have received in solidarity with the other Christians around her. Communion in Christ may not have affected her relationship with Christ, but would have served to strengthen the life of Christ through his people.

This is all speculation on my part, which I may completely rethink later. But thankk you for the question, it is an interesting one.
Click to expand...
Very good observations. I have wondered as well, whether Mary was baptized. I tend to think “yes” and to agree with you. No, strictly speaking, it wasn’t necessary for her salvation, but how could “the Mother of the Church” not be a part of that Church? And do we not come into that Church through baptism?

And keep in mind that even though it wasn’t the sacrament of baptism, Jesus Himself was baptized by John. He had no need of it, but he did it anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top