Why are women allowed to receive Communion?

[Emma87]

I was reading about the Church’s reasons for why women cannot be priests, and it made me think of a question. Part of the reasoning was that the Priest acts in the person of Christ, and Christ was a man, so therefore the Priest should be a man also. But it seems the biggest reason for a male-only priesthood is that Jesus only chose men to be his Apostles. He could have chosen some women, but picked only men when He instituted the priesthood. Well, when He instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist at the last supper, He didn’t invite any women then either. How do we know that Jesus meant for women to receive Communion when He didn’t include them at the last supper? If His choosing only men as Apostles is significant, why isn’t it significant that He chose only men to receive the Eucharist at the last supper?

I’m not asking this in an effort to prove that women may as well be priests, so additional reasons why they can’t, while they may be interesting, are not what I’m looking for. I really am curious as to why I am allowed to receive Communion. Thanks!

 

[puzzleannie]

there is ample evidence in the gospels and acts that women were admitted to communion and received the Holy Spirit.

 

[grace_singh]

I Timothy Chapter 2 as well as 1 Corinthians 14 are Scriptural passages often cited as confirming that leadership within the church is reserved for men.

women can serve within the church, but are not to have authority over men, in any position.

1 Corinthians 11 talks about the Lord’s Supper and addresses “men” and “brothers” but this language was commonly used to include women, and sisters by implication, and nothing in scripture barrs a woman from recieving communion.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

women can serve within the church, but are not to have authority over men, in any position.

Well, that’s not necessarily true. Women have run Catholic hospitals and schools and been in positions of authority over men.

 

[graceandglory]

women can serve within the church, but are not to have authority over men, in any position.
.

Why is it that they are allowed to be in charge of catechizing men and admitting them to the Sacraments?

 

[Emma87]

there is ample evidence in the gospels and acts that women were admitted to communion and received the Holy Spirit.

Do you know offhand where it mentions women receiving Communion? I’m not saying this as a challenge, I’m just curious. I’m looking around myself at the moment.

 

[benedictgal]

Do you know offhand where it mentions women receiving Communion? I’m not saying this as a challenge, I’m just curious. I’m looking around myself at the moment.

We are not a Sola Scriptura church. There were women in Jesus’ company, including St. Mary Magdalene, Susana and Mary, the wife of Cleopas. While it does not explicitly state that received Holy Communion during liturgies celebrated after the Ascension, we do know that there were women in the Upper Room with the Blessed Virgin Mary during Pentecost. We also know that 3,000 people were added to the number of believers that day. Furthermore, women are counted among the earliest martyrs of the Church, including St, Agnes, St. Lucy, St. Agatha and others.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

there is ample evidence in the gospels and acts that women were admitted to communion and received the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but why were they admitted, if, as the OP notes, they were not present at the last supper? If women’s absence from the last supper is a factor in excluding them from the priesthood, why isn’t it a factor in excluding them from the Eucharist?

 

[Shin]

I was reading about the Church’s reasons for why women cannot be priests, and it made me think of a question. Part of the reasoning was that the Priest acts in the person of Christ, and Christ was a man, so therefore the Priest should be a man also. But it seems the biggest reason for a male-only priesthood is that Jesus only chose men to be his Apostles. He could have chosen some women, but picked only men when He instituted the priesthood. Well, when He instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist at the last supper, He didn’t invite any women then either. How do we know that Jesus meant for women to receive Communion when He didn’t include them at the last supper?

We know because the Church has always done it this way, and that way was handed down from the Apostles.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, but why were they admitted, if, as the OP notes, they were not present at the last supper? If women’s absence from the last supper is a factor in excluding them from the priesthood, why isn’t it a factor in excluding them from the Eucharist?

The two are entirely different. The Last Supper was, in essence, the ordination of the Apostles. That is why, in most cases, the Chrism Mass and the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper are celebrated on Holy Thursday. The Chrism Mass directly treats the issue of the priesthood. That is why the Holy Father traditionally issues his Letter to Priests on Holy Thursday. Without the priesthood, there would be no Eucharist because there would not be anyone who could consecrate (confect) the Sacrament. In order to have Holy Communion, you need the priest. Furthermore, if you pay attention to the prayers and rituals of the Chrism Mass, you will find that the priests renew their commitment to priestly service and their obedience to their bishop. The Preface pertains to the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Justin_Mee]

Yes, but why were they admitted, if, as the OP notes, they were not present at the last supper? If women’s absence from the last supper is a factor in excluding them from priesthood, why isn’t it a factor in excluding them from the Eucharist?

I am in RCIA and will not even be confirmed until Easter. So, my opinion means little here, however, if women were excluded from the Eucharist, wouldn’t it be the same as sentencing them to hell? Could you be a Catholic at all and never receive the host at the Eucharist? Am I thinking correctly here?

 

[Yellow_Belle]

We know because the Church has always done it this way, and that way was handed down from the Apostles.

The Church must have ‘always done it this way’ for a reason, and clearly women’s absence from the last supper was not considered a factor. All the OP is asking is why wasn’t their absence significant for reception of one sacrament (Communion) but it was for another (Holy Orders).

 

[Disciple4Christ]

I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the search functions of this site. This topic has been covered extensively time and time again. All you need to answer your questions is already here.
I pray you can find what you need to quench the need to challange mother church.

My question for some is are you searching for the TRUTH or just trying to defy the Church teachings that have stood since Jesus walked the earth.

 

[grace_singh]

Why is it that they are allowed to be in charge of catechizing men and admitting them to the Sacraments?

because that’s within the context of teaching matters of faith to people not yet within the Church. it’s not wrong for a woman to teach Christian principals and practices to men who are not yet in the church. if it were, we would have no female missionaries.

within the Church, though, which is the context in which Paul was writing, women having authority over or teaching men is wrong. meaning, to have a female priest, pastor, or bishop would be wrong. or, having a woman lead a Bible study for both men and women.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

The two are entirely different. The Last Supper was, in essence, the ordination of the Apostles. That is why, in most cases, the Chrism Mass and the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper are celebrated on Holy Thursday. The Chrism Mass directly treats the issue of the priesthood. That is why the Holy Father traditionally issues his Letter to Priests on Holy Thursday. Without the priesthood, there would be no Eucharist because there would not be anyone who could consecrate (confect) the Sacrament. In order to have Holy Communion, you need the priest. Furthermore, if you pay attention to the prayers and rituals of the Chrism Mass, you will find that the priests renew their commitment to priestly service and their obedience to their bishop. The Preface pertains to the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

I must be missing something here because I can’t see how what you have written addresses the OP’s question. Yes, the last supper ‘ordained’ the apostles. But the apostles were also the only ones to receive the first Eucharist at the last supper.

 

[katy]

The Church must have ‘always done it this way’ for a reason, and clearly women’s absence from the last supper was not considered a factor. All the OP is asking is why wasn’t their absence significant for reception of one sacrament (Communion) but it was for another (Holy Orders).

The early Church didn’t have the NT; they just did what the Apostles taught. Not everthing is going to be in the Bible, there is also sacred Tradition–the big T one.

 

[Speramus]

Both the male-only priesthood and the eligibility of women to receive Holy Communion are practices inherited from the earliest days of the Church. These practices presumably pre-date the writing of the Gospels, so they couldn’t be derived from the Gospels, they come instead from the same source as the Gospels: the Apostles and earliest disciples, guided by the Holy Spirit.

In more recent times, the male-only priesthood has been attacked, and accounts of the Last Supper have been used to defend the traditional practice. In the unlikely event that the eligibility of women to receive Holy Communion was attacked, other passages from the Bible might be used. As other posters have noted, there is ample evidence from Scripture that women were part of the early Church. Add to that 1 Corinthians 10:17, which says in reference to the Eucharist:
“Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

All Christians are called to receive Holy Communion, if they can receive worthily.

I was reading about the Church’s reasons for why women cannot be priests, and it made me think of a question. Part of the reasoning was that the Priest acts in the person of Christ, and Christ was a man, so therefore the Priest should be a man also. But it seems the biggest reason for a male-only priesthood is that Jesus only chose men to be his Apostles. He could have chosen some women, but picked only men when He instituted the priesthood. Well, when He instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist at the last supper, He didn’t invite any women then either. How do we know that Jesus meant for women to receive Communion when He didn’t include them at the last supper? If His choosing only men as Apostles is significant, why isn’t it significant that He chose only men to receive the Eucharist at the last supper?

I’m not asking this in an effort to prove that women may as well be priests, so additional reasons why they can’t, while they may be interesting, are not what I’m looking for. I really am curious as to why I am allowed to receive Communion. Thanks!

 

[Yellow_Belle]

I pray you can find what you need to quench the need to challange mother church.

My question for some is are you searching for the TRUTH or just trying to defy the Church teachings that have stood since Jesus walked the earth.

The OP has specifically said that she is challenging nothing and that she is just curious. She has asked an interesting question IMO and now I’m curious as well.

It is one thing to suggest that we use the search function (and thank you for that) but why do you feel the need to question our bona fides?

 

[benedictgal]

I must be missing something here because I can’t see how what you have written addresses the OP’s question. Yes, the last supper ‘ordained’ the apostles. But the apostles were also the only ones to receive the first Eucharist at the last supper.

Actually, it does answer the OP’s question because it explains why the Last Supper was primarily for the Apostolic Band. They were given the direct mandate (they and their successors and collaborators-the priests) to “Do this in memory of Me.” Jesus, if you recall, engaged in many activities only in the presence of his Apostles. On some occasions, He also did things in the presence of only three Apostles (Sts. Peter, John and James). Does that mean that he was exlcuding the remaining 8 when he took Peter, James and John with hiim during the Agony? Remember, too, that only, Peter, James and John experienced the Transfiguration.

We need to look at these “perceived” exclusions under those contexts.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

Both the male-only priesthood and the eligibility of women to receive Holy Communion are practices inherited from the earliest days of the Church. These practices presumably pre-date the writing of the Gospels, so they couldn’t be derived from the Gospels, they come instead from the same source as the Gospels: the Apostles and earliest disciples, guided by the Holy Spirit.

In more recent times, the male-only priesthood has been attacked, and accounts of the Last Supper have been used to defend the traditional practice. In the unlikely event that the eligibility of women to receive Holy Communion was attacked, other passages from the Bible might be used. As other posters have noted, there is ample evidence from Scripture that women were part of the early Church. Add to that 1 Corinthians 10:17, which says in reference to the Eucharist:
“Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

All Christians are called to receive Holy Communion, if they can receive worthily.

Thank you for such a concise answer!