Why are women allowed to receive Communion?

[Pawel_J]

This discussion is to me very surprising. How can we ask such a question at all? Why?.., because she is human equally as a man. Many biblical scholars have even doubts if the tradition of not allowing women to receive holy orders is in fact justified. Paul in his letters accepted that women could teach and lead churches. We have to take into account the historical and social aspects of Jewish and even hellenistic societies, which were at that time all strongly patriarchal. This is not the case in our modern societies, where the role of a woman is quite different. Therefore the fact alone that women were not present here or there is not an explanation to anything. On the other hand, who was present under the Cross? Women and … one man. Where were the remaining men, the apostles? Hiding somewhere in fear. To whom spoke Jesus after His resurrection? To a woman - Mary Magdalene. She was the messenger of the Good News to Peter and the others.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I have always been under the impression that women were present during the Last Supper. I’ve known people to think only the 12 Apostles were present, because of artwork by Leonardo, Juan de Juanes, etc, but more than just the 12 were present. When He instituted the Eucharist, many found it too hard to accept and left Him/were no longer His disciples.

The Gospels indicate that the apostles were at the Last Supper and does not mention anyone else in attendance:
Mattew 26:20:

When it was evening, he reclined at table with the Twelve.

Mark 14:17-18:

When it was evening, he came with the Twelve. And as they reclined at table and were eating,

Luke 22:14:

When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles.

 

[benedictgal]

I have always been under the impression that women were present during the Last Supper. I’ve known people to think only the 12 Apostles were present, because of artwork by Leonardo, Juan de Juanes, etc, but more than just the 12 were present. When He instituted the Eucharist, many found it too hard to accept and left Him/were no longer His disciples.

Actually, it was in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel on the Eucharistic discourse where those who had a hard time accepting Jesus’ teaching left him, not during the Last Supper. Of course, the only one who left the Last Supper early was Judas.

 

[LilyM]

The command to RECEIVE Communion didn’t actually occur at the Last Supper at all. It’s right there plain as day a whole lot earlier, in John 6 - ‘unless you (meaning all the crowds gathered around, male and female) eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in you’.

We know it was the WHOLE crowd being addressed in John 6 because some of them, unlike the Apostles, walked away in disgust thinking Our Lord was referring to cannibalism.

The Last Supper, by contrast, was the occasion on which the Apostles were ordained as priests and commanded to CELEBRATE the Eucharist in His memory.

 

[EasterJoy]

Can anyone explain why the title of this thread is what it is, and not “Why are laypeople allowed to receive Communion?”

 

[Shin]

Can anyone explain why the title of this thread is what it is, and not “Why are laypeople allowed to receive Communion?”

lol.

 

[ac_claire]

There are some very good, informative answers here, too - much food for thought - but I notice no reference to any of the early Church Fathers on the issue. Does anyone know if the issue of women being permitted to receive Communion was at any time debated in the early Church? Or if their absence from the last supper was ever construed (heretically, obviously as a prohibition on their reception of the sacrament?

As far as I know there aren’t any ECF documents or letters that addressed this. From my point of view, I see that as further evidence (along with the reasonings already given in this thread) that it was basically always a non-issue or a “given” that all Christians in a state of grace are called to Communion.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

As far as I know there aren’t any ECF documents or letters that addressed this. From my point of view, I see that as further evidence (along with the reasonings already given in this thread) that it was basically always a non-issue or a “given” that all Christians in a state of grace are called to Communion.

I’m sure they did assume women and men could both receive. As others have pointed out, there are a few Bible references mentioning that both can receive. It definitely seems to have been something assumed, like the Real Presence was assumed (one can see this in several of the writings), Baptism, Penance and other graces of the Church.

My bet, though, is that if a lot of people actually argued women shouldn’t receive, Catholic apologists and scholars would come up with a host of references to refute them. It’s just that this is a non-issue in modern society as well, so people don’t bother to dig for what they don’t need.