Did Mary receive the Eucharist?


Hello everybody!
I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question,but I reasoned since it has something to do with the Sacrament of the Eucharist,I might be in the right place…:o
I was wondering,if the kumari Mary was saved in anticipation of the achievement of the Cross on Calvary, where and how does the sacrificial import of the eucharist fit into her life and her exalted status in heaven? Was the kumari present at the "breaking of the bread"every time it happened after the Ascension? Did she also receive the Body and Blood?
If I’m getting my mariology right,the kumari was saved in the Immaculate Conception itself.The Lord said that whoever does not “eat My flesh and drink My Blood” does not have eternal life.

It feels weird for me to think of Mary,already made perfect,overshadowed by the Holy Spirit,anointed at Pentecost,to have been in need for the Body of the Lord again.But then again,she was also a disciple…


Why are you worried about whether Mary “needed” to receive Christ’s Body?

The right question here is, why wouldn’t Mary want to receive Him? She’d already carried His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity within her, for nine months. Why wouldn’t she want to be reunited with Him in this way?

Mary has always been tightly associated with the Eucharist. Her being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit was often seen as a foreshadowing of Communion. (The Fathers loved to portray her as having the Word enter her through her ears as the angel spoke, just as evil entered when the serpent tricked Eve through her ears, and just as the Word enters communicants through the mouth.)

Her body was a tabernacle for His, and so she is the best example for Christians to follow of how they should behave when they too carry Christ within them.

Sometimes, in medieval paintings, she is even portrayed wearing the vestments of a priest, often with the young Jesus as a server, to show that in some ways she offered up Jesus the way Abraham offered Isaac (and that she shared in the priesthood of all Jewish and Christian people, although not in the Jewish one of Aaron or the Christian one of Melchizadek).

Anyway, back to my first point. I suppose I could trust in being saved if I never got baptized until I was on the point of death. But if I believe, and if I love God, why on Earth wouldn’t I want to share in all the joy and graces of the Church, as much as I can, for as long as I can? Surely Mary would feel that way.

And since Mary’s soul wasn’t dimmed by sin, she was super properly disposed to receive the Eucharist. So she could get more good out of the Sacraments, and appreciate the greatness of graces from the Sacraments, a lot more than you or me.

Of course Mary received the Eucharist. She was one of the cooks of the feast; why would she want to go hungry?


Why wouldn’t mary need the Eucharist?

Her salvation comes from her son Jesus.

Logic says she recieved the Eucharist like us. Her salvation may have come before she was born but that would rule her out from reciving the Eucharist.

Her recieving the Eucharist likely was Part of her immaculate concerption. This also doesn’t rule out that possibility of Mary being baptised…which would also be part of her immaculatre conception. Baptism is outside of time…However…I have never really thought of Mary and baptism…and may be called a heretic for my statement of Mary and baptism.


If she did it would not have been at the Last Supper (where many assert there were no women at all - not even as cooks).


Most (at least from what I have seen) believe that there probably were women there. However, there is nothing that suggests that Mary was there, I have never heard anyone suggest that she might have been.

I would expect that she would have received along with everyone else in the Liturgy of the early Church after the resurrection.:slight_smile:


There is nothing in Sacred Scripture to document that Our Lady received the Eucharist. But logically (and spiritually)… my feeling is that she certainly DID.

Tradition within the Church tells us that Our Blessed Mother was a source of comfort to the early Church, for the years in which she remained after Our Lords Ascension. Certainly, she would have been present many, many times during “The Breaking of the Bread” (early term used for Mass). Hope this helps.


Actually, while Scripture mentions who was there, it does not say who was not.


Ah, really GOOD point, Rose. :thumbsup:


I find that funny because I have said that re having any women present at the Last Supper only to be informed/corrected that this type of reasoning is neither appropriate nor logical.


Sorry to cause trouble. Although she may have provided the bread for the Last Supper (very consonant with Jewish women’s jobs), I was actually being figurative. Co-cooking with God, “bun in the oven” = pregnant, and all that…

Maybe I should have stuck with “raised the Lamb”?

(Maybe I’d better stop typing now, before I make more trouble…)


Or perhaps she was not there at all in any job - maybe the ‘guys’ rented the room AND had it catered.

:ehh: :yawn: :wink:


I really don’t think that was the kind of “cooking” that Mintaka was talking about! :ehh:


On His cross, Jesus commended His Mother to the care of apostle John.

Now, if John was doing the Eucharist, I think he would have included his foster-mother in his Masses; and even if she didn’t *“need” *to receive the Eucharist (for whatever theological reason), I’d say she would have, if for no other reason than to avoid this very debate, and possibly lead people into error regarding the necessity and importance of the Sacrament. No one would be able to point to her and say, “Well, Mary doesn’t take the Sacrament/didn’t get baptized/etc…”

But that’s just me.


I really think that if Mary had been present at the Last Supper, the Evangelists would have mentioned that. After all, they did disclosed her presence at the Wedding at Cana & the Crucifixion.

And, since Mary received Christ when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, I doubt there was a need for her to receive the Eucharist as we do.:slight_smile:


I don’t know the numbers re the population of the world at the time of the Last Supper, I think that “who was not there” would have made for a pretty Loooonnnggg list.


I think that most of us knew what you were talking about.


And also at Pentecost:thumbsup:


Again, as I said, lack of need doesn’t mean she did not do it. And if she did, out of devotion to her Son (which is a given), I doubt she’d be penalized for “double dipping”.


Good Point!!


Sorry, saurav, you are getting it very wrong. There is no Kumari in Catholicism. It isn’t even a Christian concept, but hindu. Here’s a little info that you can get in 30 seconds by googling Kumari.

Kumari, or Kumari Devi, is a living goddess in Nepal. Kumari was the name of the goddess Durga as a child. A Kumari is a prepubescent girl selected from the Shakya caste of the Nepalese Newari community. The Kumari is revered and worshipped by some of the country’s Hindus as well as the Nepali Buddists though not the Tibetan Buddhists.

One other point. Hit and run posting is impolite. If you are going to seek knowledge, please participate in the discussion. Also, please save us all a lot of time by doing a minimal amount of homework prior to posting.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.