Did Jesus allow one in mortal sin to receive the Eucharist?

[Arnobius_of_C]

The following has occurred to me recently: During the Last Supper Jesus instituted the Eucharist, thereby consecrating the bread and wine and presenting his body and blood, soul and divinity to the apostles. Judas was one “of the twelve” present, and, presumably, one who received the Eucharist after its consecration. (Not to mention the others who, according to Luke, argued over who was the greatest in the kingdom.) At that point in Judas’ life, he appears to have been in a state of what the Church would identify as mortal sin, as he had already “consented” to betray Christ to the chief priests, etc., and “was [actively] seeking an opportunity” to do so. Knowing this, as Jesus did (see for instance Luke 22.21), he nevertheless offered the Eucharist to all twelve apostles–unless, of course, Judas departed before he received. Assuming he did not, however, as the Gospels imply, what are we to make of it? Did Jesus knowingly allow one who was in a state of mortal sin (that is, he had knowingly and intentionally consented to betray Jesus) to receive the Eucharist? My follow up question is this: why, then, do we (the Church) not allow those in mortal sin to likewise receive the Eucharist?

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

Didn’t he leave early?

 

[Sbee0]

The following has occurred to me recently: During the Last Supper Jesus instituted the Eucharist, thereby consecrating the bread and wine and presenting his body and blood, soul and divinity to the apostles. Judas was one “of the twelve” present, and, presumably, one who received the Eucharist after its consecration. (Not to mention the others who, according to Luke, argued over who was the greatest in the kingdom.) At that point in Judas’ life, he appears to have been in a state of what the Church would identify as mortal sin, as he had already “consented” to betray Christ to the chief priests, etc., and “was [actively] seeking an opportunity” to do so. Knowing this, as Jesus did (see for instance Luke 22.21), he nevertheless offered the Eucharist to all twelve apostles–unless, of course, Judas departed before he received. Assuming he did not, however, as the Gospels imply, what are we to make of it? Did Jesus knowingly allow one who was in a state of mortal sin (that is, he had knowingly and intentionally consented to betray Jesus) to receive the Eucharist? My follow up question is this: why, then, do we (the Church) not allow those in mortal sin to likewise receive the Eucharist?

1 Cor 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

So, he was the first to unworthily receive of the Eucharist? Interesting!

 

[jesusmademe]

I was told by a Priest that he was only allowed to refuse someone Communion if the person lived in public sin and people knew about it.

 

[Kaliaa]

The deed had not yet been done. Judas could still have chosen not to go through with it even after he left Jesus and the apostles. Jesus obviously knew that he would act as planned however, hence his comments.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Didn’t he leave early?

Luke hints that Judas was still there when the Eucharist occurred. With that said, I think Luke is also the only one that placed Jesus’ prophecy of the coming betrayal after the Eucharist, so it is hard to tell if Luke’s timeline is off.

I guess a few considerations, though, are:

1. Luke wanted to emphasize how far Judas had fallen. This is sort of a precursor to the kiss.
2. Judas had not yet committed the act. His desire was there, but he had not yet done the deed, so he was not technically in mortal sin.
3. Didn’t the Eucharist happen before their baptisms? This would make the whole thing a bit unusual to begin with.
4. Judas was not in public sin, and withholding the Eucharist is not about exposing private sins.