Did Judas take communion?

[Voco_proTatiano]

**trado, -ere . . **vt to hand over, deliver, surrender; to commit, entrust; to betray; to bequeath, hand down; (narrative) to relate, record; (teaching) to propound; . .

Betray comes a long way down the list.

Filius quidem hominis vadit,
sicut scriptum est de illo:
væ autem homini illi,
per quem Filius hominis tradetur !

The Son of man indeed goeth,
as it is written of him.
But woe to that man
by whom the Son of man shall be handed over.

Our Lord is making a statement of fact.
It is a dubious inference that he is placing a curse on Judas, only expressing sorrow that the task assigned to him will be too much for him to bear.

It is thus a dubious inference that the hand-over was in itself a sin, or that the method was unworthy. Perhaps Judas thought the coffers of the community could use a little Pharisaic silver.

The hand-over was needed.
It was ordained by G_d.
Thus it was the work of G_d.
So how could it be a sin?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Dave said:

The hand-over was needed.
It was ordained by G_d.
Thus it was the work of G_d.
So how could it be a sin?

Yes, how could it be a sin, when it was ordained by God?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Here it is, I guess.

TraditionalCath is though I believe, making an unjustfied assumption.
Judas did not deliver Our Lord to Pilate, but Caiaphas did.
Our Lord is here condemning the Pharisees, not the unfortunate, and now suicidaly dead Judas.

Yes he is making an unjustified assumption. I knew he was going to point to this verse. Thanks for the backup.

 

[Mordocai]

Indeed, satan had entered into judas before the supper, but judas had not at the point betrayed him in action. He perhaps intended to betray him, but is to intend to sin the same as to sin?

Judas was already power hungry, already hardened against Christ. He referred to Jesus not as Lord but as Rabbi.
He had already left the Church through His disposition but hadn’t yet made the formal act to excommunicate himself (so to speak)

A mortal sin involves what? Has that been discussed?
Full knowledge, full consent of the will, and grave matter.

Judas may have, in his mind, not fully accepted that Jesus was the Son of God and so, full knowledge may not have been present. Satan had entered into him, so full consent of the will may not have been present. He had not, at that point, comitted the act of betrayal, so grave matter may not have been present.

So we, who don’t have all the facts, perhaps can assume that Jesus, who loved His own to the end, did everything He could to save Judas. He gave Judas His body and blood.

Jesus revealed the entire mystery to him in his reception of Holy Communion. Jesus came to bring the sword of divsion, to seperate the sheep and the goats, and perhaps here Jesus is declaring unto Judas

“Now that you know Who I am and what it is that you can reject; choose.”

And Judas chose and could have stopped himself the entire way to the temple.
The betrayal was prophecied. It was predicted that this is what Judas would choose. But he still had to choose. Had Judas decided half way to the temple not to betray him then the prophecy would have been different. But it was in this way, and God included this in His providence, that the Son of Man might be handed over to sinners.

Would they not have sought Him out and found Him?

These are my thoughts. Jesus gave Him Holy Eucharist in His last effort and hope for Judas’ conversion. It was Jesus final action to try to sway Him to the light of God. He perhaps agonized in the garden and prayed so intensely for Judas that he sweat blood.

“But not my will, yours be done”

Judas represents all sinners. God does everything He possibly can to try to stop the final damnation of the sinner. Jesus did everything He possibly could to save Judas.
EVEN TO THE POINT OF MAKING HIM HIS OWN APOSTLE THAT JUDAS MIGHT HAVE THE CHANCE TO SAVE HIS SOUL!
But Judas chose wrong.

Otherwise, Judas would most assuredly have lost his soul as a zealot.

There was a deep connection between Jesus and Judas, not in the gospel of Judas sense, but in the sense that Christ loved Him perhaps even more than the rest. He died on the Cross to redeem Judas. Does anyone doubt this?

These are my thoughts. It is a lot to meditate on.

God Bless
Mordocai

 

[cpayne]

Yes, how could it be a sin, when it was ordained by God?

Something can be “ordained by God” and still be a sin on the part of the person doing it. For example, David’s taking of Bathsheba as his wife was treated as a sin by God, even though it was “ordained” that David and Bathsheba be the parents of Solomon. Examples such as this could be multiplied throughout the Bible.

Jesus said, “The Son of man goes, as has been foretold, but woe to that man through whom it happens.” (My poor from-memory paraphrase.)

 

[Atemi]

Yes, how could it be a sin, when it was ordained by God?

All the evil that is allowed to flourish on earth is ordained by God.

The crucifixion was a great evil…but it was ordained by God from eternity past.

Care must be taken to differentiate.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

All the evil that is allowed to flourish on earth is ordained by God.

No. That is false. The evil is not ordained, it is permitted.

ordain v 1 make (someone) a member of the clergy. 2 order or establish with authority.

The second definition makes it clear that to ordain an evil action is to be constructively complicit in that action.
If G_d cannot sin, then G_d cannot ordain sin. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The crucifixion was a great evil…but it was ordained by God from eternity past.

Care must be taken to differentiate.

No. the crucifixion was not evil, it was a necessary sacrifice. It was the price of evil. It was a price willingly paid by the victim. Evil was involved in both the requirement for the sacrifice, and in its execution, but the sacrifice itself was not evil.

 

[cpayne]

I think what Atemi meant was that the crucifixion was a great evil on the part of those performing it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I think what Atemi meant was that the crucifixion was a great evil on the part of those performing it.

I can agree with that, but then he goes on to imply therefrom that Judas was thus guilty.
Our Lord commanded Judas to go forth, and quickly do, that which needed to be done.
This task was done under the command of the Son, and ordained by the Father.
It thus could not have been a sin, as it was the MANIFEST will of G_d.

 

[cpayne]

I can agree with that, but then he goes on to imply therefrom that Judas was thus guilty.
Our Lord commanded Judas to go forth, and quickly do, that which needed to be done.
This task was done under the command of the Son, and ordained by the Father.
It thus could not have been a sin, as it was the MANIFEST will of G_d.

If Judas’s action was ordained of God and done at the command of Jesus, why (1) did Jesus refer to it as a betrayal, (2) did Judas feel remorse, and (3) did Judas hang himself?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If Judas’s action was ordained of God and done at the command of Jesus, why (1) did Jesus refer to it as a betrayal, (2) did Judas feel remorse, and (3) did Judas hang himself?

I’m wondering if this was not simply another example of God hardening the heart of someone who had already exercised the free will to disobey God. Like He did with Pharoah.

Yesterday, while you were taking your nap, I found Fr Most’s article on sufficient and efficacious grace. By unresisting sufficient grace to do good we get efficacious grace to do good.

I wonder if the corollary is true. That by resisting sufficient grace to do good, does God give us efficacious grace to do bad? I’m serious. How does it work? Step me through this.

 

[cpayne]

On the subject of freedom, I am fairly libertarian. However, I recognize that freedom itself is a gracious gift, which means we can be self-moved, but not Unmoved Movers, as God is. I think our wills are moved by the cognizing of our intellect (so God can move our will by, for example, presenting Himself as irresistibly attractive), but the opposite can also be true: that is, we can will what we want to cognize (and also will to shut ourselves off from other influences).

So I think of freedom as given by God’s grace, but almost a “pre-grace” grace; it is an inherent power of our soul. As such, God is the ultimate Cause of our decisions (having already given us grace to make choices by giving us the powers of our soul), but we are the immediate cause of our decisions.

Another way to put the libertarian position is that God is the cause of our freedom, and we are the cause of the uses of that freedom, whether good or bad. So to finally get to Ani’s question, ANY use of freedom, for good or bad, can be seen as a result of God’s grace—just as existence itself can be seen as a result of God’s grace.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…So to finally get to Ani’s question, ANY use of freedom, for good or bad, can be seen as a result of God’s grace—just as existence itself can be seen as a result of God’s grace.

Whew! Finally!

OK, this is important to me and no doubt to others. If we are free to unresist God’s sufficient grace to do good thus hoping our sufficient grace will be transformed into efficacious grace and the irresistable POWER which that means, what does that look like?

I mean surely we do not just sit in our computer chairs doing nothing but unresisting? How do we know what is God’s will for our lives? This has been asked billions of times before by nobler folks than myself. So what’s the answer?

Is it obvious? Like we go take some psychological measurement and find out we are good at math and then plunge ourselves into quantum physics?

Or is it plain and has to do with waking up, showering, making breakfast, walking to work, working, and so on.

In other words do we unresist sufficient grace on a macro scale or on a micro scale? Or only in moments of glory?

If we don’t know God’s will are we invincibly ignorant? Did Judas know God’s will? What was God’s will?

I don’t know. I worry about Judas being some sort of Calvinist reprobate instrument without choice, without hope; some sort of 1st C Hannibal Lector.

Or did Judas make some sort of fundamental option much earlier in his life. He drowned puppies or something. And God merely chose him from among an assortment of folks who had drowned puppies.

Thoughts?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

If Judas’s action was ordained of God and done at the command of Jesus, why (1) did Jesus refer to it as a betrayal, (2) did Judas feel remorse, and (3) did Judas hang himself?

1/ The verb used means to hand over, it can also mean to surrender, a very minor and secondary meaning is to betray.
2/ Judas knew he was to take a vital part in act he saw as evil. But that act was ordained by G_d, so Judas was performing a task ordained by the Father, and as commanded by the Son. though this task was seen as evil, by both Judas, and those who judged him, yet it cannot have been a sin, for it was ordained and commanded by G_d.
3/ Judas no doubt judged himself every bit as harshly as those others who judged him.

 

[cpayne]

Whew! Finally!

OK, this is important to me and no doubt to others. If we are free to unresist God’s sufficient grace to do good thus hoping our sufficient grace will be transformed into efficacious grace and the irresistable POWER which that means, what does that look like?

I mean surely we do not just sit in our computer chairs doing nothing but unresisting? How do we know what is God’s will for our lives? This has been asked billions of times before by nobler folks than myself. So what’s the answer?

Is it obvious? Like we go take some psychological measurement and find out we are good at math and then plunge ourselves into quantum physics?

Or is it plain and has to do with waking up, showering, making breakfast, walking to work, working, and so on.

In other words do we unresist sufficient grace on a macro scale or on a micro scale? Or only in moments of glory?

If we don’t know God’s will are we invincibly ignorant? Did Judas know God’s will? What was God’s will?

I don’t know. I worry about Judas being some sort of Calvinist reprobate instrument without choice, without hope; some sort of 1st C Hannibal Lector.

Or did Judas make some sort of fundamental option much earlier in his life. He drowned puppies or something. And God merely chose him from among an assortment of folks who had drowned puppies.

Thoughts?

Responding to the part about Judas: According to the Gospels, when Christ sent out the 12 apostles to minister, “the twelve returned with joy,” exclaiming over their conferred authority over sickness and demons. In other words, Judas had to be a part of this ministry. He actually had a ministry from God, and was at one time active in that ministry. So he was not a “Calvinist reprobate instrument without choice or hope.” He was a freely choosing human being, which is why Jesus could pronounce woe against him: “The Son of man goes, as has been foretold, but woe unto that man by whom He goes!”

However, I’m pretty sure Voco pro Tatiano will now explain how in this verse “woe” doesn’t really have a negative connotation in the original language.

 

[cpayne]

Hi. I’m jumping in really late and haven’t read all the thread, but I did have a question about this comment. Atemi, were you referring specifically to this incident in the life of Jesus, or to the life of Jesus in general? If the latter, I think Aquinas has a good point. There are many things Christ could know as God He could not know in His human nature—for example, the location of China. As God Christ would know of the existence of China; in His human nature, He could not have known of the existence of China. In other words, knowing and not knowing, in two different natures.

If, on the other hand, you are referring specifically to this incident—in what way could Christ have known exactly, in His human nature, that Judas was in a state of mortal sin?

Just in case the dispute is still over whether or not Jesus could have given Judas communion, I thought I’d re-post this. Nothing beats quoting oneself.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Responding to the part about Judas: According to the Gospels, when Christ sent out the 12 apostles to minister, “the twelve returned with joy,” exclaiming over their conferred authority over sickness and demons. In other words, Judas had to be a part of this ministry. He actually had a ministry from God, and was at one time active in that ministry. So he was not a “Calvinist reprobate instrument without choice or hope.” He was a freely choosing human being, which is why Jesus could pronounce woe against him: “The Son of man goes, as has been foretold, but woe unto that man by whom He goes!”

However, I’m pretty sure Voco pro Tatiano will now explain how in this verse “woe” doesn’t really have a negative connotation in the original language.

Mt 26 24
Filius quidem hominis vadit, sicut scriptum est de illo: væ homini illi per quem filius hominis tradetur! bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille.
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him. Woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.

‘væ homini illi’
vae interj woe!, alas!
homini : man, dative. reminiscent of a form of possession, viz:
‘to us is born a son’, is represented with dative and the verb ‘esse’, which is commonly omitted.
illi : that, so: ‘homini illi’, ‘to that man’, thus ‘vae homini illi’, ‘woe to that man’; but this is not necessarily a curse, but a statement of fact, and could be read as: ‘how sorry that man will be’.

 

[cpayne]

Thank you for your response. However, the Greek expression is simply a cry of intense grief; as Jesus goes on to say, “It would be better for that man had he not been born.” This seems to indicate more to me than the idea, “He’s really going to be sorry [although, as fulfilling My command and doing what God has ordained for him, there is no sin involved].”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

…Judas had to be a part of this ministry. He actually had a ministry from God, and was at one time active in that ministry. So he was not a “Calvinist reprobate instrument without choice or hope.”

I hope we can agree that I was being rhetorical and perhaps less than clear here. I am disposed to believing that Judas, like everyone else including the Pharoah of Moses’s age, had free will.

I am simply interested in seeing the critical path from freedom to the hardening of his heart by God which must have been necessary for Judas to make such a weighty decision.

Think about it. God does not force. For Judas to have free will about betraying Jesus he would have had to know what betraying Jesus meant.

Follow me into the world of the hypothetical for a bit. Judas I think would have had to be of two minds.

One mind was aware that Jesus is the Messiah. As you yourself point out, Judas was among the Apostles who went out and prayed for the sick, thus seeing wonders which set disbelief on its heels. He was also frequently in the Real Presence of Jesus which has the effects of sanctifying the soul and elevating the understanding.

As for the other mind, the only other thing which comes up for me as applicable is that Judas felt ENVY toward Jesus.

From my own experience I know that when I am in the grips of some overwhelming emotion I can be fully aware of what is reasonable and yet be wholly willing to abandon all reason in favour of my stubborn ambition to bend God toward MY will.

It was this ambition to which Satan must have appealed. That in some la-la land of the mind, Judas could win the lottery, rule the Apostles, and rule the World. And then wouldn’t Jesus be sorry for being so righteous and powerful!

(Forgive me God for being so graphic.)

cpayne:

He was a freely choosing human being, which is why Jesus could pronounce woe against him: “The Son of man goes, as has been foretold, but woe unto that man by whom He goes!”

If we are of two minds on a matter of faith and morals, then does the obedient mind weigh against damnation?

cpayne:

However, I’m pretty sure Voco pro Tatiano will now explain how in this verse “woe” doesn’t really have a negative connotation in the original language.

Maybe it was a transcription error and the original was really whoah! As in whoah Judas! Only kidding.
:blushing:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Thank you for your response. However, the Greek expression is simply a cry of intense grief; as Jesus goes on to say, “It would be better for that man had he not been born.” This seems to indicate more to me than the idea, “He’s really going to be sorry [although, as fulfilling My command and doing what God has ordained for him, there is no sin involved].”

Is not suicide an expression of “It would be better if I had not been born”?

It is the ambitious mind which makes the decision to succumb to temptation. But it is the loving heart which has to pay the price.

Surely when Judas came to his senses or rather allowed his heart to speak, it was too late. The whole of history had been set in motion. Surely the pain of guilt must have been more than the human constitution could bear.

And this requires some examination. Jesus would have washed that guilt away by on the Cross. What was it about Judas that could not accept that forgiveness? Why did he resist God’s Grace? What made him a loner?

Again, to use Judas as the instrument of the betrayal which led to the Crucifixion, Judas would have had to have full knowledge of what his choices were. Judas must have known that Satan was tempting him, using his envy and insecurity to lever him into doing the wrong thing.

But what was the wrong thing here? Surely the wrong thing was NOT to turn Jesus into the San Hedrin. That would have served Satan well because then no sins would have been remitted.

The right thing – betraying a Friend, betraying Someone Whose Righteousness and Power was clearly Divine – that must have been overwhelming to Judas. At the very least it would have been deeply humiliating – but more likely it would have cut to the core of his heart.

I don’t understand this kind of choice. The only thing that comes to mind is that Judas made some kind of fundmental option for evil and against good some time before the Last Supper. And that therefore he had stopped being a friend to Jesus before Jesus gave him the morsel.

Which leads me to believe that either Judas could not have eaten that bread or that the bread was not yet the Eucharist because Jesus had not yet been resurrected.

Because the Passover Lamb had to be eaten for the children of Israel to be delivered.

My NAB notes say that it was the bitter herb dipped in salt water which Jesus gave to Judas as a sign that it was Judas who would betray Him. After eating the bitter herb in salt water, Satan entered into Judas.

So maybe all these answerless questions about Judas’s freedom of choice are irrelevant. Maybe it was Satan who betrayed Jesus. Not Judas.