Did Judas take communion?

[VociMike]

But, as Atemi pointed out, if Judas received the Eucharist of his own free will despite his state of sin, Christ gave it to him knowing of his sin, which would be sinful.

But according to that line of thinking, Jesus was sinful in not trying to talk Judas out of his idea, and Jesus was even more sinful in allowing himself to be taken and crucified, when he could have avoided it.

The problem here is in trying to apply the rules of the creatures to the Creator. It is often a sin for a human being to take a human life. Does that make it often a sin for God also?

 

[HailMary]

But Jesus does not complete the passover at the Last Supper. There is one cup missing. The Passover requires that 4 cups be shared. He only shares 3.

At the Crucifixion he refused wine until the end when he accepts the sour wine and then says “It is finished.” His part in it is finished. Our part in the Passover is to eat the Lamb.

At the Last Supper, the Lamb had not been prepared. The Lamb was only prepared when He said, “It is finished.” When we eat the Lamb, we ‘commune’ with God.

Ergo, I don’t think Judas took communion. Sorry, thinking aboutJudas makes me sad. I don’t know why.

Oh Ani Ibi, you really think the Protestants that deny Sacred Tradition are going to be concerned with this LITURGY of the Sedar Meal, let alone the whole 4 cups concept and what it meant to Christ when He drank the final one on the lordly cross?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

It wouldn’t necessarily be a sin to give someone Communion who you know is in mortal sin. There may be Canon Laws against it, but it’s not an innately immoral thing to do, and there are circumstances in which you would be expected to.

Peace and God bless!

Oooh, interesting point – I hadn’t made the distinction between the two.

Can you point to the correct part of Canon Law? I’d be interested to read that.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Ghosty]

Oooh, interesting point – I hadn’t made the distinction between the two.

Can you point to the correct part of Canon Law? I’d be interested to read that.

Peace,
Dante

I honestly don’t even know if there ARE laws forbidding Communing those you know to be sinning. There are laws forbidding giving Communion to “obstinate and manifest sinners” IIRC (Canon 915), i.e. those whos’ sins are public knowledge like pro-abortion politicians and who refuse correction, but none that I know of specifically that forbid giving Communion to someone who may be a “hidden” sinner.

And there’s good reason for this. Let’s take an example that might occur to any priest, and certainly applied in a certain sense with the Judas scenario. A priest hears the Confession of a non-repentent individual, and rightly refuses them Absolution. The seal of the Confessional still holds on everything that was said to the priest, however, so he can’t reveal what he knows. That day at Mass the same person presents themself for Communion. The priest can not refuse them Communion and reveal their hidden sins publically. That would be scandalous, and could arguably break the seal of the Confessional or at least come dangerously close to that behavior. It is NOT our duty to bring another’s sins to light, though it is our duty to correct and help them out of them.

This, incidently, is the kind of case Aquinas is refering to with regards to Judas. Even if Christ knows that Judas harbors hidden malice, it remains hidden. Christ was instituting the Eucharist at that moment; He was literally setting forth the design of the Sacrament. The Eucharist is not the Sacrament of calling people out to the carpet and publicizing their sins, but rather the Sacrament of Life were we partake of His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. Christ set it up as such, and let each person take from it what they would; Judas took condemnation, the others took Life from it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Oh Ani Ibi, you really think the Protestants that deny Sacred Tradition are going to be concerned with this LITURGY of the Sedar Meal, let alone the whole 4 cups concept and what it meant to Christ when He drank the final one on the lordly cross?

[SIGN]I thought I’d make things
interesting.
[/SIGN]

 

[Atemi]

The Eucharist is not the Sacrament of calling people out to the carpet and publicizing their sins, but rather the Sacrament of Life were we partake of His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. Christ set it up as such, and let each person take from it what they would; Judas took condemnation, the others took Life from it.

Though interesting, I think this is now problematic.

Canon 915 clearly says:

“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

I think to give Judas a pass because his sin was somehow “hidden” does not hold up because plenty of folks were indeed aware of his plan to betray Christ. JUdas’ sin, by definition, was anything but “hidden.” Maybe the other eleven Apostles were oblivious, but that, by no means, implies that Judas’ sin was “hidden.”

Also, we do not have the liberty of saying that Christ was keeping Judas’ grave sin private. First of all, Judas did not confess his sin to Christ so there was no “seal of confession.” Secondly, Christ publically outed Judas at the Table by announcing his sin for all to hear!

So I guess the question ultimately is:

Which is more important…

1. Worrying that a sinner might be found out to be a sinner?
2. Committing a sacrilege against the precious Body and Blood of Christ?

I have no clue why number 1 would be the priority for anyone.

…

 

[Church_Militant]

Even an RC giant like Aquinas would agree with me.

newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm

That is pretty good company as far as RC thinking is concerned.

I am sure there are some early fathers that agree with me as well. But if there is no record of this, how could they all come to embrace the same error?I don’t care what Aquinas said about it. He’s not infallible. As brilliant as he was…he’d turn out to be wrong on this one.

I know of nothing anywhere in actual authoritative Catholic teaching that goes along with this.

You may be “sure”…but there is no evidence to support you so this is nothing but more of your wishful thinking.

And the New Testament certainly doesn’t support you, as I have shown above.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think to give Judas a pass because his sin was somehow “hidden” does not hold up because plenty of folks

were indeed aware of his plan to betray Christ.I disagree. Only the Jews who paid the blood money knew.
Matthew 26:[14] Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests
[15] and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.
[16] And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him

This is written after the fact from information that only became known after the Jesus’ death and resurrection.
I would have expected you to know your Bible better than this…

 

[Atemi]

I don’t care what Aquinas said about it. He’s not infallible. As brilliant as he was…he’d turn out to be wrong on this one.

If you have any reason for any of us to believe the great Aquinas’ position is not trustworthy here but yours somehow is, then I am all ears.

I am hesitant to reject an opinion of a Saint and Doctor of your church, and one of the greatest Catholic theologians that ever lived, in order to believe that of an anonymous lay Catholic on an internet forum.

This can be readily understood by most people, for sure.

Can you point to where Aquinas was censured by the Church for teaching “wrong” doctrines and opinions?

I know of nothing anywhere in actual authoritative Catholic teaching that goes along with this.

Can you cite the authoritative Catholic teaching that says that Judas never partook of the Eucharist at the Table?

A council, or catechism, or bull maybe?

…

 

[Ghosty]

I disagree. Only the Jews who paid the blood money knew.
Matthew 26:[14] Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests
[15] and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.
[16] And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him

This is written after the fact from information that only became known after the Jesus’ death and resurrection.
I would have expected you to know your Bible better than this…

I have to agree with this. Judas’ sin was hardly public knowledge, but belonged to a very closed group of plotters. Judas was among friends at that dinner. Furthermore, John’s Gospel makes it clear that nobody at the table knew about Judas’ crime:

27] Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”
28] Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him.
29] Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast”; or, that he should give something to the poor.
30] So, after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night.
31]
When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified;

Jesus didn’t out him in front of everyone, He gave him a private message that only the two of them understood (and Judas likely didn’t realize that Jesus knew what he was about to do).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Atemi]

I have to agree with this. Judas’ sin was hardly public knowledge, but belonged to a very closed group of plotters.

That is manifest sin.

How many must know about a grave sin for it to be manifest?

5?
10?
32?
157?

Judas’ sin was not hidden, but only the Apostles were (by their own fault) in the dark.

Judas was among friends at that dinner. Furthermore, John’s Gospel makes it clear that nobody at the table knew about Judas’ crime:

Even after Christ told them. Yes.

So only if the other Eleven had known about it, it then suddenly becomes a manifest sin?

No.

It is way safe to say that more people knew of this grave sin than those that sat at the Table.

Jesus didn’t out him in front of everyone

Christ does not give us any such option. This is impossible.

John 13:21 (Catholic NAB):

"Jesus was deeply troubled and testified, “Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me.”

The disciples looked at one another, at a loss as to whom he meant…

So Simon Peter nodded to him to find out whom he meant. He leaned back against Jesus’ chest and said to him, “Master, who is it?”

Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I hand the morsel after I have dipped it.” So he dipped the morsel and took it and handed it to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot."

Matthew’s Gospel even goes farther:

"Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, “Rabbi, is it I?” He said to him, “You have said it”

If that is not publically outing Judas’s sin and betrayal, then nothing is.

I am surprised anyone would claim otherwise.

…

 

[Turtullian]

That is manifest sin.

How many must know about a grave sin for it to be manifest?

5?
10?
32?
157?

Judas’ sin was not hidden, but only the Apostles were (by their own fault) in the dark.

The question is on a sin that had not been comitted, which would be the betrayal of our Lord. While the act was indeed a prophetic utterance, it can not violate Canon Law as it pertains to persisting in grave and public sin. But in Judas’s case the act has not been committed yet. So your objection to canon 915 is wrong. So how can a person commit the sin of betrayal if he hasn’t already done so? In order to persist in grave sin he needs to have done that grave sin.

BTW: the term manifest here is used in the context of Public or common knowledge. IE a Person is airing his dirty laundry for all to see. So It can be more than a hundred people and still not be a manifest sin.

 

[Atemi]

The question is on a sin that had not been comitted, which would be the betrayal of our Lord.

Man, oh man. This is extremely odd.

So the plotting and the conspiracy to betray our Lord was not grave sin?

The constant stealing from Christ and the Apostles’ money was not grave sin?

I have never heard a Catholic take such a stance to defend Judas. This is a great shame from my POV.

While the act was indeed a prophetic utterance, it can not violate Canon Law as it pertains to persisting in grave and public sin. But in Judas’s case the act has not been committed yet. So your objection to canon 915 is wrong.

Judas was “obstinately persevering” in grave sin.

Christ even goes so far as to call Judas a devil…not a devil-to-be.

If it is not a sacrilege to willfully give the Body and Blood of our Lord to a devil, as long as someone can make the case that he is not a “public” devil, then how can any of us non-Catholics take RC Eucharistic claims seriously?

So how can a person commit the sin of betrayal if he hasn’t already done so? In order to persist in grave sin he needs to have done that grave sin.

Judas’ sin of betrayal began earlier and he remained on that course even after every warning of our Lord that He would be betrayed.

His thefts began even before that.

BTW: the term manifest here is used in the context of Public or common knowledge. IE a Person is airing his dirty laundry for all to see. So It can be more than a hundred people and still not be a manifest sin.

Even more than a hundred people aware of the sinner and it still is not manifest??

It seems that “manifest” means whatever some would like it to mean. Can you cite the Church document that interprets the canon law as pertaining to even more than one hundred people? I am not aware of any.

…

 

[KephasAugustine]

I just have a couple of questions (only because I’m curious, not as a means of arguing with you):

The constant stealing from Christ and the Apostles’ money was not grave sin?

Where does it say Judas did this? He accepted money from the Pharisees, but where does it say he stole money from Christ and the Apostles?

Christ even goes so far as to call Judas a devil…not a devil-to-be.

Did the Lord not also call Peter “Satan?”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Can you cite the authoritative Catholic teaching that says that Judas never partook of the Eucharist at the Table?..

Can someone explain to me how the Seder bread was the Eucharist? It has been my understanding that the Eucharist was not available until after Jesus said on the Cross: “It is finished.”

I think determinnig whether or not the Seder bread at the Last Supper was the Eucharist is central to determining whether or not Judas could have taken the Eucharist, let alone whether or not he did take it. Thank you.

Mishnah Pesachim

The Paschal Character of the Mass: A Repetition of Redemption

The Hunt for the Fourth Cup

The Fourth Cup

 

[steveandersen]

…The record shows that Jesus served Judas the Eucharist when He knew Judas was in a state of mortal sin. The problem is that the RCC does teach that to knowingly serve a person in mortal sin the Eucharist is to commit a sacrilege.

I have not yet heard this adequately explained.

…

So you’re suggesting that Christ could commit a sacrilege?
Against Himself?

How exactly?

 

[EphelDuath]

Can someone explain to me how the Seder bread was the Eucharist? It has been my understanding that the Eucharist was not available until after Jesus said on the Cross: “It is finished.”

He said “this is my body.”

Even if you’re right, he’s setting a bad example if he let Judas take communion.

 

[Church_Militant]

He said “this is my body.”

Even if you’re right, he’s setting a bad example if he let Judas take communion.

Then does it make any sense that Our Lord would do that?

Much as Atemi wishes he had a scriptural support for all this (which, as I have already showed. He does not) and his (supposedly) great admiration for Thomas Aquinas, who, as I pointed out was not speaking, (and could not speak), infallibly on this matter, the scriptural accounts speak for themselves.

Did Judas take communion? No.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Then does it make any sense that Our Lord would do that?

Much as Atemi wishes he had a scriptural support for all this (which, as I have already showed. He does not) and his (supposedly) great admiration for Thomas Aquinas, who, as I pointed out was not speaking, (and could not speak), infallibly on this matter, the scriptural accounts speak for themselves.

Did Judas take communion? No.

ARE YOU SURE? I READ THE SCRIPTURE THE SAME AS ATEMI IN THIS RESPECT. JUDAS WAS GIVEN THE BREAD AND THE WINE. PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION.

 

[Church_Militant]

If you have any reason for any of us to believe the great Aquinas’ position is not trustworthy here but yours somehow is

, then I am all ears.I don’t have to compete with Aquinas. The scripture itself, (your church’s highest authority) settles the matter.

I am hesitant to reject an opinion of a Saint and Doctor of your church, and one of the greatest Catholic theologians that ever lived

, in order to believe that of an anonymous lay Catholic on an internet forum.

This can be readily understood by most people, for sure.Which budges my concern meter not even a micron.

Can you point to where Aquinas was censured

by the Church for teaching “wrong” doctrines and opinions?

Can you cite the authoritative Catholic teaching that says that Judas never partook of the Eucharist at the Table?

A council, or catechism, or bull maybe?

Why would anyone have to…only someone with an agenda would even attempt to use this as a defense for their position. Every Catholic reading this knows that Doctors of the Church, though often cited for their learning and insights, are fallible. However, all of us also know that the essential doctrines of n-C faith communities have been “censured by the Church for teaching “wrong” doctrines and opinions”, so it is easy to see that on both counts, your position fails.