Did Judas take communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EphelDuath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Church_Militant said:
The fact is that the New Testament accounts of this actually make it appear that what Our Lord said to Judas was done so in so quiet a way that no one else overheard it. Knowing the impetuous nature of many of the apostles, it certainly reads as if Jesus kept the accusation to himself because the apostles might well have attempted to interfere and that would have possibly derailed the fulfillment of the events as foretold.

But if you read the accounts…you can see that Jesus was very discrete with Judas that night.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but instead of discretion, Christ might just as well had a bullhorn.
  • He is the one that was sure to mention to all that He was going to be betrayed by one of them.
  • He was the one to tell them all that the traitor was at the Table with them.
  • He was the one who told Judas in front of everyone that he was the traitor.
  • He was the one that told all present how they will identify the traitor.
  • He was the one that publically followed through on His identification.
To say there is “discretion” or secrecy here is way beyond the limits of the text.

…
 
EphelDuath said:
Luke is silent. Jesus consecrates the bread before he condemns Judas, but it doesn’t say when they actually took communion.
Click to expand...
Luke is not silent. He is actually the loadest voice on the order of events we are discussing here.

Luk 22:19 "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Luk 22:21 “But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table”

…
 
You disagree with my first sentence, but then proceed to agree with my second one by copying the same verse.
 
Peter_Da_Rock said:
?

Please define "Agent of Surrender"
Click to expand...
A ‘go-between’, an atourney, one who acts for, and arranges terms.
Reading between the lines, and this is necessary, for spies were many, it seems that someone very important to Our Lord got captured during the fracas at the Temple, when the tables were overturned, and money-changers cast out.
It is entirely possible that this person was one Bar Abbas. I believe his forename was also Jesus. He could have been a close family member, or an apprentice. Apprentices were commonly adopted by their masters. In the Law of that time, there was no differentiation between blood relatives and adopted relatives.
Yes, this is conjecture, but it is feasible.
Another poster has quoted translations of the Last Supper incident, where the disciples all ask: ‘Is it I?’, (emboldened below). This is a poor translation of the Latin, which I will for you illustrate with a translation made from the Codex Fuldensis Gospel, using Douay and Clementine as guide, which harmonizes all four accounts.
Viz:
Jn 13 21
Cum hæc dixisset, turbatus est spiritu, et protestatus est et dixit: amen amen dico vobis, quia unus ex vobis tradet me.
When He had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you shall betray me.
Mc 14 19a,b, Mt 26 22b
At illi ceperunt contristari et dicere singillatim: **numquid ego sum, **domine?
Whereupon they began to be sorrowful and to say to him, one by one: **Surely it is not me, **Lord?
Mc 14 20, Mt 26 23d
Quibus ait: qui intingit mecum manum in catino hic me tradet.
And he saith: Who dippeth with me his hand in the dish, he shall betray me.
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.
Jn 13 22, Lc 22 23b
Aspiciebant ergo ad invicem discipuli hæsitantes de quo diceret, et querentes inter se quis esset ex eis qui hoc facturus esset.
The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke, and inquired among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.
Jn 13 23, 24.
Erat autem recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Ihesu, quem diligebat Ihesus. Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus et dicit ei: quis est de quo dicit?
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?
Jn 13 25, 26a.
Itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Ihesu, dicit ei: domine, quis est? Cui respondit Ihesus: ille est cui ego intinctum panem porrexero.
He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it? To whom Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall offer bread dipped.
Jn 13 26b
Et cum intincxisset panem, dedit Iudæ Simonis Scariothis.
And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
Jn 13 27
Et post buccellam tunc intravit in illum Satanas. Dicit ei Ihesus: quod facis fac citius.
And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.
Jn 13 28, 29.
Hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei. Quidam enim putabant, quia loculos habebat Iudas, quod dicit ei Ihesus: eme ea quæ opus sunt nobis ad diem festum, aut egenis ut aliquid daret.
Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor.
Mt 26 25a
Respondens autem Iudas qui tradidit eum dixit: **numquid ego sum, **rabbi?
And Judas that betrayed him answering, said: **Surely it is not me, **Master?
Mt 26 25b
Ait illi: tu dixisti.
He saith to him: Thou hast said it.

‘Numqid’ in Latin introduces a question, almost rhetorical, which expects a negative response.
Reading thus, it is possible to see that an agent is being chosen, and the one chosen is horrified.
Note also, that intincted bread was, and still is, a common way to give the Eucharist.
 
This thread is similar to the query whether the soul of Judas suffers in hell. Both of these queries, the fathers of the church in their reverence to St. Luke and to our Lord Jesus Christ rendered “reverent silence” on these queries.

But for the sake of a discussion, just to form a conclusion of whether or not Judas had partaken the holy eucharist, I think it is not an act of irreverence.

Of the four gospel writers, St. Matthew and St.John were among the twelve members of the Apostles during that particular evening when, as Jews, they commemorated the passover of the old covenant with the Lord Jesus Christ.( Assuming we have a court proceeding on this matter, the Judge would first bring to the witness stand the principal witnesses which were supposedly St. Matthew and St. John )

On the account of St. Matthew (Matt. 26: 23 - 26)
The sequence of events involving here is very necessary in order to form a conclusion. In verse 23 there mentioned the dipping of the bread into the wine and on verse 26 the institution of the holy eucharist by our Lord.

On the account of St. John ( John 13: 26 - 30 )
In verse 26 there mentioned the dipping of the bread and as soon as Judas took the bread satan entered into him ( verse 27). But in verse 30 it says that “Judas accepted the bread and went out at once. It was night.”

If you see the sequence of the event, the bread that was dipped into the wine and given to Judas was the bread in commemoration of the old covenant passover not the holy eucharist.

( Here, from the accounts of the principal witnesses we can conclude that Judas had not partaken the holy eucharist. But here comes another material witness but not among the principals, St. Luke (Luke 22: 17- 21) - we can understand that Judas had partaken the holy eucharist.)
 
40.png
Atemi:
Luk 22:19 "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
Click to expand...
But I am still not persuaded that Jesus is using a present sense. Why would he be asking them to remember Him when he is right there? Is he not instead using a future sense and teaching them what he wants them to do after the Crucifixion?

No one has answered me yet as to whether or not the bread and wine at the Last Supper was actually the Christian Eucharist or simply part of the Passover Seder. Anyone? Please?
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Note also, that intincted bread was, and still is, a common way to give the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
That’s it then! The fourth cup had not been yet taken and therefore this was not the Eucharist. It was a demonstration of what Jesus wanted the Apostles to do after the Crucifixion.
 
40.png
Joero:
If you see the sequence of the event, the bread that was dipped into the wine and given to Judas was the bread in commemoration of the old covenant passover not the holy eucharist.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly.

Joero said:
( Here, from the accounts of the principal witnesses we can conclude that Judas had not partaken the holy eucharist. But here comes another material witness but not among the principals, St. Luke (Luke 22: 17- 21) - we can understand that Judas had partaken the holy eucharist.)
Click to expand...

But this doesn’t make sense. Because if the bread was the Eucharist then it would be the Body of Christ. If Judas was partaking of the Body of Christ, then Satan could not enter into him. I think this was a demonstration of what Jesus wanted the Apostles to do after the Crucifixion.

Bottom line Judas didn’t take communion.
 
Joero said:
( Here, from the accounts of the principal witnesses we can conclude that Judas had not partaken the holy eucharist. But here comes another material witness but not among the principals, St. Luke (Luke 22: 17- 21) - we can understand that Judas had partaken the holy eucharist.)
Click to expand...
This is troubling that you would actually discount the inspired testimony of Luke in order to make a case without his witness.

We must not forget that the Author of both Matthew’s and John’s Gospel was also the Author of Luke’s…and He equally inspired all of them to write the truth.

Discounting Luke because he was not there is not the position I think anybody should take with God’s Word. There can be no conclusion at all that is not in harmony with all the testimonies.

…
 
Ani_Ibi said:
But I am still not persuaded that Jesus is using a present sense. Why would he be asking them to remember Him when he is right there? Is he not instead using a future sense and teaching them what he wants them to do after the Crucifixion?

No one has answered me yet as to whether or not the bread and wine at the Last Supper was actually the Christian Eucharist or simply part of the Passover Seder. Anyone? Please?
Click to expand...
It is the overwhelming Christian position, Catholic or not, that Christ instituted and shared in the first Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Judas was present and he ate it as commanded by Christ.

…
 
This is troubling that you would actually discount the inspired testimony of Luke in order to make a case without his witness.
Click to expand...
We’re not discounting it. Luke says Jesus gave it to them, which is a lot less specific than Matthew and Mark saying that they specifically consumed the Eucharist.
 
40.png
Atemi:
It is the overwhelming Christian position, Catholic or not, that Christ instituted and shared in the first Eucharist at the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
Ad populem. This does not address the points I have raised.
40.png
Atemi:
Judas was present and he ate it as commanded by Christ.
Click to expand...
This is merely a restatement of your position and does not shed any further light on the matter.
 
Allow me Ephel Duath to offer an explanation to You .I read the book
“THE POEM of the MAN-GOD”
of an Italian mystic Maria Valtorta who had the vision /during the WW2/ of the whole
life of Jesus Christ and Pope Pius XII gave imprimatur
on it saying : “Publish it as it is.Who believes, he will understand”
It is 5 volumes and about 5000 pages.It is very detailed and complex picture of His Life where You can see Our Lord in every situation
and you feel like You are there with Him.And You still have explanations on episodes and teachings by His dictations to the mystic.
About the problem :
Even He knows about Judas’ state of mind, He gives him His Body and Blood.Later after Resurrection He explanes : "…After washing your feet …because I am Lamb of God and I cannot descend where Satan has his mark …Than I gave Myself to you
…so they may not receive My Body unworthily and it may not change to them into a dreadful death sentence."And because apostoles were disturbed by it He says : "…With your eyes you are asking - "And Judas than?“I say to you : Judas ate his death.
The supreme act of love did not touch his heart.The last attempt of his Master knocked against the stone of his heart and
on this stone…was engraved the horrible initial of Satan, the sign
of the Beast.”
Let’s not forget that on another occasion He says “…for man it is
impossible but for God everything is possible …”
And another thing.God CANNOT commit sin under any circumstances .What He does, He does as Supreme Being, because : "…My ways are not your ways… ‘’.
Then, John asks Jesus : Who is it Master?,but quietly and Master, the same way replies into John’s ear and added : “Say nothing to Peter for the time being.It would be a useless scandal”.
because Peter was quick tempered man.
And when Jesus talks to Judas,the others in fact really didnt 't
know what they were talking about.We know now, but they did not.Jesus answers the Judas’s arrogant question : “You are saying so, Judas of Simon, not I.You are saying so.I have not mentioned your name.Why are you accusing yourself?..ask your conscience…You will be the first to know…” And to Peter Jesus says : “…Let him go.He and I know what must be done.”
Maybe it will help.God Bless!
 
Allow me Ephel Duath to offer an explanation to You .I read the book
“THE POEM of the MAN-GOD”
of an Italian mystic Maria Valtorta who had the vision /during the WW2/ of the whole
life of Jesus Christ and Pope Pius XII gave imprimatur
on it saying : “Publish it as it is.Who believes, he will understand”
It is 5 volumes and about 5000 pages.It is very detailed and complex picture of His Life where You can see Our Lord in every situation
and you feel like You are there with Him.And You still have explanations on episodes and teachings by His dictations to the mystic.
About the problem :
Even He knows about Judas’ state of mind, He gives him His Body and Blood.Later after Resurrection He explanes : "…After washing your feet …because I am Lamb of God and I cannot descend where Satan has his mark …Than I gave Myself to you
…so they may not receive My Body unworthily and it may not change to them into a dreadful death sentence."And because apostoles were disturbed by it He says : "…With your eyes you are asking - "And Judas than?“I say to you : Judas ate his death.
The supreme act of love did not touch his heart.The last attempt of his Master knocked against the stone of his heart and
on this stone…was engraved the horrible initial of Satan, the sign
of the Beast.”
Let’s not forget that on another occasion He says “…for man it is
impossible but for God everything is possible …”
And another thing.God CANNOT commit sin under any circumstances .What He does, He does as Supreme Being, because : "…My ways are not your ways… ‘’.
Then, John asks Jesus : Who is it Master?,but quietly and Master, the same way replies into John’s ear and added : “Say nothing to Peter for the time being.It would be a useless scandal”.
because Peter was quick tempered man.
And when Jesus talks to Judas,the others in fact really didnt 't
know what they were talking about.We know now, but they did not.Jesus answers the Judas’s arrogant question : “You are saying so, Judas of Simon, not I.You are saying so.I have not mentioned your name.Why are you accusing yourself?..ask your conscience…You will be the first to know…” And to Peter Jesus says : “…Let him go.He and I know what must be done.”
Maybe it will help.God Bless!
 
Atemi said:
This is troubling that you would actually discount the inspired testimony of Luke in order to make a case without his witness.

We must not forget that the Author of both Matthew’s and John’s Gospel was also the Author of Luke’s…and He equally inspired all of them to write the truth.

Discounting Luke because he was not there is not the position I think anybody should take with God’s Word. There can be no conclusion at all that is not in harmony with all the testimonies.

…
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have misconstrued my post # 65. There was no clarificatory remark that I discounted St. Luke’s testimony. Factually, my last quoted paragraph never elaborated that I discounted it.

Well, for more clarification on this issue at hand, if we are to use the earthly judiciary procedure, the principal witnesses have greater weight compared to the non-principal witness. Which means that the accounts of St. Matthew and St. John are more reliable than the account of St. Luke. But that is not that way we would treat the gospels ! That’s why on the first paragraph of my post # 65 I have stated that the fathers of the church rendered “reverent silence” on this issue because it would appear that there is inconsistency on the part of St. Luke’s gospel.

And here is another thing I would like to make clear. I do admit that Judas had partaken the holy eucharist, as per testimony of St. Luke. But to the point of asserting that (John 13: 26 - 27) is the holy eucharist, is another debatable issue. Usually the n-Cs ( though not all ) use this passage to annoy a novice catholic that the holy eucharist of the CCs satan would enter into the body instead of Jesus Christ. :o
 
And to Peter Jesus says : “…Let him go.He and I know what must be done.”
Maybe it will help.God Bless!
Click to expand...
And that is the context I get from all four Gospels. And from the Bible as a whole in general.
 
JoeyWarren said:
TraditionalCath;2563839:
he betrayed Jesus. Christ Himself said regarding Judas, he has the greater sin than even Pontius Pilate.
Click to expand...
Can’t seem to find the exact verse that says this?
Click to expand...
Here it is, I guess.
Jn 19: 11
Respondit Ihesus: non haberes potestatem adversum me ullam, nisi tibi esset datum desuper: propterea qui tradidit me tibi maius peccatum habet.
Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee hath the greater sin.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Atemi said:
Yes.

Like I said earlier, I still have not heard this adequately explained, and this includes Aquinas as well.

Saying that Jesus knew Judas was in grave sin but did not know Judas was in grave sin is not an explanation at all, IMV.

Actually, it is one of the worst.

…
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top