F
fabio_rocha
Guest
At the Last Supper, Jesus gave Holy Communion to Judas, who clearly wasn’t in the state of grace / union to Jesus. How was this not a sacrilegious act?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If Jesus gave the Eucharist to Judas, wasn't that a sacrilege?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Jesus offered it, and Judas chose to partake. This is no different from a priest offering it now and a person in a state of mortal sin choosing to take it.
It’s also possible that, given his decisions, Judas didn’t understand what was being offered to him, and therefore might not be culpable for partaking.
It’s also possible that, given his decisions, Judas didn’t understand what was being offered to him, and therefore might not be culpable for partaking.
F
Fauken
Guest
How do we know the other Apostles were in a state of grace when they received the Eucharist?
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Yes, and Judas died in his betrayal of Christ. Kind of like what the Bible says about eating and drinking unworthily. To take the Eucharist outside of Grace is to take the POV of Judas… I betray you Lord and I do not seek forgiveness, but because of peer pressure or pride I defile you…
D
DaveBj
Guest
Well said.Yes, and Judas died in his betrayal of Christ. Kind of like what the Bible says about eating and drinking unworthily. To take the Eucharist outside of Grace is to take the POV of Judas… I betray you Lord and I do not seek forgiveness, but because of peer pressure or pride I defile you…
Also, if Jesus does something, it’s automatically not a sacrilege.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
If Judas did take the eucharist, this would be like those in a state of mortal sin who take the eucharist, something I think happens often. This is sacrilege too.
However, Judas left during the last supper when Jesus confronted him (Jn 13:30), and there is no evidence this was after the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper, so I don’t see that it could be presumed Judas took the eucharist then. Jesus did give Judas a piece of food, (Jn 13:26, 30), but since this was during a supper, I don’t think this was the eucharist any more than the food they dined on was the eucharist.
However, Judas left during the last supper when Jesus confronted him (Jn 13:30), and there is no evidence this was after the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper, so I don’t see that it could be presumed Judas took the eucharist then. Jesus did give Judas a piece of food, (Jn 13:26, 30), but since this was during a supper, I don’t think this was the eucharist any more than the food they dined on was the eucharist.
A
adrift
Guest
John 13
26
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.
27
After he took the morsel, Satan entered him. So Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”
28
(Now) none of those reclining at table realized why he said this to him.
29
Some thought that since Judas kept the money bag, Jesus had told him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or to give something to the poor.
Matthew30
So he took the morsel and left at once
According to John Judas left after he dipped his morsel. Matthew states the offering of the Body and Blood occurs after this which mean Judas wasn’t there.And while they were eating, he said, “Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me.”
22
Deeply distressed at this, they began to say to him one after another, “Surely it is not I, Lord?”
23
He said in reply, “He who has dipped his hand into the dish with me is the one who will betray me.
24
The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”
25
Then Judas, his betrayer, said in reply, “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?” He answered, “You have said so.”
T
TimothyH
Guest
Thank you for this.According to John Judas left after he dipped his morsel. Matthew states the offering of the Body and Blood occurs after this which mean Judas wasn’t there.
The question in the OP is based on the faulty assumption that Jesus gave the Eucharist to Judas. No such thing happened however.
-Tim-
F
fabio_rocha
Guest
Luke 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.”20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.
Jesus did indeed gave the Eucharist to Judas. Jesus knew he wasn’t in the state of grace / union with Him. So how come this is not a sacrilegious act and how come we have canon law 914/915where permits the ministers of communion to restrain someone who everyone knows is not worthy to approach Communion from receiving the Eucharist?
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.”20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.
Jesus did indeed gave the Eucharist to Judas. Jesus knew he wasn’t in the state of grace / union with Him. So how come this is not a sacrilegious act and how come we have canon law 914/915where permits the ministers of communion to restrain someone who everyone knows is not worthy to approach Communion from receiving the Eucharist?
Wow good point!To take the Eucharist outside of Grace is to take the POV of Judas… I betray you Lord and I do not seek forgiveness, but because of peer pressure or pride I defile you…
D
Della
Guest
Jesus, being God, knew Judas’ heart all right. He also, being God, hoped for Judas’ reclamation. The Eucharist is given to us for our healing. It’s not a reward for the holy, it’s food for sinners–it’s medicine for the soul. God loves us, therefore he “hopes all things” as any lover does of those he loves. Have you never loved someone you knew was going to disappoint you, but you tried to reach out to him anyway? That is love. Jesus gave it in love, but Judas accepted in in treachery. God offers his love and mercy continually, but how we respond is entirely up to us.Luke 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.”20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.
Jesus did indeed gave the Eucharist to Judas. Jesus knew he wasn’t in the state of grace / union with Him. So how come this is not a sacrilegious act and how come we have canon law 914/915where permits the ministers of communion to restrain someone who everyone knows is not worthy to approach Communion from receiving the Eucharist?
Z
zab
Guest
Yes, God never gave up on Judas. Jesus reached out to him until the end. And God never gives up on us.Jesus, being God, knew Judas’ heart all right. He also, being God, hoped for Judas’ reclamation. The Eucharist is given to us for our healing. It’s not a reward for the holy, it’s food for sinners–it’s medicine for the soul. God loves us, therefore he “hopes all things” as any lover does of those he loves. Have you never loved someone you knew was going to disappoint you, but you tried to reach out to him anyway? That is love. Jesus gave it in love, but Judas accepted in in treachery. God offers his love and mercy continually, but how we respond is entirely up to us.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Uhmmm. Innocent until proven guilty?How do we know the other Apostles were in a state of grace when they received the Eucharist?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Uhmmm. Innocent until proven guilty?How do we know the other Apostles were in a state of grace when they received the Eucharist?
.
I am curious if you are just asking a question or if you are trying to make some point.At the Last Supper, Jesus gave Holy Communion to Judas, who clearly wasn’t in the state of grace / union to Jesus. How was this not a sacrilegious act?
Are you suggesting that Jesus is guilty of sacrilege?
A
adrift
Guest
I have already demonstrated that Judas was gone. Luke does not have Jesus foretelling that there is a betrayer nor that betrayer would dip at the same time He did. Luke leaves this out. John and Matthew have both. John says that immediately after Jesus tells him to hurry he leaves. Luke doesn’t mention anyone leaving. Luke chose not to it include it that does not mean that it didn’t happen. Judas was not there.Luke 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.”20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.
Jesus did indeed gave the Eucharist to Judas. Jesus knew he wasn’t in the state of grace / union with Him. So how come this is not a sacrilegious act and how come we have canon law 914/915where permits the ministers of communion to restrain someone who everyone knows is not worthy to approach Communion from receiving the Eucharist?
C
Confiteor_Deo
Guest
Judas did indeed receive Holy Communion from the hands of Our Lord. However, this is what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say about why Our Lord would give Judas Holy Communion:
The emphasis was added to stress that Judas is not the same as a public sinner, so we cannot say that priests are not to deny public sinners Holy Communion (as is the case with some politicians).And this would have been quite proper [to refuse Judas the Eucharist], if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a **hidden ** sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church’s prelates might have an example for doing the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. [emphasis added] Did Judas Iscariot Receive the Holy Eucharist?
F
fabio_rocha
Guest
My point is:
a) since Jesus knew Judas wasn’t in the state of grace / union with Him, wouldn’t be right to refrain him to partake of the Eucharist (as our present canon law states)? Wouldn’t that be a better charitable act towards Judas instead of letting him add sin upon himself?
b)The thing is, clergymen can pick this passage and justify themselves of not refrain anyone to receive Communion.
c) Quote from the above replier:
“But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof …]”.
Well, Judas didn’t had an accuser (no disciple saw evidence of his betrayal intention) BUT Jesus knew all of this. So the issue remains…
a) since Jesus knew Judas wasn’t in the state of grace / union with Him, wouldn’t be right to refrain him to partake of the Eucharist (as our present canon law states)? Wouldn’t that be a better charitable act towards Judas instead of letting him add sin upon himself?
b)The thing is, clergymen can pick this passage and justify themselves of not refrain anyone to receive Communion.
c) Quote from the above replier:
“But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof …]”.
Well, Judas didn’t had an accuser (no disciple saw evidence of his betrayal intention) BUT Jesus knew all of this. So the issue remains…
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
I truly don’t understand the point of second-guessing Jesus. What’s next - that He was in some way guilty of “liturgical abuse?”
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
No, the point is to erode the church and her authority and to promote a false understanding of what the Eucharist is. This has taken a turn lately with people interpreting pope Francis’ message of mercy. In my opinion hijacking it.I truly don’t understand the point of second-guessing Jesus. What’s next - that He was in some way guilty of “liturgical abuse?”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.