Judas and Communion

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bquinnan

Guest
I don’t have a great answer to this question that was posed to me. Jesus let Judas take Communion even though Judas had taken money to betray him and was still planning his betrayal. How then can a bishop or priest withhold Communion from an individual, given that Jesus did not choose to make a judgment against Judas at the time?
 
Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us that Jesus was setting a precedent for both the Apostles and their successors, the bishops.

The precedent being: Communion is to be denied to those who are in a public state of sin; those whose grevious sin is private are not to be denied.

Judas’s treachery was, at that point, secret.

Pro-abortion politicians are in a state of public dissent.
 
It can also be argued Judas left the rest of the group before Jesus gave the apostles their First Communion. Therefore, no judgment made by Jesus at that time.
 
It can also be argued Judas left the rest of the group before Jesus gave the apostles their First Communion. Therefore, no judgment made by Jesus at that time.
I don’t remember where exactly in the Summa, byt Saint Thomas shows that this is not the case. Judas did receive the Eucharist.
 
I don’t have a great answer to this question that was posed to me. Jesus let Judas take Communion even though Judas had taken money to betray him and was still planning his betrayal. How then can a bishop or priest withhold Communion from an individual, given that Jesus did not choose to make a judgment against Judas at the time?
Summa: Whether Christ Gave His Body to Judas

Miguel.
 
I recently wrote Catholic Answers about this very thing. Haven’t received a reply yet, but I did some rereading of the gospels and with the exception of John, the synoptics all make reference to Judas’ future actions and motive being revealed at the Last Supper. However, it appears to me that the consecration of the elements occurs after the revelation of Judas’ intention. In Mark and Matthew, there is no mention of Judas leaving the company of Jesus and the other apostles before the consecration, but in Luke (22:19-23) it appears on the face of the text that Judas was present and received the Sacred Body and Blood, although not stated explicitely either way. In John (13:30,31), Judas leaves, but the actual consecration is not mentioned in relation to the Last Supper. Is it possible some are confusing the Love Feast before the consecration with the consecrated meal itself?

To say that because Judas was not in a state of PUBLIC sin, doesn’t lessen the fact if it is a MORTAL sin, since either way, to my understanding, it would be sacrilege to take Communion. What about questioning whether Judas was actually in a state of mortal sin (since 3 requirements must be met for it to be the case). For example, was the strong attraction to the monetary gain or the influence of Satan lessening his culpability? Just playing “Devil’s advocate” here, but a thought maybe? If Judas was never given Communion by Jesus, then it’s a mute point, I guess. I just can’t imagine that Jesus would have offered anyone the consecrated elements who he knew (and he would, since he’s God) was in a state of unrepentant mortal sin.
 
To say that because Judas was not in a state of PUBLIC sin, doesn’t lessen the fact if it is a MORTAL sin, since either way, to my understanding, it would be sacrilege to take Communion. What about questioning whether Judas was actually in a state of mortal sin (since 3 requirements must be met for it to be the case). For example, was the strong attraction to the monetary gain or the influence of Satan lessening his culpability? Just playing “Devil’s advocate” here, but a thought maybe? If Judas was never given Communion by Jesus, then it’s a mute point, I guess. I just can’t imagine that Jesus would have offered anyone the consecrated elements who he knew (and he would, since he’s God) was in a state of unrepentant mortal sin.
It may still be a sacrilege. But Jesus, as Saint Thomas notes, was setting an example for his Apostles. Unless one has publicly made known his state of sin, there’s no way that a particular priest or bishop could know that his soul is stained with mortal sin, unless God gives a special revelation on the subject. Therefore, if a mortal sin has not been made public, no priest may deny communion. “Judge not . . .”
 
Aquinas says it best:
Hilary, in commenting on Mt. 26:17, held that Christ did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have been quite proper, 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. Therefore, it remains to be said that Judas received our Lord’s body and blood with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine (Tract. lxii in Joan.).
 
Still, doesn’t it stand to reason that from that statement that Jesus CAUSED or at least SUGGESTED that Judas commit sacrilege? If that were the case, Jesus would have sinned by “leading one into temptation”. But it would be blasphemous to make such a statement. I understand the rational behind what Aquinas is saying, but it doesn’t seem to dismiss the fact that it would have lead to Jesus committing a sin. I don’t know if there has been any official pronouncement by the Church on this explanation, but it just seems like Aquinas has created more holes than the fills with his reasoning (although far be it from me to make sure an accusation with certainty). Can you explain where I’m missing the gist here?
 
What if Judas didn’t acually commit mortal sin? As far as I know he didn’t know that Jesus would be killed when he was taken into custody, so prehaps that didn’t constitute the full knowledge part of mortal sin? Therefore his sin would be that of a venial nature and he would be able to receive communion.
 
Tyler Smedley:
What if Judas didn’t acually commit mortal sin? As far as I know he didn’t know that Jesus would be killed when he was taken into custody, so prehaps that didn’t constitute the full knowledge part of mortal sin? Therefore his sin would be that of a venial nature and he would be able to receive communion.
I answer that the very betrayal, even if the consequences were not realised, as a mortal sin. It would have been so even if Christ had been acquited.
 
40.png
Ichthus:
I answer that the very betrayal, even if the consequences were not realised, as a mortal sin. It would have been so even if Christ had been acquited.
Where is betrayal in the Tenth Commandments? 😛
 
40.png
beng:
Where is betrayal in the Tenth Commandments? 😛
Where is fornication, when it techically says adultery?

Plus he bore false witness to Christ… “Surely it is not I Lord…”
 
40.png
Ichthus:
Where is fornication, when it techically says adultery?

Plus he bore false witness to Christ… “Surely it is not I Lord…”
Fornication and adultery could fall for 6 or 9.

I don’t think that’s bearing a false witness. He’s asking for confirmation 😛
 
40.png
beng:
Fornication and adultery could fall for 6 or 9.

I don’t think that’s bearing a false witness. He’s asking for confirmation 😛
We defend a son of perdition?

My point was that fornication is not explicitly in the decalogue. What is betrayal but adulterating one’s oath? What is it but to steal away that which is owed?
 
That doesn’t change the fact that he could have received the Eucharist because he didn’t have mortal sin, just venial. The full knowledge clause of the mortal sin requirements. His sin was also not public knowlege so then by looking at the code of cannon law he would not be self excommunicating him self.
 
Tyler Smedley:
True but that doesn’t change the fact that he could have received the Eucharist because he didn’t have mortal sin, just venial. The full knowledge clause of the mortal sin requirements.
He didn’t have full knowledge of the consequences

The morality of an action is not determine by consequences, forseen or otherwise.

Are you claiming he was ignorant of the wrongness of betraying? The issue is not what happens afterwards, btu the betrayal itself.

Also ignorance is a sin, if culpable.

Futhermore what you are referring to is not ignorance but nescience as it is knowledge that one doesn’t have the natural apitutude to know
 
Tyler Smedley:
That doesn’t change the fact that he could have received the Eucharist because he didn’t have mortal sin, just venial. The full knowledge clause of the mortal sin requirements. His sin was also not public knowlege so then by looking at the code of cannon law he would not be self excommunicating him self.
The issue is also not that of canon law, which didn’t exist (let alone the fact that prior to 1905 one needed permission to approach the altar from the priest, and therefore all known, even privately, to be in mortal sin were denied communion.)

The 1983 Code didn’t apply to Christ, neither did the 1917 code or the prior 1905 law.

Seriously, Christ permitted sacrilege, something His ministers may not. Why? Obviously for a higher good resulting.
 
No he sinned and knew that that was a sin, or at least he should of. But what I am saying that he didn’t know how far the Parisees would go in attacking Jesus and that prehaps he didn’t know that Jesus would be cruxified if he was handed over, therefore that would have been an unforseen consquence and would not be a mortal sin. Take this for example, I steal some money from Steve lets say, thats a sin right? But then some one else comes up to that Steve and demands the money, Steve doesn’t have it because I stole it. The other person shoots and kills Steve. Did I commit a mortal sin? No, I did not have full knowledge of what my actions would do.
 
I think Judas’ sin was Mortal.

Christ said, “It were better for him, if that man had not been born.” (Matt 26:24). Scripture say’s that the devil entered Judas (Luke 22:3; John 13:2) and that he committed suicide by hanging himself (Matt 27:5).

He even admitted this in by saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” (Matt 27:4)

Not to mention tradition has it that Judas had actually been damned and commited the sin against the Holy Ghost.

Miguel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top