Judas and Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter bquinnan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tyler Smedley:
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.
Click to expand...
You are not grasping a basic moral concept, that the act itself and not its consequence determine the morality.

You indeed committed a mortal sin in the very act of stealing. Whether or no you are also culpable for the murder is moot.

So Judas may not have been guilty of the murder of Jesus, but he was guilty of betrayal, and ignorance (or more properly nescience) of the the consequence has no bearing at all

Ignorance wrt sin refers to the ignorance of the morality of an action itself

In your example ignorance that excuses would have to be ignorance of the gravity of stealing, since stealing is the act which you committed and it is the sin, the murder having nothing to do with the sin of stealing.

And ignorance is a mortal sin, if one is culpable. It isn’t a get away free card.

Lastly Christ told Pilate that Judas had the greater sin.
 
Good call, this is why I love this site there is always someone smarter then you! :rolleyes:
 
This may not matter, but St. Paul had not warned Christians of the sin associated with receiving the Body and Blood with sin on the soul. Besides, would Judas have cared? He could have stopped well before the Garden and walked away. Yes, Christ knew of Judas and his sins, but Judas chose to abandon everlasting life, probably at the time Jesus taught of the importance of eating His Body and Drinking His Blood. By participating, it would have added to his desire to betray.

As far as Christ allowing someone to sin in his presence, he “allowed” blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He did point the sin out. He also pointed out that one of the apostles would sin that night by betraying Him.
 
Still, doesn’t it stand to reason that from that statement that Jesus CAUSED or at least SUGGESTED that Judas commit sacrilege?
Click to expand...
I don’t think this stands to reason at all.

According to Saint Thomas, Jesus in this particular instance was setting a patter for his future ministers.

When the priest says the “Ecce Agnus Dei” and invites the faithful to Communion, is he causing and/or suggesting sacrilege to those in the congregation whose moral sin is private, and who may still approach communion? Of course not.

Likewise with Judas. He could have excused himself before receiving. He didn’t; and Christ did not deny him because his sin was private, not public.
 
40.png
ralphinal:
As far as Christ allowing someone to sin in his presence, he “allowed” blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He did point the sin out. He also pointed out that one of the apostles would sin that night by betraying Him.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Christ allowed Judas to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by taking the Eucharist? And since that’s an unforgivable sin than Judas is surely damned?
 
Are you saying that Christ allowed Judas to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by taking the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
I think he’s referring to Jesus “allowing” the Pharisees to accuse him of driving demons out by the power of Beelzebulb (sp?).

We really can’t know that Judas is in hell. For all we know, from the time he hanged himself to the time he expired he repented.

When Jesus said it would be better for him not to have been born, he could have just been referring to the infamy that’s surrounded his name for the past 2000 years.
 
Dominvs,

It is my understanding that whether the sin is private or public knowledge, it has no bearing on the appropriateness of taking Communion. Is it not true that ANYONE in a state of mortal sin (which they themselves recognize) is forbidden from taking Communion, and by doing do, commit another mortal sin; that of sacrilege? If I’m wrong on my understanding, please correct me. Thanks.
 
Thanks for all of these replies – this debate is actually helpful.
 
40.png
TKollasch:
Dominvs,

It is my understanding that whether the sin is private or public knowledge, it has no bearing on the appropriateness of taking Communion. Is it not true that ANYONE in a state of mortal sin (which they themselves recognize) is forbidden from taking Communion, and by doing do, commit another mortal sin; that of sacrilege? If I’m wrong on my understanding, please correct me. Thanks.
Click to expand...
No, you are right.

However, since the 1905 relaxation of laws concerning Communion, pators are bound to deny communion to those in persitent and grave public sin, both as they shouldn’t be receiving and because it causes scandal and demeans the Eucharist in the eyes of the Faithful
 
What great insight into this! You’ve ALL brought-up ideas that I’ve never even considered.

I do believe that Judas was not in a state of Mortal sin at the time of the Last Supper due to his future betrayal. At that point, he had conspired to betray Jesus but did not take the money and did not lead the guards to Jesus. His sin was probably Venial at that point.

Regarding stealing the money, that would be a Mortal sin if he did not repent. Scripture does not say that Judas repented for stealing. Since the Apostle John knew of his stealing, there is the possibility that this was public knowledge and Jesus forgave him. We simply don’t know the state of his soul at the time of the Last Supper.

If he was in a state of Mortal Sin, his demise afterwards PROVES St. Paul’s admonition about receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

Deo Gratias!
 
40.png
tmitchell2:
I do believe that Judas was not in a state of Mortal sin at the time of the Last Supper due to his future betrayal. At that point, he had conspired to betray Jesus but did not take the money and did not lead the guards to Jesus.
Click to expand...
Actually, he had already taken the money at that point. For example, in the Gospel according to Matthew, he takes the money in 26:14-16, and the Last Supper takes place in 26:26-29. This is consistent with the other Gospels.

Still, since he hadn’t turned Jesus over, he could have given the money back and refused to do it.
 
Doesn’t the answer lie in the definition of sacrilege?
Isn’t sacrilege a mortal sin because it is an offense against the Body and the Blood of Jesus?

So…the way I see it - the one who was being offended - Jesus - was allowing the offense. In a sense he may have been submitting to further suffering - to the offense that Judas was committing against His own Body and Blood.

So really - this would be a unique case that would not apply to any situations we see today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top