P
ProVobis
Guest
According to Luke 22:15-23, you’re right. John 13 seems to. Jesus foretells of the betrayal in Matthew 26:21-25 before Matthew 26:26-29. Similarly in Mark 14:18-21.According to Luke’s account he did.
According to Luke 22:15-23, you’re right. John 13 seems to. Jesus foretells of the betrayal in Matthew 26:21-25 before Matthew 26:26-29. Similarly in Mark 14:18-21.According to Luke’s account he did.
In both Matthew and Mark, Judas has already decided to betray Jesus. Mark 14:10-11, Matthew 26:16. Jesus gave him communion. My point is that if Jesus himself didn’t deny the Eucharist to someone who had already decided to betray him, then on what basis could a priest deny someone communion today?According to Luke 22:15-23, you’re right. John 13 seems to. Jesus foretells of the betrayal in Matthew 26:21-25 before Matthew 26:26-29. Similarly in Mark 14:18-21.
-]Possible/-] probable scandal. Bishops have already asked certain politicians to refrain for that reason.… then on what basis could a priest deny someone communion today?
Matt 18:6“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance, so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.-]Possible/-] probable scandal. Bishops have already asked certain politicians to refrain for that reason.
Matt 18:6
Mark 9:42
Of course you should teach love and tolerance but bad example is bad example. Buying and selling porn is bad example; would teaching love and tolerance to others lessen the gravity of the scandalous state? How about for a politician advocating abortion?Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance, so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.
Even God does not tolerate unrepentant sinners in Heaven. He threw a man out of a wedding feast who rejected the free wedding garment, after all.Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance, so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.
They do. Sometimes it is the most loving thing they can do, protecting others and the individual who could be damning themselves.Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance, so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.
You don’t know if Judas repented of this desire and asked for forgiveness prior to receiving Communion.In both Matthew and Mark, Judas has already decided to betray Jesus. Mark 14:10-11, Matthew 26:16. Jesus gave him communion. My point is that if Jesus himself didn’t deny the Eucharist to someone who had already decided to betray him, then on what basis could a priest deny someone communion today?
Love? Certainly.Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance,
It’s not “disagreement” with a bishop’s personal tastes. It’s someone presenting herself for Communion who’s in disagreement with Christ Himself.so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.
Jesus would have known and yet he said at the Supper, “Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table”.You don’t know if Judas repented of this desire and asked for forgiveness prior to receiving Communion.
Annddd…yet…Jesus would have known and yet he said at the Supper, “Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table”.
We don’t know a lot of things without faith. How do Catholics confess mortal sin? The Gospel accounts don’t show us that Judas confessed before receiving. They do however show Jesus giving him Communion. Actually it appears he would have had little time to make a confession before receiving. They were already at the table and the bread and chalice were distributed in the verses of Luke 22 prior to Jesus saying the hand of the betrayer was with Jesus at the table. Now if you want to say Judas may have heard God saying the word moments before and simply confessed in his heart to become worthy, by all means you’ll get no argument from me. But the problem with that is Catholics don’t believe someone with mortal sin can simply hear the word in the pew moments before the Eucharist and become healed and worthy to receive. Otherwise so I could be one of these divorced and remarried Catholics (I’m not) or I could miss Mass one wk. Go the next and without having gone to confession, when I pray just moments before Communion, Lord I am not worthy… but only say the word and my soul shall be healed, I could receive if I heard His call. Doesn’t work that way. But then that’s one reason why you’re a practicing Catholic and I’m not.Annddd…yet…
…Judas could have repented between then and the moment Jesus gave him communion.
You just don’t know, do you?
It’s hard to see Judas’ culpability and mortal sin from 2000 years’ vision.
Heck, even with the eyes of his fellow apostles, it would have been beyond their pay scale to say, “Judas, our brother, has mortal sin on his soul. So that gives us permission to give anyone communion since Jesus gave it to Judas!”
And this is a great apologia you have provided for why we need a Church.We don’t know a lot of things without faith.
All it takes is about 3 seconds. I’m pretty sure there’s 3 seconds of time unaccounted for in the gospels.Actually it appears he would have had little time to make a confession before receiving.
sighThey were already at the table and the bread and chalice were distributed in the verses of Luke 22 prior to Jesus saying the hand of the betrayer was with Jesus at the table. Now if you want to say Judas may have heard God saying the word moments before and simply confessed in his heart to become worthy, by all means you’ll get no argument from me. But the problem with that is Catholics don’t believe someone with mortal sin can simply hear the word in the pew moments before the Eucharist and become healed and worthy to receive.
Jesus gave a reason why the Law of Moses allowed for a writ of divorce. People still sin today.While I understand God is a God of compassion, I also think Jesus prohibits divorce for a reason. Also divorce was rampant in Roman society. IMO divorce is completely destroying society. So for us to say it is okay. Maybe remarriage should be allowed in cases of adultery, physical abuse. Abandonment. But for the most part relaxing things I feel would encourage.
So we supposed to override him and go back to Moses’ system? Who are we?Jesus gave a reason why the Law of Moses allowed for a writ of divorce. People still sin today.
Didn’t he say because their hearts were hard, but it wasn’t the way it was intended?Jesus gave a reason why the Law of Moses allowed for a writ of divorce. People still sin today.
I do not know who you are, and I do not give personal information, but no, we do not go back to Mosaic Law, nor continue in the First Century. The principles remain though, which is exactly why we need active authority, an apostolic Church.So we supposed to override him and go back to Moses’ system? Who are we?![]()
I was just talking to my wife about this. She said that Pope Benedict Emeritus must be in so much pain right now, having to see this. I tend to agree with her.To read the full article see: cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/09/two-more-cardinals-back-communion-for-divorced-and-remarried/