Why did Judas betray Jesus?

[OneSheep]

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Dear Guanophore, good morning

“Responsibility”, again, is an ability to respond. We are to take ownership of all of our acts whether they are hurtful or not. If we are talking about blame, then the call is to forgive. So, how do we go about forgiving someone who has “taken little trouble to find out what is true or good”? Well, first of all, such “finding” depends on knowing whether or not more information about what is “true or good” is available. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what we do not know.

In the rare case of someone not wanting to know more, it is usually because the person is wanting something badly i.e. wants to remain enslaved because it “feels good”. This person does not know better and is blinded by want; his choice to remain ignorant is in itself made out of ignorance. Let’s take CCC 1791 for what it is, a call for all of us to be informed about what is true and good, otherwise, it can be looked at as means to blame oneself or others. Either interpretation is legitimate.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Yes, there are grave errors. And when malice is on their mind, they do not know what they are doing, which was evident in those who crucified Jesus (who He forgave). All ignorance, in my observations, boils down to something unintentional. Yes, our own consciences react with blame when we either observe ourselves or someone else doing something against our conscience. “They/we should have known better”. Notice it says “man”, guanophore. Children develop consciences. Yes, an adult can miss out on some important aspect of conscience development even though we think “they should have known better”. So, we can look at CCC 1860 as a basis for blame, or we can look at it as a call to carefully examine our consciences. Either interpretation, again is legitimate.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Impute: caused or attributed to somone. Yes, everyone is to take ownership of their own actions. “The devil made me do it” is an escape from responsibility. I really cannot think of two ways of looking at this section.

I don’t think so OS. In fact, I think blame of children by adults is particularly damaging. It does not enhance the need for children to take responsibility for their actions. Blame only drives people to defensiveness, in which state they are even less likely to accept the consequences of their choices.

“You should have known better” are usually words of blame. “You did not know better” (what Jesus said from the cross) are words of understanding. Blame does not “only” drive people to defensiveness, though I do find myself a little defensive when you “blame” me for speaking from humanism. Blame can indeed motivate people to behave.

Unless, of course, you are praising me when you are calling me a “humanist”!

Blame is exactly how our conscience operates on ourselves, when we do something we realize was hurtful, we self-blame, we feel guilty. Blame is part of a beautiful, functional operation of the conscience. Our capacity for blame is God-given.

Blame: incriminate, condemn, accuse, point the finger

Blame, at its emotional level, is the communication of non-acceptance of ourselves or another person because of their behaviors. It is natural and has its place. It is interesting that you do many accusations (which are blaming), but you think that blame is so harmful.

Indeed, your refusal to shake my hand because of my views is a communication of blame, of condemnation and non-acceptance.

Do you forgive yourself for blaming? I forgive you.

 

[OneSheep]

guanophore:

The Church has not definitevely taught anything on the motives of Judas to betray Jesus, so my speculations are neither here nor there.

Perhaps not “definitively taught”, but Catholics either blame Judas or forgive him. It is heard in the tone of writing or speech.

The other information I have posted about certain religious humanistic perspectives being anti-Catholic are not my own opinions, but taken from the Catechism.

I cannot think of what “other information” you are talking about. I don’t remember you presenting any.

You seem to have spent many years and much study, prayer, and spiritual direction discerning a way of looking at things that enables you to move forward with a happy and productive life. Why concern yourself if they are not entirely Catholic ideas, so long as they work for you? Why is it somehow insulting to you if someone notes they are not Catholic? Is it not more important that you came by them honestly through deep searching and that they make sense of the world and yourself in a way that is liberating for you?

When one encounters aspects of the faith and journey that are spiritually healing and uplifting, one cannot put a lid on it. I am trying to show Catholics that we can understand and forgive all people, and a very big part of such understanding involves seeing ignorance and blindness, which are essential ingredients of all hurtful choices. These are not observations that go against Catholicism, guanophore, these are observations that begin with words spoken from the cross.

 

[guanophore]

“Responsibility”, again, is an ability to respond. We are to take ownership of all of our acts whether they are hurtful or not. If we are talking about blame, then the call is to forgive. So, how do we go about forgiving someone who has “taken little trouble to find out what is true or good”? Well, first of all, such “finding” depends on knowing whether or not more information about what is “true or good” is available. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what we do not know.

The Church teaches differently, OS. The Church teaches that it is our responsibility to find out what we don’t know.

There is no place for blame.

We forgive before anoyone repents, ,so there is no need to “investigate” their motives or thinking.

In the rare case of someone not wanting to know more, it is usually because the person is wanting something badly i.e. wants to remain enslaved because it "feels good".  This person does not know better and is blinded by want; his choice to remain ignorant is in itself made out of ignorance.  Let's take CCC 1791 for what it is, a call for all of us to be informed about what is true and good, otherwise, it can be looked at as means to blame oneself or others.  Either interpretation is legitimate.

The person who chooses to remaini in their sins because “it feels good” is culpable for his choice. I only wish what you say were true, that it is a rare case, but it is not.

Yes, there are grave errors. And when malice is on their mind, they do not know what they are doing, which was evident in those who crucified Jesus (who He forgave).

What makes you think that those who crucified Jesus had any malice in mind?

The malice belonged to the Sanhedrin, who delivered Jesus to Pilate. The soldiers were just following orders. They may not even have known who Jesus was, or why he was condemned, or cared. What a gruesome way to make a living.

All ignorance, in my observations, boils down to something unintentional.

This is where your framework departs from CAtholic teaching.

Yes, our own consciences react with blame when we either observe ourselves or someone else doing something against our conscience. “They/we should have known better”.

Much of what you have written about connscience is not consistent with the Catholic teaching on conscience, either. God created the human conscience so that His truth can be communicated into our minds and hearts. Blame is not a function of the Holy Spirit.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Notice it says “man”, guanophore. Children develop consciences. Yes, an adult can miss out on some important aspect of conscience development even though we think “they should have known better”.

Judas was a man. God spoke to him through his conscience. Jesus spent three years forming his conscience. Judas knowingly and willingly betrayed Jesus to the Jews.

So, we can look at CCC 1860 as a basis for blame, or we can look at as a call to carefully examine our consciences. Either interpretation, again is legitimate.

It may be legitimate for you to engage in blame, but this is no part of Catholic teaching. A Catholic is strictly forbidden to blame. We are all commanded to attend to the log in our own eye.

Impute: caused or attributed to somone.  Yes, everyone is to take ownership of their own actions.

Everyone is morally obligated to do so, but not everyone does. Then there is the attitude in which we take ownership. Judas owned his actions and regretted them, but He did not then throw himself onto the mercy of God.

“You should have known better” are usually words of blame. “You did not know better” (what Jesus said from the cross) are words of understanding. Blame does not “only” drive people to defensiveness, though I do find myself a little defensive when you “blame” me for speaking from humanism. Blame can indeed motivate people to behave.

I don’t think so . I think the conscience moves people to change behavior when they recognize they have done something wrong. A person may suffer blame, which has no life giving purpose, and use it as call to examine ones conscience, and determine that they are at fault. Blame in itself, though is destructive.

There is no “blame” in being a humanist. There are many fine qualities in humanism, and it is a great step forward in many ways from the philosophies that preceeded it in history. In addition there is so much overlap in Christianity and humanism that a humanist can easily pass for a Catholic parishioner without anyone knowing.

I am sure you would agree with me that there are plenty of so called Christians who would be improved by some humanism in their lives.

Unless, of course, you are praising me when you are calling me a “humanist”!

There is much in humanism that is praiseworthy. The only problem is the disingenuous characterization of yourself that is listed under “affiliation” above your posts.

 

[guanophore]

Blame is exactly how our conscience operates on ourselves, when we do something we realize was hurtful, we self-blame, we feel guilty.

Well, perhaps we are having a semantics problem.

Blame is part of a beautiful, functional operation of the conscience. Our capacity for blame is God-given.

Well, we see it differently. I see nothing beautiful in blame. I see conscience as the organ through which God speaks to us, and I don’t see God as engaging in blame. God calls us to take responsibility for our actions.

Blame: incriminate, condemn, accuse, point the finger

The conscience does function to accuse, but the purpose is to lead us to take responsibility, not for the purpose of condemnation. The conscience is designed to bring us into right relationship with God through repentance. Killing oneself in despair when the conscience accuses is not part of God’s plan for our lives.

“Point the finger” is a colloqualism that is not found in Catholic teaching, but it does not seem to have any life giving purpose either. The human conscience functions to accuse or perhaps excuse human beings for their actions.

Guilt is an appropriate response to the accusations of the conscience. Guilt’s function is to motivate us to change our behaivor and make reparation. This is the opposite of condemnation/punishment.

Blame, at its emotional level, is the communication of non-acceptance of ourselves or another person because of their behaviors. It is natural and has its place. It is interesting that you do many accusations (which are blaming), but you think that blame is so harmful.

I agree that, on the emotional level, blame does communicate non-acceptance at the minimum, and anger, hate and even rage at the maximum. This is exactly why I say it is not life giving. It may be a natural part of the fallen man, but God has called us to higher things.

I apologize if I have hurt your feelings pointing out that your ideas are not consistent with the Catholic faith. I will strive to do this task in a manner that is minimally offensive, but as a person who seems to be proud and satisified with his paradigm, I am not sure that hurt can be avoided. For some reason that defies my comprehension, you seem to want to cling to the notion that your beliefs are “legitimately Catholic”.

I am not sure why someone would wish to be connected with a group whose ideas they do not accept.

Perhaps not "definitively taught", but Catholics either blame Judas or forgive him.  It is heard in the tone of writing or speech.

Indeed, CAtholics do many things we are not taught to do, or even taught not to do.

I cannot think of what “other information” you are talking about. I don’t remember you presenting any.

Yes, I believe you are speaking the truth. It is a natural human tendency to disregard information that does not fit withour paradigm.

When one encounters aspects of the faith and journey that are spiritually healing and uplifting, one cannot put a lid on it. I am trying to show Catholics that we can understand and forgive all people, and a very big part of such understanding involves seeing ignorance and blindness, which are essential ingredients of all hurtful choices. These are not observations that go against Catholicism, guanophore, these are observations that begin with words spoken from the cross.

Yes, I understand and accept your position. I would not want anyone to “put a lid on” forgiveness, discontinuation of blame and condemnation, and the gift of understanding. I commend you for finding a way for your own life journey to be spiritually healing and uplifting.

 

[OneSheep]

The only problem is the disingenuous characterization of yourself that is listed under “affiliation” above your posts.

It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs

Charity, guanophore, charity.

My hand is still there, waiting for you to grasp it. Something within you wants to join the rest of the Church who do not agree with the samet interpretation of doctrine that you do. That is, relationship means more than words. We are one body.

Someday, you will find that part of yourself. I pray so, I know it will be so.

 

[tonyrey]

Judas was a man. God spoke to him through his conscience. Jesus spent three years forming his conscience. Judas knowingly and willingly betrayed Jesus to the Jews…
It may be legitimate for you to engage in blame, but this is no part of Catholic teaching. A Catholic is strictly forbidden to blame. We are all commanded to attend to the log in our own eye…
Judas owned his actions and regretted them, but He did not then throw himself onto the mercy of God…
Blame in itself, though is destructive…

The above statements seem inconsistent…

Don’t you think Judas had every reason to believe his crime was unforgivable? If not why not?

Shouldn’t Judas be given the benefit of the doubt?

 

[guanophore]

It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual's beliefs

Charity, guanophore, charity.

Be assured, OS, I am in no way questioning the sincerity of your beliefs! In fact, I think a good many Catholics (some I have met on these threads) would benefit from the sincerity of your commitment to forgiveness. I am on another thread dialoguing with a Catholic who insists that forgiveness should not be offered unless the other person repents, basing it all on the one small word “if” that is in Luke 17:3 “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and** if** he repents, forgive him. 4"And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

Sincerity is not what I was referring to, but that you are sincere about a number of ideas that are non-Catholic or anti-(against) Catholic.

That is not a problem here at CAF. Non-Catholics and even anti-Catholics are encouraged to participate.

  Something within you wants to join the rest of the Church who do not agree with the same interpretation of doctrine that you do.  That is, relationship means more than words.  We are one body.

Of course I have as many temptations to abandon the faith that has been handed down to us as the next person. But by an act of my will I have chosen to cleave to the One Church and the One Faith. There is no room for heterodoxy in that faith. The apostles taught that we are all to be in unity, of one mind and heart.

In that case I have no alternative but to reject perspectives that are not consistent with the faith that has been once for all delivered to the saints.

The above statements seem inconsistent…

Don’t you think Judas had every reason to believe his crime was unforgivable? If not why not?

Because he had seen Jesus forgive others who believed their crimes were not forgivable. Because he had listened to Jesus teaching that there is no sin but one that cannot be forgiven. He had this knowledge.

He had also been told that there is no greater love that one lay down his life for his friends.
Also, as has been pointed out, Jesus chose him, Jesus knew he was a “devil” and Jesus instructed him to go and do what he had to do quickly. Was he not obedient to the instruction?

Shouldn’t Judas be given the benefit of the doubt?

Is there some way in which he has not? Only God can know his heart and mind, which is why I have refused to speculate about his thought process. What can it mean that it would be better for that man never to have been born?

“But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. 22"For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!” Luke 22:22

23And He answered, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me. 24"The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” 25And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself.” Matt 26:24

If, as OS suggests, Judas is not culpable because he was ignorant and blind, what is the meaning of this prophesy? Now OS may say that this is not “compassionate” and therefore cannot be of God, and therefore is a human insertion into Scripture.

But those who receive the teaching of the Church that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant have to find some other path to understanding it.

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t you think Judas had every reason to believe his crime was unforgivable? If not why not?

Had any of them betrayed Jesus and heard to their horror that He had been condemned to be executed? Were any of them overwhelmed by such devastating news and such an agonising sense of guilt they couldn’t think of anything else?

He had also been told that there is no greater love that one lay down his life for his friends.

How is that related to the extreme mental torture Judas was undergoing?

Also, as has been pointed out, Jesus chose him, Jesus knew he was a “devil” and Jesus instructed him to go and do what he had to do quickly. Was he not obedient to the instruction?

Do you really believe Judas was capable of justifying his hideous crime to himself?

Shouldn’t Judas be given the benefit of the doubt?

Is there some way in which he has not? Only God can know his heart and mind, which is why I have refused to speculate about his thought process. What can it mean that it would be better for that man never to have been born?

“But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. 22"For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!” Luke 22:22

23And He answered, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me. 24"The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” 25And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself.” Matt 26:24

If, as OS suggests, Judas is not culpable because he was ignorant and blind, what is the meaning of this prophesy? Now OS may say that this is not “compassionate” and therefore cannot be of God, and therefore is a human insertion into Scripture.

But those who receive the teaching of the Church that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant have to find some other path to understanding it.

I have already explained that Jesus had great compassion for Judas and understood better than any of us the indescribable mental agony of guilt and despair Judas would undergo when he discovered his betrayal of the Master he loved, respected and had served so well for three years had led to Jesus being condemned like a criminal who would be mocked, tortured and crucified even though He was completely innocent. You grossly underestimate the extreme mental suffering a person can experience but I shared five months of her life with a person who killed herself because she was obsessed by the fact that she had been sexually abused by her father, had subsequently led a promiscuous life and was convinced no one could love her because she was “dirty”. I witnessed the tears pouring down her cheeks when she went to Mass with me every Sunday. Even when I tried to reason with her and pointed out that her son loved her it made no difference. I’m quite sure Judas was obsessed to an even greater extent because he was utterly convinced he had no excuse whatsoever for what he had done. It didn’t occur to him Satan could have put the thought into his mind yet St John makes it quite clear who was responsible for that evil act of treachery. “But those who receive the teaching of the Church that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant have to find some other path to understanding it”.The onus is on you to explain why Judas should be held **fully responsible **for what he did. Was St John misguided? If so why?

“It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” does not necessarily imply that man is in hell. Jesus knows Judas had to undergo extreme mental agony for our sake. He is more likely to be in heaven than those who condemn him without having experienced anything like what he had to endure. To lack compassion is a serious defect…

 

[Aloysium]

The problem with the Issue of Judas is that it puts sin out there.
Only God knows why people do what they do, and being love, mercy and justice, He is the only one to judge.
And, where is the judgement but in who we are, whom we have made of ourselves with what we have been given.
There is no point going through mental contortions asking why someone commits a sin and then pointing out that there was a reason, thereby absolving the person and charging the responder with blaming, seemingly to some the only sin, like intolerance.
The place where sin takes place is within ourselves. It is between us and God.
We can speculate about Judas and any other one of us, but it seems worthwhile only if it helps us get closer to God.
That’s how I see it.

 

[guanophore]

Had any of them betrayed Jesus and heard to their horror that He had been condemned to be executed? Were any of them overwhelmed by such devastating news and such an agonising sense of guilt they couldn’t think of anything else?

Peter, at least. Peter denied he even knew him. Don’t you thiink Peter also had an agonizing guilt?

…74Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know the man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. 75And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.Matt 26:75

How was Peter’s bitter weeping any different than Judas’?

How is that related to the extreme mental torture Judas was undergoing?

Where do you get he had extreme mental torture? How was his grief any worse than Peter;s?

Do you really believe Judas was capable of justifying his hideous crime to himself?

Before he committed it, definitely I think he did.

I’m quite sure Judas was obsessed to an even greater extent because he was utterly convinced he had no excuse whatsoever for what he had done. It didn’t occur to him Satan could have put the thought into his mind yet St John makes it quite clear who was responsible for that evil act of treachery.

Satan cannot enter in unless he is given an open door. This happens by the choice of a person. Judas did not serve Jesus faithfully for three years but had an open door to allow evil t enter his soul.

“But those who receive the teaching of the Church that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant have to find some other path to understanding it”.The onus is on you to explain why Judas should be held **fully responsible **for what he did. Was St John misguided? If so why?

I agree, If I were to champion such a view, the onus would be upon me.

…24And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. Acts 1:5

What is “his own place”?

“It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” does not necessarily imply that man is in hell.

I agree.

 

[tonyrey]

Peter, at least. Peter denied he even knew him. Don’t you thiink Peter also had an agonizing guilt?

…74Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know the man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. 75And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.Matt 26:75

How was Peter’s bitter weeping any different than Judas’?

Sadness caused by telling lies is vastly different from** despair **resulting from an act of treachery.

Where do you get he had extreme mental torture? How was his grief any worse than Peter;s?

Judas hanged himself.

Do you really believe Judas was capable of justifying his hideous crime to himself?

Before he committed it, definitely I think he did.

After he heard Jesus had been condemned?

Satan cannot enter in unless he is given an open door. This happens by the choice of a person. Judas did not serve Jesus faithfully for three years but had an open door to allow evil t enter his soul.

Why did Judas follow Jesus for three years if he wasn’t serving him faithfully? Does being a petty thief give Satan an open door? Is there evidence that Judas intended to betray Jesus right from the start? St John makes it quite clear who was responsible for that evil act of treachery. The onus is on you to explain why Judas should be held **fully responsible **for what he did. Was St John misguided? If so why?

I agree, If I were to champion such a view, the onus would be upon me.

…24And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. Acts 1:5

What is “his own place”?

Why didn’t the apostles specify hell? Couldn’t it be Purgatory? Please cite for your source for the Catholic doctrine that diabolical possession is always the result of “leaving an open door”? Was Judas possessed from the moment Jesus selected him as an apostle? If not precisely when did he become possessed? Didn’t being an apostle make him particularly vulnerable to Satan’s determination to tempt him?

If an evil spirit could “come upon Saul” and “depart from him” at various times throughout his reign, and if, as Jesus indicated in the first century, unclean spirits or demons could go in and out of someone (Luke 11:24-26), then it is logical to conclude that Satan could have “entered” and “departed” from Judas on more than one occasion. In fact, that is exactly what happened. Prior to John’s mention of Satan entering Judas, he noted how the devil had “already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him [Jesus]” (John 13:2, emp. added). Luke explained how, prior to the Passover meal, Judas met with Jesus’ enemies and made an agreement with them to betray Jesus at some secluded location (22:1-7). Later, during the Passover meal, “Satan entered Judas” again (John 13:27).

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=2025:

“It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” does not necessarily imply that man is in hell.

I agree.

Thank you for that ray of hope for Judas who fulfilled the prophecy which led to our redemption.

 

[guanophore]

B]Sadness

caused by telling lies is vastly different from** despair **resulting from an act of treachery.
Judas hanged himself.

I agree, but Peter was not just 'sad because he lied". The Apostles all agreed to go to Jerusalem “and die with Him”. Instead, Peter betrayed HIm, first by running,the by denying he even knew Him.

In the early Church, such denial was an act of excommunication.

32"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.Matt. 10:33

Peter had every expectation that he has lost heaven.

After he heard Jesus had been condemned?

He regretted the outcome of his actions.

Why did Judas follow Jesus for three years if he wasn’t serving him faithfully?

Ambition? Greed?

…70Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.John 6:71

Does being a petty thief give Satan an open door?

Absolutely. All sins give Satan and open door, and the more we sin, the wider the opening.

 Is there evidence that Judas intended to  betray Jesus right from the start? St John makes it quite clear who was responsible for that evil act of treachery.

The only evidence I see is that Jesus said He chose Judas, knowing that he was a “devil”.

Satan cannot act through humans without their consent. Judas initiated, participated, and consumated the act of betrayal.

 Why didn't the apostles specify hell? Couldn't it be Purgatory?

Maybe that is what they meant by the ephemism? Anyway, we are taught that there is no way for us to know who is in hell, or to assume that anyone is there. If it is just purgatory, why is this not said about everyone who is there “better for them that they had never been born”?

Was Judas possessed from the moment Jesus selected him as an apostle?

If this were the case, it seems odd that the Gospel accounts would not mention it until the Last Supper. Besides, it seems like the Apostles might have noticed sooner…

Maybe Judas was a plant from the beginning. Maybe the Sanhedrin asked him to infiltrate the inner circle of Jesus.

If not precisely when did he become possessed? Didn't being an apostle make him particularly vulnerable to Satan's determination to tempt him?

Should we assume he was posessed?

2During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, John 13:2

I think that all who are passionate about following Christ are more likely to be the object of temptations and attacks. Satan is always about putting evil into our hearts. He even tempted Christ. We choose whether to act on those temptations.

Thank you for that ray of hope for Judas who fulfilled the prophecy which led to our redemption.

Some interesting comentary from

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW WITH AN EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL COMMENTARY BY REV. A. J. MAAS, S. J.

“We may here ask whether Judas was bad even when he was chosen among the apostles: Toletus answers with Cyril [lib. iv. c. 30, i. e. in Jo. 6:71, 72] and Jer. [lib. iii. cont. Pelag. iii. n. 6] that Judas was good at the time of his call, but he maintains with Aug. [tract, xxvii. in Jo.] that his fall was fully foreseen. When it is further asked why our Lord called Judas to the dignity of an apostle though he foreknew his fall, the same author [Comment. in Jo. vi. annot. 36; xiii. annot. 20] first draws attention to the fact that this question might be asked about all the angels and men that have lost, or will lose, their last end; they were not created in order that they might sin, but in order that God might use their sinfulness for a good end. Finally, it may be asked what the good end was that Jesus intended to draw from the foreseen treason of Jndas. 1. It brought about the death of our Redeemer [Tolet. in Jo. xiii. annot. 20]; 2. it showed the firmness of Christ’s doctrine, which prevailed in spite of the prejudice it suffered through Judas’ fall [Tolet. in Jo. vi. annot. 22; cf. Ambr. in Luc. lib. v. n. 45]; 3. it showed the infinite charity of Jesus who gave the most abundant means of salvation even to his future traitor [ibid.]; 4. it brought about that Jesus who had taken the infirmities of our nature upon himself had to suffer those that are the most painful and humiliating, dereliction and treason [ibid.]; 5. it was the occasion of a most admirable example of patience for all men that were to come after Jesus [ibid.]; 6. such an example of patience was absolutely needed by us since we had to live among the wicked [Aug. in Ps. xxxiv. 7, 8; civ. Dei, xviii. 49]; 7. the fall of Judas showed that the dignity of state does not sanctify a man, and that there is a bad member in almost every larger society of men [Thom.]; 8. the fall of Jndas shows that no one, however good he may be, can be secure of his perseverance, and that bad men may resist even the most powerful graces [cf. Sylv. tom. iii. lib. v. c. 5]; 9. finally, the history of the traitor shows that God may choose a man for the highest office and dignity, though he foreknows that the subject chosen will prove himself wholly unworthy.”

 

[tonyrey]

The problem with the Issue of Judas is that it puts sin out there.
Only God knows why people do what they do, and being love, mercy and justice, He is the only one to judge.
And, where is the judgement but in who we are, whom we have made of ourselves with what we have been given.
There is no point going through mental contortions asking why someone commits a sin and then pointing out that there was a reason, thereby absolving the person and charging the responder with blaming, seemingly to some the only sin, like intolerance.
The place where sin takes place is within ourselves. It is between us and God.
We can speculate about Judas and any other one of us, but it seems worthwhile only if it helps us get closer to God.
That’s how I see it.

I agree. A meditation on the betrayal of Jesus by Judas can make us more aware we often betray Him by the way we live. It can also make less ready to judge others especially in a secular society like the UK where girls have an abortion without even considering whether it’s wrong.

The NHS advice website states “there are many reasons why a woman might decide to have an abortion”! In practice it depends on whether it is convenient. There were 184,571 in 2014 of which 37% were to women who had already had one or more abortions. Itis very sad life has become so cheap…

 

[tonyrey]

The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday must have affected the apostles’ attitude to His Master. Riding on a donkey was symbolic of peace in Eastern tradition and palm branches were associated with victory. It was Jesus who selected the donkey but the people selected the palms which recalled the liberation of Jerusalem two hundred years earlier. The crowd regarded Jesus as the Messiah who had come to liberate them, particularly after He had driven the traders from the Temple and knocked over the tables of the money changers. Yet Jesus had told the apostles quite clearly He was going to be handed over to the Sanhedrin and put to death. After Peter protested and was rebuked no one dared ask any questions but they must have found it very hard to accept. What good would it do to let Himself be killed? Even today many people think it is ridiculous to surrender to evil…

It is not surprising Judas was confused and open to temptation. His Master’s death would put an end to all hope of being liberated. He trusted His Master but like the other apostles he couldn’t understand the point of giving up the battle against not only the Romans but also the Sanhedrin who lived in luxury, exploited the poor and treated everyone else as sinners.

Satan was ready to strike because Judas was perplexed, disheartened and vulnerable. What could he do to prevent this disaster? Suddenly an idea came into his mind - apparently from out of the blue. Surely his Master had the power to save Himself? Judas had witnessed how Jesus could bring dead people back to life. Surely He could prevent Himself from being killed! There was only one way to find out… Satan had so far succeeded in his diabolical plan but Judas could still have changed his mind even after he promised to lead the Sanhedrin’s henchmen to his Master. He may well have had doubts when he remembered what Jesus had said about having to suffer at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, be killed and on the third day be raised to life…

His doubts were finally put to rest when after washing the apostles’ feet Jesus said:

I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but** that the scripture may be fulfilled**, He that eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, you may believe that I am he.

John 13:18-19

Judas must have thought he had no choice but if he hesitated he was told to go ahead with his plan:

.As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”

John 13:27

The rest is history…

 

[guanophore]

The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday must have affected the apostles’ attitude to His Master.

I don’t think their attitude. They still believed He was who He claimed to be. Perhaps they hoped the reception would change His mind, and he would grasp the victory that was acclaimed with the triumphal entry.

It was Jesus who selected the donkey but the people selected the palms which recalled the liberation of Jerusalem two hundred years earlier. The crowd regarded Jesus as the Messiah who had come to liberate them, particularly after He had driven the traders from the Temple and knocked over the tables of the money changers.

I am sure the money changers did not appreciate it.

The Apostles seemed to frequently get into spats about who was to be greatest in the Kingdom, so they seemed to think that Jesus had come to set up an earthly Kingdom. Even the Boanerges’ mother got involved in it! Maybe she wanted to have influence close to the throne?

21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” Matt. 20:21

Do we expect Judas to have less ambition? When he saw the triumphal entry, perhaps he was fully persuaded that there was sufficient support among the people for Jesus to successfully overthrow the Sanhedrin?

It is not surprising Judas was confused and open to temptation. His Master’s death would put an end to all hope of being liberated. He trusted His Master but like the other apostles he couldn’t understand the point of giving up the battle against not only the Romans but also the Sanhedrin who lived in luxury, exploited the poor and treated everyone else as sinners.

I don’t thik the other Apostles understood it either. I think when He died they were all demoralized and afraid, giving up all hope of liberation.

Satan was ready to strike because Judas was perplexed, disheartened and vulnerable.

Or, perhaps his ambition was empowered, and he was convinced that once Jesus was put in a position to be confronted, He would prevail!

What could he do to prevent this disaster? Suddenly an idea came into his mind - apparently from out of the blue. Surely his Master had the power to save Himself? Judas had witnessed how Jesus could bring dead people back to life. Surely He could prevent Himself from being killed! There was only one way to find out… Satan had so far succeeded in his diabolical plan but Judas could still have changed his mind even after he promised to lead the Sanhedrin’s henchmen to his Master. He may well have had doubts when he remembered what Jesus had said about having to suffer at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, be killed and on the third day be raised to life…

I do think that Judas believed Jesus could/would save himself. How else could he have had so much regret when it did not happen that way?

I think Judas believed he was helping/facilitating Jesus’ plan. He just did not want to wait for Jesus, and decided to get into the timetable. He may have even wanted to spare Jesus the suffering He predicted.

 

[tonyrey]

The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday must have affected the apostles’ attitude to His Master.

I don’t think their attitude. They still believed He was who He claimed to be. Perhaps they hoped the reception would change His mind, and he would grasp the victory that was acclaimed with the triumphal entry.

The question is whether they believed He was the Messiah who would liberate them from the Romans after telling them He would have to suffer and die? There seems to be a conflict between the two views.

It was Jesus who selected the donkey but the people selected the palms which recalled the liberation of Jerusalem two hundred years earlier. The crowd regarded Jesus as the Messiah who had come to liberate them, particularly after He had driven the traders from the Temple and knocked over the tables of the money changers.

I am sure the money changers did not appreciate it.

]Nor the Sanhedrin who benefited financially and also faced a threat to their authority.

The Apostles seemed to frequently get into spats about who was to be greatest in the Kingdom, so they seemed to think that Jesus had come to set up an earthly Kingdom. Even the Boanerges’ mother got involved in it! Maybe she wanted to have influence close to the throne?

21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” Matt. 20:21

You are right of course. At that stage the apostles were ordinary men not saints!

Do we expect Judas to have less ambition? When he saw the triumphal entry, perhaps he was fully persuaded that there was sufficient support among the people for Jesus to successfully overthrow the Sanhedrin?

Again I agree with you. It must have been a strong temptation for people who had been oppressed for so long by both their leaders and the Romans.

It is not surprising Judas was confused and open to temptation. His Master’s death would put an end to all hope of being liberated. He trusted His Master but like the other apostles he couldn’t understand the point of giving up the battle against not only the Romans but also the Sanhedrin who lived in luxury, exploited the poor and treated everyone else as sinners.

I don’t think the other Apostles understood it either. I think when He died they were all demoralized and afraid, giving up all hope of liberation.

There’s no doubt about that. It must have seemed like the end to all their dreams…

Satan was ready to strike because Judas was perplexed, disheartened and vulnerable.

Or, perhaps his ambition was empowered, and he was convinced that once Jesus was put in a position to be confronted, He would prevail!

Perhaps both explanations are correct!

What could he do to prevent this disaster? Suddenly an idea came into his mind - apparently from out of the blue. Surely his Master had the power to save Himself? Judas had witnessed how Jesus could bring dead people back to life. Surely He could prevent Himself from being killed! There was only one way to find out… Satan had so far succeeded in his diabolical plan but Judas could still have changed his mind even after he promised to lead the Sanhedrin’s henchmen to his Master. He may well have had doubts when he remembered what Jesus had said about having to suffer at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, be killed and on the third day be raised to life…

I do think that Judas believed Jesus could/would save himself. How else could he have had so much regret when it did not happen that way?

I think Judas believed he was helping/facilitating Jesus’ plan. He just did not want to wait for Jesus, and decided to get into the timetable. He may have even wanted to spare Jesus the suffering He predicted.

That certainly seems the most reasonable explanation. Wouldn’t we have done the same if we believed Jesus had the power to save Himself? It is difficult for us to put ourselves in the position of the Apostles because we understand why Jesus allowed Himself to be tortured and killed but they couldn’t see any point in it at all. St Paul had persecuted the Christians and understood how the Jews and Romans regard it as the folly of the Cross.

I think we are making progress in our understanding of Judas but there must be more to discover and more contributions will be very welcome. Don’t be shy!

 

[guanophore]

That certainly seems the most reasonable explanation. Wouldn’t we have done the same if we believed Jesus had the power to save Himself? It is difficult for us to put ourselves in the position of the Apostles because we understand why Jesus allowed Himself to be tortured and killed but they couldn’t see any point in it at all.

It really drives the point home, as I am sure the Church intends, for us to read the part of the crowd on Palm Sunday yesterday. Taking that role brings us into that experiential knowledge that we are among those who flee from Christ, betray Him, Abandon Him, and crucify Him afresh with our sins.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

If Anne Catherine Emmerich or Mary of Agrada wrote anything more than pious fanfiction, than the motivations of Judas were far from pure and his fate was unlikely a happy one.

I’ve read some of both works, and both were under the impression ( or were given divine revelation!) that Judas was a weak-willed man who was not suited to the life of the apostle, and eventually sold Jesus out for really just 30 pieces of silver (a good amount of money in those days) and for no other reason.

Mary of Agrada seemed to believe Judas was evil and malicious in his treachery while Anne Emmerich thought he was just selfish and calculating more than malicious.

Regardless of the “why” both mystics have Judas in Hell after his suicide.

Any thoughts on relying on these two mystics works? Are they helpful/true or just pious fanfiction?

Judas Iscariot has repudedly popped up as a possessing spirit in exorcisms so… idk if any stock can be put in that but it is curious all the same:shrug:

 

[OneSheep]

"guanophore:

The only problem is the disingenuous characterization of yourself that is listed under “affiliation” above your posts.

It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs

Charity, guanophore, charity.

My hand is still there, waiting for you to grasp it. Something within you wants to join the rest of the Church who do not agree with the samet interpretation of doctrine that you do. That is, relationship means more than words. We are one body.

Someday, you will find that part of yourself. I pray so, I know it will be so.

Be assured, OS, I am in no way questioning the sincerity of your beliefs! In fact, I think a good many Catholics (some I have met on these threads) would benefit from the sincerity of your commitment to forgiveness. I am on another thread dialoguing with a Catholic who insists that forgiveness should not be offered unless the other person repents, basing it all on the one small word “if” that is in Luke 17:3 “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and** if** he repents, forgive him. 4"And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

Sincerity is not what I was referring to, but that you are sincere about a number of ideas that are non-Catholic or anti-(against) Catholic.

So, the unbiased observer can look above and see the conversation for what it is, guanophore. My affiliation, listed as Catholic, is a profession of my Catholicism and it means I believe I am Catholic. The CAF rule that I listed above, “To never question the sincerity of a person’s belief” applies. Go ahead and ask a few of your fellow Benedictines, guanophore.

So, you have questioned my sincerity, but you do not believe that you did so. I would find it unconscionable to accuse another Catholic of listing his affiliation wrong, but you have so judged my sincerity. You have proven my point that conscience is developed, and people’s consciences are developed in different directions. I am not saying that your conscience is malformed; I am saying that your own view of charitable behavior has developed much differently than my own.

So, while you have violated a rule and do not think you have, you have managed to make my point. You seem indicating that you do not know that what you did was wrong, and you are giving all the reasons, in your mind, why what you did was right. To repeat:
"guanophore:

Be assured, OS, I am in no way questioning the sincerity of your beliefs!

Your first reaction is denial. Obviously I believe that I am Catholic, and you said that my listing of affiliation is “ingenuine”. What you are I think trying to say is, “I do not mean to hurt/insult you” which can be read in this:

guanophore:

In fact, I think a good many Catholics (some I have met on these threads) would benefit from the sincerity of your commitment to forgiveness.

Here, you are attempting to undo the disrespect of me and violation of the rule. You are explaining what is going on, that you indeed have no bad intent, as you can compliment me, the person that you had just disrespected. Indeed, are you not convinced that you meant no disrespect at all, you were “following orders”, you were being obedient to a higher command? Observe:

guanophore:

Sincerity is not what I was referring to, but that you are sincere about a number of ideas that are non-Catholic or anti-(against) Catholic.

If I am hearing correctly, you are following gospel orders to fraternally correct. In calling my ideas “anti-Catholic”, you are hoping to motivate me to change my ideas and observations. It is notable that you have never proven my “anti-Catholicism”, but at the very least I can see your request, and I see your good intent. The other possibility I am considering is that you indeed have genuine fear that my observations and views are “dangerous”, you are intending to protect people. (Note: when I asked questions and tried to shed light on that “danger”, you did not respond. Perhaps what I am saying is not as “dangerous” as you think?)

Anyway, my point is that you have given the reasoning behind your actions, and Judas also had such a reasoning. Everyone has reasons, and those reasons show good intent, as your own reasons were for questioning the sincerity of my affiliation as “Catholic”. Indeed, you are agreeing with me here:

tonyrey:

Do you really believe Judas was capable of justifying his hideous crime to himself?

Before he committed it, definitely I think he did.

Yes, this is what I am saying too! Just as you could with good intent justify your questioning of my sincerity, Judas could also, with good intent, justify his own actions. He was also in compliance with a “higher authority” in his eyes. The authorities wanted Jesus turned in, and Judas complied. This is one means of seeing his good intent, and others have been suggested.

I don’t believe that the above is the “justifying” that you would describe in terms of what you think was going on in Judas’ mind. Please suggest an alternative, the one you were thinking of when you said, “I definitely think he did”. If you “definitely” think so, you can certainly describe what was possibly going on in his mind.

continued…

 

[OneSheep]

Give it a shot, guanophore! And no, I am not going to insist that you shake my hand, but my hand is still extended. Do you see, I never give up! Of course you have a choice not to accept “heterodoxy”, but I am not asking you to accept my observations and views. Orthodoxy has room for a variety of opinions and interpretations, brother.

I thought of you when we read our Arise group reflection yesterday:

“We ask the Father to send us the Spirit, so that our sharing at the table of the Lord spills over into effective sharing in the world; that the Spirit may remove all things that divide us so that we, as Church, may be for the world a sign of unity and an instrument of God’s peace.”

So, whatever is dividing you, guanophore, from your ability to shake my hand, toss it out! We share the table, friend, we are One Body.