Why did Judas betray Jesus?

[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.

Your are right, of course, OneSheep, so I sit corrected.

I know that you sincerely believe your views are Catholic, and therefore, your affiiation is not disingenuous. It is misleading to other readers who are looking for Catholic answers and read yours instead, thinking they represent Catholic faith, but it is no at all intentionally misleading, since you sincerely believe your views are consistent with the Faith.

So, you have violated a rule, but you do not believe that you did so.

Perhaps so, since I used the wrong word. Misleading would have been more accurate, with the consession that you are not at fault in doing that misleading, since you belieive sincerely that your beliefs are Catholic.

I would find it unconscionable to accuse another Catholic of listing his affiliation wrong, but you have so judged my sincerity.

I am judging the content of your posts, and finding non-Catholic/antiCatholic content in them.

On CAF it can cause public scandal for people to claim they are Catholic and champion views that are inconsistent with the Catholic faith. I am not the only one who has questioned a members affiliation.

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.

Certainly I always have room to grow in that area.

But it is not charitable to confirm others in error, and were I to affirm that your posts represent Catholic faith, I would not only be misleading you, but others who read them.
What is a Forum Supporter to do?

So, while you have violated a rule and do not think you have, you have managed to make my point.

Now who is making assumptions?

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:…

For the record I will “repeat” my apology. I used the wrong word to describe what is happening. I affirm that you genuinely believe your views are consistent with the Catholic faith.

you were "following orders", you were being obedient to a higher command?   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.

No, I don’t believe I claimed anything of the sort.

No, I do not expect to motivate you in any way to change. On the contrary, I have affirmed that I have accepted that you have come to your views through a long and arduous journey of self development, and that your views have greately improved your life by allowing you to be free from the poison of resentment.

Why correct someone who has found a spiritual path that works for them, and improves their quality of life? There is no rule here on CAF, or in the Church, that one has to be Catholic to have this experience.

It is notable that you have never proven this, 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?)

It is certainly dangerous, and I recognize that I will not be able to “prove” that to your satisfaction, since you have substituted the basis upon which Catholic faith is founded with humanism. The best that can be hoped is that others reading the thread will not fall into the error of thinking these views are Catholic. I will strive to keep the forum rules in that endeavor, and when I fail, will begin again.

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.

I agree we can all justify our actions, even the wrong ones. But for the record, I am not questioning your sincerity, and just used the wrong word to describe how your affiliation misrepresents the facts, through no fault of your own.

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.

If, in his conscience, he beleived he was in compliance with that higher authority, then what reason would he have after to regret his actions?

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.

We have been over this ground, OneSheep. We have agreed that speculating about his thoughts is a work of projecting our own minds into his, and that it says much more about us than it does about him.

You have also clearly stated that no amount of descriptions or alternatives will be of any avail, since you have refused in advance to accept them.

 

[OneSheep]

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?

Hi HabemusFrancis,

Well, when I say that someone else’s actions are “evil and malicious in treachery” or “selfish and calculating”, I am projecting something I believe about my own Self onto others. So, while both of these mystics seem to be a bit condemning of Judas, these are not the only way of understanding his actions.

The words are only “true” for the individual that shares in the negative feeling toward Judas. They may be “helpful” in terms of confirming an individual’s bias, such that it is okay to accuse others, but such projections (and accusations) do not demonstrate the type of understanding that leads to a mature forgiveness.

If that sounded confusing, feel free to ask for clarification!

 

[OneSheep]

Your are right, of course, OneSheep, so I sit corrected.

For the record I will “repeat” my apology.

Thank you!

BTW: I realized and corrected my “assumption” on the last post, you were responding to an unedited version. My apologies.

 

[tonyrey]

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:

Being a saint doesn’t imply a person is infallible. It would be interesting to know whether they justified their opinions with some evidence… Several commentators have remarked that thirty pieces of silver was a relatively small sum for an act which costs a man his life. The fact that Judas followed Jesus for three years suggests that he wasn’t “a weak-willed man who was not suited to the life of the apostle”. Why did he commit suicide if he wasn’t dedicated to his Master? Nor is hanging oneself the act of a weak-willed man.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Pascal believed "Jesus will be in agony until the end of the world; and we cannot sleep during this time”. Pensèes, 553

 

[tonyrey]

Pascal believed "Jesus will be in agony until the end of the world; and we cannot sleep during this time”. Pensèes, 553

Correction: *Pensées *(Not my mistake but I should have noticed it.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a short article about Judas which makes the point that “Judas was probably the only one of the twelve who never lost faith that Jesus was the Messiah of prophecy”. biblefellowshipunion.co.uk/2007/Mar_Apr/TragJdas.htm

There is also a summary of a book about Jesus in which Peter Stanford rubbishes our vision of Judas as the ‘wickedest man who ever lived’ in his rigorous biography:

theguardian.com/books/2015/may/11/judas-review-fresh-look-historys-most-infamous-traitor

 

[tonyrey]

• 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.Peter knew Jesus had chosen him to be the rock on which the Church is built. So he could hardly believe he had lost heaven!

After he heard Jesus had been condemned?

He regretted the outcome of his actions.

A man doesn’t commit suicide because he simply regrets what he has done nor does he say “I have betrayed innocent blood” which implies that he is grief-stricken and devastated by an agonising sense of guilt which makes life meaningless.

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

“devil” is the key word. It signifies Judas would be possessed. Otherwise he was a devil for three years while he was following Jesus on foot through Galilee, Samaria and Judea on rough tracks in all kinds of weather and must have been a very dedicated devil…

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.

In that case many people must become possessed!

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”.

Did Judas intend to betray Jesus right from the start? If so why did St John say Satan entered him at the Last Supper?

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

How do you **know **Judas initiated the act of betrayal? St John seems to have thought otherwise…

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”?

I have explained that several times already…

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…

Then you have to explain how a man can be a devil!

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

That hypothesis seems inconsistent with the fact that Jesus selected him.

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.

St John gives the impression that at the point Judas had no choice. He didn’t hesitate even though he was aware Jesus knew what he was going to do. Doesn’t that seem rather strange? Traitors usually commit their crime when they think their victim doesn’t suspect them. They don’t go ahead with their plan because it might be a trap and/or a test of their sincerity. Why on earth would Jesus want to be betrayed? That is the real question.

…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.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.”

“**wholly **unworthy” is an unjustified conclusion. No one is worthy of heaven and no one in this world knows who is in hell… “Judge not lest you be judged…”

 

[tonyrey]

There is a review of another book about Jesus in which Peter Stanford rubbishes our vision of Judas as the ‘wickedest man who ever lived’ in his rigorous biography:

theguardian.com/books/2015/may/11/judas-review-fresh-look-historys-most-infamous-traitor

 

[guanophore]

Hi HabemusFrancis,

Well, when I say that someone else’s actions are “evil and malicious in treachery” or “selfish and calculating”, I am projecting something I believe about my own Self onto others. So, while both of these mystics seem to be a bit condemning of Judas, these are not the only way of understanding his actions.

The words are only “true” for the individual that shares in the negative feeling toward Judas. They may be “helpful” in terms of confirming an individual’s bias, such that it is okay to accuse others, but such projections (and accusations) do not demonstrate the type of understanding that leads to a mature forgiveness.

If that sounded confusing, feel free to ask for clarification!

Not confusing at all. But your response explains why I never tried to fill in any of your blanks.

Thank you!

BTW: I realized and corrected my “assumption” on the last post, you were responding to an unedited version. My apologies.

Iron sharpens iron

Let us press on toward the goal to win the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. …Philippians 3:14 I

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 can accept your views, just not affirm all of them as Catholic.

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.”

And I thought of you as I read the part of the crowd during Palm Sunday Mass. It has always been difficult for me, but, as I am sure the Church desired, it puts me in mind of how we have all played the “Judas”.

 

[guanophore]

Peter knew Jesus had chosen him to be the rock on which the Church is built. So he could hardly believe he had lost heaven!

Why could he not believe that?

But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. Matt. 10:33

A man doesn’t commit suicide because he simply regrets what he has done nor does he say “I have betrayed innocent blood” which implies that he is grief-stricken and devastated by an agonising sense of guilt which makes life meaningless.

Plenty of people commit suicide because they have regrets for what they have done, or failed to do. One person who contemplates it daily comes to mind. Failure to forgive oneself stems from not allowing ourselves to be forgiven by God.

But I do agree, he was grief striken and devastated by guilt. The reason he concluded, though, that it made his life meaningless is that he never believed what Jesus had taught - that our meaningfulness is found in our relationship with God, not with ourselves and our own ambitions.

"devil" is the key word. It signifies Judas would be possessed. Otherwise he was a devil for three years while he was following Jesus on foot through Galilee, Samaria and Judea on rough tracks in all kinds of weather and must have been a very dedicated devil...;)

Jesus said “one of you IS a devil”, not that he WOULD BE posessed later.

And Jesus called Peter “Satan”, which actually seems worse.

In that case many people must become possessed!

No, according to the Church this is actually rare, but it is very common to give Satan a foothold, and constant sinning, even venial sinning, widens the opening in the door.

Did Judas intend to  betray Jesus right from the start? If so why did St John say Satan entered him at the Last Supper?

I have read some postulations that he did…that he was a plant of the Sanhedrin from the start. I don’t think there is enough evidence to confirm this, and I don’t think he needed to intend to betray Jesus from the start to be a “devil” the whole time.

How do you **know **Judas initiated the act of betrayal? St John seems to have thought otherwise…
I have explained that several times already…

“Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15and said, “What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?” And they weighed out thirty pieces of silver to him. 16From then on he began looking for a good opportunity to betray Jesus.” Matt 26:15

I suppose we could speculate when “Satan entered into him”. It sounds like John describes this happening at the Last Supper, but it could have happened sooner, when Judas went to the chief priests.

Then you have to explain how a man can be a devil!

I am afraid I will just have to accept Jesus’ words on this. I don’t know how Peter can be “Satan” either!

That hypothesis seems inconsistent with the fact that Jesus selected him.

How so?

" … But some of you do not believe me." (For Jesus knew from the beginning which
ones didn’t believe, and he knew who would betray him.) .John 6:64

Are you saying Jesus would not select him if he knew he was going to betray Him?

St John gives the impression that at the point Judas had no choice. He didn’t hesitate even though he was aware Jesus knew what he was going to do. Doesn’t that seem rather strange?

Judas had a choice. Perhaps Judas pressed forward because Jesus seemed to support his plan, and tacitly agreed to turn himself over to the Sanhedrin. Perhaps he believed Jesus was affirming that He would establish His kingdom. The Gnostics thought that Judas had knowledge all the other Apostles lacked, and that he alone understood that Jesus needed to be betrayed in order to establish His kingdom.

Traitors usually commit their crime when they think their victim doesn’t suspect them. They don’t go ahead with their plan because it might be a trap and/or a test of their sincerity. Why on earth would Jesus want to be betrayed? That is the real question.

Yes, it is a critical element. Jesus had reached an impasse with the Sanhedrin. He was going to come to a confrontation with them. I think Judas wanted Jesus to come out on top of that disagreement. I think he believed Jesus would save Himself from torture and punishment, as He had done so many times before.

“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.”

“**wholly **unworthy” is an unjustified conclusion. No one is worthy of heaven and no one in this world knows who is in hell… “Judge not lest you be judged…”

Not unjustified at all! We are all called to be worthy of call. God will make us worthy, if we allow Him. There are many who have been called to high office that have been unworthy of the office and dignity.

This does not say that he was unworthy of heaven, just unworthy of the office to which he was called. Of course we do not know who is in hell, nor should we speculate. Better we attend to the log in our own eye lest we go there ourselves!

…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 1:25

Judas was called to a high office of ministry and apostleship, and he abandoned it.

 

[bsy]

There are actually two accounts of Satan entering Judas, one in Luke, and one in John.

Luke22:1 (prior to the Passover meal)
Now the feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was drawing near, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking a way to put him to death, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered into Judas, the one surnamed Iscariot, who was counted among the Twelve, and he went to the chief priests and temple guards to discuss a plan for handing him over to them. They were pleased and agreed to pay him money. He accepted their offer and sought a favorable opportunity to hand him over to them in the absence of a crowd.
And
John 13:27 (during the Passover meal)*
After he took the morsel, Satan entered him. So Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”*

---

In the Gospel of Luke, **“Satan entered Judas” **is mentioned before the Passover meal when Judas participates in that treacherous plan to hand Jesus over. In the Gospel of John, it is indicated that **Satan entered Judas during the Passover meal. ** How then do we reconcile these? If we are to take closer look, John 13:1-2 indicates that “before the feast of the Passover, the devil had already ‘induced’ Judas.” This corresponds well to Luke’s account in 22:1 when Satan entered Judas prior to the feast of the Passover.

---

 

[guanophore]

There are actually two accounts of Satan entering Judas, one in Luke, and one in John.

Luke22:1 (prior to the Passover meal)
Now the feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was drawing near, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking a way to put him to death, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered into Judas, the one surnamed Iscariot, who was counted among the Twelve, and he went to the chief priests and temple guards to discuss a plan for handing him over to them. They were pleased and agreed to pay him money. He accepted their offer and sought a favorable opportunity to hand him over to them in the absence of a crowd.
And
John 13:27 (during the Passover meal)**
After he took the morsel, Satan entered him. So Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

---

In the Gospel of Luke, **“Satan entered Judas” **is mentioned before the Passover meal when Judas participates in that treacherous plan to hand Jesus over. In the Gospel of John, it is indicated that **Satan entered Judas during the Passover meal. ** How then do we reconcile these? If we are to take closer look, John 13:1-2 indicates that “before the feast of the Passover, the devil had already ‘induced’ Judas.” This corresponds well to Luke’s account in 22:1 when Satan entered Judas prior to the feast of the Passover.

---

Thank you bsy, this is helpful to the discussion.

tonyrey I found this interesting from your link, something I had not thought about previously:

And yet his infamy has lasted through the centuries. Stanford offers some amusing detail as to how his presentation in medieval art and mystery plays often included his genitalia, which, as the early chronicler Papias described them, were “more massive and repulsive than anyone else’s”, to which the response has to be that one has to have balls to betray the son of God.

 

[bsy]

Thank you bsy, this is helpful to the discussion.

You’re very welcome, guanophore.

 

[tonyrey]

There are actually two accounts of Satan entering Judas, one in Luke, and one in John.

Luke22:1 (prior to the Passover meal)
Now the feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was drawing near, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking a way to put him to death, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered into Judas, the one surnamed Iscariot, who was counted among the Twelve, and he went to the chief priests and temple guards to discuss a plan for handing him over to them. They were pleased and agreed to pay him money. He accepted their offer and sought a favorable opportunity to hand him over to them in the absence of a crowd.
And
John 13:27 (during the Passover meal)**
After he took the morsel, Satan entered him. So Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

---

In the Gospel of Luke, **“Satan entered Judas” **is mentioned before the Passover meal when Judas participates in that treacherous plan to hand Jesus over. In the Gospel of John, it is indicated that **Satan entered Judas during the Passover meal. ** How then do we reconcile these? If we are to take closer look, John 13:1-2 indicates that “before the feast of the Passover, the devil had already ‘induced’ Judas.” This corresponds well to Luke’s account in 22:1 when Satan entered Judas prior to the feast of the Passover.

---

Thank you for pointing out that very important fact which proves Judas was indeed possessed when he decided to betray his Master. When two evangelists concur there is no excuse for doubting their statements.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for pointing out that very important fact which proves Judas was indeed possessed when he decided to betray his Master. When two evangelists concur there is no excuse for doubting their statements.

Does that mean that Peter was also possessed when he tried to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem? If so, how did he get unpossessed?

The Scriptures do not record any of the usual behaviors that accompany possession, so how do we assume “entered” means just that?

“Why would God allow the devil to possess someone? We must remember that we all contend with the temptations of the prince of this world. After all, we are the weak victims of original sin and need God’s grace to do what is holy and good. When the new ritual for exorcism was released, Cardinal Medina, then Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, stated very poignantly, " … I would like to stress that the evil influence of the devil and his followers is usually exercised through deceit and confusion. Just as Jesus is the Truth, so the devil is the liar par excellence. He deceives human beings by making them believe that happiness is found in money, power or carnal desire. He deceives them into thinking that they do not need God, that grace and salvation are unnecessary. He even deceives them by diminishing the sense of sin or even suppressing it altogether, replacing God’s law as the criterion of morality with the habits or conventions of the majority.” Consequently, spiritual writers think that a person has some initial openness to such a possession, through, for example, living a mortally sinful lifestyle, the habitual practice of evil, the desire to explore the occult and the fascination with forms of spiritism, magic and sorcery. For example, in the actual story which served as the basis for “The Exorcist,” the little boy, before he was possessed, participated in séances conducted by his aunt and began using the Ouija board."
Saunders, Rev. William. “Demonic Possession Involves Body, Not Soul.” Arlington Catholic Herald.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you bsy, this is helpful to the discussion.

tonyrey I found this interesting from your link, something I had not thought about previously:

And yet his infamy has lasted through the centuries. Stanford offers some amusing detail as to how his presentation in medieval art and mystery plays often included his genitalia, which, as the early chronicler Papias described them, were “more massive and repulsive than anyone else’s”, to which the response has to be that one has to have balls to betray the son of God.

Irrefutable - unless it was due to Dutch courage or devilish encouragement…

 

[tonyrey]

Does that mean that Peter was also possessed when he tried to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem? If so, how did he get unpossessed?

There is no reason to suppose Satan never puts evil ideas into our minds unless we reject St Peter’s warning:

Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

1 Peter 5:8

 

[tonyrey]

Does that mean that Peter was also possessed when he tried to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem? If so, how did he get unpossessed?

The Scriptures do not record any of the usual behaviors that accompany possession, so how do we assume “entered” means just that?

“Why would God allow the devil to possess someone? We must remember that we all contend with the temptations of the prince of this world. After all, we are the weak victims of original sin and need God’s grace to do what is holy and good. When the new ritual for exorcism was released, Cardinal Medina, then Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, stated very poignantly, " … I would like to stress that the evil influence of the devil and his followers is usually exercised through deceit and confusion. Just as Jesus is the Truth, so the devil is the liar par excellence. He deceives human beings by making them believe that happiness is found in money, power or carnal desire. He deceives them into thinking that they do not need God, that grace and salvation are unnecessary. He even deceives them by diminishing the sense of sin or even suppressing it altogether, replacing God’s law as the criterion of morality with the habits or conventions of the majority.” Consequently, spiritual writers think that a person has some initial openness to such a possession, through, for example, living a mortally sinful lifestyle, the habitual practice of evil, the desire to explore the occult and the fascination with forms of spiritism, magic and sorcery. For example, in the actual story which served as the basis for “The Exorcist,” the little boy, before he was possessed, participated in séances conducted by his aunt and began using the Ouija board."
Saunders, Rev. William. “Demonic Possession Involves Body, Not Soul.” Arlington Catholic Herald.

It seems unrealistic to draw a hard and fast distinction between the body and the soul. There are probably degrees of possession. My friend who committed suicide seemed normal in every respect except her obsession with killing herself and the tears pouring down her cheeks whenever she was at Mass with me. The only reason she went was because she was afraid of being on her own. But I shall never forget the day I said something to annoy her. I can’t remember what it was but the evil look in her eyes made me feel cold with fear. I have never had that experience before or since - and I’m not superstitious unless one includes belief in answers to prayer as superstition.

 

[bsy]

It seems unrealistic to draw a hard and fast distinction between the body and the soul. There are probably degrees of possession. My friend who committed suicide seemed normal in every respect except her obsession with killing herself and the tears pouring down her cheeks whenever she was at Mass with me. The only reason she went was because she was afraid of being on her own. But I shall never forget the day I said something to annoy her. I can’t remember what it was but the evil look in her eyes made me feel cold with fear. I have never had that experience before or since - and I’m not superstitious unless one includes belief in answers to prayer as superstition.

Hi tonyrey, thanks for sharing. We may have differing opinions about the betrayal, but I now have a better understanding of your sympathy towards people who are victims of possession. Peace be with you.