Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.8K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 367
- Technical Topics 367
Did Judas have the Holy Communion?
Did Judas actually take the Holy Communion. I always thought he did , but I heard that what he partook of was not the Holy Communion in fact. When Christ told him to "do what you must do", it was at that point that they had the Holy Communion.
Thanks
Thanks
Comments
But Judas the traitor, who was eating with Him, was reproved in those words which Christ spoke, "But behold the hand of him who betrays Me is with Me at the table." For he imagined perchance in his great senselessness, or rather as being filled with the haughtiness of the devil, that he could deceive Christ, though He be God. But, as I said, he was convicted of being altogether wicked, and hateful to God, and traitorous: and yet admission was deigned him to the table, and he was counted worthy of the divine gentleness even to the end: but thereby is his punishment made the more severe. For Christ has somewhere said of him by the Psalmist's voice, "That if an enemy had reproached Me, I had borne it: and if he that hated Me had spoken against Me proud things, I had hid myself from him. But it was you, My like in soul, My neighbour and My acquaintance, who in My company had sweetened for Me meats, and we went to the house of the Lord in concord." Woe therefore to him, according to the Saviour's word! For He indeed, according to the good will of God the Father, gave Himself in our stead, that He might deliver us from all evil: but the man who betrayed into the hands of murderers the Saviour and Deliverer of all, will have for his inheritance the condemnation which is the devil's fitting punishment. For his guilt was not against one such as we are, but against the Lord of all: by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
Thank you very much Fr. Peter.
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
St Cyril seems to think that he did participate in the Last Supper, and that thereby his betrayal was all the greater. He says..
But Judas the traitor, who was eating with Him, was reproved in those words which Christ spoke, "But behold the hand of him who betrays Me is with Me at the table." For he imagined perchance in his great senselessness, or rather as being filled with the haughtiness of the devil, that he could deceive Christ, though He be God. But, as I said, he was convicted of being altogether wicked, and hateful to God, and traitorous: and yet admission was deigned him to the table, and he was counted worthy of the divine gentleness even to the end: but thereby is his punishment made the more severe. For Christ has somewhere said of him by the Psalmist's voice, "That if an enemy had reproached Me, I had borne it: and if he that hated Me had spoken against Me proud things, I had hid myself from him. But it was you, My like in soul, My neighbour and My acquaintance, who in My company had sweetened for Me meats, and we went to the house of the Lord in concord." Woe therefore to him, according to the Saviour's word! For He indeed, according to the good will of God the Father, gave Himself in our stead, that He might deliver us from all evil: but the man who betrayed into the hands of murderers the Saviour and Deliverer of all, will have for his inheritance the condemnation which is the devil's fitting punishment. For his guilt was not against one such as we are, but against the Lord of all: by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.
Thanks Fr. Peter.
Did anyone else here hear that he (judas) did not partake of the Holy Communion?
Anyway, to further Fr. Peter's quote, there is also Saint John Chrysostom's Homily for Maundy Thursday that is read in the Passion Week Prayers, where St John talks about slothfullness whilst partaking of the Holy Communion, and of the awful consequences of having the Holy Communion whilst you are unworthy (like Judas).
I mean, he gives judas as an example in his homily.
I was asking because after having heard (just heard!) that Judas did NOT in fact partake of the Holy Communion, why would the Church fathers say otherwise, but after Fr. Peter's quote, I guess the truth of the matter is that he did in fact partake of it.
Gosh!!
This is a very serious issue, and makes actually question my own worthiness.
I suppose I will never be worthy, but I think if you confess as far as possible, and repent as far as possible - then that's the best way to stand before abouna and receive the Holy Communion. - Would you agree??
I actually just found an article by H.G. anba Bishoy about the same issue. The same article is right here.
Moreover I found the following quote on the site of the british orthodox church: The confusing thing is that I heard a sermon by Fr Mattias Nasr (one on copticheritage.org) about the rites of Great Thursday in which he explained the rites of the Jewish Pascha and that Judas in fact did partake of the Body, but not of the Blood. At the end of the sermon he received questions, one of them being that he contradicted the opinion issued by the H. Synod. He responded that he simply offered his opinion based on studies and that he does not give his opinion in the H. Synod. Anyways, to me this is so confusing. Both opinions seem to contradict eachother and they are both from realiable sources (church fathers and a scholar like Fr Mattias - and H.H. with the H. Synod)
What should I teach my sunday school class on this? :-\
edit: typo's
It would be possible to read the Gospels, and on this issue they are a little ambiguous, and say that either Judas left before the communion, or received it.
Nevertheless, since St Cyril of Alexandria appears to consider that Judas did participate it is a little surprising that the Coptic Church should develop a tradition that he did not - if indeed there is a wider acceptance of the non-participating view. It would be useful to find other references in Coptic to the Last Supper and see when such a different view developed. I could imagine that it was also ancient, but it might also be more modern. It would be interesting to find out.
In St Cyril's Commentary on John he says, among many other things,
Therefore it happened that the traitor was not dismayed at rebukes uttered as yet quietly and secretly, nor did he even regard the invincible might of love, nor honour and glory and grace, nor the gift that he received from Christ. But hurrying on, without pausing to reflect or checking himself for a moment, his eyes fixed on that, and that alone, which had proved too strong for him once before, I mean the curse of avarice, he was now finally ensnared, and fell to utter ruin. For no longer has he Satan merely as a counsellor, but he takes him now to be master of his whole heart and absolute dominator of his thoughts, who was at first merely an adviser who whispered suggestions. For Satan entered into him, according to the language of the gospel.
In the passage in St John's Gospel I find it interesting that when Judas receives the gift from the hand of our Lord Satan enters into him. It seems to me that the writer wishes to contrast the reception of the Holy Spirit when those who are faithful receive the eucharist elements, with the entrance of Satan into Judas's heart when he received the gift unworthily and with the heart of a traitor.
Father Peter
Many, many things are matters of opinion (within certain bounds), or are matters of local custom and culture, rather than of universal application.
The work of the Holy Synod is to preserve the doctrinal and spiritual purity of the Coptic Orthodox Church, but not to make authoritative pronouncements on every possible issue. Whether or not Judas received communion at the Last Supper is certainly a question which the Holy Synod can give an answer about, but it is not a matter of dogma and therefore their answer to the question can be compared with that of other Fathers, both in other Orthodox Churches, and in the past. We value and respect their responses to non-dogmatic issues, and we must consider them seriously. But it would be possible to disagree on such matters without ceasing to be entirely Orthodox - while to disagree on a matter such as Christology would lead us outside the bounds of Orthodoxy.
In regard to this particular question, I would say that the Holy Synod has considered the question and offered their opinion, but that there has been a tradition in the past which was different. Ideally it would be great to have to hand the writings of the Fathers which informed their response. It may well be that there are many such references which do speak of Judas being absent.
If the two views are mentioned then it is possible to consider a variety of reflections. Both that Judas was not worthy to receive because he had already conceived evil in his heart, and that he was able to receive but it was of no good to him because he had already commited himself to evil and so he received Satan instead of the Holy Spirit.
I do believe it is necessary to be comfortable with variety and difference in our Faith, but in regards to this issue it seems to me to be absolutely necessary to know exactly which Fathers the Synod drew on, since they may well have referred to other Fathers we have not mentioned here and I am never happy even considering disagreeing with our bishops when I have not made the effort to understand comprehensively what they are actually saying and why.
Father Peter
H.H. was asked the same question before and he confirmed that Judas did not partake. I asked several bishops before and they confirmed the same. This always confused me because of the same sermon by St John that we read on Holy Thursday.
I actually just found an article by H.G. anba Bishoy about the same issue. The same article is right here.
Moreover I found the following quote on the site of the british orthodox church: The confusing thing is that I heard a sermon by Fr Mattias Nasr (one on copticheritage.org) about the rites of Great Thursday in which he explained the rites of the Jewish Pascha and that Judas in fact did partake of the Body, but not of the Blood. At the end of the sermon he received questions, one of them being that he contradicted the opinion issued by the H. Synod. He responded that he simply offered his opinion based on studies and that he does not give his opinion in the H. Synod. Anyways, to me this is so confusing. Both opinions seem to contradict eachother and they are both from realiable sources (church fathers and a scholar like Fr Mattias - and H.H. with the H. Synod)
What should I teach my sunday school class on this? :-\
edit: typo's
Habibi Matt,
Look at this.. good minds think alike. I was also taken back by the homily of J.Chrysostom, so I created this thread...
The Homily is great, don't get me wrong, but I was always curious as to why many Orthodox clergy say that he (Judas) did NOT partake of the Holy Communion, and yet J. Chrysostom thinks otherwise. However, I didnt come across the reference that Fr. Peter gave right now.
One thing is for sure: I create the best threads. No matter who is right or wrong, 90% of all threads on tasbeha.org that are interesting are started by me, and I think that is the lesson we should all take away with us. (lol)
OK Seriously habibi, this subject does make me shudder as to how unworthy we can make ourselves. Gosh!! I mean, it seems that our Lord was just waiting for Judas to repent, and he didnt.
Would anyone here agree that repenting and confessing your sins is all you can do to be worthy of having the Holy Communion??
Secondly, the part of him (Judas) condemning himself by partaking of the Holy Communion when he is not worthy is just too much to take. I think of myself when saying that as I never feel worthy, and no matter how much I repent and confess, I feel im still not worthy of having it. What I don't want is to find myself in a position where i've unwittingly condemned myself by not doing something I should have.
i. Origen, Hilary and Theophylact thought that Judas was excluded.
ii. John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem and Augustine considered that he was included.
So there was an Alexandrian tradition from the beginning that considered Judas to have been excluded, even if there is another tradition that he was included.
Father Peter
Doing a bit more digging, I note that..
i. Origen, Hilary and Theophylact thought that Judas was excluded.
ii. John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem and Augustine considered that he was included.
So there was an Alexandrian tradition from the beginning that considered Judas to have been excluded, even if there is another tradition that he was included.
Father Peter
Great.
But what do we teach our youth? With what we know now, It would make more sense if Judas did not partake of the Communion, as why would Christ tell him to go and do what "you must do, friend", and whilst knowingly realise that he won't repent.
I don't think Christ would want Judas to condemn himself. Its not His personality to do that. I'm sure Christ would have known that Judas would betray Him, and not repent over it.
It would be like a priest or my FoC giving me Holy Communion KNOWING that I've stolen something and have not returned it. If he's a good FoC, he WOULD NOT allow me to partake of it.
Now, Im more of the opinion that Judas did NOT partake of the Holy Communion. There's no way. Christ is the ultimate priest. He was their FoC. He'd have known their spiritual conditions.
Its not a question of Judas condemning Himself, it's a lesson for the Church that as a priest, you cannot give the Holy Communion to those who you know have sinned and not repented for it.
What do you think? I was just thinking out loud.
But then other Fathers say as you have more or less.
Indeed there is no one position which all the Fathers have taken.
So why not just express the multiplicity of views with the youth? Why teach them that there should be one view on a matter which has had several views? I don't think it is helpful to act as though Orthodoxy only says one thing on each issue.
Father Peter
But please tell me:
How can we be worthy of having communion? Sometimes, I forget my sins, and forget my short-comings. I try to confess whenever I remember anything. There are some things I've done in life that I cannot undo, that I do regret. There are some things people have not forgiven me for, nor have I had the chance to ask for forgiveness, and there are some things that I still have found it hard to forgive.
What am I to do?
So you think its right that a priest should give someone the Holy Communion KNOWING that they have stolen something and have not repented for it? Im just curious. Im not at all attached to any particular opinion, I was just thinking out aloud. Moreover, I have no idea what Christ would have thought.
As for worthiness in receiving communion. Well we are never worthy in ourselves, and so we should not be too worried that we discover we are sinners. But there is a difference in being aware of our weakness, and being determined in our sin. This is where pur spiritual fathers are supposed to guide us, and protect us from receiving to our harm. If our spiritual father does not exclude us then we should not exclude ourselves, since we need to receive communion.
Father Peter