Did Judas take communion?

Jesus says, “take this, all of you,” which would include Judas. However, because he sold Jesus out, wasn’t Judas in a state of mortal sin?


Judas was at the Table.

The record shows that Jesus served Judas the Eucharist when He knew Judas was in a state of mortal sin. The problem is that the RCC does teach that to knowingly serve a person in mortal sin the Eucharist is to commit a sacrilege.

I have not yet heard this adequately explained.

What mortal sin did Judas commit and when did he commit it?

Er, betrayal of the Lord to His enemies?

Technically, he performed the act after leaving the Supper, but it seems clear that he harbored the intention earlier. In at least one Gospel we’re even told the exact point when “Satan entered into him.”

As to the initial question, though, I thought it was unclear in the Gospels whether Judas received Communion or left before that.

Let’s see…

In Matthew, the act of betrayal (getting paid to hand Jesus over at the first opportunity) occurs before the Supper. Judas is identified as the betrayer before Jesus institutes the Eucharist, but no mention is made of his departure.

In Mark, Judas likewise makes his arrangement with the priests before the Supper. Jesus predicts His betrayal, but does not explicitly single out Judas as the traitor. He then institutes the Eucharist, with no one mentioned as having departed.

In Luke, Judas again betrays before the Supper (and we’re told that “Satan entered into him” at that time). This time, Jesus institutes the Eucharist before predicting His betrayal, and the disciples discuss among themselves who could be the traitor without knowing who it is.

In John, no mention is made of Judas having conspired with the priests before the Supper. Jesus singles him out after predicting His betrayal, and at that time “Satan enters him” and Judas leaves the Supper. Of course, there is no explicit institution of the Eucharist in John’s Gospel.

Hmm, the only Gospel that mentions Judas leaving early has no institution narrative, and the others strongly imply that Judas did receive the Eucharist. I guess it must be interpretations that I’ve seen, attempting to combine the early departure in John with the sequence of events in Matthew and Mark, that state that Judas left before Communion.

Anyone know of anything in the Fathers that might shed light on early understandings of this issue?


A good read.


It is interesting that Aquinas insists that Christ did not give His glorified body in the Eucharist, but many Catholics today insist otherwise.

But that is OT. We can move along…

Do Catholics insist that He gave His Glorified body at the First Eucharist? I’ve never heard that claim. He gives His Glorified body to us in the Eucharist NOW, but He didn’t have a Glorified body yet then. :slight_smile:

Peace and God bless!

Gosty, I would imagine that if you can turn bread and wine into your body and blood, that there was something glorified about that body and blood. How could non-glorified flesh come from the Eucharist? To me it seems like a contradiction of terms :shrug:

Not true. There is no record of this, and in fact, the Gospel of St. John 13 says, 21 When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me. 22 The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. 23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh? 25 He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it?

26 Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27 And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. 28 Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him. 29 For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor. **30 He therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night. **

If we connect the last supper accounts by looking at Matthew’ (Chapter 26) we find.
21 And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me. 22 And they being very much troubled, began every one to say: Is it I, Lord? 23 But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me. 24 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. 25 And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it.
[size=]* 26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. 29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. 30 And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.

Tie the passages together where I have that asterisk.

Now tie that in Mark’s Gospel, chapter 14.
17 And when evening was come, he cometh with the twelve. 18 And when they were at table and eating, Jesus saith: Amen I say to you, one of you that eateth with me shall betray me. 19 But they began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one by one: Is it I? 20 Who saith to them: One of the twelve, who dippeth with me his hand in the dish. 21 And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born. 22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. 23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. 25 Amen I say to you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God. 26 And when they had said an hymn, they went forth to the mount of Olives.

St. Luke chapter 22 is less helpful because it says, 14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer.

16 For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: 18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. 19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. 21 But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And the Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined: but yet, woe to that man by whom he shall be betrayed. 23 And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

I go with the Biblical witness concept of “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand.” (Mt 18:16 & 2nd Cor 13:1)[/size]

Even an RC giant like Aquinas would agree with me.


That is pretty good company as far as RC thinking is concerned.

I am sure there are some early fathers that agree with me as well. But if there is no record of this, how could they all come to embrace the same error?

Glorified refers to a very specific state in Catholic theology, namely the state of the body after Resurrection when it becomes dominated by the spirit rather than the matter. It is therefore able to pass through solid objects, not suffer damage, doesn’t require food to live (though it can certainly eat and enjoy food), and move about anywhere it likes at will. Christ was not Glorified in this way until after His Resurrection, and we will not be Glorified in that way until after ours.

So if Christ was giving His own Flesh to eat at the Last Supper, as we believe, it doesn’t make sense that it was His Glorified Flesh because his body was subject to the passage of time as all human nature is, and therefore hadn’t yet been Glorified.

Peace and God bless!

Of course, wasn’t the “no receiving Communion with mortal sin on your heart” doctrine or dogma or whatever it is (just a practice?) established by the Church after the Last Supper?

I’m not saying God somehow ‘changed His mind’ after the Last Supper…I don’t mean to say there is any kind of Trinitarian contradiction. There was, though, no prohibition at that point.

That’s just me thinking out loud, though. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The rule against receiving the Eucharist when in mortal sin is a rule of the Church to protect the sinner. Those who receive the Eucharist in mortal sin “eat and drink condemnation”, and are judged even more harshly than they would have been otherwise. Christ simply allowed Judas to eat and drink his own condemnation, just as He allowed him to carry out his other wicked deeds.

Peace and God bless!

More “free will” on Judas’ part? Should he have known that to take Christ’s body would be further condemnation? Maybe it was fitting that he would take it, since “it would be better for that man if he had never been born.”

Now I’m intrigued. This particular question has never come to mind before.

Thanks for the response. :thumbsup:

But, as Atemi pointed out, if Judas received the Eucharist of his own free will despite his state of sin, Christ gave it to him knowing of his sin, which would be sinful.

I think the best thing to do here is NOT to try to find a Gospel account that supports “Judas partook” or “Judas didn’t partake”, but rather to look at the Gospel accounts in conjunction, since each recounts the story differently, and none of them explicitly state that Judas received the Eucharist from Christ.

That Judas’ departure is not mentioned before the first Eucharist in some accounts does not discount the likelihood that he had, in fact, done so.


But, as Atemi pointed out, if Judas received the Eucharist of his own free will despite his state of sin, Christ gave it to him knowing of his sin, which would be sinful.

It wouldn’t necessarily be a sin to give someone Communion who you know is in mortal sin. There may be Canon Laws against it, but it’s not an innately immoral thing to do, and there are circumstances in which you would be expected to.

Peace and God bless!

You provided a link to this

Reply to Objection 2. The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as God; but it was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it. Consequently, Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by other priests.

But Jesus does not complete the passover at the Last Supper. There is one cup missing. The Passover requires that 4 cups be shared. He only shares 3.

At the Crucifixion he refused wine until the end when he accepts the sour wine and then says “It is finished.” His part in it is finished. Our part in the Passover is to eat the Lamb.

At the Last Supper, the Lamb had not been prepared. The Lamb was only prepared when He said, “It is finished.” When we eat the Lamb, we ‘commune’ with God.

Ergo, I don’t think Judas took communion. Sorry, thinking aboutJudas makes me sad. I don’t know why. :frowning:


Like I said earlier, I still have not heard this adequately explained, and this includes Aquinas as well.

Saying that Jesus knew Judas was in grave sin but did not know Judas was in grave sin is not an explanation at all, IMV.

Actually, it is one of the worst.

Tell us what the adequate explanation is and we’ll give it to you. :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.