Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: cassini on April 18, 2025, 07:49:10 AM
-
There is no doubt but Judas has had a hard time since he betrayed Jesus
by picking him out as the one the Jews and Romans were looking for.
Every Holy Thursday he gets a hammering with the story in the garden of Gethsemane
I have even read that he has to be in Hell.
St Peter and others also denied even knowing Jesus.
Now the Catholic Church teaches that even the worst sinner can save their soul
if they repent. Peter and others did. So, did Judas repent? When he realised what his betrayal caused he
gave back the 30 pieces of silver he got for picking out Jesus. Such was his regret
when seeing the consequences of what happened that he also took his own life by hanging himself.
Is that not the ultimate repentance for doing something wrong, killing yourself.
I often wondered about that, and have do doubts that Jesus could have forgiven him.
Yet, I have never read of any saint or writer discuss this subject.
I would love to hear other opinions.
-
He could not have been forgiven because he did not give Jesus the chance to forgive him. He regretted what he did, threw back the 30 pieces of silver "Saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood" then went and hung himself - which is a mortal sin.
Don't forget, Our Lord said: "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." [Matthew 26:24]
-
the conciliar church teaches that only the Austrian painter is in hell
-
So when Our Lord said that it would have been better had he never been born would be false if Judas had been saved, and therefore Judas is lost.
Simply regretting one's actions is not the same as repentance. Instead of weeping and converting/changing after St. Peter did with his betrayal, Judas despaired. When someone despairs, there's a total self-absorption or self-focus there, where you're upset exclusively because of the impact the sin had on you, where you have the guilt of the crime ... rather than repenting due to the consequences of your actions.
Judas could have avoided despair had he recalled that Our Lord said that the betrayal and His crucifixion and death had to happen ... something that even the other Apostles appear to have either forgotten or not believed or just "filtered out" due to their not wanting to believe it (cognitive dissonance).
Bottom line is that regret by itself does not equate to repentance, since true reptentance depends on the motivation. Why did he "regret" it? Could it just have been because he'd certainly be kicked out by the Apostles from their fellowship and his "grift" (of stealing) would have been over? Or because his reputation would be destroyed? We don't know. Now, after Our Lord's Redemption, we can have a selfish motivation (imperfect contrition) where we do regret the consequences the sin has on our souls, and that suffices in the Sacrament of Confession due to Our Lord's Mercy, because He already supplied the pefect contrition and satisfaction for our sins.
But Judas appears to have had an at-best imperfect contrition for his actions (self-focused), which as stated outside the Sacrament of Confession, does not restore someone to a state of grace, but then also despaired (again due to the self-focus).
So, the Gospels also mention that Judas, when he objected to Mary Magdalene's anointing of Our Lord, wasn't actually concerned about the poor, but he had been embezzling from their common funds, so his corruption goes way back. We don't know why. Did he just not have faith in Our Lord or lose it along the way? Or was he just overcome with greed? If the latter, that also factors in, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, there can be no justification without faith ... so if Judas had no faith, he could not have been saved anyway. Without faith, you could regret any bad actions of yours all you want, for natural reasons, but without that regret being animated by supernatural faith, there can be no forgiveness. Recall that NO AMOUNT OF REPENTANCE on our part suffices for forgiveness (per St. Anselm in "Cur Deus Homo") ... but only because Our Lord's Redemption sufficed, and we can only have the fruits of His Redemption communicated to our souls if we have faith in Our Lord (and then of course supernatural charity, etc.)
If Judas had had faith, and at least imperfect contrition, he could have gone to the other Apostles and been absolved of his sin (since Our Lord had given them the power to forgive sins) ... but he may not have had any faith at all, and he did not seek forgiveness and therefore his imperfect contritiont could not have sufficed to restore him to a state of justification.
-
the conciliar church teaches that only the Austrian painter is in hell
Right ... and maybe even good "Uncle Joe" made it, but definitely not that guy.
Of course, the Conciliar Church under Jorge at least teaches that all religions lead to God ... except Traditional Catholicism, since those are reprobate. Consequently, it might be just the Australian painter and Trad Catholics (especially Hoax deniers such as Bishop Williamson) who are in Hell.
Of course, according to Scalfari (whom I have no reason to doubt), Jorge believes in the heresy (that of Origen, condemned as heresy by the Church) that in the end even the damned will be somehow restored.
-
So when Our Lord said that it would have been better had he never been born would be false if Judas had been saved, and therefore Judas is lost.
Is this a Church teaching or a logical conclusion because I have often heard it said that no layman can know for certain who is damned (not even Judas Iscariot).
-
Is this a Church teaching or a logical conclusion because I have often heard it said that no layman can know for certain who is damned (not even Judas Iscariot).
What you've heard is generally inaccurate, as this inability to know the internal forum it not limited to "laymen" or even to "Churchmen", but even the Church cannot and does not know for sure about the damnation of souls ... unless it was REVEALED through actual Public Revelation. Now, the Church's charism of infallibility prevents mistaken judgments regarding who IS in Heaven, i.e. in the canonization of saints ... but there's no protection against even the Church being wrong about who is certainly in Hell ... so the reference to "layman" is completely moot and warps the principles behind it.
What we have here, however, is a case of Divine Revelation where God Himself in Sacred Scripture revealed that Judas would be lost, where He stated that it would have been better for him had he never been born. Our Lord does not make false statements.
So this is the one case where we have Public Divine Revelation (vs. private revelations) that this one soul has been lost.
Of course, we have to be careful of this nonsense that's being promoted by the Modernist Pelagian heretics that salvation is purely an internal forum thing. If one is not inside the Catholic Church at death, then one is lost. Non-Catholics are all presumed lost by the Church. So, for instance, there was one question put to the Holy Office under St. Pius X asking whether if asked a Catholic may respond that Confucius (the specific example cited) could have been saved. Holy Office responded in the negative declaring that a Catholic, when asked about Confucius (or other infidels), must state that Confucius is damned. While there isn't absolute certainty, the Church directs that Catholics consider it morally certain that those who died without having manifested in the external forum signs of their conversion. We can't hem-haw about the one-in-a-billion possibility that somehow in the depths of their souls, unbeknownst to all, one or two souls may have received some light or grace of conversion ... since that does nothing but undermine the principle and lead to the attitude of ... heck, anybody could be saved ... and thereby gutting the Church's teaching.
In short, even the Church would not know (not just laymen) that Judas had been damned by Public Revelation (which ended at the death of the last Apostle). But in the case of Judas, we have Public Revelation in Sacred Scripture, and then also a unanimity of Church Fathers considered him damned, so that's typically taken as a sign Divine Revelation by Tradition as well.
-
There is no doubt but Judas has had a hard time since he betrayed Jesus
by picking him out as the one the Jews and Romans were looking for.
Every Holy Thursday he gets a hammering with the story in the garden of Gethsemane
I have even read that he has to be in Hell.
Judas doesn't even come close to getting hammered as Adolf Hitler. Hitler is, by far, the most demonized man in world history. By who? The jews. They own the media, schools, governments and banks. You will go to prison in some parts of Europe for even saying something nice about Hitler or doubting the h0Ɩ0h0αx.
-
What you've heard is generally inaccurate, as this inability to know the internal forum it not limited to "laymen" or even to "Churchmen", but even the Church cannot and does not know for sure about the damnation of souls ... unless it was REVEALED through actual Public Revelation. Now, the Church's charism of infallibility prevents mistaken judgments regarding who IS in Heaven, i.e. in the canonization of saints ... but there's no protection against even the Church being wrong about who is certainly in Hell ... so the reference to "layman" is completely moot and warps the principles behind it.
What we have here, however, is a case of Divine Revelation where God Himself in Sacred Scripture revealed that Judas would be lost, where He stated that it would have been better for him had he never been born. Our Lord does not make false statements.
So this is the one case where we have Public Divine Revelation (vs. private revelations) that this one soul has been lost.
Of course, we have to be careful of this nonsense that's being promoted by the Modernist Pelagian heretics that salvation is purely an internal forum thing. If one is not inside the Catholic Church at death, then one is lost. Non-Catholics are all presumed lost by the Church. So, for instance, there was one question put to the Holy Office under St. Pius X asking whether if asked a Catholic may respond that Confucius (the specific example cited) could have been saved. Holy Office responded in the negative declaring that a Catholic, when asked about Confucius (or other infidels), must state that Confucius is damned. While there isn't absolute certainty, the Church directs that Catholics consider it morally certain that those who died without having manifested in the external forum signs of their conversion. We can't hem-haw about the one-in-a-billion possibility that somehow in the depths of their souls, unbeknownst to all, one or two souls may have received some light or grace of conversion ... since that does nothing but undermine the principle and lead to the attitude of ... heck, anybody could be saved ... and thereby gutting the Church's teaching.
In short, even the Church would not know (not just laymen) that Judas had been damned by Public Revelation (which ended at the death of the last Apostle). But in the case of Judas, we have Public Revelation in Sacred Scripture, and then also a unanimity of Church Fathers considered him damned, so that's typically taken as a sign Divine Revelation by Tradition as well.
Thank you. I really appreciate you clearing that up for me. God bless.
-
Thanks all. A subject well worth debating. Pity two gave the debate thumbs down.
I thought that was the purpose of a Catholic forum.
-
What we have here, however, is a case of Divine Revelation where God Himself in Sacred Scripture revealed that Judas would be lost, where He stated that it would have been better for him had he never been born. Our Lord does not make false statements.
So this is the one case where we have Public Divine Revelation (vs. private revelations) that this one soul has been lost.
.
This right here, Cassini, is the answer to your question. :cowboy:
-
There is no doubt but Judas has had a hard time since he betrayed Jesus
by picking him out as the one the Jews and Romans were looking for.
Every Holy Thursday he gets a hammering with the story in the garden of Gethsemane
I have even read that he has to be in Hell.
St Peter and others also denied even knowing Jesus.
Now the Catholic Church teaches that even the worst sinner can save their soul
if they repent. Peter and others did. So, did Judas repent? When he realised what his betrayal caused he
gave back the 30 pieces of silver he got for picking out Jesus. Such was his regret
when seeing the consequences of what happened that he also took his own life by hanging himself.
Is that not the ultimate repentance for doing something wrong, killing yourself.
I often wondered about that, and have do doubts that Jesus could have forgiven him.
Yet, I have never read of any saint or writer discuss this subject.
I would love to hear other opinions.
I read in a work by t Alphonsus that Judas sinned with the intention of trusting in the mercy of our Lord (similar to the devil), someone who offends Divine Justice has recourse to Mercy but those that offend Mercy has recourse to no one. By committing a sin while hoping for pardon is a mockery of God and God won't be mocked.
Also we see Judas already had been in a habit of sin as he "was a thief" taking money from the purse. So there is a lesson here of how we should avoid all occasions of sin and habits of sin we may have less we do some greater evil after our soul has been weakened by sin.
-
I read in a work by t Alphonsus that Judas sinned with the intention of trusting in the mercy of our Lord (similar to the devil), someone who offends Divine Justice has recourse to Mercy but those that offend Mercy has recourse to no one. By committing a sin while hoping for pardon is a mockery of God and God won't be mocked.
Also we see Judas already had been in a habit of sin as he "was a thief" taking money from the purse. So there is a lesson here of how we should avoid all occasions of sin and habits of sin we may have less we do some greater evil after our soul has been weakened by sin.
Another great point Anthony. How about the thief who died with Jesus. What was the cause of him being saved.
-
One of the mystics describes how Mary the Mother of God was calling out to Judas because she knew what he had done; but the more she cried out the faster he ran away to his tree of self-execution.
-
Another great point Anthony. How about the thief who died with Jesus. What was the cause of him being saved.
God's grace.
...and I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me.
[Exodus 33:19]
Also both criminals on the cross mocked Christ with the jews
38 Then were crucified with him two thieves: one on the right hand, and one on the left.
39 And they that passed by, blasphemed him, wagging their heads,
40 And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God, and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
41 In like manner also the chief priests, with the scribes and ancients, mocking, said:
42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
43 He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he will have him; for he said: I am the Son of God.
44 And the selfsame thing the thieves also, that were crucified with him, reproached him with.
One of the thieves would repent and be saved, the other would not and be damned. And why? Because God will have mercy on whom ever He wills. No one is owed salvation, and grace is a gift (hence the name grace). Having mercy on one thief was a miracle and increases the glory of God through His mercy. Allowing the other thief to die in his sins increases the glory of God by His justice, as sinners get what they deserve.
Hence yet another reason I agree with St Augustine where he writes against Julian, "let it not be said that God will allow any of His elect before receiving the sacrament of the mediator", because God is always in control, Divine providence will always provide as God's will be done, and why one dies a catechumen before baptism (who may have seemed like a good/kind person by humans judgment) while another who is terrible may be saved. Because God allowed it to happen, there is no need or place to question why God saves one but not another.
O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!
[Romans 11:33]
* Note that the thief died under the law old before the promulgation of the Gospel and did not need to be baptized, though we see in the Gospels that when Christ rose from the died some of Saints also rose with Him, so it's possible the old testament Saints were baptized during the 40 days before the Ascension
And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent.
52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose,
53 And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.
-
One of the mystics describes how Mary the Mother of God was calling out to Judas because she knew what he had done; but the more she cried out the faster he ran away to his tree of self-execution.
What part of the 5th Commandment did Judas not understand!
-
If you go to the Catholic mystics, like Anne Catherine Emmerich, you’ll get a clearer picture of his demise.
He admired the Pharisees for their power & wealth, even though he had directly known the Eternal Light.
He was ultimately caught up in a whirlwind over demonic temptations that lead him to off himself.
Emmerich on Judas in Our Lord’s Passion (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/anne/passion29.shtml)
-
So, the Gospels also mention that Judas, when he objected to Mary Magdalene's anointing of Our Lord, wasn't actually concerned about the poor, but he had been embezzling from their common funds, so his corruption goes way back. We don't know why. Did he just not have faith in Our Lord or lose it along the way? Or was he just overcome with greed?
I still think Judas should be the focus of a series of meditations for a special "accountant's" or "bursar's" 5-day silent retreat.
I think there's a fundamental danger to being mired in worldly concerns, the bottom line. Other officials, whether at a non-profit, religious order, etc. can keep their focus on what their organization is about: spreading the Faith, teaching, forming the minds and souls of children, preaching, tending the sick, spreading the truth (news), etc.
But that poor accountant stares at a screen every day, focused on that bottom line. If only we could get more people/viewers/clicks, we'd have a higher number on that "income: donations" entry! Then the bottom line would be better.
So they will be inclined to compromise, modify their views, whatever it takes to get "more people" to support their organization (readers, viewers, benefactors, parishioners, etc.)
Just look at Bishop Fellay. He was bursar for the SSPX. It seems to have formed his thinking into a very worldly, practical, numbers-focused worldview for the SSPX. If I were to guess "what caused his fall", it's the best guess I have. Although only God knows for sure. Bishop Fellay was raised Trad; right in the environs of Econe if I recall correctly. Like across the street or something similar. So all the pieces were there, for +Fellay to become an excellent Trad Catholic.
I know the answer is "original sin" or "free will", but WHAT PART of his free will led him to his fall? It wasn't wine or women in his case. I think he just formed too human, too material, of an outlook. Probably caused by his daily work keeping the books and watching the purse and the things that were contained therein. Hey, it happened to Judas, why couldn't it happen to other religious bursars?
But I know that both Jesus Christ and Archbishop Lefebvre (who are likely in the same place right now) had bursar problems.
-
Some temptations are timeless. Such as a parish priest being distracted by visiting his Faithful during the week, seeking more and more human consolation (conversations, socializing, good food, "innocent" amusements, at least for a layman) instead of spending time praying, sacrificing, spreading the Faith, studying, travelling, etc.
Some temptations are tried and true go-tos for the devil, because they are fundamental to a given career or vocation. They almost go with the territory.
-
Some temptations are timeless. Such as a parish priest being distracted by visiting his Faithful during the week, seeking more and more human consolation (conversations, socializing, good food, "innocent" amusements, at least for a layman) instead of spending time praying, sacrificing, spreading the Faith, studying, travelling, etc.
Some temptations are tried and true go-tos for the devil, because they are fundamental to a given career or vocation. They almost go with the territory.
I agree. Especially the neo-SSPX appear to emphasize and value an excessive fraternization with the lay faithful. When I was at STAS, an elderly priest once visited who told us that when he was in seminary they cautioned against that. Way too many potential drawbacks vs. possible benefits. Faithful could lose respect for priests if they see them too often in secular settings (e.g. playing basketball, drinking alcohol in restaurants, etc.). Also, as this priest mentioned, you could create resentment where some faithful feel the priest "favors" some more than others ... and the perception of cliques among them. It's like if a parent favors some children the other ones are saddened and resentful of it. Then of course there the aspects you mentioned that are more harmfult to him. If priests get too familiar with the faithful on a natural level, it might make them more reluctant to confess sins to him, and/or they might be less likely to take his direction seriously.
IMO very little is to be gained from playing basketball with a priest or going out for drinks with him. "Wow, that priest has a great 3-point shot. That makes me want to be and to remain a Traditional Catholic." Really? "Ah, that guy is so cool, so Tradism can be cool too and doesn't have to be so irrelevant and crusty." ... Didn't they learn the lesson from the Conciliars about how this is an abject failure?
-
If priests get too familiar with the faithful on a natural level, it might make them more reluctant to confess sins to him, and/or they might be less likely to take his direction seriously.
Whenever possible, I avoid going to confession to priests whom I know for that very reason. It can get awkward.
I seek out priests with whom I'll never interact outside the confessional.
-
Whenever possible, I avoid going to confession to priests whom I know for that very reason. It can get awkward.
I seek out priests with whom I'll never interact outside the confessional.
Me too Simpleman.
But here is another aspect to confession that I have never heard a comment about.
'What must it be like for women having to confess to men?
-
Me too Simpleman.
But here is another aspect to confession that I have never heard a comment about.
'What must it be like for women having to confess to men?
Recall many years ago, waiting in a long Confessional line which included many ladies, shortly before Mass. Father Hogan was the confessor.
I didn’t think I would make it, until Father stuck his head out of the Confessional and said:
”I’ll take the next (3) men.”
😊
-
Just look at Bishop Fellay.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fu9X3BgzhmG4%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1&ipt=a6a2adfb23a3c22f0967809a22a0055689f941826dd5d929f0a6a61a1b68299f)
“C’mon… what would you say to 80 million Euros?”
-
Recall many years ago, waiting in a long Confessional line which included many ladies, shortly before Mass. Father Hogan was the confessor.
I didn’t think I would make it, until Father stuck his head out of the Confessional and said:
”I’ll take the next (3) men.”
😊
:laugh1: ... many women definitely think of Confession as counseling, spiritual direction, and psychoanalysis, but the priest should learn to sense when it's ramping up and put a stop to it with "just the sins and the number please for now, since the line is getting long before Mass and I'd hate to see someone miss out on Holy Communion by going too long. I'll be back in the Confessional afterwards if you need additional direction."
Men tend to be more sin, #, sin # ... and receive absolution, though there are some exceptions, especially among the scrupulous.
I recall Fr. Alphonsus when preaching his missions would tell people that no General Confession should ever take more than 5-10 minutes at the most, since there are only 10 commandments, and you just mention the sin, #, sin #, etc. ... receive absolution. He had some saying about "be brief, be blunt, be gone" :laugh1:
BTW, I've always tried to adopt the attitude of imagining that you're someone else judging the penitent, i.e. how you would describe and characterize the sin to a priest if someone ELSE had done it, "Father, this guy here did [this, that, or the other thing." It actually helps create a bit of additional objectivity, filtering out some nonsense that could be due to an excessively subjectivist or introverted perspective, including churn about scrupulosity, attaching excessive or too little culpability, etc. If your friend or relative had committed these sins and you were in charge of telling the priest and accusing THAT individual in Confession, how would you describe and characterize it, how would you confess that other person's sin to the priest. It changes your persepctive a little bit to something more objective.
-
Whenever possible, I avoid going to confession to priests whom I know for that very reason. It can get awkward.
I seek out priests with whom I'll never interact outside the confessional.
Yes, and when you're too "familiar" with the priest, it's more difficult to put yourself in the mindset that you're confessing your sins to Our Lord, and that the priest is there just as His instrument. Bob (albeit a priest) has no right to hear your Confession, to know your sins, or pass judgment on you ... nor the authority to forgive them, nor does your drinking buddy (priest). It's one of the reasons for both the screen in the Confessional and the priest wearing vestments during Mass (and facing the altar) ... to ANONYMIZE the priest in order to impress upon the faithful that the actions he's doing in the capacity are actually being done by Our Lord.
If you recall that story of the one Black inmate on death row to whom Our Lady appeared and whom she converted, Claude Newman, he relates that Our Lady in teaching him about Confession (she was catechizing him some) told him to think of the priest as if he were a telephone through which we were speaking through Our Lord.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-amazing-conversion-of-death-row-inmate-claude-newman
The priest introduced the sacrament [of Confession] when Claude interrupted him saying, "Oh, I know about that! The Lady told me that when we go to Confession, we're kneeling down not in front of a priest, but in front of the Cross of her Son. And that when we're truly sorry for our sins, and confess them, the Blood He shed flows down over us and washes us free from all sins."
... Claude reminded his fellow prisoners, “Don't be afraid of going to Confession. You're really telling God your sins, not the priest. You know, the Lady said that Confession is something like a telephone. We talk through the priest to God, and God talks back to us through the priest.”
-
If you recall that story of the one Black inmate on death row to whom Our Lady appeared and whom she converted, Claude Newman, he relates that Our Lady in teaching him about Confession (she was catechizing him some) told him to think of the priest as if he were a telephone through which we were speaking through Our Lord.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-amazing-conversion-of-death-row-inmate-claude-newman
I'm hoping it was just a typo or done without thinking, but did you just capitalize black? I hope you at least capitalize White as well. Certain MSM outlets have a policy to capitalize "black" but not "white" in the same context. What the heck? How is that equality?
-
I agree. Especially the neo-SSPX appear to emphasize and value an excessive fraternization with the lay faithful.
I disagree. It even seems the opposite to me at times. I do think they can get caught up in the temptation though, and so many people really want their attention. We'd all flock to and want to hang around Jesus as much as possible if he walked among us. I think it is similar with priests who are other Christs.