https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUwjl_1JctU
A powerful presentation in the movie The Robe (1953), by the late great Michael Ansara, of a repentant Judas sunk in the sin of despair. Pope Francis touched upon the theme of a repentant Judas with bizarre results. Oakes Spaulding at Mahound’s Paradise surveys the damage:
Then Francis presented a novel theory on Judas and the high priests.
Pope Francis said: “It hurts when I read that small passage from the Gospel of Matthew, when Judas, who has repented, goes to the priests and says: ‘I have sinned’ and wants to give … and gives them the coins. ‘Who cares! – they say to him: it’s none of our business!’ They closed their hearts before this poor, repentant man, who did not know what to do. And he went and hanged himself.
And what did they do when Judas hanged himself? They spoke amongst themselves and said: ‘Is he a poor man? No! These coins are the price of blood, they must not enter the temple… and they referred to this rule and to that… The doctors of the letter. “
The life of a person did not matter to them, the Pope observed, they did not care about Judas’ repentance.
The Gospel, he continued, says that Judas came back repentant. But all that mattered to them “were the laws, so many words and things they had built”.
- The Jewish high priests (being Jewish high priests) had no power to forgive sins in that sense.
- Neither Judas nor the high priests believed they had such a power.
- In any case, while looking down at Judas for being sort of a rat, the priests obviously wouldn’t think that acting against Jesus was per se a sin.
- Judas’ repentance was belied by the fact of his subsequent suicide, as well as (according to most Biblical commentators) the peculiar Greek word used for “repentance” in this passage but not in other passages.
- The common understanding is that his repentance was more akin to “stupid move” than “I’m truly sorry that I betrayed my Master and friend.” (Again, see suicide and Greek word used.)
- This is reinforced by the fact that Judas did not try to save Jesus or go back to the other apostles and apologize, etc. Rather, he pulled a “poor me.”
“History tells us of many people who were judged and killed, although they were innocent: judged according to the Word of God, against the Word of God. Let’s think of witch hunts or of St. Joan of Arc, and of many others who were burnt to death, condemned because according to the judges they were not in line with the Word of God” he said.
Enough.
Who will be the first bishop to stand up to this?
Chrysostom and Aquinas unlike Spaulding believed that Judas had real sorrow but then failed to hope in God’s goodness so that they saw it as half the work of the whole process of repentance. Spaulding thus misses what they saw…that God was helping Judas with actual grace near the very end despite God’s foreknowledge of the result but Judas cooperated partially with ” the sorrow that is from above” but he did not complete the process. Aquinas on despair (4th article) shows that sloth to consider God’s goodness is the root of incomplete cooperation with the grace of sorrow:
” Reply to Objection 3. This very neglect to consider the Divine favors arises from sloth. For when a man is influenced by a certain passion he considers chiefly the things which pertain to that passion: so that a man who is full of sorrow does not easily think of great and joyful things, but only of sad things, unless by a great effort he turn his thoughts away from sadness.”
There you have Judas’ process near the end….sorrow should have been followed by a great effort of meditation on God’s goodness throughout Judas’ life. Thus Chrysostom called it a half repentance….which is not the due act of virtue.
p.s.
Pope Francis’ two predecessors were not so traditional on Judas. On page 186 of ” Crossing the Threshold of Hope”, St. John Paul II wrote: ”
“Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, ‘It would be better for that man if he had never been born’ (Mt 26:24), his words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.”
Pope Benedict also stated in an audience ( Oct.18,2006) that we cannot be certain that Judas is in hell.
We actually can be certain Judas is in hell not so that we feel superior to Judas but so that we take fear that we consider God’s goodness more than Judas did….and that we work at joy in God’s goodness by meditation or mental prayer.
Christ speaks of Judas being lost, perished, destroyed in John 17:12 IN THE PAST TENSE and Christ said this prior to the completed betrayal and far prior to the suicide. St. Justin Martyr noted that in scripture, past tense prophecy is CERTAIN not conditional like Jonah saying Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days ( 3 days in the Septuagint ) in future tense prophecy that was conditional on Nineveh not repenting. Christ on Judas spoke in past tense prophecy which is certain and which Isaiah used repeatedly about Christ’s passion which like Judas’ damnation was also certain: Isaiah 53: ” He was despised and rejected by others…” past tense prophecy. Isaiah 53:5 ” he was wounded for our transgressions”…past tense tense prophecy. Isaiah 53:8 ” by a perversion of justice, he was taken away”…
past tense prophecy…certain to happen…unconditional. All said c. 700 years before Christ suffered.
Now hear Christ speak in the past tense prophetic: ” Those whom thou gavest me I guarded and not one of them perished but the son of perdition”…said by Christ in past tense prophecy like Isaiah…prior to Judas’ completed betrayal and far prior to the suicide. Both Benedict and John Paul erred in this area…one in a book and one in an audience…neither being an important venue.
I actually agree with you Bill. But with respect, I think it is you who have missed the point. Yes, one might say that Judas had gone “half-way” towards real repentance. Indeed, we cannot know that he didn’t in the end, perhaps at virtually the moment of death, completely repent. But Francis appears to be claiming that he DID go all the way, or at least almost all the way, but what blocked him from being forgiven by God was the hard-heartedness of the Jewish high priests. I may be wrong, but I do not think anyone has ever made that claim.
It’s perfectly “traditional” not to think that Judas was the most evil man who ever lived, but rather just a man who (for whatever reason) sank into sin and betrayal. In a sense Saint Peter was no different. But of course Peter graciously accepted God’s grace and came out of it. Judas rejected it (or at least so it appears).
We can grieve for Judas as we can for all sinners. But the tragedy is not that his repentance was ignored by those who had no mercy, but rather that Judas appeared to refuse Christ’s mercy.
Judas and Repentance – MPS, please correct me if I err.
.
From Matthew 27:3-4:
.
Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
.
The Greek word used for repent is μεταμέλομαι: to care afterwards
.
This verb derives from μετά meaning with, after, behind or afterward and μέλει meaning to care about.
.
The word is used in the following passages – go to the chapters in question and read in context:
.
Matthew 21:9 – He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
.
Matthew 21:32 – For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
.
2nd Corinthians 7:8 – For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.
.
Hebrews 7:21 – (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
.
The other word used in the New Testament for repent is μετανοέω, meaning to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent or to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins.
.
Example from Matthew 4:17:
.
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
.
μετανοέω comes from the Greek words μετά meaning with, after, behind or afterward and νοέω meaning to understand, perceive, consider or think.
.
μετανοέω is used almost everywhere else for repent in the New Testament whereas μεταμέλομαι:is used five times. The two words mean two different things.
.
This little analysis with Strong’s dictionary and my Greek New Testament took me 20 minutes to read and type up. I am a nuclear engineer, not a theologian nor a Biblical scholar nor a linguist (though I do know a smattering of Koine Greek, enough to make me look foolish, and some Latin). If I a mere layman can figure out in short order from the Greek that Judas cared about his crime after the fact but did not have form purpose of amendment, then why not the Pope whose equal none of us are?
.
It is now time for me to go back to neutrons ‘R us. You can’t distort the truth with those little things without devastating physical consequences. And PS, it’s the same with distorting the record of Judas except the consequences are worse since they are spiritual and eternal.
Oakes,
If you read me completely in the second post, I firmly believe (with Ausgustine and Chrysostom (sermons)) that Judas is in hell. Indeed so is Jezebel and later Herod of Acts 12 but there is a different reason in their case.
ps Oakes,
Yes we agree that Francis’ inclination to blame the priests for Judas’ incompleted repentance is odd but he did the identical blame game in the Brussels terror attack….he blamed it on arms merchants even though they were homemade bombs and small arms as carried by the Swiss Guard. I suspect his father had imperfections that forever inclines him against hidden power figures being always at fault for the sins of the little guy.
I always took it as a given that Judas is in Hell. I hope I’m wrong for his sake.
For some reason, I’m getting blocked from Spaulding’s article as “Adult Material”. And it looks like that article quotes from another article that excerpts the Pope’s comments, but I haven’t been able to find the entire text online. So it’s a minimum of three steps away, and translated, and the original statement was from someone who speaks imprecisely when extemporaneous. I’ll withhold judgment.
“Who will be the first bishop to stand up to this?”
Apparently it won’t be Cardinal Burke:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/
At the Fulcrom of history clearly stand the two Types of men we can become, “Types” in the sense they most fully represent their clearest essence:
The God-Man Jesus.
The son of perdition Judas.
Hope, Love, Mercy contained in the former.
Despair, Hatred, Betrayal contained in the latter.
If Judas desired mercy, he could not have received it from the Pharisees (as alleged by Pope Francis) even if they were willing (they were not even asked for it). BUT …. Judas COULD easily have received it in full at the foot of the Cross beneath the precious blood of Jesus. There was plenty of room for him there. Only Jesus could grant it, even at the end, and He was infinitely willing and desired to do so for His child. But Judas did not wish it. This is not the fault of Pharisees. It is the fault of Judas, in full.
Where he went, we all will go if we choose his path. We must humble ourselves, submit ourselves as His creations, dependent upon Him and cling to the Cross along with Mary, Mary and John.
The story of Judas is integral to our Faith; to the Via Dolorosa; to our personal judgement. At the precise center of history, this is not a mere cheap story about mean unmerciful Pharisees.
Sinful Man represented by Judas, hung himself in despair without doing the hard work of humbling himself in repentance and need. Righteous New Man conquered death forever without ever being asked for the Mercy he so much wanted to grant.
Sorry for Judas. It seems as if he was a bad actor (stealing from the Apostolic purse) before he sold out his God and Redeemer. I guess it dawned on Judas that 30 pieces of silver (the price of a man) were far less valuable than the rewards of eternal life, which Jesus would purchase for him with His life, death, and Resurrection.
.
If I were sermonizing on sin, repentance, etc. I would cite better examples like St. Peter who several times got it wrong, but kept repenting, confessing, doing penance, amending one’s life; and, another good example would be St. Dismas who was the only one that gave comfort to Jesus, that shared His pangs, that showed true repentance, that acknowledged that his punishment was just and necessary for his salvation, and who Jesus told him he would with Jesus that day in Paradise.
!
bill bannon said- “I suspect his father had imperfections that forever inclines him against hidden power figures being always at fault for the sins of the little guy.”
That could be it.
re: Cardinal Burke and “standing up
It seems to me that the hermeneutic of continuity, i.e. “the constant teaching and practice of the Church” is the only way we’re going stand up to and beat back the dissenters and innovators.
Francis’s musings on this completely annihilate the compare-and-contrast we are meant to make between Judas and Peter. Both betrayed Christ, but look at the difference in their subsequent actions. PETER TRUSTED THE MERCY OF GOD, and Judas didn’t. Judas gave in to despair, whereas Peter put all his hope in Jesus’s forgiveness.
Ironic, isn’t it, that a pope who talks so much about mercy seems to be completely missing the lesson on mercy that we are supposed to learn when we look at Judas and Peter!!! (And doubly ironic, since the pope is the successor of Peter — you’d think he’d be a little more tuned-in to Peter!)
“And what did they do when Judas hanged himself? They spoke amongst themselves and said: ‘Is he a poor man? No! These coins are the price of blood, they must not enter the temple… and they referred to this rule and to that… The doctors of the letter”
–
Our good Pope – and I mean that quite sincerely – is too caught up on this matter. Yes, it IS important, and it is one of the core messages of the Gospel. But through repetition he is moving dangerously close to creating a letter of the law that condemns those who follow the letter of the law. Once we pass beyond the advisory on this matter we enter the realm of the illogical, and we never find God in the illogical.
Shouldn’t we simply disregard everything Pope Francis says? While there may be some truth in what he says from time to time it is not worthwhile to strain it out.
Heartlander, one set of meditations on a passage of Scripture don’t annihilate another. Valuable lessons can be extracted from a single passage. As for me, I always saw the good thief as the counterpart of Judas. If you asked me for Peter’s opposite in the Crucifixion story, I would have said John. None of this is to say that all interpretations of Scripture are equally valid, of course. It’s more like the way some homilies connect with you better than others,