RO, it's beyond me how you could read my first post as being "confrontational" or an attempt to "bully" you. It's also beyond me why you think I was offended by anything you said or why you feel the need to apologise to me. Take it easy brother; there's no need to be so dramatic.
My post was regarding common understanding, not that of H.H.
Your post was a response to a discussion on the position of His Holiness on Judas' participation in the Eucharist. Your post in fact begins with a quotation of His Holiness and proceeds from there. Whether you intended it or not, your post seemed to imply that by advocating the position that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist, His Holiness was in some sense responsible (even innocuously) for certain persons holding to false Eucharistic spirituality.
In response, I simply sought to introduce additional material expounding His Holiness' understanding of the Last Supper and Eucharistic spirituality in order to make clear that his position that Judas did not partake in the Eucharist, understood in its proper context, cannot possibly be faulted for the Eucharistic misunderstanding you raised; neither as a matter of logic (given that such an understanding does not rationally follow from such a position) nor as a matter of substance (given His Holiness' express and explicit teachings on the Eucharist).
As to the idea that this misunderstanding of the Eucharist is "common": I don't know you, or the people you know, so I am in no position to evaluate your testimony as to your personal experience. What I can say is that in my personal experience, not only is such a misunderstanding not common, it is in fact non-existent.
this idea that Judas did not take communion fuels this idea a little more.
As I think I sufficiently demonstrated in my previous post: such a misunderstanding of the Eucharist as you suggest simply does not follow from a denial of Judas' participation in the Eucharist; neither by way of logical necessity or probability, nor by way of reasonable inference, nor by way of a proper understanding of that denial in context.
It follows then, that if we were to take for granted your assertion that certain people in fact base such a misunderstanding of the Eucharist on the position that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist, that the fault lies with them, not with that position nor with those who hold that position.
The position that Judas DID partake of the Eucharist can similarly be argued to potentially give rise to false Eucharistic praxis: that since Judas was not barred from communing on the day he betrayed Christ, then anyone should always have access to the mysteries no matter their spiritual condition. I think St John Chrysostom was aware of that danger; which is why, in the very same homily that he suggests that Judas received communion, he proceeds with a rather lengthy and emphatic warning to priests that they "let no Judas receive".
Simply, and in general, it is not an argument against a position to suggest that in theory it might possibly lead to a false inference being made by others or that certain persons have in fact drawn such a false inference, particularly when, a) such an inference does not logically or reasonably follow, and, b) those who advocate that position do so in a context that is directly at odds with such an inference.
I said that I would like to know HHPS3's reason for dismissing the quote of Chrysostom.
The only evidence we have regarding the basis of His Holiness' position are his words which you yourself quoted; a general reference to the "opinions of the Church Fathers".
As has been noted in this thread, the idea that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist is not completely without patristic/historical basis. The idea is advocated in the Apostolic Constitutions—in an account that is in fact presumed to be a firsthand account of St John the Beloved that was written by one of St Paul’s associates—a certain Clement whom St Paul mentions in Phil. 4:3. It is also advocated by St Hilary of Poitiers and Origen. Interestingly, the seventh century Eastern Orthodox Father, St Maximus the Confessor, and a later 13th century Byzantine theologian and historian, both support a reading of St Dionysius the Areopagite to the effect that St Dionysius was also of the opinion that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist. Two medieval Latin patristic commentators also support such a reading of St Dionysius. There is some confusion surrounding St Augustine's position on the matter since there appears to be evidence from his writings supporting both positions.
We know that the Apostolic Constitutions exists in Arabic. We also know that His Holiness has quoted St Hilary of Poitiers and Origen in some of his works, so he was perhaps aware of their position also. I certainly don't think he had any idea about St Dionysius. If he was aware of St John Chrysostom's position he could very well have thought that position to be the minority patristic position on the basis of the resources available to him.
Although the number of sources in support of His Holiness' position were few, His Holiness might very well have thought that the Scriptural text itself lends credence to the position found in those sources. It was within his clerical authority to consider and deal with the Scriptural text in such a way, and indeed, such an approach to discerning truth is in line with that of the Fathers who tended to arrive at positions on certain doctrinal and spiritual matters by considering the implications of the Scriptural text.