Judas received too, no?
I have long believed, perhaps uncritically, that Judas partook of at least the sacred bread, if not the chalice. The first important book on the liturgy that I read (some 33 years ago) was Dom Gregory Dix's The Shape of the Liturgy
. Dix hypothesizes that the Last Supper was a chaburah meal. The meal would have begun with the blessing of the bread and concluded with the blessing of the wine. I know that many scholars disagree with Dix, but if his hypothesis is credible, then it seems plausible that Judas's departure might have occurred at some point between the two blessings.
Yet as plausible as the hypothesis might be, I have to admit that the biblical texts are unclear on the question of whether Judas shared in the gift of our Lord's Body and Blood. The accounts of the Last Supper are not easily harmonized. The synoptic accounts do not specify when Judas departed from the company. Luke 22:21, e.g., would certainly suggest that Judas was present when Jesus blessed the cup.
The real challenge, of course, is harmonizing the synoptic accounts with the Gospel of John. John does not speak of the eucharistic blessings. According to John's account, Judas leaves immediately after being identified as the one who will betray Jesus (13:21-30). But according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus' comments about his betrayer occur before the eucharistic blessings. It is also the case, however, the Matthew and Mark (unlike Luke) conflate the words of institution, as if the two blessings followed one after another, with no intervening meal.
A search of the internet reveals that the Fathers held differing opinions on the question whether Christ shared his Body and Blood with Judas. One person I came across said that Origen, Hilary, and Theophylact believed that Judas did not share in the Holy Gifts, whereas John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine believed that he did. I have not been able to confirm this, but here are some of the texts that I found:
St Cyril of Alexandria:
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. [Commentary on Luke]
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. [Commentary on John]
St John Chrysostom:
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave(1) it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; This is my body." "And He took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; This is my blood of the New Testament, Which is shed for many, for the remission of sins."
Ah! how great is the blindness of the traitor! Even partaking of the mysteries, he remained the same; and admitted to the most holy table, he changed not. And this Luke shows by saying, that after this Satan entered into him, not as despising the Lord's body, but thenceforth laughing to scorn the traitor's shamelessness. For indeed his sin became greater from both causes, as well in that he came to the mysteries with such a disposition, as that having approached them, he did not become better, either from fear, or from the benefit, or from the honor. But Christ forbad him not, although He knew all things, that thou mightest learn that He omits none of the things that pertain to correction. Wherefore both before this, and after this, He continually admonished him, and checked him, both by deeds, and by words; both by fear, and by kindness; both by threatening, and by honor. But none of these things withdrew him from that grievous pest. Wherefore thenceforth He leaves him, and by the mysteries again reminds the disciples of His being slain, and in the midst of the meal His discourse is of the cross, by the continual repeating of the prediction, making His passion easy to receive. For if, when so many things had been done and foretold, they were troubled; if they had heard none of these things, what would they not have felt? [Homily LXXXII on the Gospel of Matthew]
Perhaps others can provide other patristic texts on this perplexing question.