SOURCE : http://magnificat.ca/cal/fr/saints/saint_simon_et_saint_jude.html
SOURCE : http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/voragine/tome03/160.htm
Georges de La Tour, Saint Jude
SOURCE : http://missel.free.fr/Sanctoral/10/28.php
SOURCE : http://qe.catholique.org/homelie/5807-saint-simon-et-saint-jude-apotres
Chiesa dei Santi Simone e Giuda, Castagnola, Minucciano, Toscana, Italia
Saint SIMON et saint JUDE
La tradition liturgique occidentale ne sépare jamais les deux sainst Apôtres Simon et Jude : ce fait est attesté depuis le VIème siècle. Fête depuis le IXème siècle. On trouvera l’ancienne messe de leur vigile ici.
SOURCE : http://www.introibo.fr/28-10-Sts-Simon-et-Jude-apotres
Lettre de Saint Jude
SOURCE : http://jesusmarie.free.fr/bible_crampon_jude.html
The Abyssinians accordingly relate that he suffered crucifixion as the Bishop of Jerusalem, after he had preached the Gospel in Samaria. Where he actually preached the Gospel is uncertain. Almost all the lands of the then known world, even as far as Britain, have been mentioned; according to the Greeks, he preached on the Black Sea, in Egypt, Northern Africa, and Britain, while, according to the Latin "Passio Simonis et Judae" — the author of which was (Lipsius maintains) sufficiently familiar with the history of the Parthian Empire in the first century — Simon laboured in Persia, and was there martyred at Suanir. However, Suanir is probably to be sought in Colchis. According to Moses of Chorene, Simon met his death in Weriosphora in Iberia; according to the Georgians, he preached in Colchis. His place of burial is unknown.
Concerning his relics our information is as uncertain as concerning his preaching. From Babylon to Rome andToulouse we find traces of them; at Rome they are venerated under the Altar of the Crucifixion in the Vatican. His usual attribute is the saw, since his body was said to have been sawed to pieces, and more rarely the lance. He is regarded as the patron of tanners. In the Western Church he is venerated together with Jude (Thaddaeus); in the East separately. The Western Church keeps his feast on 28 October; the Greeks and Copts on 10 May.
Löffler, Klemens. "St. Simon the Apostle." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912.7 Oct. 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13796b.htm>.
Copyright © 2020 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
St. Jude was a married man before he was called to the apostleship. Eusebius informs us, (l. 3, c. 20,) that two grandsons of this apostle, who were possessed jointly of thirty-nine acres of land, which they tilled with their own hands, were accused by the Jews out of hatred to the name of Christ, as descendants from King David, when Domitian had ordered all such to be put to death, to prevent rebellions among the Jews. They boldly confessed Christ, but the emperor, charmed with their simplicity, and seeing by their low condition, and their hands, callous and rough with labour, that they were not persons any way dangerous to the state, dismissed them. Returning home, they were promoted to the priesthood, and governed considerable churches. That St. Jude was himself a husbandman before he was called to the apostleship, we are assured by the Apostolic Constitutions, l. 2, c. 63, p. 303. [back]
Epistle of St. Jude
- I. The Author and the Authenticity of the Epistle:
- (1) Jude in the Books of the New Testament;
- (2) Tradition as to the Genuineness and the Canonicity of the Epistle;
- (3) Difficulties Arising from the Text;
- (4) The Relation of Jude to the Second Epistle of St. Peter;
- (5) Vocabulary and Style;
- II. Analysis of the Epistle;
- III. Occasion and Object;
- IV. To Whom Addressed;
- V. Date and Place of Composition.
Tradition as to the genuineness and the canonicity of the epistle
The Epistle of Jude is one of the so-called antilegomena; but, although its canonicity has been questioned in several Churches, its genuineness has never been denied. The brevity of the Epistle, the coincidences between it and II Peter, and the supposed quotation from apocryphal books, created a prejudice against it which was gradually overcome. The history of its acceptance by the Church is briefly as follows:
Some coincidences or analogies exist between Jude and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers — betweenBarnabas, ii, 10, and Jude, 3, 4; Clemens Romanus, Ep. xx, 12; lxv, 2, and Jude, 25; Ep. ad Polyc., iii 2; iv, 2, and Jude, 3. 20, Mart. Polyc., xx, and Jude, 24 sq. It is possible, though not certain, that the passages here noted were suggested by the text of Jude. The similarity between "Didache" ii, 7 and Jude, 22 sq., does not seem to be accidental, whilst in Athenagoras (about A.D., 177), "Leg.", xxiv, and in Theophilus of Antioch (d. about 183), "Ad Autol." II, xv, there is a clear reference to Jude, 6 and 13 respectively.
The earliest positive reference to the Epistle occurs in the Muratorian Fragment, "Epistola sane Judæ et superscriptæ Joannis duae in catholica [scil. Ecclesia] habentur." The Epistle was thus recognized as canonicaland Apostolic (for it is Jude the Apostle who is here meant) in the Roman Church about 170. At the end of the second century it was also accepted as canonical and Apostolic by the Church of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, The Pedagogue III.8, followed by Origen), and by the African Church of Carthage (Tertullian). At the beginning of the third century the Epistle was universally accepted except in the primitive East Syrian Church, where none of the Catholic Epistles were recognized, nor the Apocalypse.
This remarkably wide acceptance, representing as it does the voice of ancient tradition, testifies to the canonicityand the genuineness of Jude. During the third and fourth centuries doubt and suspicion, based on internal evidence (especially on the supposed quotation from the Book of Henoch and the "Assumption of Moses"), arose in several Churches. However the prejudice created against the deuterocanonical Jude was soon overcome, so that the Epistle was universally accepted in the Western Church at the very beginning of the fifth century (see CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT).
In the Eastern Church Eusebius of Cæsarea (260-340) placed Jude among the antilegomena or the "disputed books, which are nevertheless known and accepted by the greater number" (Church History II.23; Church History III.25); he incorporated all the Catholic Epistles in the fifty copies of the Bible which at the command ofConstantine, he wrote for the Church of Constantinople. St. Athanasius (d. 387) and St. Epiphanius (d. 403) placed Jude among the canonical and Apostolic writings. Junilius and Paul of Nisibis in Constantinople (513) held it as mediæ auctoritatis. However, in the sixth century the Greek Church everywhere considered Jude ascanonical.
The recognition of Jude in the Syriac Church is not clear. In Western Syria we find no trace of Jude in the fifth century. In Eastern Syria the Epistle is wanting in the oldest Syriac version, the Peshito, but it is accepted in thePhiloxenian (508) and Heracleon (616) versions. Except among the Syriac Nestorians, there is no trace of anyecclesiastical contradiction from the beginning of the sixth century till the Council of Trent, which defined thecanonicity of both the proto- and deutero-canonical books of the New Testament.
Difficulties arising from the text
The wording of verse 17 — which some critics have taken as an evidence that the Epistle was written in the second century — does not imply that the recipients of the Epistle had, in a period that was past, received oral instructions from all the Apostles, nor does it imply that Jude himself was not an Apostle. The text ton apostolonimplies only that several of the Apostles had predicted to the readers that such "mockers" as are described by the writer would assail the Faith; it is not separation in time, but distance of place, that leads Jude to refer to the scattered Apostles as a body. Nor does he exclude himself from this body, he only declares that he was not one of those prophesying Apostles. The author of II Peter, who often ranks himself among the Apostles, uses a similar expression ton apostolon humon (3:2), and certainly does not mean to imply that he himself was not an Apostle.
Many Protestant scholars have maintained that the false teachers denounced in Jude are Gnostics of the second century. But, as Bigg rightly says: "It is not really a tenable view" (op. cit. infra). St. Jude does not give any details about the errors denounced in this short letter any more than does St. Peter, and there is no ground for identifying the false teachers with any of the Gnostic sects known to us. There is nothing in the references made to false doctrines that obliges us to look beyond the Apostolic times.
The use made of apocryphal writings, even if proved, is not an argument against the Apostolicity of the Epistle; at most it could only invalidate its canonicity and inspiration. Verse 9, which contains the reference concerning the body of Moses, was supposed by Didymus ("Enarr. in Epist. Judæ" in P.G., XXXIX, 1811 sqq.), Clement of Alexandria (Adumbr. in Ep. Judæ), and Origen (De Princ., III, ii, 1), to have been taken from the "Assumption of Moses", which is unquestionably anterior to the Epistle of Jude. Jude may possibly have learned the story of the contest from Jewish tradition. But, at any rate, it is evident that Jude does not quote the "Assumption" as a written authority, and still less as a canonical book.
As regards the prophecy of vv. 14 sq., many Catholic scholars admit it to be a loose and abbreviated citationfrom the apocryphal Book of Henoch, i, 1, 9, which existed a century before St. Jude wrote. But here again St. Jude does not quote Henoch as a canonical book. There is nothing strange, as Plumptre remarks (op. cit. infra, 88), in Jude making use of books not included in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, "as furnishing illustrations that gave point and force to his counsels. The false teachers, against whom he wrote, were characterized largely by their fondness for Jewish fables, and the allusive references to books with which they were familiar, were therefore of the nature of an argumentum ad hominem. He fought them, as it were, with their own weapons." He merely intends to remind his readers of what they know. He does not affirm or teach theliterary origin of the apocryphal book, such is not his intention. He simply makes use of the general knowledge it conveys, just as the mention of the dispute between Michael and the Devil is but an allusion to what is assumedas being known to the readers. By no means, therefore, does either of the passages offer any difficulty against the canonicity of the Epistle, or against the Catholic doctrine of inspiration.
The relation of Jude to the Second Epistle of St. Peter
The resemblance as to thought and language between Jude and II Peter, ii, is quite sufficient to make it certainthat one of the two writers borrowed from the other: the hypothesis that both writers borrowed from a common document must be put aside, as having no support whatsoever. The question remains: Which of the two Epistleswas the earlier? The priority of II Peter, as well as the priority of Jude, has found strong advocates, and much has been written about this intricate question. The following arguments, however, lead to the conclusion that theEpistle of Jude was the earlier of the two:
- It is not uncommon for St. Peter to throw a light on the more obscure passages of the Epistle of Jude, or to interpret the more difficult passages. At one time he puts them in a shorter form or uses more general terms; at another, while adducing in general the same arguments, he adds a new one or omits one or another used in Jude. This shows that St. Peter had probably read the Epistle of St. Jude. Compare especially II Peter, ii, 12, with Jude, 10.
- This may also be confirmed not only by II Peter, i, 17, compared with Jude, 13 — where St. Peter doublesJude's comparison and puts more strength into it, whilst Jude has more similitudes — but also by comparing the style of both, for, whereas the style of Jude is always the same, that of St. Peter differs somewhat from his usual way of writing, and the reasons for this change seem to be the matter he writes about and the influence of the Epistle of St. Jude.
- Finally, is more probable that St. Peter has embodied in his work the text of Jude's Epistle than that Jude should have included in his writing only a part of St. Peter's Epistle. If Jude wrote later than Peter and found the same state of things, why did he omit the remaining questions, e.g. the doubts about the parousiæ? Or why should he, in order to combat the same heretics, give only a summary of St. Peter's Epistle, omitting entirely the strongest arguments?
- Vocabulary and style
Address and good wishes (vv. 1-2), occasion and purpose of the Epistle (3-4).
He inveighs against the pseudo-teachers; describes their life and errors (5-16). They will be severely punished, as is evident from the severe punishment of the unbelieving Israelites in the desert (5), of the wicked angels (6), and of the inhabitants of Sodom (7). He mentions their wicked teaching and life (8), and opposes the modesty ofMichael the Archangel (9) to their pride (10). He foretells for the heretics the punishment of Cain, Balaam, and the sons of Core, for they have imitated their errors (11-3). Enoch has already prophesied the judgment of Godupon them (14-6).
He exhorts the faithful (17-23). They must remember the teaching of the Apostles, by whom they had been warned of the coming of such heretics (17-19). They must maintain the Faith, keep themselves in the love ofGod, and wait for life everlasting (20-21). What their behaviour should he towards Christians that have in any way fallen away (22-23)
A most beautiful doxology (24-25).
The Epistle was occasioned by the spread of the dogmatico-moral errors amongst the Hebrew Christians; pseudo-doctors "are secretly entered in", who abuse Christian liberty to give themselves over to intemperance; moreover "denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (4).
Jude's intention was to caution his readers, the Hebrew Christians, against such depraved teaching, and to exhort them to keep faithfully the teaching of the Apostles.
The dedicatory address runs as follows: tois en Theo patri hegapemenois kai Iesou Christo teteremenois kletois(to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called). Which are the kletoi, or "called", becomes manifest from the context. They are not all the Christians of the whole Christian world, but those of a particular Church (vv. 3, 4, 17, 22). Several commentators think that St. Jude's Epistle was addressed to the same churches of Asia Minor to which St. Peter's Epistle was written. This opinion, according to thesecommentators, is to be held because in both Epistles the same errors are condemned, and also because Jude (v. 17) appears to have known II Peter, and shows that the prophecy of the Prince of the Apostles has been verified. But we have already proved that the second argument is of no value (see above I, 4); as for the first, there are two objections:
- the errors condemned in the Epistle of St. Jude and in II Peter may have spread in countries outside Asia Minor;
- we find in Jude several reasons for believing that the Epistle was addressed, not to the Gentile Christians ofAsia Minor, but to the Hebrew Christians of Palestine or of a neighbouring country.
Place of composition
Here we can only guess, but we prefer the opinion that the Epistle was written in Palestine, and probably in Jerusalem.
Camerlynck, Achille. "Epistle of St. Jude." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 7 Oct. 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08542b.htm>.
St. Simon the Zealot, Apostle
St. Simon is surnamed the Zealot, to distinguish him from St. Peter, and from St. Simeon, the brother of St. James the Less, and his successor in the see of Jerusalem. Many think that St. Simon was called the Zealot, before his coming to Christ, because he was one of that particular sect or party among the Jews called Zealots, from a singular zeal they possessed for the honor of God and the purity of religion.
A party called Zealots were famous in the war of the Jews against the Romans. They were main instruments in instigating the people to shake off the yoke of subjection; they assassinated many of the nobility and others in the streets, filled the temple itself with bloodshed and other horrible profanations, and were the chief cause of the ruin of their country. But no proof is offered by which it is made to appear that any such party existed in our Saviour’s time, though some then maintained that it was not lawful for a Jew to pay taxes to the Romans At least if any then took the name Zealots, they certainly neither followed the impious conduct nor adopted the false and inhuman maxims of those mentioned by Josephus in his history of the Jewish war against the Romans.
St. Simon, after his conversion, was zealous for the honor of his Master, and exact in all the duties of the Christian religion; and showed a pious indignation toward those who professed this holy faith with their mouths, but dishonored it by the irregularity of their lives. No further mention appears of him in the gospels than that he was adopted by Christ into the college of the apostles. With the rest he received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, which he afterwards exercised with great zeal and fidelity.
According to legend this apostle preached in Egypt, Cyrene, and Mauritania, and Persia. The Martyrologies of St. Jerome, Bede, Ado, and Usuard place his martyrdom in Persia, at a city called Suanir. His death is said in these Martyrologies to have been procured by the idolatrous priests. Those who mention the manner of his death say he was crucified. St. Peter’s Church on the Vatican at Rome and the Cathedral of Toulouse are said to possess the chief portions of the relics of St. Simon.
SOURCE : http://www.ucatholic.com/saints/saint-jude-thaddaeus/
Voir aussi : http://christchurchwindsor.ca/2010/10/28/saint-simon-and-saint-jude-apostles-2/