St. Jude
At the Last Supper he asked the question nobody else asked: why show yourself to us and not to the world? It is the question of anyone who has ever wondered why God is not simply obvious, and it is the only sentence of his that survives.
Canonized
NO DATES ARE RECORDED FOR HIM HERE, AND THAT IS THE SOURCES SPEAKING RATHER THAN A GAP IN THE RESEARCH. Not a birth year, not a death year, not a place of death, not a manner of death. Benedict XVI says of him and Simon together that “there is very little information about them, apart from the fact that the New Testament Canon preserves one Letter attributed to Jude Thaddaeus”, and of Jude on his own that “Very little about him has come down to us.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, which has no article on the apostle at all, says in the article on his Epistle: “Beyond this we find no further information concerning Jude in the New Testament”. Widely told stories of where he preached and how he died are not in any document held here, and the record does not repeat them.
Jude was one of the twelve apostles, and almost nothing about him has come down to us. He appears in all four lists of the Twelve in the New Testament, and the lists do not agree on what to call him. Matthew and Mark call him Thaddaeus. Luke calls him Jude of James. Tradition joined the two and made him Jude Thaddaeus.
The name is the first difficulty, and Pope Benedict XVI dealt with it in his opening sentence when he spoke about him in 2006: Jude Thaddaeus, “not to be confused with Judas Iscariot”. Jude and Judas are the same name. In Italian there is not even a difference in spelling. The apostle who asked a question at the Last Supper and the apostle who left it to betray Jesus were both called Giuda.
The question is the one thing of his own that survives. John alone records it. Jesus had said that he would show himself to those who loved him, and Jude asked: “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us and not to the world?” It is a fair question and a modern one — why is God not simply obvious to everybody? Jesus did not answer it the way it was asked. He said that anyone who loved him would keep his word, and that he and the Father would come to that person and make their home with him.
A short, fierce letter near the end of the New Testament has been attributed to Jude since early times. It warns Christians against teachers who used God's mercy as an excuse for doing as they liked, and it ends with a blessing that is one of the most beautiful things in the Bible.
Where he went afterwards, and how he died, no document behind this record says. He is kept with Simon on 28 October.
State of life
apostle
Themes
hidden work · questions and study · trust
Benedict XVI, General Audience on Simon and Jude (2006)
- THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA HAS NO ARTICLE ON THIS APOSTLE, WHICH IS WHY THIS RECORD LEANS ON ONE PAPAL DOCUMENT MORE HEAVILY THAN MOST. Its J index lists four entries in his neighbourhood and none of them is him: “Judas Iscariot”, “Judas Machabeus”, “Jude, Epistle of Saint” and “Judea”. There is no Thaddeus entry in the T index and no Lebbaeus in the L index. What is held instead is the article on his Epistle, which carries a section about who he was; the article on Simon the Apostle, who does have one of his own; the article on the Brethren of the Lord, where the identification is argued; and Benedict XVI’s General Audience of 11 October 2006, which treats him and Simon together and is the closest thing to a life of him that exists here. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08542b.htm
- WHETHER HE IS THE JUDE WHO WROTE THE LETTER, AND THE JUDE CALLED A BROTHER OF THE LORD, IS AN ARGUMENT AND NOT A FACT — AND BOTH SOURCES SAY SO THEMSELVES. The encyclopedia builds the case and marks every join. On the letter-writer being an apostle: “Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the “Judas Jacobi”… also called Thaddeus”, and then, plainly, “If this identification is proved, it is clear that Jude, the author of the Epistle, was reckoned among the Twelve Apostles. This opinion is most highly probable.” On the James in question being James the Less: “This last identification, however, is not evident, nor, from a critical point of view, does it seem beyond all doubt.” Its article on the Brethren of the Lord argues the grammar: “It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother’s name instead of his father’s, when the brother was better known.” THIS RECORD REPORTS THE ARGUMENT AND DOES NOT DECIDE IT. It says he was one of the Twelve, which every source holds, and it does not say he was a brother of the Lord or that the Letter is certainly his. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm
- THE TWO PAPAL EDITIONS DO NOT RENDER LUKE’S PHRASE THE SAME WAY, AND THE DIFFERENCE IS THE WHOLE IDENTIFICATION IN MINIATURE. Luke’s Greek names him with a bare genitive — Jude, of James — which can mean son of James or brother of James and does not say which. THE ITALIAN EDITION KEEPS IT OPEN: “Luca lo chiama “Giuda di Giacomo” (Lc 6,16; At 1,13)”. THE ENGLISH EDITION CLOSES IT: “Luke calls him “Judas, the son of James” (Lk 6: 16; Acts 1: 13)”. And the encyclopedia closes it the other way, in three separate articles: the one on his Epistle renders “Judas Jacobi” as “Jude, the brother of James” in the Douay Version; the one on the Brethren of the Lord gives “Jude the brother of James” and argues the grammar; and the one on James the Less, held under another slug, gives “Judas Jacobi”, the “brother of James” a third time. So the record’s two sources appear to contradict each other in English and do not contradict each other at all: the pope’s own edition declines to choose. THIS RECORD DECLINES TOO. It prints Luke’s phrase as Jude of James, which is what the Italian has and what the Greek has. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061011.html
- HIS NAMES, AND THE ONE EVERY READER ARRIVES WITH. Benedict XVI’s first sentence does the work: he is speaking about “Simon the Cananaean and Jude Thaddaeus (not to be confused with Judas Iscariot)”, and the Italian edition puts it the same way — “Simone il Cananeo e Giuda Taddeo (da non confondere con Giuda Iscariota)”. Jude and Judas are one name; the Italian does not even spell them differently. On the second name: tradition calls him Jude Thaddaeus, “combining two different names”, since Matthew and Mark call him “simply “Thaddaeus””, and the nickname “is of uncertain origin and is explained either as coming from the Aramaic, taddà’, which means “breast” and would therefore suggest “magnanimous”, or as an abbreviation of a Greek name, such as “Teodòro, Teòdoto”. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061011.html
- THE ONE THING OF HIS OWN THAT SURVIVES IS A QUESTION, AND A POPE SPENDS THREE PARAGRAPHS ON IT. Benedict XVI: “Very little about him has come down to us. John alone mentions a question he addressed to Jesus at the Last Supper: Thaddaeus says to the Lord: “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us and not to the world?”.” He then makes it the reader’s question rather than a historical curiosity: “This is a very timely question which we also address to the Lord: why did not the Risen One reveal himself to his enemies in his full glory in order to show that it is God who is victorious?” And he gives the answer as Jesus gave it, which is not a direct one: “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him”. Benedict XVI’s reading is that “the Risen One must be seen, must be perceived also by the heart, in a way so that God may take up his abode within us.” https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061011.html
- THE LETTER IS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM, AND THE TWO HELD PAPAL DOCUMENTS DO NOT SAY IT WITH THE SAME CONFIDENCE. In the 2006 audience Benedict XVI hedges: “The paternity of one of those New Testament Letters known as “catholic”… has been attributed to Jude Thaddaeus.” In his homily of 29 September 2007 he says it flat, locating the archangel Michael in Scripture “above all in the Book of Daniel, in the Letter of the Apostle St Jude Thaddeus and in the Book of Revelation”. The encyclopedia is on the confident side too, though it reaches it by argument rather than assertion. THE DIVERGENCE IS REPORTED AND NOT RESOLVED: this record says the Letter has been attributed to him since early times, which is what every source supports, and does not say the attribution is settled. On the Letter itself Benedict XVI is unhedged: it warns against those “who make a pretext of God’s grace to excuse their own licentiousness”, and it ends with what he calls “these most beautiful words”. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061011.html
- THE FEAST IS 28 OCTOBER AND IT IS A JOINT ENTRY, which is unusual in this corpus and is the reason two apostles share a day. The universal calendar held here, published by the Liturgy Office of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, prints “Ss Simon and Jude, Apostles” against 28 in October and grades it “feast” — the highest of the three grades, above memorial. The United States bishops’ calendars for both 2026 and 2027 corroborate the day, the grade and the wording: “Saints Simon and Jude, Apostles”, Feast. Benedict XVI, greeting pilgrims on 27 October 2010, refers to it as the Church keeps it: “tomorrow we shall be celebrating the Feast of the Apostles St Simon and St Jude Thaddeus.” https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/Universal/OctUC.shtml
- HE IS CALLED THE PATRON OF HOPELESS CAUSES ALMOST EVERYWHERE, AND NOTHING HELD HERE SUPPORTS IT — NOT AS AN ACT, NOT AS A PAPAL USE, NOT EVEN AS A DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVOTION. SCOPE OF THE CHECK, run on 2 September 2026: every document held for this record was searched for “patron”, in both editions of the audience and in all four encyclopedia articles. The word occurs exactly ONCE in the whole set and it is about Simon, not him — “He is regarded as the patron of tanners.” The Holy See’s own search was then run over vatican.va in ASCII, in English, Italian and Spanish, aimed both at the title itself and at an act. The phrasings: “patron of hopeless causes”, “patron of desperate cases”, “patron of lost causes”, “patron of impossible causes”, “patron of the impossible”, “patrono delle cause impossibili”, “patrono dei casi disperati”, “patrono delle cause disperate”, “patrono degli impossibili”, “patrono de las causas imposibles”, “Jude, patron”, “patron Jude”, “Thaddaeus, patron”, “patrono Giuda” and “Giuda Taddeo, patrono” returned nothing whatever, every one of them. The bare phrases, run without his name and for anybody at all — “hopeless causes” and “cause impossibili” — returned nothing either, in English or Italian. There is no declaring act, no pope using the title, and no reference work here describing the devotion.
- WHAT BELONGS TO SIMON AND NOT TO HIM. The encyclopedia has an article on Simon the Apostle and none on Jude, and the Simon article carries the mission, the martyrdom, the relics and the patronage that popular accounts hand to both men. NONE OF IT IS SAID OF JUDE ANYWHERE IN IT. On the mission and death: “according to the Latin “Passio Simonis et Judae”… Simon laboured in Persia, and was there martyred at Suanir. However, Suanir is probably to be sought in Colchis.” On the relics: “Concerning his relics our information is as uncertain as concerning his preaching. From Babylon to Rome and Toulouse we find traces of them; at Rome they are venerated under the Altar of the Crucifixion in the Vatican.” On the patronage: “He is regarded as the patron of tanners.” Each of those sentences has Simon as its subject. This record gives Jude no mission field, no manner of death, no burial place and no relics, because no held document gives him any. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13796b.htm
- TWO FIELDS ARE EMPTY HERE THAT A READER MIGHT EXPECT TO BE FULL, and both are the sources’ doing. NO HARDSHIP IS RECORDED. Every document held for this record was searched, when this was checked on 2 September 2026, for anything answering to what he had to carry — persecution, imprisonment, poverty, illness, opposition, doubt — and there is nothing. Benedict XVI’s audience is about his names, his one question and his Letter; the encyclopedia articles are about a text, about Simon, and about a family argument. NO PLACE IS RECORDED EITHER. Not a birthplace, not a home town, not a mission field. The encyclopedia locates his Letter — “we prefer the opinion that the Epistle was written in Palestine, and probably in Jerusalem” — but that places a document, and only if the Letter is his.