Sts Simon of Trent, William of Norwich and Hugh of Lincoln

  • Thread starter Thread starter HashemEchad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HashemEchad

Guest
I tried asking this on the Ask an Apologist board, but got no replies.

Can anyone tell me if the Catholic church ever removed these alleged saints from the list of canonized saints?

The historical information we now have shows that they were canonized during false blood libels directed against the Jewish people in the Middle Ages, in which Jews were falsely accused of needing/using the blood of Christian children to make Passover matza (anyone who knows Judaism, knows that Jews are actually forbidden from eating ANY manner of blood, for ANY reason.)
 
I tried asking this on the Ask an Apologist board, but got no replies.

Can anyone tell me if the Catholic church ever removed these alleged saints from the list of canonized saints?

The historical information we now have shows that they were canonized during false blood libels directed against the Jewish people in the Middle Ages, in which Jews were falsely accused of needing/using the blood of Christian children to make Passover matza (anyone who knows Judaism, knows that Jews are actually forbidden from eating ANY manner of blood, for ANY reason.)
Is there proof that these three had anything do to with these superstitions?
 
Is there proof that these three had anything do to with these superstitions?
I just answered my own question. A quick google shows that:

Simon: In 1965, in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church began to reinvestigate the story of “little Simon” and opened the trial records anew. Finally declaring the episode a fraud,citation needed] the cult of Simon was suppressed by Pope Paul VIcitation needed] and the shrine erected to him was dismantled.citation needed] He was removed from the calendar, and his future veneration was forbidden,citation needed] but some traditionalist Catholics ignored this suppression and continue to venerate him. [4]

Nothing in the wiki is said about the other two being removed from the calendar.
 
Any site can call itself a Catholic site. Doesn’t make it one. There are plenty of other so-called Catholic sites that (if you have the stomach to check them out thoroughly) do not recognize the current Pope as their leader, or claim that a Catholic teaching such as only males can be priests can be ‘changed’, etc. I doubt that you would accept it if some anonymous person started what he or she claimed as a Jewish website and made all sorts of false claims that Jews believed this or that, would you? What would you say then if somebody asked you, “Well, the site SAYS it is a Jewish site, doesn’t it?” Wouldn’t you, as a Jewish person who knows the correct Jewish teaching, repudiate a site which claimed to be Jewish and gave false teaching? Well, we as Catholics can do the same–we know true teaching and can repudiate a site which teaches falsely.

According to this Wiki article while Simon was ‘venerated’ at one time, he was never canonized. IOW, never a saint.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Trent

As far as the others, William of Norwich and Hugh of Lincoln, one must consider the times, the cultures, etc. and that the concept of discerning (not making) a saint did not rest on whether or not the death was a result of a falsely claimed ‘blood guilt’ but on the revelation of the Holy Spirit and the soul of the saint himself.

IOW, suppose that a good and holy person happened to be killed. The authorities found the supposed killer, tried and convicted him, and the good, holy person was revealed by the Holy Spirit to be a saint in heaven.

Then–suddenly new evidence came out that a cop had FRAMED the supposed killer, and that the good and holy person had actually died a natural death and not been killed.

Do we ‘invalidate the sainthood’ because this was no longer a ‘martyr’s death?’ NO. One cannot ‘invalidate’ a revelation of the Spirit, and the Spirit does not make mistakes. One does not HAVE TO BE A MARTYR to be a saint. So those who were truly canonized were done so not because of a ‘false blood claim’ but because they died as truly holy and are in heaven.

Do you understand?

After all, Catholics, other Christians, even Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, pagans and Jews as well etc. have no ‘monopoly’ (all being ‘fallible humans’) on committing sin, grave sin. . .and not simply by virtue of the religion they claim to profess, either.

God knows that both our late John Paul II as well as our current Benedict XVI–not to mention countless other cardinals, bishops, priests, AND lay people–have not only apologized for our own personal offenses in charity but for those which took place in past times.

Are you ready to do the same?
 
:confused:
I have a book from the 1950s which lists all the Catholic saints, and he is listed in there. There is also a Catholic website about him. He is supposed to have been canonized by Pope Sixtus V:

stsimonoftrent.com
Any website that uses the term “Racist Zionist Mafia” should lose a few points on the credibility scale.
 
Thanks to everyone who got the answers for me, I was curious because I didn’t know if the church had ever removed them or not.
 
I have a book from the 1950s which lists all the Catholic saints, and he is listed in there.

And can you give us the bibliographic information on this book? (Title, Author, Publisher, Place, Date, and who gave it Imprimatur, if anyone did, and such). What exactly does it say about Simon of Trent?
 
I have a book from the 1950s which lists all the Catholic saints, and he is listed in there.

And can you give us the bibliographic information on this book? (Title, Author, Publisher, Place, Date, and who gave it Imprimatur, if anyone did, and such). What exactly does it say about Simon of Trent?
I’ll try to find it for you, I think it was called Dictionary of the Saints, or something like that. I’ll get back to you with the title and publisher.
 
:confused:

Any website that uses the term “Racist Zionist Mafia” should lose a few points on the credibility scale.
I noticed that too. The site also links to a related page which “unmasks” Talmud.

By “unmasking” it takes a bunch of unrelated snippets out of context, encouraging the gullible to scapegoat Jews for various social problems.

I hope that no Catholics (or anyone else, in this day and age) take this nonsense seriously.
 
I noticed that too. The site also links to a related page which “unmasks” Talmud.

By “unmasking” it takes a bunch of unrelated snippets out of context, encouraging the gullible to scapegoat Jews for various social problems.

I hope that no Catholics (or anyone else, in this day and age) take this nonsense seriously.
I didn’t see all that when I went to the site (though I do believe its there!) I just saw the Simon of Trent intro information.
 
I didn’t see all that when I went to the site (though I do believe its there!) I just saw the Simon of Trent intro information.
Well, it’s entertaining, in the same sort of way that an earthquake or train wreck would be. The site looks like it was designed in a lunatic asylum, and every link just takes you to someplace that’s worse.

I’ve seen inane stuff like this many times, but I’ve never seen it presented this way, with Christian symbols and links that encourage the reader to “tell your Catholic friends about this site!” It’s really somethin’.

Is this the interpretation of Catholicism that Mel Gibson adheres to? I wonder if that has something to do with his proclivity for blaming “the Jews” for his inability to drive sober.
 
Well, it’s entertaining, in the same sort of way that an earthquake or train wreck would be. The site looks like it was designed in a lunatic asylum, and every link just takes you to someplace that’s worse.

I’ve seen inane stuff like this many times, but I’ve never seen it presented this way, with Christian symbols and links that encourage the reader to “tell your Catholic friends about this site!” It’s really somethin’.

Is this the interpretation of Catholicism that Mel Gibson adheres to? I wonder if that has something to do with his proclivity for blaming “the Jews” for his inability to drive sober.
There are, sadly, kooks in all religions. I’m sure I could find some kooky Jewish ones too if I looked hard enough. :eek:
 
The 1956 edition of Butler’s Lives of the Saints mentions all three Saints, but suggests that the stories of Sts. Simon, William, and ‘Little Hugh’ were at best blood libels with no real substantiation at all; and, at worst, were murders performed by maniacs who only happened to be Jewish. St. Hugh of Lincoln is cited as having been an ardent opponent of Jew-baiting, and not an anti-Semite.

The website referenced was so conspicuously an anti-Semitic website that I am astonished that any person of good will would suggest that anyone on this forum would have anything good to say about it.

bpbasilphx: for your benefit, my copy of The Lives of the Saints was originally republished by Burns and Oates, London, in 1956; reprinted in 1980 by Christian Classics, Inc., PO Box 30, Westminster MD., 21157. It holds a Nihil Obstat by Patricus Morris STD LSS Deputy Censor; and an Imprimatur by E. Morrogh Bernard, Vicar General of Westmonasteri. Date for these is shown as XXIII February MCMLIII–sorry but I don’t remember my Roman numerals well enough to decipher the date better than that.

It shoud be kept in mind that Mel Gibson’s father is the one who belongs to the anti-Semitic traditionalist group. Mel may have absorbed some of his father’s attitudes, sadly. This does not detract from Mel Gibson’s accomplishments in the Passion of the Christ. This was a truly great movie about the sufferings of our Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top