JPII Stations of the Cross

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusEratVerbum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DeusEratVerbum

Guest
What does everyone here think about the “Scriptural Stations of the Cross” that John Paul II invented? He removed the stations which lack a basis in scripture and replaced them with other stations.

Personally, I think it’s silly. Why reinvent the wheel and throw out a thousand years of tradition? I feel like it’s yet another example of the Protestantization of our faith, and has an eire feeling of sola-scriptura. I mean, if it’s now an option to recite these new Stations of the Cross in order to have a 100% scriptural alternative to the real Stations to please Protestants, how long until we have an option to have some new feast day in place of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption?

John Paul II is such an enigma to me, on one hand he was very orthodox with life issue and sexuality. But then he goes out and creates these new Stations of the Cross and creates World Youth Day.
 
Also, one thing I really don’t like about the “Scriptural” way of the cross is that the stations it removes are the most powerful and humanistic stations. Jesus falling. It reminds you that Jesus, while being God, was also HUMAN. Veronica wiping the face of Jesus is also a very powerful station, showing someone’s kind actions in such a sorrowful event.
 
I love John Paul II and think he was great for the Church as he was very kind. I think that he had such a strong desire for unity that sometimes he allowed his kindness to overcome his requirement for standing fast in the faith.

I will pray the JPII Stations of the Cross and we do that at my parish, yet most non-catholics don’t notice the difference, unless they are quite anti-tradition.

I worry because instead of standing for the faith it seems we keep willing to bend it to try and conform it to everyones desire. Instead of being a beacon of light, we are becoming the Church of, how can we please you.

I think that the JPII stations are nice for non-catholics to get an introduction into Catholic devotion and we should rarily use them for only the most hostile non-catholics just to enable them to pray with us. It can be a tool to ease them into opening their hearts, but shouldn’t be used by Catholics in most situations as it disconnects us from our heritage. We need to remember the faith of our fathers.

In Christ
Scylla
 
There have been various versions of the Via Dolorosa used throughout history. The 14 we usually see are relatively new as far as these things go (definitely not a thousand years).

newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm

The one used by John Paul II actually seem to resemble a set from 1799.
 
Genesis315 said:
There have been various versions of the Via Dolorosa used throughout history. The 14 we usually see are relatively new as far as these things go (definitely not a thousand years).

newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm

The one used by John Paul II actually seem to resemble a set from 1799.
Click to expand...
Thank you Genesis that is very interesting and makes me feel a bit better, though I am not sure it was prudent to make introduce a different way to do the Stations, as it seems the faith has been forgotton and twisted so much.

I will read more from that link as it does help show the development of our current practice of the Stations of the Cross.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Genesis315 said:
There have been various versions of the Via Dolorosa used throughout history. The 14 we usually see are relatively new as far as these things go (definitely not a thousand years).

newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm

The one used by John Paul II actually seem to resemble a set from 1799.
Click to expand...
Yes, the one ordered by the Diocese of Vienne in 1799 included 11 Stations:
  1. The Agony in the Garden
  2. The Betrayal by Judas
  3. The Scourging
  4. The Crowning with thorns
  5. Christ is condemned to death
  6. Jesus meets Simon of Cyrene
  7. The women of Jerusalem
  8. Jesus tastes the gall
  9. Jesus is nailed to the Cross
  10. Jesus dies on the Cross
  11. Jesus’ body is taken down from the Cross.
As an aside, one interesting fact is: in the Middle Ages, Jesus was said to have fell seven times, thus, there was also this devotion called the devotion to the Seven Falls of Jesus (regarded as an ancestor of the present Stations of the Cross). Plus the numbers of the Stations varied then; as few as 12 and as many as 37!

In our present Stations, four of these three falls have become the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Stations, respectively (Jesus meets His mother, Simon of Cyrene, Veronica, and the Women of Jerusalem).
 
saint_rafael said:
It is an abomination. The 14 stations of the cross go back in tradition for centuries.

This article gets it right:

traditioninaction.org/religious/m017rpWYDChange.html
Click to expand...
Yes, it most certainly is an abomination that we should consider what the Gospels tell us about Christ’s passion and death.

Oh, and centuries (plural) means more than one century. So if the 14 stations goes back to the 1800s, or shock of shocks, even the 1700s, why then it must be an abomination. Imagine, giving up folklore for facts! How utterly untraditional! How horrible! Why, it might even be sinful!
 
Did he intend for his Scriptural Stations of the Cross to replace the regular Stations of the Cross? If not, then I don’t see what could be wrong with it.

Even if he did, the Stations of the Cross is a devotion that was created by the Church, which means the Church has the authority to change it or even get rid of it. I wouldn’t support either decision, but I accept that the Church has the authority to do that. It’s the same with the rosary. Pope John Paul II asked people to mediate on the Luminous Mysteries. He was changing a devotion, which can be changed, and it wasn’t a mandatory change at that. The Rosary Confraternity, of which I am a member, asks people to meditate on them, but doesn’t require it. All that is required is the 15 original mysteries.

But, assuming that Pope John Paul II simply wanted to create a variation on the Stations of the Cross, that would not seek to replace the the original but simply provide another option, I don’t see what the problem would be. I’m not saying anyone HAS to use that version of the Stations of the Cross, but I would have no problem with a person choosing to meditate on the Scriptural accounts of the Lord’s Passion.
 
The Stations of the Cross that we have grown up with are not the original stations. The Stations of the Cross that we grew up with were put together by St. Francis of Assisi between 1209 and 1223. No one knows for sure exactly the date. His reason for creating them was to help the faithful pray and recall the passion of Christ during at time in the history of the world where most people did not read and printing presses were not yet available.

Therefore, the stations had to be short so that people could remember them. At the same time that he created the Stations of the Cross that have been in use for 800 years he also created the Christmas pageant, the Christmas crib, put the tabernacle in the center of the Church, changed the homily from Latin to the local language, and took Gregorian chant out of all Frranciscan liturgies.

He was able to do this, because none of these were dogmas of the Church. Through the centuries, it has been the Franciscans who have been responsible for developing different versions of the Statons of the Cross.

The Scriptural Stations of the Cross were not developed by John Paul II by by the Capuchin Franciscans who are the official preachers to the Papal household. John Paul liked them and adopted them. They have been in use by the Capuchin Franciscans for more than 100 years. John Paul simply introduced them to the public sector.

Actually, the Franciscans have developed more than 50 different variations to the stations of the cross since the order was founded in 1209.

The stations that existed before 1209 have long been in disuse. Since they are not liturgy, but sacramentals, Francis did not need the Holy Sees approval to rewrite them in the form that was used during the last 800 years.

The Church borrowed several innovations from him and his order and still continues to do so, because his Capuchin-Franciscan Friars have been the official preachers to the papal house since the 1500s. That’s why they still preach the Good Friday service in the Vatican. It’s usually a priest or brother who preaches the service, but it must be a Capuchin-Franciscan, because Good Friday celebrations were enhanced by them. They not only organized the Stations into a systematic form, but they also introduced the veneration of the cross into the Good Friday liturgy. This did not exist in the Church until the founding of the order. There were the readings and the prayers. The communion on Good Friday came much later.

As you see, the Holy Father John Paul II did not introduce anything new into the Church. He took what our Holy Father Francis had left to the Church and brought it into the public arena.

JR 🙂
 
And let us keep in mind that every tradition, no matter how ancient, has a beginning and a development. I suspect that should the temporal order persist for another 1,000 years a few traditions will be traceable to the pontificate of JP II.

JSA+
 
DeusEratVerbum said:
What does everyone here think about the “Scriptural Stations of the Cross” that John Paul II invented? He removed the stations which lack a basis in scripture and replaced them with other stations.

y.
Click to expand...
what is your objection to meditations based on Gospel accounts of the Passion?
do you think Protestants have a lock on the bible so any Catholic devotion with a biblical basis is suspect?

what is your objection to world youth day?
 
DeusEratVerbum said:
Personally, I think it’s silly. Why reinvent the wheel and throw out a thousand years of tradition? I feel like it’s yet another example of the Protestantization of our faith, and has an eire feeling of sola-scriptura. I mean, if it’s now an option to recite these new Stations of the Cross in order to have a 100% scriptural alternative to the real Stations to please Protestants, how long until we have an option to have some new feast day in place of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption?
Click to expand...
As a former protestant, I get really tired of the knee-jerk reactions that blame every change they don’t personally like as a “protestantization” of the faith, or accusing it of being done to “please” protestants. How do you know it isn’t being done to please the Catholics?

And how on earth is meditating on a scriptural stations protestant?? I am continually amazed at the depth and breadth of scripture used in the Catholic church - from the mass to the LOH (the prayer of the church). The writings of the saints are full of it. Scripture is as much a part of Catholic tradition - even more so - than all the private devotions that some want to elevate almost to the level of doctrine.

If you don’t like the scriptural stations, don’t meditate on them. They’re not required. The “traditional” stations aren’t required, either. But stop calling them protestant, because they aren’t. Meditation and contemplation exercises like the stations of the cross are virtually non-existent in the protestant world.
 
puzzleannie said:
what is your objection to meditations based on Gospel accounts of the Passion?
do you think Protestants have a lock on the bible so any Catholic devotion with a biblical basis is suspect?

what is your objection to world youth day?
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no objection to meditations on Gospel accounts of the Passion. What I have a problem with is the trend toward Sola-Scriptura going on in the Catholic Church right now.
 
DeusEratVerbum said:
I have absolutely no objection to meditations on Gospel accounts of the Passion. What I have a problem with is the trend toward Sola-Scriptura going on in the Catholic Church right now.
Click to expand...
There is no trend in the Church going to Sola Scriptura. That is only in your mind. The Church has always based a major portion of its teaching and knowledge on Scripture; it is one of the two founding pilars, the other being Tradition.
 
  1. Devotion to the passion of the Lord has been a tradition of the Chruch for centuries.
  2. As others have said, there is nothing contrary to Catholic faith to use the scriptures in the stations.
  3. The Scriptures have been a source of the contemplative life and even the mystical life of the Judeo-Christian tradtion for more than six centuries. Many men and women have come great saints and mystics by reflecting on the scriptures, especially the passion.
  4. Reflection on the scriptues regarding the passion has been a source of inspiration for such great religious traditions as the Franciscans, Passionists, Redemptorists, Crosiers, Missionaries of Charity, Jesuits and many others.
  5. The Liturgy of the Hours is, which is real liturgy not a set of prayers, is completely taken from the scriptures. Every part is scriptural. This does not mean scripturally based, but the actual words of scripture. This is the only recognized official prayer of the Church along with the Eucharist. So why the reaction to meditating on the scriptural narrative of the passion?
  6. The Stations of the Cross as we know them were created by St. Francis of Assisi in the 13th century and promoted by the Friars Minor for centuries. The Franciscans have developed over 50 variations of the Sations of the Cross, more than 20 variations during the 20th century.
  7. The stations of the cross that Pope John II preferred were not created by him. They were created by the Capuchin Franciscan Friars Minor and have been in use by the friars since the 1500s. It just happens that the chaplains to the Papal household by tradition must be Capuchin Franciscan Brothers. They are the official preachers to the house and one of the friars has been the official papal confessor since the 1500s. There is not surprise that John Paul II would be greately infuenced by the Capuchin Friars.
  8. Obviously there is nothing new here. It is just a form of the stations that has not been well known to the public, except those who belong to Capuchin Franciscan parishes or fraternities.
Having been educated by the Capuchin Franciscans all my life I had the pleasure of have as professor, Friar Edwin Dorzweiller, OFM Cap of the Capuchin Franciscan Province of St. Augustin in Pittsburgh, PA. Friar Edwin wrote and published at least 10 forms of the stations of the cross that were distributed to many of the Order’s houses and ministries in the USA and the Caribbean.

I suggest that people relax and let this go. It’s not a big deal. In fact, it’s a beautiful way of meditating on the passion.

JR 🙂
 
DeusEratVerbum said:
What does everyone here think about the “Scriptural Stations of the Cross” that John Paul II invented?..Why reinvent the wheel and throw out a thousand years of tradition? I feel like it’s yet another example of the Protestantization of our faith…how long until we have an option to have some new feast day in place of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption?
Click to expand...
Hey Deus, welcome to the forums.

Since you asked, I think they are just fine. The Stations of the Cross are not Doctrine or Dogma or Discipline. They are Devotions and if the Holy Father wants to compose a new set of prayers and give them to us as another weapon in our arsenal against evil, I thank him for that. I don’t see anything to get my panties all in a wad about.

Just a quick piece of advice: Remember to bend your knees when you land, cause that’s a huge jump you make from the Pope composing some new prayers to the removal of the two most Holy Marian feast days from the calendar.
 
I am not opposed to change and for my point of view, it doesn’t matter when or who composed a different version of the Stations of the Cross. Of course scripture is fine.

What my problem would be and its being discussed in another thread is the reasons for using it for WYD 2008 in Sydney so as not to offend the non-Catholics.

Let me use an example. In the Rosary, you have the joyful, sorrowful, glorious and luminous mysteries. Say its become custom for the past few centuries, to say the Sorrowful mysteries on Holy Thursday. Then a Bishop involved with a youth activity says we should say the joyful mysteries instead of the sorrowful mysteries because it might offend the non-catholics.

Now doesn’t that change things a little? It may seem a little thing, but as its said in the Bible, “If you can’t do the little things, how can you do the big things…”

Just something to consider…
 
childofmary1143 said:
I am not opposed to change and for my point of view, it doesn’t matter when or who composed a different version of the Stations of the Cross. Of course scripture is fine.

What my problem would be and its being discussed in another thread is the reasons for using it for WYD 2008 in Sydney so as not to offend the non-Catholics.

Let me use an example. In the Rosary, you have the joyful, sorrowful, glorious and luminous mysteries. Say its become custom for the past few centuries, to say the Sorrowful mysteries on Holy Thursday. Then a Bishop involved with a youth activity says we should say the joyful mysteries instead of the sorrowful mysteries because it might offend the non-catholics.

Now doesn’t that change things a little? It may seem a little thing, but as its said in the Bible, “If you can’t do the little things, how can you do the big things…”

Just something to consider…
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am not reading your note correctly; are you suggesting that we should intentionally offend Protestants? Or that, knowing that Protestants may be attending an event, that we should intentionally do something that is less scripturally based than something that is more scripturally based, knowing that the former is likely to offend? Or that in the choice between doing two things that are scripturally based, we should do one that we may feel is more likely to offend, than an alternative we already have that is less likely to offend?

I am not sure I am reading your post correctly, but I get the feeling that your postion is that if they want to attend, fine; but we are going to do it the way we always have whether it offends them or not.

It is not as if anyone is suggesting that the Liturgy be changed, and that is not my position at all. But if a private prayer such as the Stations of the Cross is done on a scriptural basis or the Mysteries of the Rosary are said with one set of Mysteries instead of another, is that an accomodation to someone else that is in the least threatening? Neither of them are Articles of Faith. Both of them are a point of common ground based in Scripture. What is the cause of the upset?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top