Stations of the Cross

[Balance]

It is not a legend. I want to vomit. It is unbelievable that we can have Catholics this uncatechized. St. Veronica wiping the face of Jesus is part of the oral tradition of the Church that makes up the Big T tradition, the Sacred Tradition. St. Veronica is canonized. The Church canonizes real people who are part of history.

Oral Tadition is big T tradition because it is the word of God. We call the written tradition the Bible.
To state that St. Veronica is not part of Sacred Tradition is to basically have a Protestantized faith.

Maybe your (dramatic) nausea is caused by a misunderstanding. I’m wondering if you’re thinking that I’m saying the story of Veronica is just that, a made-up story.
It is a legend in the sense that it is a story that has been passed down, as you say, orally. Because it took its place in the widely used Stations of the Cross that most of us know, and there are historical references to it, it could be quite likely that it is not just a legend, a pious story that is edifying for our faith, but is in fact true - or that parts of it are true at least. If it’s not true, however, it matters not a jot. Your faith and mine would not be shaken in the slightest if somehow it was proved that this story is *simply *a legend. Just as if, say, the Shroud of Turin was proved to be a fake: our faith doesn’t depend, can’t depend, on these things.

Let’s be quite clear on which oral traditions make up Sacred Tradition, and which do not. Legends like Veronica’s comforting Christ during his Passion are, as you say, part of the oral tradition (that is, the wealth of stories and legends that give a measure colour and vitality to our history) of the Church, part of this rich and vibrant faith we have, but the Church makes no definitive comment on whether or not they actually happened.

You say “Oral Tadition is big T tradition because it is the word of God. We call the written tradition the Bible.”
The Bible is oral tradition written down, and then later discerned as the Word of God, isn’t it? Other oral traditions (that is, essential elements of our faith) were passed down by the Apostles to their successors. Don’t confuse these oral traditions with all the countless other stories about the early days of the Church that were also passed down.

 

[Balance]

I don’t know what you’re hoping to prove by this.

If you go to France, both Angers Cathedral and Amiens Cathedral have (or have had in the past) relics which are (were) claimed to be the head of John the Baptist. Since I’m presuming St John only had the one head, one or other of 'em is (was) wrong.

I don’t know that he was “hoping to prove” anything - it seems to me he was just adding some interesting information to the discussion.

 

[Balance]

To state that St. Veronica is not part of Sacred Tradition is to basically have a Protestantized faith.

No, actually, that’s having a Catholic faith. That is, a faith that recognises that the Church has the authority to tell us those things we must believe and those things we are free to believe or not, as our reason leads us. A faith that isn’t disturbed by the Pope using a different set of Stations than the one we are used to. A faith that recognises that, while Christ founded a Church which gives us great security and foundation, there’s a lot, like the story of Veronica, we just don’t know for sure. And that doesn’t worry us, because we realise that there are some things we don’t *need *to know for sure. Right?

 

[PrayforMallory]

Maybe your (dramatic) nausea is caused by a misunderstanding. I’m wondering if you’re thinking that I’m saying the story of Veronica is just that, a made-up story.
It is a legend in the sense that it is a story that has been passed down, as you say, orally. Because it took its place in the widely used Stations of the Cross that most of us know, and there are historical references to it, it could be quite likely that it is not just a legend, a pious story that is edifying for our faith, but is in fact true - or that parts of it are true at least. If it’s not true, however, it matters not a jot. Your faith and mine would not be shaken in the slightest if somehow it was proved that this story is *simply *a legend. Just as if, say, the Shroud of Turin was proved to be a fake: our faith doesn’t depend, can’t depend, on these things.

Let’s be quite clear on which oral traditions make up Sacred Tradition, and which do not. Legends like Veronica’s comforting Christ during his Passion are, as you say, part of the oral tradition (that is, the wealth of stories and legends that give a measure colour and vitality to our history) of the Church, part of this rich and vibrant faith we have, but the Church makes no definitive comment on whether or not they actually happened.

You say “Oral Tadition is big T tradition because it is the word of God. We call the written tradition the Bible.”
The Bible is oral tradition written down, and then later discerned as the Word of God, isn’t it? Other oral traditions (that is, essential elements of our faith) were passed down by the Apostles to their successors. Don’t confuse these oral traditions with all the countless other stories about the early days of the Church that were also passed down.

Even if it’s not infallible, I don’t understand getting rid of it. It’s an awesome image. Of course it’s not vital, but neither is a Gothic arch. Still a wonderful thing, though.

Do you guys think the urge to get rid of it is to appear more appeasing to Protestants?

 

[Balance]

Even if it’s not infallible, I don’t understand getting rid of it. It’s an awesome image. Of course it’s not vital, but neither is a Gothic arch. Still a wonderful thing, though.

Do you guys think the urge to get rid of it is to appear more appeasing to Protestants?

It’s not a matter of “getting rid of it”. The newer version is simply another option. No-one is saying it supplants the older one.

Do I think this scripture-based version is designed “to appear more appeasing to Protestants”? No. I think it’s designed to appeal to Catholics.

 

[PrayforMallory]

It’s not a matter of “getting rid of it”. The newer version is simply another option. No-one is saying it supplants the older one.

Do I think this scripture-based version is designed “to appear more appeasing to Protestants”? No. I think it’s designed to appeal to Catholics.

So what aspects of it in particular will appeal more to Catholics? I would think the St. Veronica image would, since it pertains to a Catholic relic, i.e. the Shroud of Turin, right?

 

[LilyM]

So what aspects of it in particular will appeal more to Catholics? I would think the St. Veronica image would, since it pertains to a Catholic relic, i.e. the Shroud of Turin, right?

Actually it has nothing to do with the Shroud. The Shroud is clearly His burial shroud, having an image of His WHOLE body, which isn’t the same thing as the veil Veronica used when she wiped His face.

Now there is a separate facecloth, otherwise known as the sudarium or mandylion (it’s said to be held in one of the Cathedrals of Spain), which ONLY has an image of His face. Whether that is the same thing as Veronica’s veil or just the normal facecloth which was always placed over the face of a corpse prior to burial, isn’t known.

 

[Balance]

So what aspects of it in particular will appeal more to Catholics? I would think the St. Veronica image would, since it pertains to a Catholic relic, i.e. the Shroud of Turin, right?

I’m not following your questions, especially the second one. Can you re-state them?

 

[PrayforMallory]

Actually it has nothing to do with the Shroud. The Shroud is clearly His burial shroud, having an image of His WHOLE body, which isn’t the same thing as the veil Veronica used when she wiped His face.

Now there is a separate facecloth, otherwise known as the sudarium or mandylion (it’s said to be held in one of the Cathedrals of Spain), which ONLY has an image of His face. Whether that is the same thing as Veronica’s veil or just the normal facecloth which was always placed over the face of a corpse prior to burial, isn’t known.

Oh ok. I can’t believe I made that error!

The Sudarium sounds neat.

 

[cothrige]

The canonisation of St Veronica was done well before the days when it was a Papal or Magisterial act and thus infallible in any way - or big T tradition in any way. She was canonised, as the phrase goes, by ‘popular acclaim’, which is most certainly not infallible and most certainly doth not big-T Tradition make.

While I am not really able to weigh in on much of what is being discussed, I do think this above comment is very misleading and erroneous. I don’t believe that we can or should suggest that saints accepted as such before a particular date are somehow less certain of their status than those declared to be saints at a later time. The Church, in all times, has the freedom to choose just how it will exercise the authority which is always hers to declare certain people of recognized piety as having been saints. The particular method used may change, but we cannot suggest that this means that previous methods were somehow less certain or fallible in some way. Doing this certainly seems to undermine the authority of the Church acting in history, and would undoubtedly mean that many of our beloved saints may in fact not be real saints at all.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I’m not following your questions, especially the second one. Can you re-state them?

I guess, just, why get rid of something that was a powerful aspect of a devotional practice for hundreds of years? Like, why minimize it? Of course, I don’t oppose that version of the Stations of the Cross or anything, but I don’t get what is to be gained from getting rid of things. I guess it’s because I like that image a lot. Course, not my call to make.

 

[LilyM]

I guess, just, why get rid of something that was a powerful aspect of a devotional practice for hundreds of years? Like, why minimize it? Of course, I don’t oppose that version of the Stations of the Cross or anything, but I don’t get what is to be gained from getting rid of things. I guess it’s because I like that image a lot. Course, not my call to make.

It’s not minimising the devotion at all, just changing it. You are aware, are you not, that Stations of the Cross is a private devotion like the Rosary, and if you know the history of the Rosary you’ll know it went through many many changes over at 1,500 years, and has gone through a couple more since (such as the Fatima prayers). I’m sure plenty of people found the original version, which lasted for many hundreds of years, of 150 Our Fathers beneficial too - some more so than the Hail Marys. The Rosary changed, being changeable, nonetheless.

 

[PrayforMallory]

It’s not minimising the devotion at all, just changing it. You are aware, are you not, that Stations of the Cross is a private devotion like the Rosary, and if you know the history of the Rosary you’ll know it went through many many changes over at 1,500 years, and has gone through a couple more since (such as the Fatima prayers). I’m sure plenty of people found the original version, which lasted for many hundreds of years, of 150 Our Fathers beneficial too - some more so than the Hail Marys. The Rosary changed, being changeable, nonetheless.

Yeah it can make sense changing. I just would never want something changed to appease anyone, but rather changed because they felt it was the right thing to do, which again, may not be happening now, and isn’t my call to make.

 

[saint_rafael]

It’s not minimising the devotion at all, just changing it. You are aware, are you not, that Stations of the Cross is a private devotion like the Rosary, and if you know the history of the Rosary you’ll know it went through many many changes over at 1,500 years, and has gone through a couple more since (such as the Fatima prayers). I’m sure plenty of people found the original version, which lasted for many hundreds of years, of 150 Our Fathers beneficial too - some more so than the Hail Marys. The Rosary changed, being changeable, nonetheless.

The Rosary is not 1,500 years old, it is only less than 800 years old.

The Rosary was given to St. Dominic directly by Our Lady to combat the Albigensian heresy in the 13th century. It has been largely unchanged since that time with only the Fatima prayers being added at the request of Our Lady of Fatima.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Don’t forget the Luminous Mysteries added by Pope John Paul II.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon
ed B

 

[saint_rafael]

Don’t forget the Luminous Mysteries added by Pope John Paul II.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon
ed B

The Luminous Mysteries were a huge mistake. The Fatima prayers did not change the Rosary because they are optional prayers said after each decade of the Rosary.

What Pope John Paul II did was an outrage and a complete novelty. That man was obsessed with changing every single thing about Catholicism.
No Pope in 800 years had dared to mess with the Rosary because heaven itself through Mary had given the Rosary with the three mysteries. It was perfect. When the full Rosary was recited, it was called the Marian Psalster because of the 150 Hail Marys said.

Here’s an article explaining the mistake of the Luminous Mysteries:

seattlecatholic.com/article_20021108_The_Twenty_Mysteries_of_the_Rosary.html

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The Luminous Mysteries were a huge mistake. The Fatima prayers did not change the Rosary because they are optional prayers said after each decade of the Rosary.

What Pope John Paul II did was an outrage and a complete novelty. That man was obsessed with changing every single thing about Catholicism.
No Pope in 800 years had dared to mess with the Rosary because heaven itself through Mary had given the Rosary with the three mysteries. It was perfect. When the full Rosary was recited, it was called the Marian Psalster because of the 150 Hail Marys said.

Here’s an article explaining the mistake of the Luminous Mysteries:

seattlecatholic.com/article_20021108_The_Twenty_Mysteries_of_the_Rosary.html

I was wondering how long it would take you to start your rant about Pope John Paul II. Does the Holy Spirit guide you too?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[saint_rafael]

seattlecatholic.com/article_20021108_The_Twenty_Mysteries_of_the_Rosary.html

“Father Richard John Neuhaus from First Things magazine found these early reports hard to believe, and told The Chicago Tribune that the Pope was not likely to alter the Rosary. “That he would suggest,” said Neuhaus “or even declare some kind of official change to the Rosary is totally atypical, totally out of character.” Neuhaus then said that the Pope does not have the authority to mandate changes in such a prayer.”

It is simple. Why did Pope John Paul II have to go where no other Pope had gone?

Why did Pope John Paul II feel it was necesary to change the Marian Psalter as other Popes had called it?

He had no right to change what was a free and already a perfect gift that Mary herself had given to the Church.

 

[rwoehmke]

The Luminous Mysteries were a huge mistake. The Fatima prayers did not change the Rosary because they are optional prayers said after each decade of the Rosary.

What Pope John Paul II did was an outrage and a complete novelty. That man was obsessed with changing every single thing about Catholicism.
No Pope in 800 years had dared to mess with the Rosary because heaven itself through Mary had given the Rosary with the three mysteries. It was perfect. When the full Rosary was recited, it was called the Marian Psalster because of the 150 Hail Marys said.

Actually, over the 800 years, there have been several forms of the Rosary and there still is more than one format for the Rosary. Maybe how we got it is just another of those traditions with a small t like Veronica’s act of mercy.

I rarely prayed the Rosary till John Paul II recognized the gap in the meditations on the Gospels and filled it in with the five beautiful Luminous Mysteries, every bit as beautiful as the others.

Even outside of Catholicism there are other religions that have prayer beads. Of course they aren’t Rosaries, but they are obvious variations on the same theme.

 

[saint_rafael]

Actually, over the 800 years, there have been several forms of the Rosary and there still is more than one format for the Rosary. Maybe how we got it is just another of those traditions with a small t like Veronica’s act of mercy.

I rarely prayed the Rosary till John Paul II recognized the gap in the meditations on the Gospels and filled it in with the five beautiful Luminous Mysteries, every bit as beautiful as the others.

Even outside of Catholicism there are other religions that have prayer beads. Of course they aren’t Rosaries, but they are obvious variations on the same theme.

No, the Rosary has always had just its original three Mysteries.

To say that the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries had gaps in the meditations on the Gospels is to imply and make the error that the Rosary was not sufficiently Christocentric and that the three Mysteries are not sufficienltly based on the Gospel.

The bigger problem is that you and Pope John Paul II both believe that Mary made a mistake when she gave the Rosary to St. Dominic. Mary erred because the Rosary was incomplete. The conclusion is that heaven didn’t know what it was doing and it was up to Pope John Paul II to fix the mistake God and Mary made when they gave us the Rosary with only three Mysteries.