S
shinequi
Guest
Why was there fourteen stations?
- Status
S
Samuel63
Guest
There are 14 stations. It is a multiple of seven - a perfect number. Other than this, we must trust in God and know it was His will that these 14 be established.
My church has added another to make 15. It is very sad. Obedience to our creator is much more proper.
My church has added another to make 15. It is very sad. Obedience to our creator is much more proper.
J
JoshuaNY
Guest
We had stations of the cross in my Lutheran Church for the first time this year. It was awesome.
We had 8 stations instead of the traditional 14, it omitted any that were not specifically found in Scripture except 13 which I am not sure why they removed it since that one is in Scripture. Probably to concentrate on the actual suffering of Jesus… I hope they do it again next year, if not I will be finding one somewhere.
The 8 stations were as follows:
3. Jesus falls the first time
4. Jesus meets His Mother
6.Veronica wipes the face of Jesus
7.Jesus falls the second time
9.Jesus falls the third time
13.Jesus’ body is removed from the cross (Deposition or Lamentation)
I dont see how not having 14 would make it any less obedient. He didn’t command us to do the stations. It was created since most Christians could not go to the Holy Land and walk the real route. Just a thought
We had 8 stations instead of the traditional 14, it omitted any that were not specifically found in Scripture except 13 which I am not sure why they removed it since that one is in Scripture. Probably to concentrate on the actual suffering of Jesus… I hope they do it again next year, if not I will be finding one somewhere.
The 8 stations were as follows:
- Jesus is condemned to death
- Jesus takes up the cross
- The cross is laid on Simon of Cyrene
- Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem
- Jesus is stripped of His garments
- Jesus is nailed to the cross
- Jesus dies on the cross
- Jesus is laid in the tomb.
3. Jesus falls the first time
4. Jesus meets His Mother
6.Veronica wipes the face of Jesus
7.Jesus falls the second time
9.Jesus falls the third time
13.Jesus’ body is removed from the cross (Deposition or Lamentation)
I dont see how not having 14 would make it any less obedient. He didn’t command us to do the stations. It was created since most Christians could not go to the Holy Land and walk the real route. Just a thought
P
patrick457
Guest
I quote:
With regard to the number of Stations it is not at all easy to determine how this came to be fixed at fourteen, for it seems to have varied considerably at different times and places. And, naturally, with varying numbers the incidents of the Passion commemorated also varied greatly. Wey’s account, written in the middle of the fifteenth century, gives fourteen, but only five of these correspond with ours, and of the others, seven, viz.: The house of Dives, the city gate through which Christ passed, the probatic pool, the Ecce Homo arch, the Blessed Virgin’s school, and the houses of Herod and Simon the Pharisee, are only more or less remotely connected with our Via Crucis. When Romanet Boffin visited Jerusalem in 1515 for the purpose of obtaining correct details for his set of Stations at Romans, two friars there told him that there ought to be thirty-one in all, but in the manuals of devotion subsequently issued for the use of those visiting these Stations they are given variously as nineteen, twenty-five, and thirty-seven, so it seems that even in the same place the number was not determined very definitely. A book entitled “Jerusalem sicut Christi tempore floruit”, written by one Adrichomius and published in 1584, gives twelve Stations which correspond exactly with the first twelve of ours, and this fact is thought by some to point conclusively to the origin of the particular selection afterwards authorized by the Church, especially as this book had a wide circulation and was translated into several European languages. Whether this is so or not we cannot say for certain. At any rate, during the sixteenth century, a number of devotional manuals, giving prayers for use when making the Stations, were published in the Low Countries, and some of our fourteen appear in them for the first time. But whilst this was being done in Europe for the benefit of those who could not visit the Holy Land and yet could reach Louvain, Nuremberg, Romans, or one of the other reproductions of the Via Dolorosa, it appears doubtful whether, even up to the end of the sixteenth century, there was any settled form of the devotion performed publicly in Jerusalem, for Zuallardo, who wrote a book on the subject, published in Rome in 1587, although he gives a full series of prayers, etc., for the shrines within the Holy Sepulchre, which were under the care of the Franciscans, provides none for the Stations themselves. He explains the reason thus: “it is not permitted to make any halt, nor to pay veneration to them with uncovered head, nor to make any other demonstration”. From this it would seem that after Jerusalem had passed under the Turkish domination the pious exercises of the Way of the Cross could be performed far more devoutly at Nuremberg or Louvain than in Jerusalem itself. It may therefore be conjectured, with extreme probability, that our present series of Stations, together with the accustomed prayers for them, comes to us, not from Jerusalem, but from some of the imitation Ways of the Cross in different parts of Europe, and that we owe the propagation of the devotion, as well as the number and selection of our Stations, much more to the pious ingenuity of certain sixteenth-century devotional writers than to the actual practice of pilgrims to the holy places.
With regard to the particular subjects which have been retained in our series of Stations, it may be noted that very few of the medieval accounts make any mention of either the second (Christ receiving the cross) or the tenth (Christ being stripped of His garments), whilst others which have since dropped out appear in almost all the early lists. One of the most frequent of these is the Station formerly made at the remains of the Ecce Homo arch, i.e. the balcony from which these words were pronounced. Additions and omissions such as these seem to confirm the supposition that our Stations are derived from pious manuals of devotion rather than from Jerusalem itself. The three falls of Christ (third, seventh, and ninth Stations) are apparently all that remain of the Seven Falls, as depicted by Krafft at Nuremberg and his imitators, in all of which Christ was represented as either falling or actually fallen. In explanations of this it is supposed that the other four falls coincided with His meetings with His Mother, Simon of Cyrene, Veronica, and the women of Jerusalem, and that in these four the mention of the fall has dropped out whilst it survives in the other three which have nothing else to distinguish them. A few medieval writers take the meeting with Simon and the women of Jerusalem to have been simultaneous, but the majority represent them as separate events. The Veronica incident does not occur in many of the earlier accounts, whilst almost all of those that do mention it place it as having happened just before reaching Mount Calvary, instead of earlier in the journey as in our present arrangement. An interesting variation is found in the special set of eleven stations ordered in 1799 for use in the Diocese of Vienne. It is as follows: (I) the Agony in the Garden; (2) the betrayal by Judas; (3) the scourging; (4) the crowning with thorns; (5) Christ condemned to death; (6) He meets Simon of Cyrene; (7) the women of Jerusalem; (8) He tastes the gall; (9) He is nailed to the cross; (10) His death on the cross; and (11) His body is taken down from the cross. It will be noticed that only five of these correspond exactly with our Stations. The others, though comprising the chief events of the Passion, are not strictly incidents of the Via Dolorosa itself.
S
Samuel63
Guest
Yes you are right. The most proper celebration is to consider Easter morning as the “understood” 15th station. Although not a station of the cross in the proper sense, Easter morning is the great celebration we burst into after Lent, Holy Week, and the Triduum.
It is quite wonderful to have this powerful experience on Easter morning.
Unfortunately, some parishes have corrupted this tradition of Stations of The Cross by adding the 15th station in the heart of the Lenten season. The Easter morning experience becomes rather less spectacular in this case.
I made an attempt a few times to correct this at our parish but there is an entrenched anti-magisterial bureaucracy in place and our pastor is not willing to stand for Tradition and truth. I have not lost hope though.
It is quite wonderful to have this powerful experience on Easter morning.
Unfortunately, some parishes have corrupted this tradition of Stations of The Cross by adding the 15th station in the heart of the Lenten season. The Easter morning experience becomes rather less spectacular in this case.
I made an attempt a few times to correct this at our parish but there is an entrenched anti-magisterial bureaucracy in place and our pastor is not willing to stand for Tradition and truth. I have not lost hope though.
It’s great isn’t it.
It is like the final piece of the puzzle.
This is good, don’t give up.
J
joplee
Guest
During lent in our parish, we had the stations of the cross with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament on Sunday evenings. We had the 15th station, the resurrection, which flowed beautifully with the Blessed Sacrament exposed in the monstrance. It would have seemed disrespectful not to to acknowledge our risen Lord. I enjoyed it very much.
S
steve53
Guest
Of course, they are purely symbolic, though Jesus probably was crucified and entombed at what is now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Much of the route now, according to Hagan in “Rome”, traverses what was in Jesus’ time the grounds and structures that made up Herod’s palace complex.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’ll bite on this, as I always do (How could I resist?)
Many scholars would agree with Hagan here in that the Praetorium of the Gospels in which Jesus was sentenced to death is Herod’s Palace in western Jerusalem. The identification of the Praetorium with the Antonia Fortress seems to be medieval in origin; at the time of Jesus the fortress seemed more like an observation tower so the Romans could monitor the pilgrims that flock the Temple: it was too small to serve as governing headquarters and residence of the governing official.
And you’re spot on about the Holy Sepulchre: I believe that the site has more weight than the other spots some people point to (for instance, Gordon’s Calvary and the Garden Tomb - which actually dates from Iron Age II!) because of tradition and archaeology. I side with Joan Taylor and Shimon Gibson in thinking that the Rock of Calvary is not the exact place where the Cross stood, for a variety of reasons, but the tomb encased within the Edicule could very well be the one where Jesus was interred.
S
steve53
Guest
The first chapter of “Fires of Rome” by John Hagan is devoted to a layout of the upper city of Jerusalem in the early first century A.D.
Hagan uses Josephus’ references to Jerusalem to reconstruct it, and has a series of three maps- one of the upper city in Jesus’ time, one of the layout when it was under seige by Titus, and the modern map.
Josephus is very clear on the first wall of Jerusalem, which is key. He starts with the Hippicus tower of Herod’s palace, and moves eastward passing the other towers, the walls of the palace, to the Gennath Gate, and to the western wall of the Second Temple.
Josephus then states that from the Tower of Hippicus, the westernmost landmark of Herod’s palace, the first wall goes to the Gate of the Essene, marking the northwest end of the first (north and most ancient) wall.
Also from the Tower of Hippicus, Agrippa I extended a wall northward for a couple furlongs to the Tower of Phesernius (sp?), which marks the northwest corner of Agrippa’s extensions.
Hagan postulate that the western part of the first wall from the Tower of Hippicus, and the reason Agrippa decided to build his wall extension northward from Hippicus, is because just west of Hippicus was a rough area that held the a Jewish cemetery that was also a former stone quarry- this called Bethos. The first wall had to detour around it, and Agrippa did not want to disturb a Jewish cemetery, so that was as far to the west as Agrippa could go with his northern expansion plans.
The accepted mantra is that Agrippa extended the walls westward to include the Tomb of Jesus. But no Jewish King would build to include a cemetery within any Jewish city, much less the sacred city of Jerusalem.
Hagan postulates that the present Old City walls are, in fact, built over the ancient Wall of Titus, which Titus built in A.D. 70 to keep “in” the Jews who had thoughts of escaping from the besieged city.
Hagan uses Josephus’ references to Jerusalem to reconstruct it, and has a series of three maps- one of the upper city in Jesus’ time, one of the layout when it was under seige by Titus, and the modern map.
Josephus is very clear on the first wall of Jerusalem, which is key. He starts with the Hippicus tower of Herod’s palace, and moves eastward passing the other towers, the walls of the palace, to the Gennath Gate, and to the western wall of the Second Temple.
Josephus then states that from the Tower of Hippicus, the westernmost landmark of Herod’s palace, the first wall goes to the Gate of the Essene, marking the northwest end of the first (north and most ancient) wall.
Also from the Tower of Hippicus, Agrippa I extended a wall northward for a couple furlongs to the Tower of Phesernius (sp?), which marks the northwest corner of Agrippa’s extensions.
Hagan postulate that the western part of the first wall from the Tower of Hippicus, and the reason Agrippa decided to build his wall extension northward from Hippicus, is because just west of Hippicus was a rough area that held the a Jewish cemetery that was also a former stone quarry- this called Bethos. The first wall had to detour around it, and Agrippa did not want to disturb a Jewish cemetery, so that was as far to the west as Agrippa could go with his northern expansion plans.
The accepted mantra is that Agrippa extended the walls westward to include the Tomb of Jesus. But no Jewish King would build to include a cemetery within any Jewish city, much less the sacred city of Jerusalem.
Hagan postulates that the present Old City walls are, in fact, built over the ancient Wall of Titus, which Titus built in A.D. 70 to keep “in” the Jews who had thoughts of escaping from the besieged city.
D
didymus
Guest
Certainly God wills that we pray and meditate on the Passion but I doubt He has mandated a number or set of stations.
Bl. John Paul created a new Biblical stations of the Cross that incl. only events events in the Gospel narratives:
usccb.org/nab/stations.htm
As for the “15th station” it is optional. Even in churches that have it I’ve always seen it placed away from the others, usually near a side altar.
S
steve53
Guest
To complete this, assuming that Jesus was tried at the palace Praetorium, and the Gabatha was a public area just outside the palace gate, and that the palace gate was located at the southeast corner of the palace grounds (phew!), Jesus would have been led down the east-west road that fronted the south wall of the palace, and then turn north along the east wall of the palace, until some minor gate in the ancient first wall was reached. Outside of it would have been Golgotha, along a road that ran the base of the outside of the ancient first north wall.
P
patrick457
Guest
You know, it just occurred to me that adding the Resurrection into the Stations of the Cross seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, apparently out of a desire to somehow ‘complete’ the circle and perhaps, to emphasize more the intrinsic relationship between the Passion and the Resurrection. I’m not aware precursor which includes the event: the event is, as the name would imply, purely a meditation solely on the sufferings of Jesus.
P
patrick457
Guest
Here I kind of agree with folks like James Tabor and Shimon Gibson in pointing out the remains of a monumental gateway (excavated by Gibson under Israeli archaeologist Magen Broshi in the 70s) found along the western Old City wall in the 280-meter stretch between the southern moat of the Citadel and the present-day southwest angle of the Old City, as being John’s Gabbatha. Gibson goes on further, even suggesting that this gateway was Josephus’ Gate of the Essenes (the location of which is not exactly known; I know of a few possible locations).
The excavations revealed a monumental gateway, built somewhere in the latter part of the 1st century BC (probably during the time of Herod the Great), with the remains of a large courtyard situated between two inner and outher fortification walls, each with respective gates. On the northern side of the courtyard was a rocky outcrop and on top of it was a small rectangular built platform with steps: the southern side seems to have been originally paved, albeit the paving stones are now gone (probably taken away during the Byzantine period).
It would seem that the gateway complex, leading directly to the palace and thus hardly likely to have been used as a public thoroughfare, originally served as Herod the Great’s private entrance, especially after when the high priest Hyrcanus refused him access to Jerusalem, on the occasion of the death of Antipater (ca. 43 BC) on the grounds that some of his gentile soldiers might contaminate the pilgrims in the city (Antiquities 14.285; War 1.229).
The site as it appears today. The wall seen in the photo is the 16th century Turkish wall built by Suleiman the Magnificent, resting on top of earlier Herodian era stones.
http://jamestabor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pilatetrial.jpg
The trial of Jesus, by Balage Balogh (for James Tabor’s The Jesus Dynasty). Note that the outer wall of the courtyard is not depicted here.
S
steve53
Guest
Placing much significance on the western part of the old city as being extant in Jesus’ time ignores the dramatic effect that Titus and his siege of Jerusalem had on the landscape. Hagan goes into this.
With the history of Jerusalem being ravaged and rebuilt 20 times since Jesus’ day, and the rubble from previous devastations being carted about to build the “new” city, which itself eventually destroyed, with the rubble from IT’S buildings carted around to make “newer” buildings, and so forth through the centuries, I place a far greater store on Josephus’ writings- an eyewitness- than on the views of modern Archaeologists who base their conclusions on stone rubble formations of questionable origins.
That is my bias.
FWIW!
With the history of Jerusalem being ravaged and rebuilt 20 times since Jesus’ day, and the rubble from previous devastations being carted about to build the “new” city, which itself eventually destroyed, with the rubble from IT’S buildings carted around to make “newer” buildings, and so forth through the centuries, I place a far greater store on Josephus’ writings- an eyewitness- than on the views of modern Archaeologists who base their conclusions on stone rubble formations of questionable origins.
That is my bias.
FWIW!
P
patrick457
Guest
For the record, you should not forget the fact that they did not just base this just by looking, but by digging well down. Sure, much of ancient Jerusalem may be buried by rubble but I doubt what lies beneath is irrecoverable, if you have a little patience.
Gibson’s book has this photograph of the site during the excavations. The picture I’ve posted above betrays what the site really looks like. Collapsed stone debris lay on top of the paved steps of the gateway approach, suggesting that the Romans destroyed the gate complex as well (and they probably forgot to cart some of them away, I think). They came with the early 1st century BC date by digging the area under the steps of the gateway approach, and of additional patches of pavements outside the outer wall.
S
steve53
Guest
post a map. where is this Essene Gate supposed to be?
The rubble in the upper city of Jerusalem is over 120 feet deep! And, yes, it is easy to imagine scroungers after a devastation combing through the ruins and taking the good stuff. Certain Roman construction styles lasted for many centuries, btw. Dating is hugely controversial.
The rubble in the upper city of Jerusalem is over 120 feet deep! And, yes, it is easy to imagine scroungers after a devastation combing through the ruins and taking the good stuff. Certain Roman construction styles lasted for many centuries, btw. Dating is hugely controversial.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’ve found no map on the web which actually shows it, so I had to resort to taking a preexisting map and marking the location in it myself.
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5438/mapif.jpg
S
steve53
Guest
Thanks Patrick.
It is kind of what I expected.
You really should read Hagan.
Just a couple points-
-Josephus, who lived in the Upper City, said that the Palace of Herod and the Second Temple were connected by a private pedestrian walkway, or causeway, for the king to use. Herod’s Palace had walls that were forty feet high, the Temple had walls (including bricked in columns) that were 130 feet high. According to your map, that forty-foot high (at least) causeway would have to be 800 or 900 yards long- about a half mile. Is that reasonable?
Also, Josephus documents that a fire that started in the Second Temple caught on to the ramparts of the first north wall, and raged on and enveloped the Palace of Herod, which burned. In your map, the fire would have to have traveled three-quarters of a mile, and making a 90 degree turn at that, in order to set fire to the palace. Not likely. A lot of valuable things were in the Palace, and it was where Simon, the Jewish leader, lived.
Titus wreaked havoc with the Jerusalem and the area around it. Read Josephus book VII for details.
Hagan “Fires of Rome”
It is kind of what I expected.
You really should read Hagan.
Just a couple points-
-Josephus, who lived in the Upper City, said that the Palace of Herod and the Second Temple were connected by a private pedestrian walkway, or causeway, for the king to use. Herod’s Palace had walls that were forty feet high, the Temple had walls (including bricked in columns) that were 130 feet high. According to your map, that forty-foot high (at least) causeway would have to be 800 or 900 yards long- about a half mile. Is that reasonable?
Also, Josephus documents that a fire that started in the Second Temple caught on to the ramparts of the first north wall, and raged on and enveloped the Palace of Herod, which burned. In your map, the fire would have to have traveled three-quarters of a mile, and making a 90 degree turn at that, in order to set fire to the palace. Not likely. A lot of valuable things were in the Palace, and it was where Simon, the Jewish leader, lived.
Titus wreaked havoc with the Jerusalem and the area around it. Read Josephus book VII for details.
Hagan “Fires of Rome”
- Status