Talk:Stations of the Cross

Untitled

the stations of the cross is also called the way of the cross. it is when Jesus has:

1. The cross laid upon him
2. His first fall
3. He meets His Blessed Mother
4. Simon of Cyrene is made to bear the
5. He meets the women of Jerusalem
6. His third fall
7. He is stripped of His garments
8. His crucifixion
9. His death on the cross on good Friday
10. His body taken down from the cross
11. His body is laid in tomb

You forgot 12, 13 and 14 bro DDLCfan (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Methodist Tradition

• A local United Methodist church in my area is doing Stations of the Cross this year (they call them "stops" though), this might be useful information, but I wonder if this is common to other Methodists? http://www.belmontumc.org/index.htm

Methodists are weird

Or perhaps this is the beginning of a new (old) tradition?

Another thought about the stations and tradition

I found out by studying the Bible, that there is no record of Jesus falling during his passion recorded in the scriptures. Now if we believe that the Scripture is the record from God to man about himself, then where does this information come from? I wrote a song since Tradition makes the Word of God of no affect according to Jesus Christ, my Saviour. You can listen at http://www.myspace.com/marcusrmusic.

here are the words:

Jesus never fell

Jesus never fell, on his way to Calvary, He bore the sin as only God could do. He died upon the cross, to set me free, I was in the fire, but he saved my soul.

Praise Him for the Bible that stands the test. Praise Him for the only Word of God. I was in the fire, but Jesus never fell, He saved me for eternity.

Adam was in the garden and tempted sore He fell beneath the load of sin In Adam's fall, we sinned all But Jesus never fell on the way to Calvary

The Bible never said that Jesus fell on the way God never said that about his Son, Jesus never fell under the weight of our sin, But he carried them all to Calvary.

Now to Him that is able to keep you from falling And present you faultless before God. Your garments are spotted with flesh and sin you are in the fire, so call on Him today.

Praise Him for the Bible that stands the test. Praise Him for the only Word of God. You are in the fire, but Jesus never fell, He’ll save you for eternity.

You are in the fire, but Jesus never fell, He’ll save you for eternity.

thnx for listenning bye<3

some lines from book of Jude and one from New England Primer 2004

Marcusoliver 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)marcus oliver

Well, that's very lovely but it doesn't really belong in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. You may be interested to read about Sacred Tradition, which explains why Catholics do not consider it a problem that some things they believe are not specified in the Bible. Basically, it goes along the lines of "Lots of people witnessed the things that went on, and lots of people told others about what went on. After a while, some of those people started writing some of the things down, but not every little detail got written down, since that wasn't the purpose of the gospels. Some of these things come down to us in Holy Tradition, having been told to people down the centuries.". Roman Catholicism teaches that the Bible is not the only source of Divine Revelation. :) Skittle 01:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is true, but not really the point here. The point is: The Bible did not say that Jesus did not fall, and who are we to judge on what the Church if not knows (the bodily falling of Christ was not dogmatised nor, as far as I know, declared part of ordinary teaching) then certainly feels, is wrong? I don't know if the falling of Christ was actually passed on, or was "meditated about" by all the centuries of monks meditating on the verse "even the just man falls thrice" or something, or both and the one thing was kept in mind because the other thing has taken place. Thus, my own archbishop says that "of course" Jesus met His mother Mary first of all after his resurrection because "we can't even imagine that it came to pass otherwise". --84.154.74.13 (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Very late to this party, but the point remains the same: the stations of the cross (which is the content of this page) include the falls of Jesus.

Whether or not he actually fell is a moot point; it has nothing to do with the stations of cross, which include the three falls. You are free to argue against this in your song, but it doesn't mean the page should be changed in any way. 2610:130:102:800:D9D9:7E0F:80F0:8620 (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Alternate forms - Including the resurrection

I have added a Citation Request to this section. Who does this (what faiths) and where, in what nations? Please state this in the text and cite your source. Merci. Charvex (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Church of England web site seems to be a fairly authoritative source. I'm not a Christian so I will leave editing to others. https://www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/living-out-our-faith/lent-holy-week-and-easter/stations-cross#na Ian (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I know of one Catholic Church building that contains a station of the resurrection of Christ. I can't see mention of this station on their website but anyone can go into the church and see it. Here is the website of the Chruch: https://dolphinsbarnparish.org/gallery-2/

Iatros1980 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hebrews 10:10

An editor keeps adding the phrase "See Hebrews 10:10" with no explanation, not as a reference or anything else. I have reverted it (a couple times) because it doesn't really fit in an encyclopedia. Marauder40 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I also reverted that edit a few days ago. Here is the sentence anyway [1]. It does not fit, and it is the only edit that user account has ever done. Does not seem like a serious edit to me either. History2007 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

He did it again. I warned on the user page as borderline semi-vandalism. History2007 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to put a comment on the page also until I noticed that it was another new IP address. It seems every time this editor does it they use a different IP address. It is only recently that they actually used a user account. Marauder40 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

People usually use dynamic IPs to avoid being recognized. We really need that database of questionable edits. I will try to work on that more. Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Link Farm

I think the External links section of this article is becoming a link farm. I understand people having links to multiple versions/depictions of the Stations but I think it is becoming too much. Any ideas on how we should trim the numbers down and determine which are appropriate and which aren't? Marauder40 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Artistic Depiction May Be Inaccurate

Religious art and tradition depicts the Stations of the Cross as a march through Jerusalem on the way to the crucifixion. In my view, this seems highly unlikely. Execution was a quick and efficient business for the Romans, and to allow a prisoner to march through the streets, where his followers might be, waiting to cause a revolt or a riot, would not have been a prudent thing for the Romans to do.

I think the following scenario (which preserves the 14 Stations) is a more realistic description of what probably happened:

Jesus is condemned to death (Station 1). He is then stripped naked and scourged, which was the preliminary to crucifixion. Its purpose was to weaken the prisoner's resistance and also to hasten his death on the cross. The Roman scourging was not limited to the Jewish rule of "forty save one," because the Romans did not follow Jewish law. The only limitation was that the prisoner had to be alive when it was over, so that he could be crucified. Following the scourging, Jesus is offered His cross (Station 2), but is too weak to carry it and falls (Station 3). At this point, his mother is in the crowd (Station 4) and demands that assistance be provided to him. They spot Simon coming in from the fields and press him into service carrying the cross (station 5). At this point, a woman named Veronica wipes Jesus' face (Station 6). Jesus tries to get up, but severely weakened from the flogging He has just received, falls again (Station 7). The women of Jerusalem offer Him narcotics, but he refuses (Station 8). A third attempt to get is also unsuccessful (Station 9). At this point, the exasperated Romans throw some clothes on Him, drag Him to the execution scene, strip off His clothes (Station 10), and nail Him to the Cross (Station 11). Jesus dies on the cross (Station 12), is taken down (Station 13), and is placed in the tomb (Station 14).

John Paul Parks (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) John Paul Parks (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion, go into a local church and check —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.173.59 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Holy Father?

The phrase "Holy Father" in the Modern Usage section is a bit POV. I'm changing it to "Pope". As a Catholic I have no problem with the term, but it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Promotional Material and other spam

This error message is unsuitable for discussions about the church, surely? 78.147.111.139 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The label means that some of the links below the label MAY be promotional material and/or spam. The idea is someone needs to go through the links and determine which add value to the article and which donot. Feel free to make an attempt. Marauder40 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been spammers all over these Christian pages recently, e.g. see Talk:Resurrection_of_Jesus#Why_did_you_remove_the_link.3F I have not checked this page, but they all want free advertising. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to cleanup the "External Links" link farm. I got rid of dead links, promotional material, and links that IMHO didn't really add anything to the article. There were a couple that were questionable so I left them in. I am sure this will be a continual process since everytime someone comes up with a new method of praying the Stations and/or a new artist conception of it, someone will try to add it to the article. Marauder40 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Think of their point of view: It costs $X to advertise on Google, and cost zero on Wikipedia. So they will keep coming, we will keep trimming... until we all die. History2007 (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

I have devoted considerable time to cleaning up the mess in this article. The previous version was badly written, repetitious, and almost totally ignored the fact that this custom began from actual sites marked on the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem. Using the "12th station" as the top photo is also misleading, as there is a dispute over whether Crucifixtion is part of the stations. The article is much improved now, and blanket reverts such as happened a few minutes ago are baffling to say the least --Delishisoup (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you had some good points, but many deletions that were not warrante din my view. Per WP:BRD these need to be discussed. E.g. there was no reason to delete the gallery and I can not agree with some of the assertions you make. Sorry, but that is how bold edits work. History2007 (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why 14? "As above, so below" - the sacred geometry of two 14 day periods in lunar month

In 7 BC (746 AUC), Caesar Augustus and his advisors may have chosen to disect the City of Roma into 14 regions based on, "As above, so below" which is the primary concept behind the practice of sacred geometry - an important aspect of the ancient myteries which were practiced by the ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Hebrews, Sumerians, Persians, etc. The phases of the Moon's 29.5 day cycle was very important to the ancients! It was clear to everyone around the world that it was easy to halve the lunar month into 14-day periods, and halve those into weeks.

This 'number from nature' as reflected in Pagan Roma's 14 regions is probably also the basis of why "in 1731, Pope Clement XII extended to all churches the right to have the stations of the Cross... At that same time the number was fixed at 14". - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, calls for a drink or two. But of course, pure speculation and no source. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How big a Gallery?

How many images should be in the Gallery? There are three options, I think, (1) only a few to several to represent different styles and locations, (2) 14 (or so), one for each station (and select the Traditional stations) with each image representing a different style, (3) 42 with one image from each version with each image representing a different style. 42 would be a lot. I like the idea of 14, one for each station. We can justify limiting it to the Traditional Stations since that is most likely to have the most diverse artistic styles, being the oldest and going back through all the periods. Then we can have a rather obvious link to the Commons Category, or to Commons page with the 42 representative images. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it a problem? The article itself could use more. The current ones seem a tad random, & a careful selection would be good, including your 2) & some more. Scriptural Way of the Cross is all but unillustrated. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

New Way of the Cross

The largest English-speaking Catholic country, the 3rd largest Catholic country overall, and the 5th largest Christian country overall uses a third version of the Stations of the Cross. For some reason, that version was deleted. I've added it back in. Some might think that mentioning it is passing is OK because it is a mere minor adaption. However given the size of the Philippine Catholic population, Catholicism's influence in the Philippines, and the number of changes between the Scriptural and the New Way, it should be mentioned. It should also be mentioned because the New Way is part of and done about the same time as the introduction of the Scriptural Way and therefore was part of a trend. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted it again from lack of sourcing. The ref given in the section redirects to the main page of the site - once I found where it had moved to, I found there was no commentary to support anything beyond a listing of the stations, which I don't think are noteworthy enough to include without explanation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious

The section beginning "In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI approved an overlapping but distinct set of stations for meditation and public celebration;..." is tagged "better source needed". I found an AFP article regarding the 2007 occasion when Benedict led the stations and used meditations based on "...an alternative Way of the Cross first introduced by Pope Benedict's predecessor John Paul II in 1991 that does not refer to Veronica and that includes references to Judas and Pontius Pilate." [[2]] and a reference to them in a Chicago Tribune article. [[3]]. However, the current citation is to the Vatican website. Why wouldn't the Office of Liturgical Celebrations be an adequate source for the Pope using JPII's "Scriptural Way of the Cross"? Mannanan51 (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stations of the Cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223130823/http://www.aodonline.org/aodonline-sqlimages/stationsofthecross/stations.pdf to http://www.aodonline.org/aodonline-sqlimages/stationsofthecross/stations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

How DDLC is the best game ever

I watched Markiplier play it and he says the f word A LOT DDLCfan (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Why only about symbolic stations, but not about those in Jerusalem?

I know there's a separate article, Via Dolorosa, but the original stations are just that: the original stations, all others are taking their name from them, so more weight should be given to them in this article, too. I know that some were first created symbolically in Europe, and only then sites in Jerusalem were designated to correspond to them, but that is just a fraction of the whole set and the exception (but should of course also be mentioned). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the articles. LimonesMI (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Jesus falls the first time into Stations of the Cross because the first article is only a sentence, and I don't see a reason why it warrants its own article, independent of the Stations of the Cross article. LimonesMI (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Mild support unless anyone wants to expand it. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

I think that, since the Scriptural Way of the Cross was discussed in this article also, a separate article on the topic is not necessary. Ericglm.4 (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I think. There is enough extra information there to make a merged article rather unbalanced. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  You have a point. However, the article is mostly of a version of the devotional text of the ritual. The devotional material used is one way of praying it, but not the only way. Also, I think it is unbalanced that the Scriptural Way of the Cross has a provided text while the Stations of the cross only has the stations listed. The rest of the material is a reiteration of information already discussed here. Ericglm.4 (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)