On the Way of the Cross in the Philippines

by Chipi Buenafe

It piqued my interest -- every year during Lent and during the Paschal Triduum -- to always notice two versions of the Way of the Cross (Via Crucis) used in the Philippines. I guess everyone knows the "traditional form" of the Via Crucis (the Franciscan form from the 17th century) where the First Station is "Jesus condemned to death" and the Fourteenth Station is "Jesus is laid in the tomb". However, in recent years, I've noticed a more popularized "new" form where the First Station is "The Last Supper" and the Fourteenth Station is "The Resurrection of Jesus".

Right now, my own "little study" with "few resources" available led me on a sort of academic trip over the last few days of Holy Week. I'll probably mention some of them and if the reader notices any error in my facts or details, please feel free to contact me for the corrections.

About the new form

Honestly, there isn't a lot of material online about the "new" form (or what we'll abbreviate as New-PH). Except for a couple of references in Wikipedia and Yahoo! Answers, I haven't found any authoritative reference on the history of New-PH.

However, the traditional form (abbreviated as TradForm) has been revised by soon-to-be-Blessed John Paul II in 1991 to make the Via Crucis "scriptural" (abbreviated as New-JPII). But New-JPII is not the same as New-PH (contrary to the claim in Wikipedia) since New-JPII starts with "Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane" and ends with "Jesus in the tomb". The TradForm is still valid, on the other hand.

There has been a proliferation of "new forms" apart from New-PH and New-JPII. For example, the Via Crucis for World Youth Day 2011 (abbreviated as New-WYD11) follows neither New-JPII nor New-PH. It does start with "The Last Supper" but still ends with "Jesus in the tomb". In fact, New-WYD11 still maintained the "non-scriptural" stations like "Jesus is met by Veronica" and "Jesus is laid in the arms of the Blessed Mother", so we can't claim that New-WYD11 follows the intent of John Paul II to make the Via Crucis scriptural.

Some other forms promote a Fifteenth Station known as the "Resurrection of Jesus" (which, in New-PH, is the Fourteenth Station), but there hasn't been any publication that presents all fifteen.

So what's correct?

An obvious consequence of noticing and studying the different forms of the Via Crucis is asking which one is, well, correct. This is a bit tricky since to determine what's correct requires us to understand the complete parameters for, well, correctness.

I suppose that many will put forward various schemas and frameworks to answer this thesis question, but for now, I will put forward my framework and work around that. (If the reader has a more academically acceptable framework here, again, please feel free to let me know.)

In order to determine correctness, it must be both correct in substance and correct in form. Luckily, for my own purposes, there is one Church document that would help me simplify my above process: The Handbook of Indulgences of 1986. In Grant #63 titled "Stations of the Cross", the Apostolic Penitentiary grants a plenary indulgence to the exercise of Via Crucis.

This point provides a criterion on what is "correct in substance":

"This devout exercise of the Stations of the Cross helps renew our remembrance of the sufferings that our divine redeemer underwent on his journey from Pilate’s praetorium, where he was condemned to death, to Mount Calvary, where for our salvation he died on the cross."

To nitpick, let's break this down into three points.

1. The Via Crucis helps renew our remembrance of the sufferings of Jesus.

2. It is a recollection of the journey from the scene of the praetorium.

3. It is a recollection of the journey until the death of Jesus.

The succeeding sentences of the Grant helps provide criteria for what is "correct in form":

"1. This devout exercise must be performed before stations of the cross that have been lawfully erected.

2. Fourteen crosses are required in order to erect the Stations of the Cross. As an aid to devotion these crosses are customarily attached to fourteen tableaux or images representing the Jerusalem stations.

3. In accord with the more common custom, this devout exercise consists of fourteen pious readings to which are joined some vocal prayers. But in order to perform this devout exercise it is required only that one devoutly meditate upon the passion and death of the Lord. It is not required that one meditate upon each of the individual mysteries of the stations.

4. Movement from one station to the next is required. If this devout exercise is carried out publicly and such movement by all present cannot be done without some disorder, it is sufficient that the person who is leading the exercise move from station to station while the others remain in their places.

5. Persons who are legitimately prevented from fulfilling the above requirements can obtain this indulgence if they at least spend some time, e.g., fifteen minutes, in devout reading and meditation upon the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

6. Equivalent to this devout exercise of the Stations of the Cross — even with regard to obtaining the indulgence — are those other devout exercises which have been approved by competent authority and which call to mind the remembrance of the Lord’s passion and death in a manner similar to the Stations of the Cross.

7. In order to obtain this indulgence, the patriarchs can establish some other devout exercise in memory of the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ for those Eastern Christian faithful whose usages do not include this exercise of the Stations."

To nitpick this lengthy list, we can derive a few essential points here:

1. The stations must be lawfully erected, although the Grant talks about the physical stations rather than the text of the Via Crucis.

2. There should only be fourteen distinct stations that one can move from one station to another.

3. There should be fourteen pious readings/reflections, accompanied by vocal prayers, for the purposes of meditating on the Passion and Death of Jesus.

4. In cases whether the above items are substituted by another devout practice, they must be approved by competent authority (ordinarily, the Bishop) and they must [still] call to mind the Passion and Death of Jesus.

One caveat here is that if at least one item has not been satisfied, then it's only that the plenary indulgence is not granted. It can still be meritorious, assuming the basic moral principles are maintained.

Taking the framework and applying it actual context, we can draw the following conclusions.

1. The TradForm is both correct in substance and in form. In fact, when the Handbook of Indulgence was drawn up, the new forms such as New-JPII and New-PH were not yet around. So the only possible basis for the Grant would have been TradForm.

2. In the case of New-JPII, while it can be sweeping to say that this is approved on the sole authority of the Pope (making it "automatically correct in form"), nevertheless, New-JPII is still correct in substance. Although the First Station does not start at the praetorium, the prior scenes did lead Jesus necessarily to the praetorium in the proximate sense. (Judas knew that Jesus should be at the Garden of Gethsemane at that time and his arrest will eventually lead the Jew to hand Him over to Pilate). In any case, the first two stations still present to us the sufferings of Jesus, still consistent with the intent of the Via Crucis.

3. In the case of New-PH, I find it a bit difficult to evaluate, only because material is not exactly available for a deeper consideration. However, with what is available now, I would have to say that New-PH is apparently deficient in substance but possibly correct in form. Why?

3.a. The First Station (The Last Supper) does not have anything evident that Jesus is suffering. Maybe the possibility of being betrayed is there, maybe the anticipation of his death is there, but these possibilities are more reflective of the divinity of Jesus more than His humanity (which was the recipient of suffering). In fact, the Last Supper is also the context of the Fifth Luminous Mystery of the Holy Rosary (Institution of the Eucharist), so the element of suffering is not evident.

3.b. The Fourteenth Station (The Resurrection) is obviously devoid of suffering. While it makes sense to highlight the "endgame" of Jesus in the Resurrection, this does not fulfill the intent of the Via Crucis -- namely, to reflect on His suffering.

3.c. On the aspect of form, assuming that most of the publications by St. Paul's or Word and Life on the New-PH have ecclesiastical approval (I'm sure they must have), then it can be correct in form. They are only fourteen stations in the published texts and I have yet to see a text with fifteen stations. However, with something that may be correct in form but lacking in substance, the Catholics in the Philippines can [yet again] be criticized for having a lot of popular devotions left and right but does not exactly lead to a change in lifestyle.

Conclusion

Evidently, it is not a sin to use New-PH for the Via Crucis. The text in itself is worthy of personal prayer and reflection during the season of Lent. But one must be aware that the first and last stations are not exactly reflective of the suffering of Jesus. Also, one must not use New-PH in prejudice of the other approved forms, especially TradForm and even New-JPII.

To have a flexibility in the use of various forms for the Via Crucis, it is noteworthy that the parishes and chapels in the Philippines should not have fixed tableaux of the New-PH. Instead, just have fourteen noticeable crosses around the place.

At the end of the day, we should make use of the season that the Church provides us in order to continue to live a spirit of penance and expiation. It is by putting ourselves into the sufferings of Christ, especially in the small duties of each day, that we will find our Easter eventually.