[quote=Ricardo Gomez]There is a conversation going on rigth now between a protestant brother and a non-protestant individual, the subject: the Biblical accuracy of the falls of Christ on His way to the crusifiction. In fact, the protestant brother stands in the position that Christ did carried the cross from were the death sentence was read to where it was carried it out (Mattew, 27:32). Putting as fake the Catholic practice of “El viacruzis” celebrated in the passover or cuarezma.
Please any suggestions, guidelines, points of view, and especially Bible passages talking about the subject would be highly appreciated.
The Church has never taught that the Way of the Cross is a *literal * blow-by blow retelling of the events of the Passion, and for the purpose for which this devotion is meant, it doesn’t have to be. Many of the episodes related are from tradition and early devotions and piety, but aren’t *necessarily * historical (this is not to say that they CAN’T be historical. Just because something isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. It may have happened but wasn’t included for brevity’s sake or whatever. Also many – though not all-- traditions have some historical basis, which is how they may have got started in the first place).
The value of the Stations of the Cross (and other popular devotions) is as a meditation on the person of Christ and what he has done for us, not as biblical exegesis. To not recognize this is to miss the point completely.
Don’t let those who would be Sola Scriptura literalists get you sidetracked with the argument whether something is “biblical” or not. To them it often means whether something is literally in the Bible. For Catholics and those who have the more balanced, traditionally Christian view, something is “biblical” if it it is not against Scripture. Help them recognize the difference.