36. It is well to set out the following teaching. Annas’ house and Caiphas’ house were located on Mount Sion, within the same rectangular enclosure. On one of the short sides or north wing, was Annas’ house, and on the other short side or south wing, Caiphas’; and both were joined by an inner courtyard and garden. The rectangle was 150 metres long and 70 metres wide, which meant that the total area of the palace enclosure was a little over a hectare (10,500 sq. mtrs.). At present, the site of this enclosure is divided by the wall of Jerusalem and the Gate of Sion, so that the terrain that Annas’ house once occupied is inside the wall and that of Caiphas’ outside. In the palace enclosure of the two hierarchs was to be noted the main gate or official entrance, placed in the centre of one of the long sides of the rectangle - the eastern - which faced the suburb of Ophel. To the right of this gate there was a smaller one for the servants. Between the two buildings there was a courtyard surrounded by an arcade, with two garden areas bordering the long sides of the courtyard. Between arcade and garden were tall railings with suitable openings to pass from one to the other. Through the main gate of the palace enclosure, access was had from the street to the arcade of the common courtyard of the two pontifical houses by way of a porch. In each palace there were three doors. The main one was in the centre, in the arcade, and through it one gained access to the official and residential rooms of the two floors of the edifice; the other two, to the right and left of the main door, were at the extremes of the same facade. Through these secondary doors access was had to the quarters of the bailiffs and servants, and to the underground part of the palace where the dungeons were. Annas’ and Caiphas’ houses were both 30 metres wide and 70 metres long.
37. Saint John goes on to say that «Simon Peter followed Jesus: and so did another disciple. And that disciple was known to the High Priest and went in with Jesus into the courtyard of the High Priest» (John XVIII, 15). With the term «High Priest» the sacred text is referring here to Caiphas, as is correctly deduced from the harmony existing between this verse and verse 13 which says that Caiphas was High Priest that year - -be it understood Supreme Pontiff. When the Evangelist says that «that disciple was known to the High Priest» (John XVIII, 15), he is referring to Nicodemus who, like the other two secret disciples Joseph of Arimathea and Gamaliel, in his capacity as Sanhedrist had dealt often directly with Caiphas. Although a rift had opened in that relationship when they resigned their posts on the Council, the three venerable secret disciples retained certain influence over some of the palace servants, who respected them for their acknowledged integrity and worth. For his part Saint Matthew complements the preceding Evangelist with the following: «And Peter followed Him afar off, even to the palace of the High Priest» (Matt. XXVI, 58a), that is to say, to the main gate of the palace enclosure of Annas and Caiphas. He goes on to say: «and going in» (Matt. XXVI, 58b). Likewise Saint Mark: «And Peter followed Him afar off, even into the palace of the High Priest» (Mark XIV, 54a). Saint Luke merely says: «But Peter followed afar off» (Luke XXII, 54c). Coordinating the Gospel texts firstly we teach that Saint John’s expression «palace of the High Priest», Saint Matthew’s «and going in» and Saint Mark’s «palace of the High Priest» indicate, as we shall later show in more detail, the same place, namely the common courtyard of Annas’ and Caiphas’ residences, and therefore the enclosure in which both palaces were. But let us consider how Peter and Nicodemus reached agreement for the joint mission referred to by Saint John when he says that «Simon Peter followed Jesus: and so did another disciple». Peter’s spirit was deeply troubled by the lamentable episode in the Garden of Olives, for he did not yet understand how the Almighty could allow Himself to be seized easily by His enemies, and less that He should have healed the perfidious Malchus’ ear severed by the Apostle in the Master’s defence. His cowardly behaviour in abandoning Jesus, like the other Apostles, when hours previously he had pledged that he never would, contributed no less to his discouragement. Hence Peter’s pride was hurt, and this drew him on to further rashness of even worse consequences, which Satan availed of to sift him yet more until denying Jesus, as shall be seen. That is why shortly after Peter, James and his brother John joined the Most Holy Virgin Mary at the Cenacle, the Prince of the Apostles, with his thoughtless vehemence - without this ruling out the love he professed for the Divine Master - privately convinced Nicodemus to gain him entry into the pontifical tribunal with the object of assisting at Jesus’ trial and of showing Him that now he did not abandon Him, presuming to counter thus his flight in the Garden. For his part the secret disciple saw here a fresh opportunity to give testimony in Christ’s favour. Therefore, both left the Cenacle in all haste to search for Him, and from a distance beheld Jesus, hemmed in by the vile mob that had seized Him in the Garden, nearing the palace of the High Priests. Peter and Nicodemus followed Him from afar.
38. Keeping the foregoing Gospel texts as well in mind, let us see how the Apostle and the secret disciple entered the palace enclosure. It was about 4.20 a.m. on that Friday the 25th of March of the year 34 when Jesus, led by the deicide troop, entered the courtyard of the palace enclosure of Annas and Caiphas through the main gate; and Nicodemus at once also entered, as is seen in Saint John: «And he went in with Jesus into the courtyard of the High Priest» (John XVIII, 15b), since the official guard at the door, recognizing the former Sanhedrist, allowed him entry; Peter, however, waited outside for instructions from the secret disciple. Jesus was then led along the courtyard arcade to Annas’ house, and before entering they freed Him from the heavy chain as also from the two ropes with which He had been bound, although they kept His hands tied behind His back. We interpret that in the meantime: «Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple therefore, who was known to the High Priest, went out and spoke to the portress and brought in Peter» (John XVIII, 16). For Nicodemus, seeing that he could more readily gain entry for the Apostle through the side door, requested the servant portress to let Peter in. She agreed to Nicodemus’ wish out of respect for him as former member of the Sanhedrin. The first two Evangelists also refer to this episode when they say, alluding to Peter: «And going in» (Matt. XXVI, 58b); «Even into the palace of the High Priest» (Mark XIV, 54). Once Peter had entered, with Nicodemus he made for Annas’ house, and when they arrived at the door, Jesus had already been taken into the Pontiff’s apartments. But certain members of the Sanhedrin, seeing Nicodemus there, ordered the soldiery to make him leave, since they considered him dangerous; so that the secret disciple saw himself obliged to leave the palace enclosure through the side door. Peter, nonetheless, managed to avoid them, remaining there against the prudent advice of Nicodemus. The maidservant, seeing Nicodemus go out alone, suspected that the Apostle was a disciple of the Lord as well.
39. The Evangelist Saint John summarizes Christ’s trial before Annas in these words: «The Pontiff therefore asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine. Jesus answered Him: I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogue and in the Temple, whither all the Jews resort: and in secret I have spoken nothing. Why asked thou Me? Ask them who have heard what I have spoken unto them. Behold these know what things I have said. And when He had said these things, one of the servants standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying: Answerest Thou the Pontiff so? Jesus answered him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why strikest thou Me?» (John XVIII, 19-23). We teach that at Jesus’ appearance before Annas, which was at 4.30 a.m. that Good Friday, besides the Pontiff’s ministers and servants, there were present quite a few of the Sanhedrists who had been at the Garden of Olives, others having gone directly to see Caiphas and inform him of all that had taken place. Enlarging on what has been said we teach that Annas’ questioning of Christ, with which the religious proceedings began, was not an official enquiry and therefore not obligatory for an ordinary accused; but it was for Jesus by express wish of the High Priest Caiphas, even though it pertained exclusively to the latter to judge Him ecclesiastically, albeit within the limits prescribed by Roman law. Nor was the Divine Culprit’s appearance before the impious Annas motivated by mere deference of Caiphas to his father-in-law, in order for the latter, for example, to satisfy his curiosity. Rather it was a plan calculated by both Pontiffs so that the condemnatory sentence which Caiphas was later to pronounce should have, as far as public opinion was concerned, the backing of the powerful Annas. For his part, however, Annas prepared his encounter with Jesus also with the perfidious intention of personally ridiculing Him by detestable words and deeds, like for example the sacrilegious blow which, at the High Priest’s instance, his servant dared to inflict on the most divine and serene Countenance. As we interpret the cited text of Saint John, Christ’s appearance before Annas was very brief. It amounted to no more than an examination without further legal proceedings, since this was not the competent tribunal, and moreover because what the Pontiff - who knew Jesus’ identity - sought was to provoke Him to a reply that would confirm His divine Personality; and thereupon to deem Him a public blasphemer, which would favour the condemnatory sentence that his son-in-law would afterwards pronounce. That is why Annas went straight to the heart of the matter. First He sarcastically asked Jesus about His disciples, to deride Him for their having abandoned Him in the Garden; and thus give all present the impression that if they were not there to defend Him, it was because they had lost faith in His cause, and with good reason. The Pontiff then questioned Jesus about His doctrine, that He might confess Who He was and what His teachings were, and so find excuse to condemn Him, Christ, prudent and wise in His conduct, gave the Pontiff to understand that He did not require the presence of His disciples to give proof of what He had taught, and that His personal declaration was not necessary either, for the testimony in His favour that the palace servants and others present at the proceedings could give, if they were truthful, sufficed, since they had on occasions heard the divine teachings. That is how these words of the Gospel must be interpreted: «Why askest thou Me? Ask them who have heard what I have spoken unto them. Behold these know what things I have said» (John XVIII, 21). As Jesus’ irrebuttable reply humbled to the limit the vain conceit of the authoritarian hierarch, whose agitation reflected on his face with marked signs of resentment and rage, it was the opportune moment for a servant to carry out the plan agreed between Annas and him: to buffet the most divine Countenance of Christ, amidst the guffaws and scoffs of the assemblage, and thus publicly reprove Him as if He were an individual hateful to society. For the servant would not have done so of his own accord, given that this manner of outrage was penalized by Jewish law, above all before authority. We teach that the accursed servant was Malchus, whose ear Christ had healed in the Garden of Olives. Because of his cunning he was the favourite confidant of Annas and his son-in-law Caiphas, and had been entrusted by them with the affair of Jesus’ Arrest. That is why, as we stated, it was the right hand of Malchus that first seized Christ in the Garden, that afterwards delivered the thirty pieces of silver to Judas Iscariot, and that now, wrapped in an iron gauntlet, struck backhanded the right side of Jesus’ Face, leaving it terribly hurt and disfigured by bloody bruises; though without breaking any of His bones, in accordance with that foretold in Numbers: «Nor shalt thou break a bone of Him» (Num. IX, 12). As is also clear from the sacred text, Christ’s meek reproach to Malchus for the blow was chiefly meant for the Pontiff as the person responsible for the outrage, since there had been no official justification to warrant it; and for the servant, as the sacrilegious instrument of the infamy, which entailed the cruellest ingratitude; for injustice Malchus was obliged to render public testimony of the healing of his ear in the Garden, portentous miracle that proved Christ’s Divinity and His Infinite Goodness and Mercy. That is why the Lord said: «If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why strikest thou Me?» (John XVIII, 23). For Christ’s conduct before Annas contained a lesson in judicial procedure: in the case of an accusation before a tribunal it is not the culprit who should be questioned but suitable witnesses, since the accused is not obliged to denounce himself, besides, testimony given in his own favour holds no force before the judge. The trail before Annas ended at 4.50 a.m. with Malchus’ buffet and Christ’s reproach, followed by the unanimous derision of Him by all present - for an outburst of taunts, shouts and vulgar execrations arose. We complete the teaching on Malchus saying that his accursed right hand became withered and useless at the instant Christ expired on the Cross, and that on Pentecost Sunday this servant of Annas went body and soul to Hell. The miracle of the healing of his ear, Christ’s serene reprimand, as well as the punishment of the withered hand, were all precious opportunities given to Malchus for him to reflect on the evil life he was leading and to amend in time. Sadly he did not profit from them for his salvation.
40. The audience chamber where Jesus’ appearance before Annas took place was on the upper floor of the palace, as is clear from Saint Mark who relates, according to our interpretation, what Peter was doing in the meantime: «Now when Peter was in the court-yard below» (Mark XIV, 66). The Apostle’s first denial, related by the four Evangelists (Matt. XXVI, 58b & 69-70; Mark XIV, 54b & 66-68; Luke XXII, 55-57; John XVIII, 17-18), occurred during this ecclesiastical hearing. We coordinate and harmonize these texts in our interpretation and chronological account of the event. In the middle of the courtyard between Annas’ and Caiphas’ houses the servants had lit a bonfire to keep them from the chill of the night, and there Peter also went after Nicodemus had left the palace enclosure. But as the unexpected departure of the secret disciple surprised the servant portress, she asked the soldiers who had compelled him to leave to what it was due. They answered that Nicodemus, as a follower of Christ, had now broken with the Sanhedrin. In view of the incident the servant went in search of Peter for, as we stated previously, she suspected that he was a disciple of the Nazarene. The Apostle was warming himself by the fire along with some servants, soldiers and others present, as the four Evangelists recount. Saint John: «Now the servants and ministers stood at a fire, because it was cold, and warmed themselves. And with them was Peter also, standing, and warming himself» (John XVIII, 18); Saint Matthew: «...he sat with the servants, that he might see the end...But Peter sat without in the courtyard» (Matt XXVI, 58b and 69a); Saint Mark: «And he sat with the servants at the fire and warmed himself» (Mark XIV, 54b); and Saint Luke: «And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the courtyard and were sitting about it, Peter was in the midst of them» (Luke XXII, 55). We see that while Saint John says that Peter was standing the other Evangelists have him seated; by which is to be understood that first the Apostle warmed himself standing and afterwards sat down. It was about 4.45 a.m., while seated, that the servant portress boldly and scornfully came up and questioned him repeatedly. This indicates that Peter’s first denial consisted in the woman’s successive enquiries and the Apostle’s negations, for she questioned him several times when she noted that he concealed the truth. In other words, in this satanic snare the Apostle consummated, formally and externally, his first denial, triply manifested, sinning most grievously without its implying his apostasy from the Faith. Let us consider how the four Evangelists recount it. Saint John says that «the maid therefore that was portress saith to Peter: Art not thou also one of this Man’s disciples? He saith: I am not» (John XVIII, 17). Dissatisfied with this answer she drew closer to the Apostle to make sure and question him a second time, as is clear from Saint Luke: «Whom when a certain servant maid saw sitting at the fire and had earnestly beheld him, she said: This man also was with Him» (Luke XXII, 56), which we teach she said of Peter addressing those present there. «But he denied Him, saying: Woman, I know Him not» (Luke XXII, 57). Straightaway the same servant portress questioned him again even more insistently, as Saint Mark relates: «And when she had seen Peter warming himself, looking intently on him, she saith: Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. But he denied, saying: I neither know nor understand what thou sayest» (Mark XIV, 67-68a). Saint Matthew says thus: «And there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest» (Matt. XXVI, 69—70). Following that unhappy reply, with which Peter lamentably culminated his first denial at 4.50 a.m., he went from the courtyard to the vestibule that led to the main entrance, which is how must be interpreted the words of Saint Matthew: «And as he went out to the gate» (Matt. XXVI, 71), and the more precise ones of Saint Mark: «And he went forth before the courtyard...». Saint Mark adds: «And the cock crew» (Mark XIV, 68b). But concerning the last expression it is well to clarify that although cocks crow several times during the night, most commonly at midnight and at daybreak, that night God allowed Peter to hear the cock crow on only two occasions. One, in the vestibule, shortly after the first denial, the other after the third denial as we shall mention. That God should allow Peter, during his sojourn in the palace of the High Priests, to hear the cock crow only twice was, on the one hand, that thus be mysteriously fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy given hours previously, when He had told him: «Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice» (Mark XIV, 30), which was as if to say to him: `Before you hear the cock crow twice’; and on the other hand, so that with those signs Peter would remember the Master’s sad warning and more readily be moved to repentance, as will be seen.
41. After the first denial, while Peter remained in the vestibule through which from the street access was had to the courtyard, Jesus was led from Annas’ house to Caiphas’, hands bound behind His back and hemmed in by a troop of soldiers and bailiffs headed by Malchus, who as we know was a most faithful accomplice of both Pontiffs in the deicide proceedings. That is why Saint John says: «And Annas sent Him bound to Caiphas the High Priest» (John XVIII, 24), which was by way of the western arcade of the courtyard, at about 5 a.m., also the hour Peter heard the cock-crow for the first time while from the vestibule he witnessed Christ’s above mentioned transfer, though without being able to see Him on account of the distance and the compact troop surrounding Him. Although at the cock-crow Peter remembered the prophecy of the Master Whom he had now denied for the first time, not on that account did he profit from the sign in order to avoid the other two following denials, given the perturbation of his spirit, greatly dejected by Satan.
42. After Jesus entered Caiphas’ palace there took place Peter’s second denial, in which searching questions concurred with the corresponding negations, recounted by the four Evangelists (Matt. XXVI, 71— 72; Mark XIV, 69-70a; Luke XXII, 58; John XVIII, 25), whose texts we arrange in chronological order. We know that Peter, after his first denial, went from the courtyard to the vestibule; but this evasion was to rid himself of those ensnaring him at the fire. At about 5.15 a.m.- as Saint Luke’s expression «after little while» (Luke XXII, 58) must be interpreted - while Peter was still in the vestibule owing to the cold, there occurred what Saint Matthew add: «another maid saw him; and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath: I know not the Man» (Matt. XXVI, 71b-72). This maidservant was the palace’s second portress, already informed by the other that Peter was a disciple of Christ. After his perjury the Apostle, filled with alarm, went hastily from the vestibule to the courtyard, and followed by the second portress headed for the fire where he had been earlier, as is interpreted from Saint John: «And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself» (John XVIII, 25). Saint Mark, referring now to the first servant portress, says that «a maidservant, seeing him again, began to say to the bystanders: This is one of them. But he denied it again» (Mark XIV, 69-70a). As we know, she it was who had previously ensnared Peter thrice at his first denial, had remained by the fire to witness Christ’s transfer to Caiphas’ house, and now was to be promotrix of fresh snares. For one of the palace servants there warming themselves, hearing Peter’s negative reply to this maidservant, intervened in the matter as Saint Luke relates: «Another seeing him, said: Thou also art one of them. But Peter said: O man, I am not» (Luke XXII, 58); upon which, as Saint John relates, several of those present «said therefore to him: Art not thou also one of His disciples? He denied it and said: I am not» (John XVIII, 25). In this further satanic snare Peter consummated formally and externally, at 5.25 a.m., his second denial, here manifested four times, sinning most grievously without its implying apostasy from the Faith.
43. We leave Peter now in his lamentable state, in order to centre our gaze on Jesus’ trial before the High Priest Caiphas, which was in two phases: one at night, private in nature, and the other by day, of public and official character. The Evangelists Saint Matthew (XXVI, 59-66) and Saint Mark (XIV, 55-64) recount, according to our interpretation, the first phase, which began at 5.10 a.m.and was held in the spacious audience chamber of the upper floor of Caiphas’ palace. For this preliminary, first phase of the proceedings against Jesus, there had assembled the Sanhedrin in full, the Temple ministers or guards, some house servants, as well as the witnesses. Onlookers were not admitted, since the purpose was to pile up charges against the Culprit, and arrange other matters for the official public trial which, by Jewish law, was forbidden at night-time. When Jesus entered the chamber, Caiphas, arrogantly seated on his throne of justice, received Him with marks of envious satisfaction and suppressed fury, this attitude becoming more pronounced as Malchus, the High Priest’s chief secretary, read out the accusations against Christ presented by the Sanhedrin itself, and which counted with the backing of false witnesses disposed to so iniquitous a purpose. Jesus’ appearance before Caiphas was a mere sham of a trial, enough outwardly to complete legal formalities and thereby argue before the Roman civil tribunal that the condemnatory sentence pronounced against the Master had been the just outcome of painstaking examination of the accusations against Him, sufficiently proven by truthful witnesses and even confessed by the Culprit Himself. For the accursed Caiphas and the whole brood of Sanhedrists had prepared the ground well indeed for their diabolical plans by way of a triple procedure of the most ruthless tactic against the Divine and Innocent Culprit: odious charges, false evidence, and personal conjurations aimed at provoking Him to confess - now before the deicide tribunal - the mystery of His Divine Person and His role as Messias, so as to declare Him a blasphemer and as such guilty of death. For wily Caiphas, aware of Christ’s sublime virtue and irreproachable conduct, hoped to extract from His Divine and Wisest Lips the pretext for the condemnatory sentence. The first two Evangelists reveal the dishonest, adverse bearing of the Sanhedrin towards the Divine Master, and from their sacred texts, arranged according to our interpretation, we shall select the most detailed. Saint Matthew says: «And the Chief Priests and the whole Council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put Him to death. And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come in» (Matt-XXVI, 59-60), which Saint Mark completes thus: «For many bore false witness against Him: and their evidence were not agreeing» (Mark XIV, 56). The witnesses summoned to testify against Jesus were people connected in some way with the Sanhedrin and therefore in loyal complicity with its perverse plans. Although the Council endeavoured to ready them so that their false evidences might agree, nevertheless there were obvious discrepancies among them regarding accusations that concerned the same deed - due to the complexity of the deceitfully contrived scheme and the haste with which the judicial proceedings took place. Besides, some of the witnesses appeared in court separately, and this contributed to the disagreement in details expressed about things they said they had heard or seen together.
44. The first two Evangelists next present, as we understand, the last of the false accusations against the Saviour, as Saint Matthew well describes: «And last of all there came two false witnesses: And they said: This Man said, I am able to destroy the Temple of God and after three days to rebuild it» (Matt. XXVI, 60—61). Saint Mark uses like terms: «And some rising up, bore false witness against Him, saying: We heard Him say, I will destroy this Temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another not made with hands» (Mark XIV, 57-58). As is readily gathered from the sacred texts, whose contents coincide, the accusation contradicted the letter of the words used by Christ three years previously: «Destroy this Temple; and in three days I will raise it up» (John II, 19); and also the spirit of those words, since He had spoken of His Body and not of the Temple of Jerusalem - which the Sanhedrin knew from the Jews who, hearing the words then, perfectly understood their true meaning. For this twofold reason the accusation contradicted the truth of the facts, as Saint Mark states when he adds: «And their witness did not agree» (Mark XIV, 59). Moreover, as can be descried in the texts of both Evangelists, in the words of accusation against Jesus the High Priest sought a double motive for condemning Him: (1) the self-attribution of divine powers, since He had said that in three days He would raise up another Temple, thereby making Himself equal to God; (2) frank opposition to Jewish law and traditions with the threat to destroy the Temple of Jerusalem. Nonetheless, as we have already stated, more than in those inconsistent accusations, the High Priest Caiphas sought the pretext to condemn the Saviour in His own divine words, since in the evidence of the lying witnesses the falseness of the crimes imputed to Him was apparent - to the Sanhedrin’s consequent peril, for in some way its unjust proceedings could reach the ears of the people and the Roman authorities. But in view of the calumnious accusations Jesus, with admirable serenity and meekness, kept silence. This exceedingly exasperated Caiphas who pressed his Victim to speak at all costs, as is seen in the first two Evangelists, of whose texts we here cite Saint Mark’s: «And the High Priest rising up in the midst, asked Jesus, saying: Answerest Thou nothing to the things that are laid to Thy charge by these men ?» (Mark XIV, 60). The Evangelist continues saying: «But He held His peace and answered nothing» (Mark XIV, 61). Wherefore Caiphas the High Priest urged Him a second time, saying: «Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God?» (Mark XIV, 61). Saint Matthew, according to our interpretation, completes this adding that, in the face of Caiphas’ second question, «Jesus held His peace» (Matt. XXVI, 63). The reason for that majestic silence is easily inferred. On the one hand the accursed ecclesiastical tribunal was well aware of Christ’s identity; and on the other, so much falsity and cynicism was abhorrent to Truth Himself, above all when His divine word would be unavailing to that blind and obstinate brood of Sanhedrists. The Master’s eloquent muteness tore from Caiphas’ proud heart the rage confined therein, and in a sudden fit of frenzy for a third time he urged Him to speak, now with more menacing attitude, as is interpreted from Saint Matthew: «I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us if Thou be the Christ the Son of God» (Matt. XXVI, 63). To so extremely severe an injunction of Caiphas, Jesus wished once more verbally to demonstrate the respect and reverence which with His Divine Humanity He rendered to the Name of the Most High God; and thus those evildoers would not lack, before the Jewish supreme ecclesiastical tribunal, proof of His confession as the Onlybegotten of God. Therefore, according to Saint Matthew, in answer to the High Priest «Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it» (Matt. XXVI, 64), then adding, according to Saint Mark: «I am» (Mark XIV, 62). Christ then completed the truthful testimony of Himself with the following utterance recounted by both Evangelists, of whose texts we here cite that of Saint Matthew: «Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming in the clouds of Heaven» (Matt XXVI, 64), alluding to His glorious Resurrection and Ascension, His coming to each as personal Judge and His triumphant Second Coming as Universal Judge. With Jesus’ personal confession before the sanhedritic Council, Caiphas considered the first phase of the proceedings satisfactorily settled, as is seen in the sacred texts of Saint Matthew (XXVI, 65-66) and Saint Mark (XIV, 63-64), of which we here quote the former: «Then the High Priest rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed. What further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy. What think you? And they answering, said: He is guilty of death» (Matt. XXVI, 65-66). Or as Saint Mark states at the end of his narration: «Who all condemned Him to be guilty of death» (Mark XIV, 64); with which, at 5.45 a.m., this first part of the execrable trial against Jesus was deemed officially concluded and was followed, as we shall see, by unspeakable tortures.
45. We amplify the above doctrine teaching that, when Our Lord Jesus
Christ uttered with ineffable majesty the words «I am», proclaiming
besides His infinite power at the right hand of the Father and His
triumphant manifestation as Supreme Judge, His Most Divine Countenance in
the presence of the very Council became illuminated in the sight of all,
producing in them the most tormenting confusion, which they attempted to
conceal by attributing the prodigy to trickery and other occult arts. To
quench the thirst of hatred that consumed them, once they had pronounced
Him guilty of death, all - beginning with Caiphas - spat with unspeakable
rage in the most serene Face of the Innocent Victim, Whom they humiliated
with many more outrages amidst deafening uproar and abuse. Saint Anne
Catherine Emmerich portrays to us the grotesque and bloodthirsty temper
that possessed the Sanhedrin when they heard Christ’s serene reply:
<
46. While the Most Sacred Face of Jesus was sacrilegiously outraged in the impious Caiphas’ tribunal when spat upon by the Chief Priests, there occurred Peter’s third denial, which began at 5.50 a.m., and which is recounted by the four Evangelist: Saint Matthew (XXVI, 73-74), Saint Mark (XIV, 70b-72), Saint Luke (XXII, 59-60) and Saint John (XVIII, 26-27). Peter’s third denial, like the others, consisted in a series of questions to the Apostle and his negative replies, all of which took place at the same fire to which we have referred, and where the Apostle, after consummating his second denial, remained warming himself, and therefore exposed to fall again in temptation. It is well first to clarify that when the first two Evangelists, recounting Peter’s third denial, begin by saying: Saint Matthew, «And after a little while»; and Saint Mark, «And after a while», they are referring to the time elapsed from the second denial once consummated up to the start of the snares that occasioned the third, this being some twenty-five minutes; and when Saint Luke begins his narrative saying: «And after the space as it were of one hour», he there by alludes to the time elapsed from the first denial once consummated up to the start of the third, which was approximately of this duration. We coordinate the sacred texts in the following chronological account of Peter’s third denial. The news of the Apostle’s presence in the palace enclosure became ever more notorious amongst the ministers and servants. Hence all who came to the fire were wont to stare at the man known as a disciple of Jesus, this occasioning a new series of questions to Peter, the instigator of which was one of the ministers there warming himself, as is interpreted from Saint Luke: «Another certain man affirmed, saying: Of a truth, this man was also with Him: for he is also a Galilean. And Peter said: Man, I know not what thou sayest» (Luke XXII, 59-60). Some of those who were there as well, hearing this reply and noting the Apostle’s tremulous anxiety, came nearer and in turn questioned him, as Saint Matthew relates: «They came that stood by and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them. For even thy speech doth discover thee» (Matt. XXVI, 73). Forthwith others did likewise, as we interpret Saint Mark: «They that stood by said again to Peter: Surely thou art one of them; for thou art also a Galilean» (Mark XIV, 70b); all of which, we teach, the Apostle kept on denying. The snares ended as told by Saint John: «One of the servants of the High Priest, a kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off, saith to him: Did not I see thee in the Garden with Him?» (John XVIII, 26), The intervention of this personage, whom we teach was Malchus’ brother, occasioned the cowed Peter genuine terror, for this was not now a simple enquiry into facts, but a blunt assertion of his status as disciple of the Master, for Peter had been seen with Jesus in the Garden when they went to arrest Him. To this was coupled the Apostle’s fear of possible vengeance by Malchus’ brother for Peter’s injury to Malchus in severing his ear. All of this threw the Apostle’s mind into such confusion that not only did he reaffirm his negative response, as Saint John states: «Again therefore Peter denied» (John XVIII, 27), but his posture was accompanied by expressions of frenzied alarm, as we see in Saint Matthew: «Then he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the Man» (Matt. XXVI, 74). Or as Saint Mark says: «But he began to curse and to swear, saying: I know not this Man of Whom you speak» (Mark XIV, 71). We observe that Peter endeavoured to back up his perjury with imprecations or curses inviting sundry evils to befall him if what he said were a lie, for we teach that the Apostle never uttered the imprecations or curses against Christ. Also, with this latter satanic snare Peter formally and externally consummated his third denial, four times manifested, sinning most grievously without its implying apostasy from the Faith. When Peter consummated his third denial it was about 6 a.m. on Friday the 25th of March of the year 34, dawn having already broken; he stilled his aberrant words on hearing the cock crow for the second time, as is seen in the four Gospels, duly coordinated and interpreted. Saint Luke says: «And immediately, as he was yet speaking, the cock crew» (Luke XXII, 60). Saint Mark relates: «And immediately the cock crew again» (Mark XIV, 72). Saint Matthew (XXVI, 74) and Saint John (XVIII, 27) say as follows: «And immediately the cock crew». While this took place, Jesus, led by the bailiffs, left Caiphas’ house through the main door and made for the door at the right that gave access to the palace dungeons, located as we know beneath the building. Despite the distance the Apostle could see Christ, battered and bound, in the midst of the bailiffs who were conducting Him, followed by many of the Chief Priests. Wherefore, prompted by a supernatural impulse, he ran towards the Master. When close to Him there occurred as Saint Luke relates: «And the Lord turning looked on Peter» (Luke XXII, 61). The Evangelist goes on to say: «And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said: Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice» (Luke XXII, 61). Saint Matthew and Saint Mark use like terms, though the latter is more exact, saying: «Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice» (Mark XIV, 72), then adding that the Apostle began to weep, which signifies that Christ’s gaze penetrated so deeply into his soul, fallen through sin, that it drew forth tears of repentance and sorrow; and Peter received, at that moment, his most beloved Master’s forgiveness, and once again the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Saint Matthew (XXVI, 75) and Saint Luke (XXII, 62) complete this episode thus: «And going forth, he wept bitterly». In other words, after leaving the High Priests’ enclosure the Apostle withdrew to a nearby cave, where he remained for three hours weeping over his denials. Right beside this very place was the cock that had crowed the two times Peter heard it. We confirm the tradition that this grotto of Saint Peter’s tears is to be found within the present-day church of Gallicantus, today outside the walls of Jerusalem.
47. We see a practical teaching for the Church in Peter’s triple denial: very profound is the maxim of Ecclesiasticus: «He that loveth danger shall perish in it» (Eccl. III, 27), from which is inferred that he who avoids the occasion, avoids the danger and therefore the possible fall. Peter’s presumptuous vehemence led him to confide in his own strength, and this was the source of the imprudent recklessness that brought him to deny Christ on three different occasions, each with repeated negations and with greater malice each time; for thus must be understood these words of Christ: «Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice», that is to say, on three different occasions. The first denial was simple; the second was accompanied by an oath; and in the third, to the foregoing he added curses and execrations against himself, which would have led to far graver consequences, such as apostasy from the Faith, were it not for the intervention of Christ with His grace.
48. We now leave the Prince of the Apostles in his repentant state in order to centre our attention on Jesus imprisoned in the cramped dungeons of Caiphas’ palace and subjected to vile outrages by the Chief Priests, ministers and servants. This heartrending episode is narrated by the first three Evangelists. Saint Luke says: «And the men that held Jesus mocked Him and struck Him. And they blindfolded Him and wounded His Face, and they questioned Him, saying: Prophesy: who is it that wounded Thee? And blaspheming, many other things they said against Him» (Luke XXII, 63-65). Saint Matthew relates as follows: «Then did they spit in His Face and buffet Him with their fists. And others struck His Countenance, saying: Prophesy unto us, O Christ. Who is it that wounded Thee?» (Matt. XXVI, 67-68). Saint Mark narrates this in like manner: «And some began to spit on Him, and covering His Face they struck Him and said unto Him: Prophecy. And the servants buffeted Him» (Mark XIV, 65). We teach that the Divine Master’s imprisonment lasted an hour, for He was led into the dungeon at 6 a.m. and taken out at 7 a.m.
49. Delving more deeply into the sacred texts (Matt. XXVI, 67-68; Mark
XIV, 65; Luke XXII, 63—65) which relate the tortures inflicted on Christ
during His stay in the dungeons of Caiphas’ palace, our attention is
particularly drawn to the words of Saint Luke: «And they blindfolded
Him» (Luke XXII, 64) and of Saint Mark: «And covering His Face» (Mark
XIV, 65). We teach that although with both measures they later sought
vilely to mock Jesus in His dignity of Only begotten of the Most High and
Supreme Prophet as we see from the Gospel context, at first they
blindfolded Him because they were unable to withstand the mysterious and
penetrating gaze that radiated from the Divinity in Him concealed; and
afterwards they covered His entire Head to free themselves from the light
emanating from His Most Divine Countenance. Saint Mary of Jesus of Agreda
completes our teaching by saying that the reason for blindfolding Christ
was mysterious, <
50. The first three Evangelists relate, according to our interpretation, the second part of the ecclesiastical proceedings against Christ, to which, being a public session, entry was permitted to the people. As the Sanhedrin deemed the presence of multitudes highly advantageous, after daybreak it spread through all Jerusalem news of the serious crimes attributed to Jesus and of the trial to be held at 7 a.m. on that Good Friday. The enemies’ labour of discrediting the Master, that had each day been increasingly fomented, was now quickly brought to a head with unprecedented shrewdness. To effect this, besides stressing before the citizens and pilgrims of Jerusalem the rejection of the Nazarene by the Sanhedrin - the ecclesiastical body charged with the zealous vigilance of Jewish laws and traditions - His enemies were concerned to disfigure in the consciences of the people the prestige gained by Christ, not only by His wisdom and blameless conduct, but also by His portentous miracles publicly performed. And so shrewdly did they contrast the pretentious power - according to them - that Jesus had been claiming for Himself by deceptive wonders, with the miserable state in which He now found Himself due to His evident crimes, that the people in great numbers, with their failure to correspond to grace, readily let themselves be swayed by the pernicious explanations of the Sanhedrin’s henchmen, although in the depths of their consciences the conviction that Jesus was truly the Messias remained impressed. Wherefore, some too cowardly to face up to that ecclesiastical body, others possessed by the same hatred and jealousy as the Council, others for bribes, not a few for love of vice, and also many pilgrims unaware of the truth about the proceedings and who let themselves be drawn along: all formed an evergrowing mob hostile to Christ. While the Divine and Innocent Victim was everywhere disparaged, in the palace enclosure of the High Priets all was being prepared for the multitudinous public session of the ecclesiastical trial. For this purpose a spacious dais was set up in the courtyard before the main door of Caiphas’ house for the High Priest and the members of the Sanhedrin, sufficiently raised so that all those who witnessed the trial from the courtyard and gardens of the palace were able to view the proceedings with some ease. While Christ, suffering unspeakable tortures, remained in the dungeon, many from Jerusalem, both natives and pilgrims come for the Passover, assembled in the palace enclosure of the High Priests for the trial. At 7 a.m., in the midst of the bailiffs headed by Malchus, Our Lord Jesus Christ was taken out of the dungeons and once again led before the iniquitous tribunal of Caiphas, who was then seated on his throne surrounded by the Sanhedrin. The Most Divine Culprit was placed on a section at the right of the dais and was visible to all present. The arrival of Christ, shockingly disfigured and emaciated, appalled not only the Council but many others. But they were not moved to compassion thereby; for although profound silence reigned momentarily, a unanimous clamour of blasphemies and other insults soon arose against the Innocent Victim. The first two Evangelists relate the sanhedritic public proceedings against Christ as follows: «And when morning was come, all the Chief Priests and ancients of the people took counsel against Jesus that they might put Him to death» (Matt. XXVII, 1); «And straightway in the morning, the Chief Priests holding a consultation with the ancients and the scribes and the whole Council...» (Mark XV, 1a). Saint Luke relates the same in greater detail in his sacred text, which we will explain as we go: «And as soon as it was day, the ancients of the people and the Chief Priests and scribes came together. And they brought Him into their Council» (Luke XXII, 66). As soon as He was before the tribunal, Caiphas the High Priest again asked Jesus if He was the Christ, and in view of the divine silence of the respondent other important members of the Sanhedrin asked Him the same question, as Saint Luke relates: «Saying: If Thou be the Christ, tell us» (Luke XXII, 66). That the tribunal should urge Jesus again to declare Himself to be the Son of God was in order for all the people to hear His affirmative reply; thus the sentence against the Culprit would be more than justified in their sight. As is interpreted from the Gospel, Jesus, after first maintaining profoud silence, «saith to them: If I tell you, you will not believe Me. And also if I ask you, you will not answer Me, nor let Me go» (Luke XXII, 67-68). With which words, far from depicting them as ignorant and skeptical about His condition of Son of God - for they well knew Who He was - Jesus publicly manifested that, before that iniquitous tribunal, nothing said by Him in His defence would be of any use, as was well demonstrated by the terrible outrages against His Most Divine Humanity. And, so that His dignity of Onlybegotten of the Most High now be plainly stated before the multitude by way of a public oral testimony, Jesus pronounced in a solemn and majestic voice the following words recorded by Saint Luke: «But hereafter the Son of Man shall be sitting on the right hand of the power of God» (Luke XXII, 69). He thus manifested to them that He Whom they saw as a Man dishonored and disfigured, was at the same time God; and that as such, by His own virtue, once He consummated His mission as wayfarer with His Passion and Death, His now outraged Humanity would be eternally glorified on abandoning its passible state. But these mysterious words, though not understood in their deepest sense by the tribunal and the people, were indeed taken to mean that Jesus manifested Himself as the Onlybegotten of God, for such they considered Him. Wherefore, as is interpreted from the Gospel, both Caiphas and the members of the Sanhedrin exclaimed one after another with unheard-of venom: «Art Thou then the Son of God?» (Luke XXII, 70). And «He said: You say that I am» (Luke XXII, 70). Admirable reply which Jesus made for the second time, for as we saw in the first phase of the trial, to a like question of Caiphas Jesus answered: «Thou has said it». With both wisest answers, Jesus desired to place on record that although His iniquitous judges feigned ignorance concerning Him in order to condemn Him in public, their very questions denounced them as knowing the truth they obstinately rejected. Nevertheless, now as before, the Sanhedrists discovered in Christ’s reply the opportune pretext to condemn Him for blasphemy, since He had again proclaimed Himself the Son of God in the presence of all; and with this reaffirmation of what was imputed to Him as a crime they deemed that simulacrum of a public religious trial satisfactorily settled, as we interpret from Saint Luke: «And they said: What need we any further testimony? For we ourselves have heard it from His own mouth» (Luke XXII, 71). After these words, Caiphas the High Priest, solemnly and with noticeably ironic emphasis, passed the official death sentence on Christ for being guilty of blasphemy, a decision unanimously ratified by all members of the Sanhedrin and supported in turn, with a mighty roar, by a great majority of the multitudinous public present.
51. The trial before Caiphas having ended, there now remained Jesus’ official appearance before Pontius Pilate. As we already know, the ecclesiastical tribunal had judicial power in cases relating to Jewish law and could even condemn to death, as occurred with Jesus. But to carry out that sentence approval of the Roman governor was required. That is why the Sanhedrin brought Christ to Pilate, an event the four Evangelist recount. Saint Mark says: «Binding Jesus they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate» (Mark XV, 1b). In other words they bound Him again, for though during His stay in the dungeons His hands were bound behind His back, before taking Him out they loosed His bonds to appear thus in public before Caiphas. But since it was the custom when the ecclesiastical tribunal passed the death sentence on a culprit, to lead him bound to the Roman authority, Jesus’ hands were again tied but this time in front. That is why Saint Matthew says: «And they brought Him bound and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the Governor» (Matt. XXVII, 2). Saint Luke supplies another interesting detail: «And the whole multitude of them, rising up, led Him to Pilate» (Luke XXIII, 1). For it is well to explain that the great throng that led the Divine Nazarene before the Roman Procurator was composed of many of the Chief Priests, Temple magistrates and ancients of the Sanhedrin, of ecclesiastical bailiffs and Roman soldiers, and also an enormous crowd. The Evangelist Saint John says thus: «Then they led Jesus from Caiphas’ house to the Praetorium» (John XVIII, 28a), namely to the place where Pilate administered justice. The Evangelist goes on to say that `it was morning’, and we specify further, teaching that Christ left Caiphas’ palace at 7.45 a.m., when the religious trial ended.
52. But let us consider what happened to Judas Iscariot in the
meantime. As the traitor wished to vent his anger to the full on the
Divine Master, he endeavoured to be at Annas’ and Caiphas’ tribunals,
where he was accorded preferential admittance, being deemed a person of
importance in the affair for his condition of renegade Apostle. Therefore
during the religious trial Judas was conspicuous both in word and in deed
for his aggressive behaviour towards Christ. But the hellish jubilation
displayed by the accursed Apostle at the outrages Christ received in the
palace of the High Priests turned into the most tormenting loathing of
self after Jesus’ definitive condemnation by Caiphas. For Lucifer,
wishing to carry off Judas’ soul as soon as possible, unleashed such
infernal remorse in his conscience that the traitor became victim of a
despair blacker and more irresistible than man had ever felt before, so
that he was at the verge of putting an end to his life in the very palace
of the High Priests. As Saint Mary of Jesus of Agreda says, <
53. We now establish the following teaching: we confirm the tradition that the Praetorium, where Pilate had his residence and administered justice whenever he stayed in Jerusalem, was the Fortress Antonia, a former Hasmonean palace restored by Herod the Great, with four towers, one at each corner. This Fortress was contiguous with the northeast corner of the Temple, as testified by the archeological remains of the ancient building, now partly converted into chapels commemorating the mysteries of Christ’s Passion. The Praetorium was also called by the Jews in Hebrew Gabbatha, meaning ‘high place’, since the edifice was built on high ground which, by common usage, became known by that name, although there were other high places as well in the city. At the same time the Praetorium was popularly called Lithostrotos, which in Greek, besides other acceptations means ‘paved with flagstones’, since, amongst other areas, the part of the Fortress used for public audiences was thus paved, though this type of paving was commonplace in the city. In the centre of the principal outer facade or western side of the Fortress Antonia there stood three contiguous arched doors, the largest in the centre, of a total width of 12 metres, including the two respective spaces between the larger door and the two smaller ones. In front of the three doors, all of which were two-leafed, there was a rectangular porch 16 metres long and 4 metres wide formed by two walls, the one at the right and the other at the left, joined in front by a grating or grill 12 metres long, with a big two-leafed lattice gate of the same metallic structure in the centre, facing the other three doors. The distance between each lateral wall and its respective adjoining door was 2 metres. The porch was roofed and flagged. In front of the grating there was another space, open, identically paved and of the same width as that of the porch, and which was reached by a stairway. Bearing in mind that the front wall in which the grating was set was 30 cm. thick, these paved zones, both roofed and open, came to a total width of 8 metres 3Ocm. Both the three doors and the lattice-gate opened inwards. Once inside the porch, access could be had by any one of the three contiguous doors to the courtyard of the Praetorium which, also flagged, was 65 metres long and 45 metres wide and was surrounded by an arcade. Directly across the courtyard were several floors of living quarters. In addition to the main entrance with its tree doors as already mentioned, there were also two side gates, the one to the right and the other to the left of the main entrance and somewhat separated from it, which gave access to the courtyard and were reached by climbing their respective ramps. The flagging, 8 metres 30 cm. wide as previously mentioned, reached as far as these ramps. Between stairway and ramps there was a steep, rocky slope, at the base of which was a vast esplanade. Therefore, to reach the Praetorium by the main entrance from the esplanade, one climbed the stairs to the open-air paved zone, entered the porch by the lattice gate and then passed through to the courtyard by any of the three contiguous doors. On the western side of the courtyard of the Fortress Antonia there usually a dais or platform where Pilate normally presided when he administered justice in his public audiences, and from which he was visible to all assembled within, though Christ’s trial before the Procurator, for reasons we will give later, was held in the porch of the main facade of the Praetorium. It is well to clarify too that Herod the Great, besides restoring the Fortress he was to call Antonia, built a sumptuous palace for his official residence. This royal palace, completely unrelated to the citadel of David or to the Fortress Antonia, was near the western wall of the Temple, on a site likewise elevated, whence one could look down on the entire city. The three Holy Kings visited Herod the Great in this palace, and at the time of Christ it was used by Herod Antipas when he resided in Jerusalem. The distance between the Fortress Antonio and Herod’s palace was about 400 metres. Our description of the Praetorium or Fortress Antonia derives in part from the teaching of His Holiness Pope Gregory XVII, according to his understanding of an interior supernatural light of the 1Oth of May 1981.
