De Omnibus Dubitandum Est.

Following the ongoing discussion about the scandal of the crucifixion, and developing a proper understanding of just what this means, I have received another excellent comment from my interlocutor.  In an attempt to be as thorough as possible, and due to my answer exceeding the comment box character limit, I have posted my response to his or her latest erudite comment here. I trust it is not considered verbose, but rather a thorough exposition of the subject, which demonstrates my respect for his or her intelligent and pertinent questions. This is the latest response which can be read in context here : It seems to me that this account of the value and meaning of the life and death of the godman makes salvation out to be a matter not of objective propitiation for wrong done, but an act of inter-subjective communication which, in order to be effective, can only work on an individual-by-individual basis and demands in each case not only that there be one who wills the form of ...

Crucifix by Charles I'Anson in bronze & fibreglass (1971) Courtesy of Greg Daly. Easter has long been a confusing time for me. Growing up, as I did, in the catechetical desert which has been the legacy of the "Spirit of Vatican II", I was taught that Easter was about Jesus of Nazareth, who was convicted as a criminal and nailed to a wooden cross, and this saved us. I mean what? Saved us from what? How could that save us? Why did He have to be nailed to a cross to save us? Surely lots of people were nailed to crosses in those days, why was it this one who saved us? Answers were not forthcoming. And with hindsight, I'm not surprised. It turns out it is a multi-faceted question and one which is well worth asking. Still, I'm not sure that we are getting many answers, even today.  Last week I attended a very well done and moving Stations of the Cross liturgy at our local junior school, where my third son John attends. It was beautiful and the children...