HarleyD:
First off, let me say that as compared to some of the other Protestants on FR, you are at least willing to engage in the Theological Tradition of the Church down thru the centuries. I mean that in all honesty and You and I have been here long enough to know tha I don’t mince words.
Now, I think there is some misunderstanding here. The Council of Trent defined more defintively the Catholic position of Justification. The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement, while related to the Doctrine of Justification is distinct from it.
Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Enclyopedia (1998, p. 112) states regarding Atonement “ The Christian Doctrine that CHrist’s passion, death and resurrection, infinite satisfaction is made to God for the sins of humanity. Through this satisfaction, we are reconciled to God. Christ atonement consists, no primarily to the intensity of of the suffering he endured, but in the perfectly obedient and LOVING [emphasis mine] acceptance of the will of the Father which He displayed in embracing this suffering for our sake. Christ’s perfect obedience atones for the disobedience of Adam and wins for us the Grace of obedient discipleship and divinizing sanctification.......In the History of Christian Doctrine, a variety of theological explanationss have been developed to account for the mystery of atonement. Theories that emphasize the love and obedience of Christ in suffering for our sake are preferable to those theories [either penal or substitutional] that center on the appeasement of Divine wrath or the ransom paid to Satan.”
So as I stated earlier, the Catholic understanding of the atonement is rooted in the Christus Victor Theory-Recapitulation [St. Justine Martyr, St. Irenaus from the 2nd century] and the Satisfaction Theory. The Christ Victor-Recapitulation idea is very important in the Eastern Orthodox Church and many later Church Fathers also used this theory [St. Athanasius, St. Augustine and St. Clement of Alexandria]. Theosis, which is what happens to humanity because of Grace is rooted in Recapitulation theory of atonement, very important in the Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is also part of the Catholic Church.
Satisfaction, most fully developed by St. Anselm is also acceptable as the Definition I cited cleary states. So the Catholic CHurch in terms of the atonement would combine aspects of the Christus Victor-Recapitulatio and Satisfaction theories. On the other hand, the Ransom theory paid to the Devil and Penal Subsitution are not acceptable from the Catholic perspective.
Justification, the process by which a sinner is made righeous, pure and Holy before God is what the Council of Trent defined against Luther’s Doctrine and Calvins Doctrine.
Now, the Catholic Doctrine of Justification is entirely consistent with the Theories of the Atonement that I cited above and while they are correlated with each other, there are still Distinct Doctrines. On that point, I think you would agree or at least you will see that In Catholic Theology those are Dictinct but Related Doctrines.
So, just to be clear about this, what is being said here is that the Catholic position is that it's Christ's SUFFERING which atones for our sins, correct?
The Eastern Orthodox Church followed the teachings of Pelagius and John Cassian (a follower of Pelagius and one who emphasized "semi-Pelagius"). As I've stated many times on this board, it isn't surprising the Roman Church is identifying with the eastern Church. They have embraced the semi-Pelegius views which at one time was rejected by the Church as heresy.
The idea that Christ merely was a symbol of perfect love acting out His obedience to the Father may be rooted in eastern teachings but it certainly was not part of western teachings. Augustine view (especially late in life) which he received from the early teachings of Cyprian, was that man was saved to do good works. We don't do good works to be saved. A subtle but important difference. He condemned semi-Pelagius and fought very hard against it. The Church embraced it at the Council of Trent.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that "having received God's commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case," they say, "He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world." Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. "But we say," say they, "that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work." But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, "We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things." [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;" [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: "Not of works, but of Him that calleth" [Rom. 9.12.]