As far as Kolo's position, I believe the Orthodox has always held there not to be a need for the blood atonement. I think St. Gregory's comments sound reasonable but are contray to scriptures (a few provided by Dr. E). The traditional view of the western church fathers, couched in the aboved article, is that until St. Anselm was to believe that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.
I think you may be mistaking nuance and adumbration for something else.
The Catholicity.com link is the same passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia as is quoted on the New Advent site. I just don't think it says what you say it says.
The full quote, with the part you excerpted underlined and the parts I wnat to stress bolded is:
It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".I would not say that Anselm encapsulates ALL that Atonement is. I would also say that mere blood, even the Blood of our Lord, if it were possible for it to be shed againsst HIs will, would be sufficient. His will, His obedience, His self-sacrifice (and remember that sacraficere literally means "to do a holy thing" - like, say, give "praise and thanksgiving" - it does not intrinsically require losing something or killing something) are all requisite parts of the mystery.
So yeah, if saying that ALL that atonement is is the satisfactory shedding of Christ's Blood is a touchstone for you, I think we fail, not because we say less, but because we insist on more.
Also, just for completeness, The Catholic Encyclopedia, while admirable, isn't necessarily authoritative.