[Mad Dawg]

Is it at all possible that you might be misunderstanding some of these sources? I note that the phrase "making peace by the blood of the cross" appeared just a few words after the excerpt you cited from New Advent.

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.

[HarleyD]

Is it at all possible that you might be misunderstanding some of these sources?

Here is another source: Reparation—Love–Atonement by Joseph K. Hogan. Please note this line of thinking:

Reparation is like paying a debt, a payback, a return of something that is owed to another. ...Atonement is much the same. In a certain spirituality, because Christ was mocked and made a fool of; men and women become fools for Christ to atone for the humiliation of Christ. We atone to Christ for sin by prayer, penance, and self-denial; we ‘make up’ for the disastrous effects of a sinful life.

I'm fairly confident that I'm accurate on this. If I was wrong I'm sure I would have a hundred Catholics pointing me to St. Fred or St. Bob's writings. Instead I have the Orthodox telling me the blood atonement is blasphamous and the Catholics rather quiet.

Personally, one would hope people would be more forthright with their doctrine.

The full quote, with the part you excerpted underlined and the parts I want to stress bolded is:

That is a fair observation and it's not my intention to be misleading. Space and time are limited and I can't post everything but I do try to post the reference so people can read it for themselves and make their own determination. If you think this cut-off is bad you should try Augustine or Calvin who goes on and on and on.

According to New Advent:

Although the high authority of St. Bernard was thus against them, the views of St. Anselm and Abelard, the two men who in different ways were the fathers of Scholasticism, shaped the course of later medieval theology. ....Anselm's doctrine of Satisfaction was adopted as the basis. But St. Thomas and the other medieval masters agree with Abelard in rejecting the notion that this full Satisfaction for sin was absolutely necessary.... But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard [not Anselm] remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. New Advent on Atonement

According to New Advent above, Anselm isn't the proponent of this view. There are others who came along later who used Anselm's writings. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to use his writings.