[HarleyD]

Your post is either an outright misreprensation of the facts or you are ignorant of said facts. Now you know better In addition, your statements that the Catholic Church is in contradiction with the early Church Fathers, Please tell me and give me examples.

Oh, please. I'm not contradicting anything nor am I'm misrepresenting anything. At time I often wonder if Catholics ever read their dictionary. Here is a few examples you requested:

Here is just a small excerpt from the topic of the atonement on NewAdvent:

It cannot be questioned that this theory also contains a true principle. For it is founded on the express words of Scripture, and is supported by many of the greatest of the early Fathers and later theologians. But unfortunately, at first, and for a long period of theological history, this truth was somewhat obscured by a strange confusion, which would seem to have arisen from the natural tendency to take a figure too literally, and to apply it in details which were not contemplated by those who first made use of it. It must not be forgotten that the account of our deliverance from sin is set forth in figures. ...

It may be safely said that this is precisely what has come to pass. For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth.

atonement

Not only was the view of the atonement changed from the early fathers because of their "confusion" but it was modified from Anselms work which was done many centuries later. I don't see anyone arguing that the early fathers were confused about the Eucharist.

On justification

The ideas on which the Reformers built their system of justification, except perhaps fiduciary faith, were by no means really original. They had been conceived long before either by heretics of the earlier centuries or by isolated Catholic theologians and had been quietly scattered as the seed of future heresies. It was especially the representatives of Antinomianism during the Apostolic times who welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification,...

Whether Victorinus, a neo-Platonist, already defended the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is immaterial to our discussion. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages there were a few Catholic theologians among the Nominalists (Occam, Durandus, Gabriel Biel), who went so far in exaggerating the value of good works in the matter of justification that the efficiency and dignity of Divine grace was unduly relegated to the background. Of late, Fathers Denifle and Weiss have shown that Martin Luther was acquainted almost exclusively with the theology of these Nominalists, which he naturally and justly found repugnant, and that the "Summa" of St. Thomas and the works of other great theologians were practically unknown to him.

...

With what little right heretics in defence of their doctrine appeal to St. Augustine, may be seen from the following brief extract from his writings: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13).

justification

I would add that on this last one New Advent talks about how the "heretics" believed in justification by faith but they were the ones who were pointing to the early writings. New Advent can only justify it's position by quoting from the Council of Trent 1500 years later. And the Council of Trent has no writings on which to justify it position on saved by faith and not by works. Thus the discount any early writings on justification by faith including those of Augustine.

These are but two examples.

[CTrent1564]

HarleyD:

You obviously are not comprehending Council of Trent as nowhere does it teach salvation by works, that is what you want to believe but it is false. Trent in no way contradicted the Fathers of the Church as its view of justification are in line with St. Thomas Aquinas, who is the lens thru which most of Trent was articulaed in and Aquinas was in line with Augustine.

As for your view of the Atonement, St. Anselm as a “Catholic” born in Italy and sent to England by the Pope. His theory of the atonement is legitimate but not to the exclusion of others. As the article you linked also clearl points out that any theory of Atonement has to connect the Paschal Mystery with the Incarnation, which was the first theory of atonement and the ones that the early Fathers of the Church articulated, i.e. The Victor Christ theory which is expressed by the Fathers going back to the Recapitulation theory posited by St. Justin Martyr and Ireneaus.

The Ransom theory is not one that is acceptable by the Catholic Church nor is the Penal Substitution theory of Calvin which went far beyond Amselms theory of Satisfaction. Calvins theory is rooted in Punishment to appease God’s Anger and Justice, which goes against the theology of the Incarnation which Christ became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary because of his Love for Humanity.

So you are misrepresenting the Catholic Position and you don’t understand the article you linked. It clearly states than any acceptable theory of atonement can’t be seperated from Divine Incarnation and it was the idea of Incarnation as God becoming Man to restore Man back to his state before fall because of his Love for man, as St. Paul states, even while we were sinners, God still loved us [Letter to the Romans].

The theory of Atonement was not changed. It was developed by both the early Fathers of the CHurch and their theory of Atonement and St. Anselms theory [He is a Doctor of the Catholic Church and part of the Benedectine Tradition] are both acceptable and seen as complements, not in compiition.

The Antinomianist cited in the article you linked were part of the early Gnostic Movements and those groups and their theology were correctly labeled as heretics. So yes, the Faith alone mantra that Luther and Calvin posited did have some adherents in the early Church, but the groups positing that theory were Gnostics.