But what's hilarious is you stick to your reading of it, even though in the very article you're citing, the author attempts to make clear precisely that he's not saying precisely what you otherwise could reasonable misread his sloppy explanation for saying:
The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of Mosaic Law the Council continues:Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2).
And just in case anyone misses the point, because of the use of Catholic terminology:
Gamecock objects to the Catholic Encyclopedia writing, “But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate.” He seems to think that this means that the MST3K Catholic Encyclopedia is herein denying the realness of Christ’s sacrifice.
The problem is that that the encyclopedia is addressing is that “satistfaction” and “propitiation” is a concept borrowed from Greek mythology to express the need for a sacrifice. In Greek mythology, the gods hated a man until his offences were propitiated. In Christianity, loved the world so much, that he sent his only Son to redeem men; he loved men BEFORE they were propitiated, not BECAUSE they were propitiated.
Gamecock curiously excluded this passage from the encyclopedia which would have clarified this : “But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.”
I can’t read Gamecock’s mind to know why he would not have read and included that passage, being the huge fan of St. Augustine that he claims to be.