[Petronski]

If Catholics can't understand their Catechism then, yes, they do need lecturing on them.

And who deserves the lecture if you cannot understand them?

Read.

I don't need to read the entire catechism to reconize heretical-bordering on blasphemous-doctrine.

Of course not.

My suggestion is that you read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church to recognize that it is NOT heretical--bordering on blasphemous--doctrine.

Or do you mean blasphemy against YOPIOS?

[Mad Dawg]

I’m guessing that we’re having our legs pulled here. The CCC is so full of the very stuff HarleyD says it so completely lacks that this has to be a joke.

[HarleyD]

There is NOTHING in that Catechism that states our Lord Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. If you could find a reference then I'd be happy to read some more of your Catechisms. But you keep posting the same thing over and over. It just says that Christ "died for the sins of the world". This is not the same as atoning for our sins.

Here is what the Catholic website, NewAdvent, has to say about the doctrine of Atonement:

The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture. Without pretending to give a full history of the discussions, we may briefly indicate some of the main lines on which the doctrine was developed, and touch on the more important theories put forward in explanation of the Atonement.

...

It cannot be questioned that this theory [sic: "making peace through the blood of His cross"] 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. Conquest, captivity, and ransom are familiar facts of human history. Man, having yielded to the temptations of Satan, was like to one overcome in battle. Sin, again, is fitly likened to a state of slavery. And when man was set free by the shedding of Christ's precious Blood, this deliverance would naturally recall (even if it had not been so described in Scripture) the redemption of a captive by the payment of a ransom.

(d) These ideas retained their force well into the Middle Ages. But the appearance of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" made a new epoch in the theology of the Atonement. It may be said, indeed, that this book marks an epoch in theological literature and doctrinal development.

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.

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. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. 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".

Atonement at New Advent

It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that the doctrine of Atonement has not changed when New Advent gives a complete history of how the doctrine has changed. They admit that the early church fathers had a different view of the Atonement than the present Catholic Church. Those ignorant savage early church fathers couldn't see past their heathenistic practices I suppose-at least that's the implications.

I would suggest you are not reading your Catechism correctly.