[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.

[Petronski]

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.

LOL

[Petronski]

I would suggest you are not reading your Catechism correctly.

I don't have a catechism.

I state flatly that you are not reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church correctly.

[Mad Dawg]

I would suggest that you are not reading any Catholic document whatsoever correctly.

You say: 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.

Well, why do you think we think he died, because He was upset?

Instead of playing 20 questions here, why don't you just lay out what you think we SHOULD say. I say that because the totality of your objection seems to be we do not use exactly the same vocabulary in exactly the same way as you would,. YOu say "it's different," but you don;'t say how, or what the difference means. Evidently, in your view there is the correct formula. Well tell us what it is. Then of course, we will try to say why we think it's wrong OR why we think our words convey the same thing.

But in the meantime this continues to look embarrassingly silly. We have shown you texts where the word atonement is used, and your response is This is not the same as atoning for our sins.

If you are consistent, then no writing on the atonement has been justified since whenever the Fathers stopped being the Fathers. Whoever did anything but quote was wrong. Is that right?

Any explanation of the state FROM which man was redeemed or the state TO WHICH he was redeemed, any attempt to describe different facets of the atonement would be wrong. Anselm was wrong to write, so were Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Rogers Williams, any of them. All that would be allowed would be quoting. That seems to be your position.

Development is a KIND of change, yes. But it's like this. Suppose someone were to come to me and ask me what I think about how a car goes. So I begin to describe the internal combustion engine. He protests "The Fathers just said it goes!" I talk about Archimedes and Newton and gears and laws of motion and such. "But the Fathers just said it goes, you are denying that it goes as the Fathers said it did."

That's what this is like to me.

Have you read "Cur Deus Homo?" It is an attempt to propose a way to understand the atonement. To say of it This is not the same as atoning for our sins, is just mind boggling. It is VERY like saying, "I don't want to hear about carburetors. I JUST want to talk about what makes the car go."

[Mad Dawg]

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.

I'll tell you what is either disingenuous or downright stupid: to say that the New Advent article says the doctrine "changed" when the actual word CHANGE is not used. "Development" is discussed, yes, but that is QUITE a different thing from change.

The Pythagorean Theorem has not changed since Pythagoras, but more than one proof has been developed since those days, and as a result the fullness of the theorem is better expressed now than then.

Similarly the ideas of Exemplary, Dramatic, Expiatory, and Sacrificial Atonement do not CHANGE the doctrine that Christ made Atonement for our sins. They do, however look at the richness of that mystery.

[Lorica]

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.

616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.