You cannot point to a single line in the New Advent stuff which says "New Advent specifically talks about the fact that the Catholic Church no longer believes as the early church fathers that Christ's death was a sacrifice for sin."
Two can play at this game.
Instead of going through the rest of your points, let me ask you one question:
No. You are making false representations about what we teach. I am going to address that. I'm not going to cooperate in your changing the subject from risible falsehoods about our teaching to my personal belief. I note you have not addressed the difference between development and change.
But stfassisi presents some good stuff from the CCC. I will repeat it with relevant sections emphasized and footnotes removed:
613 Christ’s death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”, and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the “blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”.614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.
Now, I get that a lot of Protestants have a problem with the connection between the sacrifices of Christians generally and the Sacrifice of the Mass in particular on the one hand and the Once for all sacrifice on Calvary.
One of the things we think of when we think that the Incarnation happened "in the fullness of time" is that not only was the Pax Romana in place so that communication was comparatively safe and easy from the Near East to Spain and Britain, but also there was a cultural network with learned and thoughtful people all around the Mediterranean. So even though the Gospel as "Folly to the Greeks" there were among the Gentiles as well as among the Alexandrian Jews, people who had thought about basic things. The relevant 'thing' for this conversation is time and eternity.
It is not that the philosophers determined doctrine. And by philosophers I do not mean the hack metaphysicians with their weird systems such as one can still find in bookstores in San Francisco. Even the great neoPlatonist Plotinus disapproved of them. He wrote - and I have read - a treatise "Against the Gnostics" which argues from a Platonist position that the dualism of the Gnostics and their contempt for creation did not make sense.
Instead they provided an extensive body of thought on things like time, justice, beauty, and fate, and this body gave language to the expression of the Gospel truth.
(Philosophy can be helpful. I don't get involved in the Predestination debates because my readings in philosophy have satisfied me that it makes no difference "on the ground." Whether my struggles are preordained or freely entered into, I still experience them as my struggles. And I'll get the answer to Predestination soon enough. It's like looking at your watch when you're late. You already knew you were late; your watch won't speed you up; why not focus on getting there as soon as you can?)
So, to cut to the chase, the "once" that you all think of "back then," we think of as eternal, and therefore as "now" just as much as back then.
Now you all think this means the we think that Christ suffers forever. No, that's not it. "Eternal" does not mean "forever."
In the passage from the CCC Christ;s sacrifice is described thus:
it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.
The Mass, in our view, is not essentially distinct from the sacrifice of Calvary which defines and completes the Mass. It is an appropriation in its locus in time and space of the Eternal action which is perfected and perfectly revealed at Calvary. To be glib and inadequate both at once, it is a portal from the little 'here and now' to the great 'Here and Now' where the Last Supper and the Crucifixion are united with the feast which Isaiah tells us will be celebrated "on that day," and also in the small here and now we proclaim Christ's death until He comes again.
He IS the Alpha and the Omega. It is not that He WAS the Alpha and WILL BE the Omega. Right here and now He IS, for Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
MD-No.
My question was, Do you believe Christ faced the wrath of God on the cross as a punishment for our sins and His blood was spilled as atoning for our sins? I noticed you did not answer this question but danced around with all sort of other things and then say I'M making a false representation. I am doing nothing of the sort and my references support my claims.
The Catechism that you point out and continue to point out does not accept Christ being the punishment for our sins. NewAdvent states that this doctrine has evolved to a point where the Catholic Church no longer believes that Christ died as a punishment for our sins. And to be perfectly honest, I don't give two hoots as to what some of the "latest and greatest" Catholic "scholars" have to say about the subject. The fact remains that the early church fathers and the scriptures confirms that Christ bore our punishment. The Catholic Church pretends they go back to the early fathers only where it suits their interests.
So I'll ask it one more time, Do you believe Christ faced the wrath of God on the cross as a punishment for our sins and His blood was spilled as atoning for our sins?
I noticed that rnmom and Mr. Rogers quoted you the exact same passages that I quoted way back. Fancy that. And here I didn't even peek. I'm always late.