Not only can we do so, we already have done so.
Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross616 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.
617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."450 And the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."451
But it does not use the exact same words. So that means we’re parsing and evading and generally cheating by looking at what the words actually mean instead of whether they meet the exact formulaic requirements of our antagonists.
Wait a minute..wasn't there a huge denial of the word atonement being in the bible?
Where does the church get off using it :)
P-Not only can we do so, we already have done so.
And indeed you have. I was not clear in my definition of "sacrifice for sin" and I'm at fault.
Your Catechism does not view this sacrifice as Christ taking God's wrath in our stead. Instead, your Catechism views the "sacrifice for sin" as Christ living a good life and then simply dying. His death after such a noble life is sacrifice enough for the sins. Your Catechism's statement, 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. is just plain incorrect.