That is not an answer.. why was it necessary for Jesus to suffer on the cross.. ? Could he have had a heart attack or been hit with a roman carriage and still have died for the sins of men?
What the jews expected was a political savior for Israel. So the fact that they had seen the wrath of God on themselves and on their enemies had nothing to do with Christ..they denied he was God..
So the cross and the suffering were inconsequential , only the resurrection has meaning?
NO! It's all one event to God.You cannot separate them
This answer is at odds with your first answer..
What did the cross accomplish ?
Yes it was an answer.It was not the one you were fishing for.Besides Mark Bsnr showed you the Catechism on what the Church teaches as well
This answer is at odds with your first answer..
No it's not!God is outside of time and it's all one event that cannot be separated.
What did the cross accomplish
Salvation
There have been, I think, Franciscan theologians who held that Christ did not have to die on the Cross or at all, that the Incarnation would have been enough. There have been different theological attempts to explain how human salvation was won by Christ, arguments about "atonement" vs. "redemption." None of them exhausts the reality, which remains a mystery beyond our understanding.
Calvinism, it seems to me (and I grant that all I know of Calvinism I've learned on FR), seems to try to fit everything into a two-dimensional diagram, like the schematic of a car's electrical system, completely amenable to human understanding, no matter what has to be lopped off or ignored to make it fit . . .
As I say, this is just my impression from FR, my only source.