Sorry Cronos but it is NOT a lie. It is imbedded in Catholic doctrine and can be read on New Advent. Here is a comparison of the Reformed version and the Catholic version of the atonement is according to the Catholic website, "Called to Communion". Keep in mind the typical bias interpretation of the text like "God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect".
The Reformed conception of the Atonement is that in Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father poured out all of His wrath for the sins of the elect, on Christ the Son. In Christ’s Passion and death, Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins. In the Reformed conception, this is what it means to bear the curse, to bear the Father’s wrath for sin. In Reformed thought, at Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father transferred all the sins (past, present, and future) of all the elect onto His Son. Then God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect being concentrated in the Son. (R.C. Sproul says that here.) In doing so, God the Father punished Christ for all the sins of the elect of all time. Because the sins of the elect are now paid for, through Christ’s having already been punished for them, the elect can never be punished for any sin they might ever commit, because every sin they might ever commit has already been punished. For that reason Reformed theology is required to maintain that Christ died only for the elect. Otherwise, if Christ died for everyone, this would entail universal salvation, since it would entail that all the sins of all people, have already been punished, and therefore cannot be punished again. The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son. The Passion is Christ’s greatest act of love, the greatest revelation of the heart of God, and the glory of Christ.1 So when Christ was on the cross, God the Father was not pouring out His wrath on His Son; in Christ’s act of self-sacrifice in loving obedience to the Father, Christ was most lovable in the eyes of the Father. Rather, in Christ’s Passion we humans poured out our enmity with God on Christ, by what we did to Him in His body and soul. And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him. Deeper still, even our present sins contributed to His suffering, because He, in solidarity with us, grieved over all the sins of the world, not just the sins of the elect. Hence, St. Francis of Assisi said, “Nor did demons crucify Him; it is you who have crucified Him and crucify Him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.”2 The Passion is a revelation of the love of God, not the wrath of God.
Called to Communion
I'm not sure where the poster got his opinions from, as the Catechism and Church beliefs are CLEAR that
Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father
and the author's opinon does not seem to deny the atonement nature, only claiming that this is NOT just wrath but his gif below that article clears things up, IMHO as it points out self-sacrifice of Christ
This post seems to neglect to mention (but does not deny) the atonement nature of Jesus Christ's sacrifice,
But
the article (linked here) goes on to say
One problem with the Reformed conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.
Church beliefs are CLEAR that
Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father
and the author's opinon does not seem to deny the atonement nature, only claiming that this is NOT just wrath
the article (linked here) goes on to say
A second problem with the Reformed conception is the following dilemma. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word.
God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true.
But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ’s Passion. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus.
Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity
Church beliefs are CLEAR that
Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father
and the author's opinon does not seem to deny the atonement nature, only claiming that this is NOT just wrath.
In fact, at the bottom, he clarifies that this WAS an atonement
From
the website called to communion goes on to say
One question, from the Reformed point of view, is: How then were our sins paid for, if Christ was not punished by the Father? Christ made atonement for the sins of all men by offering to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him. Hence through the cross Christ merited grace for the salvation of all men. Those who refuse His grace do not do so because Christ did not die for them or did not win sufficient grace for them on the cross, but because of their own free choice.
Please do Note -- your statement in post 962 It no longer believes in the atonement of Christ. is false.
Even this very website you cite states that the author believes in an atonment, while the catechism says Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father