Sorry, I'm not misrepresenting anything. My point is that the early church father BELIEVED in the Penal Substitution theory. The article that I linked to SAYS they believed in it but the Church evolved its beliefs. What you stated only confirms what I stated-the Church doesn't believe in what was taught by the early church fathers in the way of atonement. Calvin didn't go "beyond" Anselm. He went BACK to the early fathers.
The Church simply doesn't believe what the early church fathers taught. They believe what the Council of Trent and forward taught.
HarleyD:
No, they did not believe in Penal Substituion. THat was Calvins theory. St. Anselms Satisfaction Theory was largely a development to totally show why the Ransom THeory that was proposed by some Fathers, i.e. God had to pay Debt and thus if God had to pay a Debt, it was paid to Satan to ransom back humanity. God doesn’t owe a debt to Satan, which is where the Ransom theory went off into an area that the Christus Victor theory rooted in recapitulation of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus and Anselms Satisfaction theory did not.
Penal Substituon is a theory of Calvin where the Cross is seen to appease God’s Wrath and Justice. There is No Incarnation theology linked to it at all, ie. God is Love and No greater Love than to lay ones life down for his Friends, etc.
HarleyD:
First off, let me say that as compared to some of the other Protestants on FR, you are at least willing to engage in the Theological Tradition of the Church down thru the centuries. I mean that in all honesty and You and I have been here long enough to know tha I don’t mince words.
Now, I think there is some misunderstanding here. The Council of Trent defined more defintively the Catholic position of Justification. The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement, while related to the Doctrine of Justification is distinct from it.
Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Enclyopedia (1998, p. 112) states regarding Atonement “ The Christian Doctrine that CHrist’s passion, death and resurrection, infinite satisfaction is made to God for the sins of humanity. Through this satisfaction, we are reconciled to God. Christ atonement consists, no primarily to the intensity of of the suffering he endured, but in the perfectly obedient and LOVING [emphasis mine] acceptance of the will of the Father which He displayed in embracing this suffering for our sake. Christ’s perfect obedience atones for the disobedience of Adam and wins for us the Grace of obedient discipleship and divinizing sanctification.......In the History of Christian Doctrine, a variety of theological explanationss have been developed to account for the mystery of atonement. Theories that emphasize the love and obedience of Christ in suffering for our sake are preferable to those theories [either penal or substitutional] that center on the appeasement of Divine wrath or the ransom paid to Satan.”
So as I stated earlier, the Catholic understanding of the atonement is rooted in the Christus Victor Theory-Recapitulation [St. Justine Martyr, St. Irenaus from the 2nd century] and the Satisfaction Theory. The Christ Victor-Recapitulation idea is very important in the Eastern Orthodox Church and many later Church Fathers also used this theory [St. Athanasius, St. Augustine and St. Clement of Alexandria]. Theosis, which is what happens to humanity because of Grace is rooted in Recapitulation theory of atonement, very important in the Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is also part of the Catholic Church.
Satisfaction, most fully developed by St. Anselm is also acceptable as the Definition I cited cleary states. So the Catholic CHurch in terms of the atonement would combine aspects of the Christus Victor-Recapitulatio and Satisfaction theories. On the other hand, the Ransom theory paid to the Devil and Penal Subsitution are not acceptable from the Catholic perspective.
Justification, the process by which a sinner is made righeous, pure and Holy before God is what the Council of Trent defined against Luther’s Doctrine and Calvins Doctrine.
Now, the Catholic Doctrine of Justification is entirely consistent with the Theories of the Atonement that I cited above and while they are correlated with each other, there are still Distinct Doctrines. On that point, I think you would agree or at least you will see that In Catholic Theology those are Dictinct but Related Doctrines.
From their own brethren:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.(http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)
Also see 871 of 904