According to the New Testament, the salvation of the human race is linked to the death of the Savior. The practical consequences are already indicated: deliverance of the soul, expiation of sin, reconciliation with God.
As for the explanation of the mystery, it is found there in germinal form; in Saint Paul, under the form of ransom, devotion, obedience, expiatory sacrifice, penal substitution; in Saint John, as divine adoption, life of the soul, and redemption of the body. This is a dual perspective which, far from being considered exclusively, must be combined and complement one another, which, in fact, determined a dual current among the Fathers, but which ultimately prevailed.
Alongside striking insights and correct ideas, which will remain as the expression of the teaching, how much groping, imperfect attempts, risky, rash, and questionable views, of which reason, better enlightened by faith, must dispose, retaining only the substantial truth, the only one fully in accordance with the Gospel data, the only one identical and permanent through the multiple explanations with which it has been ceaselessly enveloped.
At its core, the Redemption is nothing other than the destruction of sin and its consequences by the salutary death of Jesus. But there is a dual datum here: the sin of man and the death of the Savior. Sin and death must be examined in their ultimate reasons before the synthesis can be made. Now, what did the Fathers do? They studied them separately, too often superficially, without penetrating to the intimate reality, and above all without seeking to understand the mysterious link that exists between the death of Christ and the sin of man.
This is to say, consequently, that after them remained the task of the systematic organization of Christian teaching on this so important dogma. In turn, the Fathers studied sin and death. Sin was examined by them, rather in its consequences, than in its intimate nature. One of its general consequences is to cause man to fall from the supernatural state into a state of corruption and death; Our Lord withdrew us from the latter to restore us to the former.
And from this point of view, for the Greek Fathers, following Saint John and Saint Irenaeus, it is especially the Incarnation of the Word that operated this restoration, the Passion playing only a rather subdued role. It will therefore be important to highlight the role of the Redemption and to restore to it the place it occupies in the divine plan.
Another general consequence of sin is that it placed man under the dependence of the devil. The Gospel and Saint Paul speak of ransom; salvation is a redemption. Now, among the Fathers, some represented the devil as the master of the sinner, as a creditor, and they concluded that it is to the devil that Our Lord had to pay the ransom for deliverance.
Others, sensing that such a conception was unacceptable, recalled that the devil is only a creature, that if he has rights over the sinner, he could only hold them from God's permission, and they concluded that, towards him, the Savior had no account to settle of commutative justice. Of these two opinions, the first will be set aside, the second will simply be amended.
p>Finally, sin was considered from particular points of view; in relation to God, as an outrage that excites His just wrath, as a fault that deserves punishment; in relation to the soul, as a stain that needs to be purified. This is why the Fathers viewed the mystery of the Redemption as a reparation of God's honor, as a penalty suffered in place of the sinner, hence the idea of a penal and satisfactory substitution, in conformity with the prophecy of Isaiah, and as a purification of absolute efficacy, according to the doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews.These points of view will be taken up and examined more thoroughly. After the sin of man, the death of the Savior was studied in itself. It is the unmerited death of an innocent victim: it pays the debt of the truly guilty. It is a voluntary death, freely accepted out of obedience: it far surpasses the sacrifices of the old law. It is an act of extraordinary love: it pleases God. It is the death of a God: it possesses infinite value.
Most of these ideas, very correct in themselves, are to be retained. But, expressed here and there, according to circumstances, without a firm overall view, none of them took on a dominant prominence or became the center of a harmoniously linked system. They therefore need to be subjected to a more rigorous analysis and arranged in a logical order.
Furthermore, it is especially the intimate and mysterious link, which exists between the death of the Savior and the sin of man, that must be sought and carefully determined. And finally, since sin could only be repaired by a sacrifice, but by a sacrifice to which only a God-man could give all its efficacy, it remained to point out, better than the Fathers had done, either the motive for this sacrifice, or the reason for its value.
This was the work of theological elaboration, which takes shape with Saint Anselm, becomes more precise with Peter Lombard and Alexander of Hales, and is completed with Saint Thomas. Saint Anselm was the first to attempt a systematization of the redemptive idea and to place it in satisfaction; it is in his work, Why the Incarnation.
He proceeds there with the aid of reasoning. Sin demands satisfaction and man is powerless to provide it. Why, first, does sin demand satisfaction? It is because it is a gratuitous offense towards God, a refusal of the homage due to Him, a disobedience which constitutes an injustice. It must therefore be repaired. But, to repair this moral and external damage, the only one that can be in question in relation to God, one must restore to God what was taken from Him, that is to say, His honor.
Either satisfy or undergo punishment, no middle ground. But man, capable of sinning, is incapable of worthily repairing his fault. Why? Because sin, by attacking God, takes on an exceptional gravity, which is measured by the infinite dignity of the offended person, while satisfaction is only measured by the dignity of the one who satisfies.
Now, man cannot compare himself to God. Therefore, a repairer equal to God is needed. But God, as God, could not repair, since He is foreign to human nature, the only guilty one. Therefore, God must become man, He must be perfect God and perfect man. On the other hand, the God-Man is not a sinner; why then His death? To satisfy amply, superabundantly. His death is voluntary, therefore meritorious.
Unable to merit for Himself, since He has no need of it, He merited for sinners. And God ratified this substitution and this satisfaction. It is thus that Saint Anselm clearly brought out and grouped the patristic explanations, deepening them, on the infinite malice of sin, on the incapacity of any creature to repair it, and on the full sufficiency of the redemptive satisfaction.
Saint Anselm quite simply theorized the ideas current in tradition and better highlighted the notion of vicarious satisfaction; his attempt was crowned with success and will remain an established point of Catholic teaching. It can be applied to the idea of penal substitution, for Jesus Christ saved man by satisfying for the sinner to divine justice and by undergoing in his place the penalty he had deserved.
But it can also be applied to the generous act by which Our Lord accepted to save man by the Incarnation and the Redemption, putting the final seal on His mission by the bloody death on the cross, and thus magnificently compensating for our rebellion by His obedience, our pride by His humiliation, our sensuality by His painful passion.
But what can and must be reproached to Saint Anselm is his logical rigor which pushes him to uphold the necessity of the Incarnation and the Redemption, consequently leading to the belief that there was no other means to save fallen humanity.
"He insisted too much," says Fr. Bainvel, "on the necessity for God to give replacements for the fallen angels, and on the impossibility of pure and simple pardon, granted not without repentance, as he seems to understand it, but to repentance. The Incarnation, in fact, is only necessary on this double condition."
Also read | On the Nature and Attributes of God
The doctrine of Saint Anselm, scarcely known, was used, notably by Honorius of Autun, Hermann, abbot of Saint-Martin of Tournai, and Hervé of Bourg-Dieu. Honorius faithfully summarizes it: sin is grave, more grave than all the evils of the earth. To be saved, one must restore God's honor and satisfy for the injury done. Sin being greater than the world, the sinner had to offer God something greater than the world; and this is what he could not do. God took pity on him so as not to destroy His divine plan.
To abandon His honor would have been impotence; to glorify unpunished man would have been injustice. Neither a man nor an angel being able to satisfy, God sent the Savior. The Word became flesh; His unmerited and holy death paid the debt of sinful man; but, this death, God did not demand it, He only permitted it; and Jesus, by accepting it out of love, acquired a merit which redounds upon us.
Source: The Roman Catechism or the Teaching of Christian Doctrine – Canon Bareille – 1906