That all depends on how one understands “satisfying the divine justice”. Are we to believe, for example, that St. Athanasius believed that the death of Christ was being offered in order to satisfy the Father’s need (for lack of a better term) to punish sins with respect to the Divine Justice, as Anselm might have taught? A reading of St. Athanasius’ discourses on the incarnation seem to indicate not, for St. Athanasius’ main reasoning (at least in On the Incarnation) for why the Father could not simply revoke the sentence of death brought upon Adam and his descendents does not appeal to the Divine Justice, but rather presents God (and His dilemma) in an almost anthropomorphic light.
The most Sovereign High, having promised the crown of His creation death if he ate of the forbidden fruit was bound by His word to sentence His beloved creation Adam to death for his disobedience. To revoke the sentence would be to prove himself to be a liar, and He therefore sent his Only-Begotten into the world, that the sentence of death could be annulled by the death of the very source of life, thus freeing Adam without ever revoking His promise that Adam would die.
It is, perhaps, more crude and more fantastic (or even more human) than Anselm’s more polished account, in which the sentence of death could not have been revoked because Adam, through his disobedience, dishonored his immutable Creator, and to have revoked the sentence would have rendered to the Creator less honor from Adam than what was due, making the Creator in truth subject to change. For Anslem then, we have that God, in accordance with His justice and majesty must punish sins, for sins render to God less honor than what is due to Him, and since God is immutable, this honor-due must be rendered to God by means of punishment.
So do we believe that the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary satisfied the divine justice? In a certain sense, yes (perhaps in the sense that St. Isaac of Nineveh understood the Divine Justice), but not in the Anselmian sense, no.