I’ll try a point by point response to your lists plus the additional point I brought up. My apologies for speling mistakes and t8pos and for a cruder format than I’d like; I’m using a Kindle and don’t know how to spell-check on it, and trying to copy and paste, etc., is a nightmare.
That man is dead in his sins:
The only difference you make between the two Arminianisms here is whether it’s explicitly said to be the same as in Calvinism’s Total Depravity. It’s a tough subject because many Catholics (and non-Calvinist Protestants) have a very negative, perhaps exaggerated impression of the Calvinist doctrine. Certainly we believe that through Original Sin, and for most adults also through personal sin, we are cut off from God and completely incapable of attaining salvation prior to grace. This does not mean we have lost our natural goodness entirely, but it is my impression that Calvinists do not actually believe this.
Whether one emphasizes human fallenness and sinfullness or the nobility and natural goodness we still possess is largely a matter of personal temperament and choice. The point is that we are flawed creatures who retain to some degree the image of God within us, and we are entirely reliant on grace to save us. I think this is one issue most Catholics and Protestants are not very far from each other on.
That God uses his foreknowledge to elect the elect/ that God predestined Jesus to be the chosen one, making those who believe in him (through preveniant grace) part of the elect:
This is a point of disagreement between the Catholic schools, as you may know. Thomism, “Augustinianism”, and Congruism all accept a hard idea of predestination in which God’s choice to elect a certain individual logically precedes His foreknowledge of that person’s salvation. Non-Congruist Molinism, like Arminianism, ultimately makes predestination/election a consiquence of God’s foreknowledge. In the case of Molinism this requires much more elaborate mental gymnastics as they tie it to their idea of scientia media, which in itself is a highly deterministic concept (it means a certain person put in a certain situation can only do one thing), but the end result is similar.
Anyway, because of the unsettled theological disagreements there isn’t much formal teaching on this subject. I would just say that any theory which regards predestination as the same thing as foreknowledge or that only speaks of predestination with regard to Christ Himself would be operating outside the definitions these words are usually given in the Catholic Church, whether or not the underlying idea would be considered heretical.
That Jesus died for everyone:
This is something we can agree with, presuming it is meant in the way nearly all Christians (inculding Arminians) have meant it. That is, assuming it means Jesus died to make salvation possible for all men, not that all will actually be saved and go to heaven because of it. We believe in God’s universal salvific will and the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for everyone’s salvation, but at the same time that only the “elect” (nowadays Catholic sources usually put that word in quotes, I suppose to put some emotional distance between the modern Catholic and the word which is a traditional part of Catholic theology) will actually be saved. How those two realities are reconciled to each other is one of those difficult, much disputed questions, but both are clear from Scripture and Tradition.
That grace is resistable:
This is one of the big debates in Catholic theology. Thomists insist that grace which is actually accepted is intrinsically efficacious. Congruist and non-Congruist Molinists both insist on a resistable concept of grace. Molinists think intrisically efficacious grace negates free will by its efficacy, though Thomists strongly deny this (similarly, Thomists think scientia media contradicts the idea of free will, which Molinists strongly deny).
The one key point is that Catholics, like Armenians, believe in free will and therefore only accept theories on grace which do not (in the opinion of the theologian, at least) take away that free will. Also even the most strident Thomist would not likely use such a harsh term as “irresistable grace”. Thomists speak of grace as “moving the will without forcing it.”
That man can lose his salvation:
If we look real closely we may find differences in Catholic and Arminian thought regarding what sin and salvation are, but on the surface at least our positions on this issue are identical. A person can fall from grace. If I’m not mistaken even Calvinists accept the possibility in a certain hypothetical sense, that if a Christian lost faith in Christ for example he would fall from grace and lose his salvation, they just believe that this will never actually happen. It’s only the Once Saved Always Saved crowd that holds the loss of salvation to be impossible in an absolute sense.
Finally, whether a person can repent and return to God even after apostasy:
Catholics, like Wesleyan Arminians, believe that this is possible. Anyone who has read Hebrews can understand why some Protestants have been inclined to deny this, but apostasy does not take away free will and many apostates have in fact returned to the faith. We just have to seek (honestly) an interpretation of the statement in Hebrews that leaves this possibility open.
