Perhaps you could make use of the post to elucidate…otherwise, you just come off as rather glib, and I mean no disrespect. What you could have said, in terms of an answer, might have helped…
Even as a Catholic, I can say in good conscience (and do say) that were are justified by grace alone, through faith alone (
sola gratia, sola fide). I even adhere to
solus Christus (only Christ can save) and, understood differently,
soli Deo gloria (I know the Latin is wrong, but it’s traditional: “glory to God alone”, meant by the Reformers to give no honor to saints, interpreted by my to mean
latreia to God alone).
My understanding of “grace alone” is in all essential areas the same as any traditional Calvinist (the only difference being I accept, as is necessary, the distinction between the antecedent and consequent wills of God, and therefore do not believe in “double predestination” of any sort), and my understanding of “faith alone” is similar to the “Lordship” people - that saving faith
necessarily entails sanctification, but we can not receive grace “freely” by confessing Jesus or believing on him for a moment and then carrying on: for Jesus saith to the woman caught in adultery,
“Go now and sin no more”, and John preacheth,
“Repent [turn away from sin] and be baptized, for the Kingdom of God is at hand”.
The sacraments don’t save us =justify us] in any way, nor do any other works that occur after our initial justification (except for baptism, viz. baptismal regeneration, which is when we are first justified, which is the Catholic counterpart to the “choose Jesus moment” for a free-grace Protestant), but they help us and are the Christ-certified, divinely-approved channels of actual graces to grow in holiness =sanctification]: they are means of
sanctification, not
justification. (It’s debatable whether Penance is justifying, but the sacrament is not inherently necessary, as perfect contrition will itself cause God to forgive sins before the Sacrament has been performed; but it is justifying to those who are imperfectly contrite).
Note that I am a strong Thomist (Bañezian)-monergist on the issue of Grace, and that there are other less “crypto-Calvinistic” positions that can be held by Catholics in good faith and orthodoxy, such a Molinism (the “middle knowledge” of God, equivalent to Arminianism, if we’re doing analogies), and Congruism (a Molinism modified to make all prevenient grace sufficient, a “Reformed Arminianism”).
This strong Thomist-Bañezianism colors my response and makes me closer to traditional Protestants, especially Reformed, on many issues than many Catholics (and even modern Protestants) are (several famous modern Protestants such as William Lane Craig, and, I believe, Alvin Plantinga, are Molinists, and thus are less predestinarian than myself: predestinarianism, grace, justification, and sanctification are all tied together in a Gordian knot).
One could say that Calvin got most of everything right, except he undercut his own foundation by failing to differentiate between the antecedent and consequent wills of God, thereby making God the author of sin (and logically leading to the Perseverance of the Saints, which was warped by Free Gracers in to “Once Saved, Always Saved”), and building his house on a foundation of sand, whereas Thomas, rightly dividing the Word of Truth (and the will of God), built his system upon solid rock.
Insofar as perseverance of the Saints, it is true for Catholics - Molinist and Thomist - as well as it is for Reformed. Those who are elect, and were elected before the beginning of time,
will persevere in the faith unto Heaven. And those who are not elect will not. But sanctification accompanies it, and we can not claim to know if we are of the elect: such is the sin of presumption in the highest degree (Reformed believe one can have the assurance of salvation, and that’s the main point of departure between them and Catholics on that point). “Once saved always saved” is a further perversion and mockery of the catholic (lower-case “c”: “universal”) doctrine, espoused by Augustine, of perseverance of the elect, which states that as soon as one confesseth the name Jesus, one is saved, and, even if not sanctified in the least, will be saved, and can never lose his justification: it removes justification to a single-instant occurrence, artificially severs it from the spectrum of sanctification, and makes justification the result of what is in essence a Magical Incantation (and makes the Holy Name of Jesus a magical word), instead of a turning away from sin (Gk
metanoia, “change of
nous”).
For an excellent (possibly the most excellent in print) explanation of the Thomist-Bañezian position on Grace, read
Predestination by Reginald-Garrigou Langrange, OP.
