To be sure much of the debate about the necessity of work in salvation is spurious. Some is terminological, some is a difference in emphasis. I never heard of a Protestant (except Luther himsalf, possibly in one of his agitated states) urging people to do bad works, and no informed Catholic would say that his good works are possible without the grace of Christ.
The Catholic teaching can be, perhaps called perseverance of the elect, -- not the saints since we reserve the word "saint" to those exceptional men and women of whose final salvation the Church has made a specific determination of canonization. We certainly think that many others have gone, guided by the Divine Grace, to their reward in Heaven, and so they persevered to the end, just as the gospel commanded them.
The difference, however, lies beyond that simple label, and it is in the central topic of this thread, the teaching on the free will. We believe that the very fact that the Gospel speaks so much about perseverance, moral behavior and charity points to the presence of free will in the faithful, who can choose for the good or for the evil on his own accord; he can therefore respond to grace with good works or fail to do so and perish. We do not believe in God ordaining men to do evil, and we do not believe in the elect lead to their salvation robotically. This is the faith of the fathers that the Church has taught from the beginning; it is clearly stated in the Gospel; it is not a product of some doctrinal development (like, for example, priestly celibacy or the precise formulary of the sacraments) but rather the core Christian belief of all ages.
I presume that you would say that all of the elect go to heaven. It cannot be an accident that all of the elect just happen to persevere on their own free will choices. Therefore, do you then believe that God's elect are REALLY only those who choose of their own free will to persevere? If God does not actually choose His own elect, why should they not be called man's elect?