>> You made that comment that Lutheran view on sanctification can lead to "Let us sin more so that Grace might increase!" For a poor taught person, perhaps. But the counter argument can be made that the Roman Catholic view on sanctification can lead to "I am saved by my works". <<
Well, on paper they might seem equally likely. But there are three relevant differences:
1. The experience of shame/scandal tends to lock in a sinful behavior, and denial mechanisms.
2. A person who does good works in the vain hope of earning his salvation does evil merely through human incompetence and short-sightedness. Meanwhile, although Calvin would disupte this, his endeavors may have good effects, and may situate himself where grace may increase. (For instance, if he goes to mass to earn salvation, he still receives the grace of communion and the sacraments, even if his theology is distorted; and he may well hear the Church pound into his head the notion that it is heretical to earn salvation.); A person who does evil so that grace may increase, well, does evil; inflames evil intentions, and places himself in evil environments.
3. Some of the points raised in issue 2 demonstrate the real workings of prevening grace and invidious evil.
>> The difference is we believe (as the Bible says and even the RCC agrees in part) that the works themselves do not save us. Faith does. <<
In part? It seems like you are trying to cling to a misperception to justify maintaining your beliefs, even as you are coming to acknowledge its falseness. The Catholic Church does not believe that works themselves save us. The distinction is that the Catholic church neither believes that faith saves us, but that both are effects of the Love of Christ. "If I have all faith, but have not love, I have nothing at all." -- St. Paul.
>> Roman Catholics tend to focus on faith and works. <<
Not hardly. One hardly ever hears the word "works" used at all in any Catholic service or ministry I've ever attended. It is Luther who created the dichotomy, which is totally alien to Catholicism, except for trying to respond to Luther. In fact, the "greatest saint in modern times," the most widely read author in the world outside of scripture, beloved role model of a response to modernity, and doctor of the church of evangelization, is a nun who died very young and never left her cloister. And the "mother of the Church," (John 20: "Behold thy mother.") singular embodiment of the Church (Rev. 12, for instance), and sinless role model of obedience, the Blessed Virgin Mary, her singular work consisted of nothing more than saying, "let it be done unto me according to Thy will."
>> Something that has been lost in my generation of Lutherans is the Theology of the Cross. <<
I'm afraid it's a systemic weakness of Lutherism. Luther argued against using reason to discern the will of God. Combined with his notion that one should not fear sin, since the worst that could happen is that you increase your (saving) faith through the experience of forgiveness, this doctrine weakens spiritual resolve. Again, it's not a coincidence that terms like "zeitgeist" are German.
Unfortunately, most American Catholic's understanding of their faith is a characature of it presented to them by the formerly Lutherist mainstream. Ask Catholics in 1800 whether they can be saved through works and they'd look at you like you've got three heads, "Where did you ever get that bizarre notion?" Ask a modern-day Catholic, and they'd probably say "yes"! They BELIEVE that the Catholic church teaches that because they constantly are TOLD that the Catholic Church teaches that, failing to recognize that what they are told are secularist and Lutherist lies!
The reliance on feelings to discern God's will is a horribly destructive force in today's society. Surrounded by a Christian culture, as established by the Catholic church in Europe, such feelings are informed by the Christian environment, and adequately align with Christian reason. In a modern, secular world, they are thoroughly antithetical to Christian reason.
Hence, churches which are successful in modern society are those that isolate themselves from modern society, creating "bubbles" of a more Christian zeitgeist. However, extreme expressions of religiosity in such an environment tend to range from either insularity (such as 7th-Day Adventists) born of desperation of maintaining a pure environment, the neo-gnosticism of certain Pentecostalist movements, or the empty hype characteristic of many black and youth-oriented churches.
(The emerging Catholic response is Eucharistic Adoration and Contemplation, or as I like to call it: "Son-bathing." :^D We Catholics move slow [compare the RCC to Air Craft carriers, and non-denominational and new denominations to jet skis.] and even few of its authors understood that Vatican II constituted throwing away crutches so we would walk, but I think this response is very successful. It's nice to see a Vatican II author in the Vatican, to help "reform the 'reform'"!)
I failed to connect a few dots for any readers:
>> I'm afraid it's a systemic weakness of Lutherism. <<
By this I mean that the Theology of the Cross, if deprived of the strength supplied by reason, is too counter-intuitive to persist in a society which is hostile to it. Thus even though Luther "got" the the Theology of the Cross, he deprived subsequent generations of rationalism needed to maintain and promote it. And yes, rationalism is needed for the theology of the cross! Without reason and without valuing works, who would choose suffering? A person with the experience that suffering is accompanied by an experience of God's Love might (as C.S. Lewis did), but without reason, how could he communicate that experience? Surely he wouldn't wish suffering on others! Surely someone suffering is cold to being told, "it's for your own good"! Rather, they must be fore-armed with reason, so that they can make sense of suffering when it happens. ("Oh, this is what [Mother Therese/ C.S. Lewis/ St. Francis] meant!")
I have heard many a Catholic, and a good number on this forum, say you "need" works for salvation. Heck, a good number of the uber conservatives (sorry, LCMS term there) will even go as far to ascribe some sort of prior good works to the Good Thief on the cross beside Jesus. To claim that the idea of works being necessary is not new. That became the main dividing issue after Trent. Nowadays, most Catholic theologians would probably see things your way. But remember the appendix to the JDF. At least a few would have problems with what you are saying.
You still can't get the point that in Lutheran theology, you don't sin to increase grace! In fact, the feeling was just the opposite, and resulted in something called the Pietist movement. Long story on that one, but to be short there was a trend to lead people to believe that they can live so holy a life that they no longer sin. As you can imagine that led to all sorts of problems.
Sigh, what I do always start this right when I have to head back to work!