Catholics do not believe that salvation is by grace alone,
Wrong.
and therefore argue that their salvation hinges on their obedience to Rome and their own good works.
Grossly oversimplified. But, yes, we do believe that James 2 and Matthew 25 are Scripture, and we do take them seriously, rather than trying to pretend they don't apply to us.
(They even believe that baptism confers “grace,”
Paul said that everyone who is baptized into Christ has put on Christ. Sounds like grace to me.
giving them the ability to believe, which is an act of man and not of God alone.)
Trent is crystal clear that faith precedes baptism in adults. That's why they profess their faith before they are baptized; look at the liturgy sometime. Duh! Do I really need to post quotes from magisterial documents declaring that faith is a gift of God??
Both you and Dutchboy hate a caricature you've been taught to hate, and have no understanding of the reality.
One big problem is there are conflicting descriptions of that "reality" spoken of.
It's not such a nice and tidy bundle as advertised.
When people here opposing works-based plans of salvation are themselves condemned as not knowing what is what, who can blame them for allegedly getting it wrong? Who made it complicated?
When looking at discussions of the information, there seems to be always dispute over definition of terms, application, etc. People like Augustine and John Cassian can be seen to argue different aspects of the same theological considerations, with those aspects logically at odds with one another at times.
According to the established traditional view among scholars, Cassian is the most prominent of the representatives of the monastic movement in southern Gaul who, in about 425 gave expression to the soteriological view that much later was called Semipelagianism.[9] This emphasized the role of free will in that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual, without the need for divine grace. His thought has been described as a "middle way" between Pelagianism, which taught that the will alone was sufficient to live a sinless life, and the view of Augustine of Hippo, which emphasizes original sin and the absolute need for grace.For instance, Owen Chadwick stated that Cassian held that man can come to God without the intervention of divine grace first;[4] and B.B. Warfield called Cassian the leader of the monastics in southern Gaul who asserted that men begin their turning to God and that God assists that beginning.[10]
The ideas expressed by Cassian to which critics have pointed as examples of his alleged Semipelagianism are found in his Conferences, in book 3, the Conference of Abbot Paphnutius; book 5, the Conference of Abbot Serapion; and most especially in book 13, the Third Conference of Abbot Chaeremon.
The view that Cassian propounded Semipelagianism has been disputed. Lauren Pristas, writes: "For Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace. It is fully divine. Salvation, however, is salvation of a rational creature who has sinned through free choice. Therefore, salvation necessarily includes both free human consent in grace and the gradual rehabilitation in grace of the faculty of free choice. Thus Cassian insists salvation is also fully human. His thought, however, is not Semi-Pelagian, nor do readers who submit to the whole corpus emerge Semi-Pelagians."[11] And Augustine Casiday states that "for Cassian ... although sparks of goodwill may exist (which are not directly caused by God), they are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention can ensure our spiritual progress".[12]
The Latin Church condemned Semipelagianism in the local Council of Orange in 529, but recognizes Cassian himself as a saint.[6] It did not endorse Augustine entirely[13] and, while later Catholic theologians accepted Augustine's authority, they interpreted his views in the light of writers such as Cassian.[14]
So go ahead, do the Roman Catholic thing if you must, pretending that no one can understand, but members of that club (regardless of the fact the information is open to all).
I'm not so convinced the complaint frequently expressed by FRomans here is all that justified, for over a span of many years, I've seen things argued by them one way...then another. It's like sitting on a water-bed... sit on one side, up goes the other. Then when that bulge becomes rhetorically embarrasing, then go sit on the lump. Then pretend there are no lumps or bulges wherever one sits...
The above quotations sure has Lauren Pristas appearing to have things both ways, while she hold forth some disagreement with others over Cassain, but I do enjoy (and will quote again) Augustine Casiday stating that "for Cassian ... although sparks of goodwill may exist (which are not directly caused by God), they are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention can ensure our spiritual progress".[12]
Sounds downright Calvinistic. Or should I say, many today whom identify more with Calvinists than Roman Catholicism in general, today much lean towards incorporating the type of outlook as is in bold above. So I must ask you...if there is confusion over theological issues, who created such confusions in the first place?
It's no wonder other approaches towards description were implemented. If you look carefully, Calvinism and it's decendants, does go back towards Augustine (in some regards) and before him Cassius, but go further towards discrediting man being able to earn his own way along the road of grace towards greater understanding and submission to the Holy Spirit than seemingly does Roman Catholicism today...stipulating that the only things within a person which can even respond to Him and grow towards being more fully in accord with Him, is what He Himself both awakens and instills within a soul, in the first place. Yet this does not preclude some cooperation from man entirely, with it being more a matter of what one yield themselves to.
"There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Boniface VIII.
A caricature? Since you are now reading minds, a little self-examination ought to be no problem, at all. Check your sign-on to a monstrous lie.
“Grossly oversimplified. But, yes, we do believe that James 2 and Matthew 25 are Scripture, and we do take them seriously, rather than trying to pretend they don’t apply to us.”
“Grossly oversimplified” for the religion that lives on equivocation, which denies a thing and then affirms it. But I also believe in James 2 and Matthew 25, and do not grossly separate them from the whole of the Bible. The scriptures cannot be broken, and therefore when James says:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
And when Paul says:
Rom 4:2-7 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
When they say these things, this is not an indication of a fight between two Apostles. Rather, when James speaks of justification, he does not speak on its causes, but on its effects, as a living faith is that faith which produces fruit, whereas dead faith leaves no mark of difference on the damned. James also states, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). So then, what does the law profit someone, when any sin whatsoever, no matter how obedient one is on some other matter, renders you guilty of the whole as if you were the worst reprobate? But we are wretched sinners, and there is nothing good in us that is from us. And so we spend more time in the utmost disobedience than we ever do in obedience. Salvation, then, must be by grace through faith, and not of ourselves, which is why Cornelius and his family in Acts are justified and baptized by the Holy Spirit prior to even water baptism, and why the Thief on the cross can die having no good works under his name, except the mercy of God who saves.
And what is grace, actually? Is it an inanimate object that you can receive by staring at a statue of Mary?
God’s grace is utterly sovereign, and is not moved by man.
Rom 9:11-16 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. (13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, PRIOR to there being any good and evil in the man. It is God who predestinates whom He will, and whom He predestinates He calls, and who He calls He justifies, and who He justifies He glorifies:
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
So the whole work of salvation belongs to God, and has nothing to do with man. So that even faith and works must bow to the sovereign will of God, for by grace are men brought to Christ, not by flesh and blood, but by divine revelation, by grace are men revealed that God is God, and by grace do men produce fruits.
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
“Paul said that everyone who is baptized into Christ has put on Christ. Sounds like grace to me.”
Cornelius was baptized by the Holy Spirit, prior to water baptism:
Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
It is the Baptism of the Spirit which is superior to that of water, which is only the symbol of a spiritual reality already existent.
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Your carnal works have no effect on the sovereignty of God and His Spirit. All salvation and worship springs from the Spiritual, for God is Spirit and desires worshippers who believe in Him in Spirit and in Truth.