Thanks for that! I mean that sincerely. I see it was meant as a compliment --- I think...
But it did raise a smile. It's like you're saying, "That's sound Catholic teaching there. But how an that be?! (Think, think, think.) OH! The Catholics must have stolen that from the Baptists..."
:o)
Admitting that such has taken place (and it not be the boogieman of "Modernism") does appear to me to be impossible for RCC Magesteriium to forthrightly come to grips with, though there are those Catholics who would confess to about as much, rather loosely, and that the correction was aimed at 16th century corruptions, etc., which is much the truth of things, overall.
Despite the significant differences in comparison to other ekklesia both East and West of the Church of Rome, Rome has rhetorically and even theologically painted itself into a corner --- for never being able to admit to the slightest of errors. When any of those when found (often only after heavy pressure from outside forces the confession) then it's all just blamed on individuals, or is "not ex-cathedra(!) or any of a few other well-worn methodologies there are of avoiding the very idea that the Roman Catholic Church could have ever been mistaken about anything...
Whether are not that list you brought is common "Catholic teaching" or not would be difficult to affirm going by what is usually talked about around here by Roman Catholics themselves. Not that long ago I had asked more than a few Roman Catholics here for a list of things which *must be* believed and they sent to the CCC which is how many pages? Hundreds which hold "that which must be believed" isn't it?
Which considerations towards is part of what lead me to say the list could have been cribbed from others, from Christians outside of the RCC, then given a going-over to make it better conform to outlooks and opinions which are more peculiar to RCC sensibilities in order that it CAN BE passed off as "this is what the RCC teaches" and yet not sound foreign to evangelical ears.
Also, the list is lacking the things which Roman Catholics on these pages seem to quite often stress are foremost. Perhaps so-called "Catholics' are generally as ignorant of their own Church's teachings as Catholics claim the critics of that same are?
It all depends on where one looks...and what subjective identifications are made as to what the RCC teaches is necessary for salvation (and what can be set aside as just "advice") for there has been so much written and accumulated over the centuries -- a person could pick either 'side' of a wide range of issues and be able to argue that the RC church "teaches" that, and sometimes things running alongside, from a quite different approach or angle.
There are still differences between RCC and "Protestants" in general, including how you placed "works" as a means of salvation, when just a little bit earlier in the day you claimed there was no such thing preached by the RCC as necessary for salvation...though in that context it was worded as "keeping" salvation -- which you vehemently denied was the case.
There is more that varies significantly with Protestant Evangelical teachings even as some of the same words are used...
Often it is an order-of-operations sort of thing. And then there is (within your list) the confusing and mixing-up of greater sanctification with what is more simply "justification" itself -- which justification itself is enough for salvation (the very body He extends saying "take, eat, my body broken for you") according to the promises of Christ, and the teachings of Paul concerning those, and how all of these things can fit.
Rome has added much to that list of yours which goes far beyond those things listed by qualifying/limiting/restricting/ even prohibiting anyone to grasp them --- if those persons are outside of their own clutches.
Exceptions to this, such as yourself, and some others perhaps, are not enough to make all the rest of the accumulated additions of that which is part-and-parcel of Romanism not be still very much extant as for what the Church of Rome teaches is "necessary for salvation".
Certainly you know this? That's what drives me right up the wall -- about how you portray things to be...
Absent your list was any preaching that the RCC itself be necessary for salvation. If that is not a teaching of the church, then you would have your work cut out for you to set the [Roman] Catholics around here straight, for they all seem to "preach" some form of that --- cramming that in every which-a-way possible.