My overall impression is that in the preponderance of the scripture divine election is spoken of as something which God predestines when man at times wrestles out of, to his perdition. The notion of absolute predestination may be found too, especially in Romans 8:29f, but it is not prevalent. References to election that is conditional on the cooperation of the will “make your election sure”, “in order that the election might stand”, etc. are more common.
Why is it so? It is because the inspired authors recognized the absolute foreknowledge of God, but also because they were more concerned about teaching the Way, and less about theology lessons.
The theology is, of course, that divine foreknowledge also foreknows human cooperation with grace, “by works faith was made perfect”.
It sounds like you are saying that God predestines as time marches on, in given circumstances. This was not my understanding of Catholicism. I thought you believed that God predestines from the beginning, based on His foreknowledge. I thought you believed that predestination was more of an exercise by God rather than an act of sovereignty.
I would disagree that Romans 8:29 is a lone wolf verse, as the concept is clearly covered elsewhere. For example:
Eph 1:3-5 : 3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—
I mean, that's pretty clear. :) There is also:
1 Peter 1:23 : For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
Just as we did not choose to be physically born, so also do we not choose to be born again. The real choice is made by God in both cases. And,
Jer 1:5 : 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
This is also classic predestination, not matching what you appear to be saying. There is certainly nothing conditional sounding here. I would say that it is your interpretation of a few verses that is not prevalent.
[continuing:] Why is it so? It is because the inspired authors recognized the absolute foreknowledge of God, but also because they were more concerned about teaching the Way, and less about theology lessons.
God's foreknowledge certainly exists and is available, but it is superfluous because God ordains everything that He foresees. If God is sovereign and in control, then He has no need to "consult" His foreknowledge. But if man is really in control, then that would fit the model you appear to be espousing.
Some in the "pro-foreknowledge" camp rely strongly on the following for their view:
1 Peter 1:1-2 : To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Of course the key word is "foreknowledge". By my search, the Greek word is "prognosis", which doesn't add much, but the word THAT comes from is "proginosko" (Strong's NT:4267) which means "to ordain", not just to foreknow something outside of one's control. This supports what I believe to be the much greater weight of evidence that predestination and election are wholly sovereign acts of God, before the foundations.