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.
You might consider that others must be factored in. The Greeks gave Pelagius a welcome, and have never been comfortable with Augustine, yet to call them pelagian is totally simplistic. IAC. no western synod every went totally with Augustine of the matter of grace, because his theology was shaped by his own path to acceptance of the Gospel.