Because Christ’s righteousness is given to us, that is what God sees, not my pathetic attempts that fall far short.
But what God sees, IS. It's not like there's a hidden part of us that is shielded from His view.
Therefore Christ's righteousness has to be part of our *essence* not merely just our appearance. Infusion not imputation.
I have been thinking about this for a while now, as I continue my journey towards my destiny with Christ. Specifically, a message I've been told many times during Confession: It isn't helpful to focus on being good and/or how many times we avoid sin, but rather on how much God loves us, that is, the love God has for us.
Indeed, I'm not sure that your, Gamecock's, statement is all that different than the notion of Sainthood often offered by those in the Catholic Church: A saint isn't someone who has never sinned, but who has sinned 100 times, and Confessed his sin 101 times.
I think this is the Gospel message. We can have hope because, despite our failings, God will always give us a second chance. We must always work, with His help, to avoid sin, but this is not the ultimate measure of a man. The ultimate measure is not how many times we have avoided sin, but rather how many times we have been sorry for it.
I realize this may be just a restatement of what your OP said was the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. I do not see though how the Protestant view (from the OP) is truly put into practice, assuming one is not proud of one's sin (and truly, how is it possible to say "I love God, but I don't care about my sin"?). IOW, I'm reasonably confident that if I were to ask you (anyone reading this now), "Don't you feel sorry for your sin, after you sin?", you would probably say "yes". And/or, if I were to ask, "Don't you ask God for forgiveness after you sin?", you would probably say "yes". This is all I'm saying really. Catholics and Protestants focus (or at least try to focus) on God's forgiving love for us, not on our past sins, or how often we have not sinned, or how often we've done good things, etc. Catholics and Protestants are in agreement about what is important vis a vis our relationship with God; this agreement is in practice, not in theology. But why get so hung up on theological differences when such differences are not really differences in practice?
We all know, instinctively, that, while it may be theologically arguable and therefore possible to say, "God only looks at our faith, never our works", it is perfectly ludicrous to believe that someone who has faith, that is, believes God is King and He is the only Salvation for man, but yet goes on sinning with reckless abandon, can somehow expect to enter Heaven. I've seen this question asked time and time again of a Protestant by a Catholic, "Catholic: Are you saying you are free to sin as much as you want? Protestant: No, of course not. I'm saying once one has faith, one no longer wants to sin." This is exactly what the Catholic believes though! We just get hung up on this "infusion vs imputation" argument, as if we were to settle that intellectual debate, our humanity would somehow be improved. I say, who cares which word is right; who cares as long as one's humanity is improved.
I'm therefore not attempting to address a dry, esoteric, theoretical debate with this post, because again, the theological difference is not, in reality, a difference between Catholicism and Protestantism in practice. The evidence for this shared belief is in one's own heart, and, dare I say, one's own experience. Indeed, all one needs to do is ask oneself honestly, "Can I say I 'love God with all my heart' if I don't care about my sin?"
It's folly to say that. No Catholic could ever say that. No Protestant could either. No one could say that, because "love" is not something you have for another just to avoid punishment. When you "love" someone, you have a natural desire to please them, whether or not it's possible. If one does not have such a desire, then it isn't truly "love", by every meaningful meaning of the word "love". Everyone knows this from one's own personal experience. I'm not "reading someone's mind"; it's really a challenge to anyone reading this now. Can you honestly say that you "love" God if you don't try to please Him? Forget about whether or not you are able to because you can't; again, it's not that God expects you to be able to please Him, but we are expected to try. "How can you say you love me if you do not follow my commandments?"
So really, I think Protestants and Catholics really do believe the same thing about this issue. We just get caught up in heady, intellectual exercises that employ words like "infusion" vs "imputation", all the while loosing sight of the forest by focusing on such trees. The real difference here seems to me, to believe or not whether it's possible to have one's sins forgiven by God through a priest, and not just by going to God directly (whatever that means). I do not believe that difference is settled by arguing "infusion vs imputation" either; it's "settled" as any difference in theology is ultimately decided for each person: by an examination of one's own experience. But this (forgiveness by God through a priest or God directly {a false dichotomy anyway} ) topic is not of this thread admittedly, so I have no desire to hijack it by focusing on that topic here.