I think the real issue here isn't the showing of an understanding, it is the not sharing an understanding.
I am disappointed that you continue to insist that is is not and cannot be God that works in us to perform the Spiritual and Corporeal Works of Mercy resulting from Salvation and that Catholic teaching is contrary to its actuality. I did not insist that you agree with Catholic teaching, only that you accurately present it in you dissent. I encourage you to reflect on Philippians 2:12-13.
I agree and, after repeated requests, you have not shared your understanding of the jargon you quoted. You still have not explained how my interpretation of your jargon was wrong. I have shared my understanding - both my own as well as the one you keep using jargon to explain. It is this jargon that needs further explanation.
I am disappointed that you continue to insist that is is not and cannot be God that works in us to perform the Spiritual and Corporeal Works of Mercy resulting from Salvation and that Catholic teaching is contrary to its actuality. I did not insist that you agree with Catholic teaching, only that you accurately present it in you dissent. I encourage you to reflect on Philippians 2:12-13.
You are disappointed? Show me where I have denied God works in us both producing the desire and the ability to do what pleases him. This is not where we disagree. That you continue to repeat the same phrase, but castigate me for trying to express my understanding of what it truly means, is my disappointment.
So, let me ask one more time. You said:
Works do, however, have an efficacious effect on Grace which is an input to Salvation. As the Holy Spirit is the manifestation op the love between the Father and the Son, Grace is the manifestation of the love between God and man. Agape is the sharing of that Grace / love, with each other. Passing on the Grace we receive, through corporeal and spiritual works of mercy, is the only way we can cooperate with and retain the Grace God gives us freely.
Now, explain to me - and anyone else who is scratching their heads wondering the same thing - how that is not saying "our works enable us to retain the grace necessary for salvation". Explain how this somehow doesn't mean the works we do contribute to our salvation. Explain how you can rectify the clear Scripture passages that state we are saved by faith APART from our works with doctrine that makes our works necessary in order to "keep" or retain the grace we must have in order to be saved. Can you do that? If not, then admit it and we are done for now.
Key operative word here being "resulting", which if put the way you just have, could be a teaching of pretty much any Reform-minded theologian.
"...and that Catholic teaching is contrary to its actuality."
Show me where she is disagreeing with good works being a result of salvation, or retract the statement.
Also; According to your own presentation in reply #154, how you state it in that to which I'm replying (#267), it DOES disagree with RCC teaching, being you said in #154 that "works...effect...grace...[and] grace...an input to salvation" along with you then further stating; (and here I will again use ellipses, for it all has been quoted back to you numerous times already) Passing on the grace...through...works...is the only way...we can...retain....grace..."
I do not blame you for the creation of such slippery language, but I do blame you for continuing in it, and repeating it, then trying to wiggle out of it. I further blame you, and have some ought against you for falsely accusing my friend for "continuing to insist" that it "is not and cannot be God that works in us to perform [good]...works", for that my FRomish FRiend, is what FRoman's here are fighting against -- that "works" flow as a result, and that the only actual "good" works, are God working within us, for that is reformist teaching also.
That [blame] is tempered by seeing you now seem to adopt Reformer's approach, ie., [good] works RESULTING from Salvation, leaving our salvation not inextricably bound up in ongoing, partial reliance upon our own [good] works to "retain" that grace which itself is a necessary "input" to salvation (according to you).
Nowhere in the scriptures do we see such twisting, turning pretzel logic, as was evidenced in reply #154. But THAT is RCC doctrine? Or would it be better said "but that IS RCC doctrine" as a positive statement. This latter is the real and actual case & circumstance, for otherwise one of your co-religionists wouldn't have stated "faith and works" X 3(!).
Perhaps it is the Romanists who do not understand Reform theology, instead of the other way around.
I much prefer this sort of pretzel logic.
Bonus track Don't take me alive