There is indeed an argument for justification by faith alone, and that reason is entailed in the distinction Protestants make between justification and sanctification, a distinction not shared by Catholics, which although they do distinguish the two, nevertheless include sanctification as part of, not simply distinguished from, justification. There is, then, a significant difference between Protestants and Catholics on justification. So, looking at justification, distinguished from sanctification in the way that Protestants do, there is an argument for justification alone - perhaps one might say, for purposes of clarity that justification alone is by faith alone; discussions of works in relation to our salvation being held within the category of sanctification. But there are other theological doctrines which make the difference, such as, for one important example, the role of grace in the believer's justification, as well as his sanctification, as it points to another important difference between Catholics and Protestants on justification: that, because justification is not sanctification, the believer does not grow in justification.
One thing with which I do have some small agreement with Groby is that, at times at least, there is a bit too much talk about justification (alone). It often comes as a shock when people read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion that his discussion of justification, out of hundreds of pages, comes to about ten of them.
Finally, while it may be possible, today, to talk about THE Catholic doctrine of justification, this was not possible when the Council of Trent met, as Thomists (emphasizing God's action), Scotists (emphasizing feeling) and Augustinians (emphasizing faith, though possibly not *alone*) did not agree with each other on the proper understanding. I suppose we can be thankful to Luther and the Reformers for at least this much: they forced Rome to get their story straight on justification, even though the 95 Theses didn't address justification.
There is indeed an argument for justification by faith alone, and that reason is entailed in the distinction Protestants make between justification and sanctification, a distinction not shared by Catholics, which although they do distinguish the two, nevertheless include sanctification as part of, not simply distinguished from, justification. There is, then, a significant difference between Protestants and Catholics on justification. So, looking at justification, distinguished from sanctification in the way that Protestants do, there is an argument for justification alone - perhaps one might say, for purposes of clarity that justification alone is by faith alone; discussions of works in relation to our salvation being held within the category of sanctification. But there are other theological doctrines which make the difference, such as, for one important example, the role of grace in the believer's justification, as well as his sanctification, as it points to another important difference between Catholics and Protestants on justification: that, because justification is not sanctification, the believer does not grow in justification.
One thing with which I do have some small agreement with Groby is that, at times at least, there is a bit too much talk about justification (alone). It often comes as a shock when people read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion that his discussion of justification, out of hundreds of pages, comes to about ten of them.
Finally, while it may be possible, today, to talk about THE Catholic doctrine of justification, this was not possible when the Council of Trent met, as Thomists (emphasizing God's action), Scotists (emphasizing feeling) and Augustinians (emphasizing faith, though possibly not *alone*) did not agree with each other on the proper understanding. I suppose we can be thankful to Luther and the Reformers for at least this much: they forced Rome to get their story straight on justification, even though the 95 Theses didn't address justification.