trusting Christ alone from Protestant view and Catholic view

The following is a quote found here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/  comment 375 by Bryan C.

Not infrequently the Reformed (or broadly Protestant) conception of justification by faith alone is presented as a choice between two possible ultimate objects of trust for salvation: Christ alone, or something other than Christ. Ultimately, you’re either ultimately trusting in Christ alone for your salvation, or you’re trusting in some created thing for your salvation (e.g. your faith, your works, your love, your sanctification, your baptism, your church membership, etc.). To trust in anything in addition to Christ for salvation is to deny the sufficiency of Christ’s work, and make the real (i.e. ultimate) object of trust that other thing one is trusting. Moreover, if you’re trusting in anything other than Christ for salvation, you are lost (i.e. damned) and on your way to hell, not only for committing idolatry by raising that created thing above Christ, but also because nothing other than Christ’s perfect righteousness meets the demand of God’s holy law.

So the Protestant case is presented as a choice between on the one hand idolatrously and futilely elevating something above Christ while impugning the sufficiency of His suffering and death on the cross, and on the other hand simply resting in Him alone and thereby allowing Him to receive all the glory for the work He has done on our behalf, both in His sinlessness and in His perfect obedience to God’s holy law.

From the point of view of the agape paradigm informed by Catholic doctrine, this is a false dilemma, because affirming Christ’s teaching that living in the love we have received from Him is not only necessary for our salvation but by His design genuinely contributes to our salvation does not entail trusting some creature above Christ, or detracting from His work on the cross. In fact, from the Catholic point of view claiming otherwise would amount to a deficiency of trust in Christ. To trust Him entirely and completely is to believe Him as He reveals His teaching to us through His Church, regarding what His sacrifice accomplishes, and what role by grace our acts of agape have in our salvation. If He teaches that by His grace our acts of agape contribute to our salvation, then to claim otherwise is to fail to trust Christ sufficiently in faith. From the Catholic point of view, the Protestant argument (set out in the previous two paragraphs) is a philosophical argument that uses various Scripture passages but is based fundamentally on human reasoning concerning an apparent dilemma: either we trust Christ alone, or we ultimately trust something else above Christ. From the vantage point of Catholic faith, however, we trust Christ truly by accepting His divine revelation according to which our free and loving participation in His work in us does not detract from His work on the cross but is part of the purpose of His work on the cross, and which effects an increase in the justification we received through baptism. If Christ teaches that He is glorified through the infused and actively expressed righteousness of His saints, then denying that evinces a failure to trust Christ sufficiently; it indicates trusting in one’s own reasoning more than trusting Christ. To trust Him that our acts ofagape contribute to our salvation is to transcend both horns of the dilemma presented in the Protestant case. Paradoxically, therefore, from the Catholic point of view the Protestant case puts itself on the horn of not sufficiently trusting Christ, by not trusting His teaching through His Church regarding the role of our acts of agape and by relying instead on human reason to lay out the theological options.