Many voices would "teach" you that this is not so. They would insist that no one can have faith in God's justification. As we have seen, their main error is a poor Christology, by which they treat Jesus Christ as less than fully Divine. They imply that we cannot have faith in God's justification of sinners based merely on this one man's death, even though the Bible clearly says we can (Isaiah 53, Romans 5). They teach that sins can be worked off in a long punitive Purgatory, and that we may have in addition the merits of saints applied to us, or we can perform works of the Law that justify (Rom. 3:28). They teach that justification requires the process of sanctification, making the justification of the publican in the parable completely meaningless, and always leaving room to question if we have been "justified" enough.
This leads me to a painful thought. I fear that even in this present day we have people who would be stumped by the problem that was actually faced in the year 1517 in the German town of Wittenburg. Yes, Anglicans are not Lutherans; we have a few differences of course. But, on the great problem raised by the sale of indulgences by Johan Tetzel, who worked directly on behalf of Pope Leo X (formerly Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici), there should be no problem agreeing entirely with Luther and his Ninety-five Theses.
If, for some reason, you find the need to think it over, perhaps based on some notion of papal claims as they are generally diluted through the process of identifying Rome as "first in honor," I must stand in doubt of you. I must wonder how three vague references to Rome as "first in honor," made at Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon during the time when the Roman Empire was a political reality, have become so meaningful as to acquire equal weight to the word of God set forth in absolute authority with powerful clarity, from the mouth of Christ and by the pen of St. Paul. How did these obscure and unclear statements of mere imperial etiquette become loaded with dogmatic implications? The issue in 1517 was simple: Does anyone, pope included, possess the power to sell salvation for money? Are repentance and faith necessary unless and until an alleged, and self-proclaimed, "successor of Peter" invents a new gospel (Gal. 1:8,89)? An Anglican has no need to waste time deciding who was right and who was wrong in 1517. The truth is obvious (enough for me to say "here I stand").
Frankly, the voices that would rob you of the meaning of Christ's words in this parable, "this man went down to his house justified," are too numerous to mention. The theological confusion of the Church of Rome in 1517 is but one example. Other examples include those who make light of the publican's contrition, and who would "teach" him that he need not repent; that God "understands." They would replace justification with acceptance, a God Who accepts sin, rather than forgiving repentant sinners. For what God approves, He would not forgive; and what a convicted penitent publican needs is forgiveness, not "understanding."
The truth that you must grasp is something you really know deep down inside. Though each of us remains a sinner, in that we are weak through the Fall and unable to get through an hour without sin by thought, word or deed, we can be sure nonetheless of God's mercy. We have the assurance by Christ's cross, even in this fallen condition, that we have been justified if we believe His Gospel. He has given this assurance by His word and sacraments. We may be sure that we are liable to fall again and again even if involuntarily, but also that absolution is absolute.