article on Romans

INtersting article on Romans : http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf

One of his considerations:

After going round and round this question for two decades, I find myself in the following position, each element of which is of course controversial but which, I think, makes sense in itself and in its exegetical outworkings.The Roman church, initially consisting mostlikely of converted Jews and proselytes within the capital, had been heavily affected by Claudius’s banishment of Jews in 49. Many of the Christians who were left would undoubtedly have been erstwhile godfearers or proselytes. Unlike the Galatian church, these Gentile Christians were not eager to keep the Jewish law, but would be inclined, not least from social pressures within pagan Rome, to distance themselves from it, and to use the opportunity of Claudius’s decree to articulate their identity in non-Jewish terms.When the Jews returned to Rome in 54 upon Claudius’s death, we may properly assume that the (Gentile) church leadership would not exactly be delirious with excitement. Eventhough, as we must stress, not all Jewish Christians were ardent Torah observers, and even though the church was most likely scattered in different small groups around the large city, internal tensions, reflecting at least in part a Jew-Gentile split, were inevitable

from here:  http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Shape_Justification.htm

The one true God will finally judge the whole world; on that day, some will be found guilty, and others will be upheld (Romans 2:1-16).God’s vindication of the latter on the last day is his act of final “justification” (Romans 2:13). The word carries overtones of a court of law.

 But not only a court of law.Justification is part of Paul’s picture of the family God promised in his covenant with Abraham.God’s judicial announcement on the last day in favor of certain people is also the declaration that they are part of the family promised to Abraham (Romans 4; see also Galatians 3).This is why law-court imagery is appropriate: When God entered into a covenant with Abraham, the purpose was, and remains, to put the whole world to rights, to deal with sin and death.

 This double declaration (judicial and covenantal) will take the form of an event.God’s people will be resurrected and will share the promised inheritance, the renewed creation (Romans 8).This event, which from one point of view is the “justification” of God’s people (Romans 8:32-34), is from another their “salvation”: their rescue from the corruption of death, which for Paul is the result of sin.The final resurrection is the ultimate rescue, which God promised from the beginning (Romans 4:18-25).

read the article for more details. .....Concerning Baptism he says,

  The event in the present that corresponds to Jesus’ death and resurrection in the past, and the resurrection of all believers in the future, is baptism into Christ (Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 6:2-11).Baptism is not, as some have supposed, a “work” which one “performs” to earn God’s favor.It is, for Paul, the sacrament of God’s free grace. Paul can speak of those who have believed and been baptized as already “saved,” albeit “in hope” (Romans 8:24).

He explains gospel:

 By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith.”He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord.To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith).Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21).But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus.

He explains justification:

Justification is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone has had their sins forgiven and that they are a member of the covenant family, the family of Abraham.That is what the word means in Paul’s writings.It doesn’t describe how people get into God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in.That may seem a small distinction, but it is vital.

from this evaluation of Wright found here http://www.readability.com/articles/udikqhrr

 3. What has Wright really meant?

Are the critics right?  The keys to adjudicating this question are Wright’s understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language in Paul and his understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict.

In his ETS lecture, Wright indicated once more what he has stated many times: in his view, when Paul applies the word “righteousness” to a human being, it means “covenant membership.”  (This is slightly different than when the word is applied to God, in which case it often, but not exclusively, means “covenant faithfulness” according to Wright.)  This definition of “righteousness” should immediately cause us to question the reading that suggests that Wright understands the believer’s Spirit inspired works to be the believer’s “righteousness” in final justification.  If “righteousness” is covenant membership, then righteousness does not and cannot consist in good works themselves, either the believer’s Spirit-inspired works or Christ’s works on the believer’s behalf.

This becomes even clearer when one considers Wright’s understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict.  According to Wright, the question under consideration in the divine courtroom is not whether or not one measures up to God’s moral standards, but rather whether or not one is truly a member of God’s covenant people.  Thus, the trial is meant to determine which people are truly covenant members, and to be justified is to be declared a covenant member.

According to Wright, present justification occurs immediately after conversion.  In Wright’s understanding of conversion, God sends the Spirit to produce faith in one who hears the proclamation of the gospel (Wright thinks that Paul refers to this event with the word “call”).  Thus, faith is the first evidence that one has become a member of God’s covenant people.  Present justification follows immediately.  Present justification is “by faith” because faith in Christ is irrefutable evidence that God has indeed made one a member of his covenant people through the work of his Spirit.  Thus, in Wright’s view, when Paul speaks of present justification by faith, he means God’s declaration that one has been brought into the family of his covenant people.  The evidence that God cites to demonstrate that one has already been brought into covenant membership is the presence of faith.

Wright’s understanding of the function of Spirit-inspired works in final justification is identical to his understanding of the function of faith in present justification.  Just as Spirit-produced faith is the initial sign that God has made one a member of his covenant people, so in final justification, Spirit-produced good works serve as the sign that one was truly a member of God’s covenant people from the point of one’s conversion on.  When Wright has said that good works are the “basis” of the believer’s final justification, he has meant that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one truly is a covenant member.  They are the “basis” for final justification the same way that a paternity test may serve as the “basis” for the verdict in a paternity lawsuit.  A paternity test does not make one a father; it demonstrates that one was a child’s father all along.  So also, Spirit-inspired works do not make one a covenant member in Wright’s view; they demonstrate that one has been a covenant member all along.  The assertion that Wright understands Spirit-inspired works to be the believer’s “righteousness” in final justification misconstrues both his understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language and his understanding of the question under consideration in the divine courtroom.

and

He still holds that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one is truly a member of God’s covenant people in final justification, and this corresponds to his understanding of the function of faith in present justification.  He has not changed his view at all, but he has finally offered the clarification for which Piper hoped by denying that he understands works to be the “basis” of final justification in the way that Piper understands Christ’s righteousness to be the “basis” of final justification.  One might wish that he had made this clarification clearer in his book-length reply to Piper (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision), but we may all be grateful that he is now speaking in a way that perhaps fewer people will misunderstand.  

J. Stellman  talking on Romans http://www.creedcodecult.com/what-counted-as-abrahams-righteousness/
and in particular this passage:

What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…

says:

... What was it that “counted” as righteousness for him? What (to put it a third way) was “considered” or “esteemed” or “imputed” as the righteousness of Abraham?

The answer is quite simple: Abraham’s faith  is what was considered by God as his righteousness. In fact, any neutral reader of this text would think it superfluous for me to waste time pointing this out (by “neutral reader,” I simply mean someone who reads the text and seeks to understand it based upon its actual words).

and he asks:

My question, then, is this: If Paul was operating from a paradigm that said that it was not Abraham’s faith itself that was counted as his righteousness, then how likely is it that he would have written (in the most important section in all of his writings on the subject) that “Abraham’s faith was counted as his righteousness”? Because I would argue that before we delve too deeply into the details of Paul’s argument, this basic question must be answered.

and in a comment:

 " in Romans. Notice how Paul bookends the epistle—he begins in ch. 1 by saying of his ministry:

… we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faithfor the sake of his name among all the nations…

And at the very end, in ch. 16, he returns to the theme of his apostolic ministry:

… my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith…

So the epistle opens and closes with statements about Paul’s ministry that indicate that he was an ambassador of the New Covenant to bring about the inner transformation that Moses required but could not accomplish (what he twice calls “the obedience of faith”). Moreover, he makes it clear in both instances that this obedience of faith was to be applied to “all nations,” further indicating the New Covenant flavor of his ministry: the NC, which fulfills the promise to Abraham that his seed would bless all nations, is not just for Jews, but for Gentiles as well, provided they exhibit the obedience of faith."

and

... this is a carefully constructed covenantal argument in which Paul is trying to show that Abraham is actually (and somewhat ironically) one of those law-keeping Gentiles he described so vividly in ch. 2: He was a man who, while uncircumcised, exhibited the faithful obedience that the subsequent Mosaic law could never produce.

and

  the “basis of our righteousness” being the cross of Christ, then we agree. But unfortunately, this doesn’t address what we’re talking about here. The cross being the basis for our salvation does not by itself prove that we receive its saving benefits through an extrinsic imputation verses through the Spirit-infused love of God.

and

 Paul’s point stands regardless of how we interpret the logizomai question. But if this is the case, I have to ask: “If Paul’s argument in no way hinges on the Reformed understanding of imputation, and if Paul clearly states his formula in a way that not only leaves the door open to non-Reformed positions but in fact makes those non-Reformed positions seem like more natural and less torturous readings of the text, then why insist on the Reformed view? I mean, where does Paul actually say that the obedience of Jesus to the law is forensically imputed to us through a passive and non-contributory faith alone?”

heretic

found in comment 5 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/#why

The word ‘member’ is used in different senses, and that creates the ambiguity to which you are referring regarding membership. So, let’s define some terms.

By ‘heresy’ here we are speaking of formal heresy, as it is defined in the Catechism:

“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” (CCC 2089)

This is the definition used in Canon Law (see Can. 791).

Notice the repeated word ‘obstinate’. This involves a person who isn’t merely accidentally or unknowingly denying something that the Church teaches must be believed with divine and catholic faith. (Doing so unknowingly or without an awareness or understanding that the Church taught otherwise, would be material heresy.) In a case of formal heresy, the person is told clearly what the Church teaches must be believed with divine and catholic faith (the phrase ‘divine and catholic faith’ is a technical term, and refers to that which requires the highest level of assent — see Canon 750 in the Code of Canon Law), and he obstinately denies it or obstinately doubts it.

Formal heresy incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication:

Can. 1364 §1. … [A]n apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

The word ‘heresy’ there is being used as it was defined in Canon 791. In other words, it is referring to formal heresy, not material heresy. In light of that, now consider what Pope Pius XII says in Mystici Corporis Christi:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 22)

So this gives us the definition of the word ‘member’ as we were using it in the article. A member (in this sense) of the Catholic Church is a person who has been baptized and professes the true faith (i.e. and therefore is not a formal heretic), and has not separated himself from the unity of the Body (by entering a schism), and is not in the excommunicated state. Clearly then, a formal heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church, in that sense of the term ‘member’, because he does not profess the truth faith, and on account of his [formal] heresy has incurred latae sententiae excommunication, according to Can. 1364.

But does the formal heretic remain under the jurisdiction of the Church? Yes. Excommunication does not take the excommunicated person out of the jurisdiction of the Church. So in that sense, the formal heretic remains a Catholic, but not a Catholic in full communion with the Catholic Church, and thus not a member according to the necessary conditions listed in Mystici Corporis Christi 22.

I hope that helps answer your question.

from comment 724 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/comment-page-15/#comment-18536

From St. Isidore, bishop of Seville (570-636) who wrote a twenty-book topical encyclopedia titled Etymologies, we find that a good sign that a sect is not the Church Christ founded is that it is named after its founder, who is someone other than Jesus Christ. In Books VII and VII of hisEtymologies he says the following:

Haeresis is called in Greek from choice, because each one chooses that which seems to him to be the best, as in the case of the Peripatetic philosophers, the Academics, and the Epicureans and Stoics, or as others do, who, contemplating their perverse dogma, recede from the Church of their own will. And so heresy is named from the Greek from the meaning of choice, since each [heretic] decides by his own will whatever he wants to teach or believe. But it is not permitted to us [Catholics] to believe anything on the basis of our own will, nor to choose to believe what someone else has believed of his own will. We have the authority of the apostles, who did not choose anything out of their own will to believe, but faithfully transmitted to the nations the teaching they received from Christ. Even if an angel from heaven should teach otherwise, it would be called anathema. Sects are so called from following and holding [sequendo et tenendo]. Now sects are a habit of spirits, and are formed around a discipline or a proposal, holding to which they follow along, holding to different opinions from others in the cult of religion. Schism comes from the word for cutting. Schismatics believe in the same rite and the same cults as others, but they delight in separating from the congregation.

They are heretics who depart from the Church, calling themselves by the name of their author. … Arians are so called from Arius the presbyter of Alexandria, who did not recognize the Son as coeternal with the Father and asserted different substances in the Trinity, against which the Lord said “I and the Father are One.” … Priscillianists are so called after Priscillian, who in Spain composed a teaching which combined the errors of the Gnostics and the Manichees. … Pelagians are called after the monk Pelagius. These place free will ahead of divine grace, claiming that will is all that is needed to fulfill the divine commands. Nestorians are called after Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who claimed that the Virgin Mary was the mother, not of God, but of man, so that one person was made of the flesh, another of the divinity, and did not believe in One Christ in the word of God and in the flesh …. There are other heresies without founders and without names. Some of them believe that God has three forms, and others that the divinity of Christ can suffer. Others mark a point in time when Christ was born of the Father. Others do not believe that by the descent of Christ [into the netherworld] the freeing of all in the lower regions was accomplished. Others deny that the soul is the image of God. Others think that souls are changed into demons and animals of every kind. Others hold different opinions on the condition of the universe. Others thing that there are many worlds. Others think that water has existed as long as God has. Others walk about with unshod feet, while still others will share a meal with no one.

These heresies have risen against the Catholic faith and have been condemned by the apostles, the holy Fathers, or the councils. And while they are not in agreement with one another, being divided by many errors, it is with one name that they conspire against the Church of God. But whoever understands Scripture in any sense other than that which the Holy Spirit, by whom it was written, requires, even though he may not withdraw from the Church, may nevertheless be called a heretic.

Gnosticism

http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/does-the-catholic-church-teach-doctrines-of-demons

St. Clement / faith alone or with love?

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/st-clement-of-rome-soteriology-and-ecclesiology/#soteriology

and also

http://taylormarshall.com/2009/09/did-clement-of-rome-teach-justification/

How did the Catholic Church get her name?

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

John 3

Ryle:

"Beware, again, of the common doctrine that God's love is limited and confined to His own elect, and that all the rest of mankind are passed by, neglected, and let alone. This also is a notion that will not bear examination by the light of Scripture. The father of a prodigal son can surely love and pity him, even when he is walking after his own lusts, and refusing to return home. The Maker of all things may surely love the work of His own hands with a love of compassion, even when rebellious against Him. Let us resist to the death the unscriptural doctrine of universal salvation. It is not true that all mankind will be finally saved. But let us not fly into the extreme of denying God's universal compassion. It is true that God "loves the world." Let us maintain jealously the privileges of God's elect. It is true that they are loved with a special love, and will be loved to all eternity. But let us not exclude any man or woman from the pale of God's kindness and compassion. We have no right to pare down the meaning of words when Jesus says, "God loved the world." The heart of God is far wider than that of man. There is a sense in which the Father loves all mankind.. 

I confess, boldly, that I hold the doctrine of particular redemption, in a certain sense, as strongly as any one. I believe that none are effectually redeemed but God's elect. They and they only are set free from the guilt, and power, and consequences of sin. But I hold no less strongly, that Christ's work of atonement is sufficient for all mankind. There is a sense in which He has tasted death for every man, and has taken upon Him the sin of the world. I dare not pare down, and fine away, what appear to me the plain statements of Scripture. I dare not shut a door which God seems, to my eyes, to have left open. I dare not tell any man on earth that Christ has done nothing for him, and that he has no warrant to apply boldly to Christ for salvation. I must abide by the statements of the Bible. Christ is God's gift to the whole world."

phil 1:6

. St. Augustine. The text of St. Augustine (De gratia et libero arbitrio, chap. 17) reads thus: “God Himself works so that we may will at the beginning what, once we are willing, He cooperates in perfecting; therefore does the Apostle say: ‘Being confident of this very thing, that He who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus’ (Phil. 1:6). That we should will therefore, He accomplishes without us; but when we do will, and so will as to do, He cooperates with us.

[quoted here http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/grace4.htm}

Pope as Antichrist?

Pope as antichrist?

from Dave's facebook page:

Dave Armstrong

CARDINAL NEWMAN ON THEOLOGICAL ANTI-CATHOLICISM

[written when he was still an Anglican; from my upcoming "Quotable Newman, Vol. II". I've argued for over 22 years now that the tiny fringe position of anti-Catholic Protestantism is self-defeating, and a reductio ad absurdum. It is impossible to make the historical case for it. This is what Newman is driving at below]

. . . there has ever been in our Church, and is allowed by our formularies, a very great latitude as regards the light in which the Church of Rome is to be viewed. . . . Another question, already touched on, as to which we claim a liberty of opinion is, whether or not the Church of Rome is "the mother of harlots," and the Pope St. Paul's "man of sin." And as feeling it is fairly an open question, I see no need of entering at length into it, even did the limits of a Letter admit. How those divines who hold the Apostolical Succession can maintain the affirmative, passes my comprehension; for in holding the one and other point at once, they are in fact proclaiming to the world that they come from "the synagogue of Satan," and (if I may so speak) have the devil's orders. I know that highly revered persons have so thought; perhaps they considered that the fatal apostasy took place at Trent, that is, since the date of our derivation from Rome; yet if in "the seven hills," in certain doctrines "about the souls of men," in what you consider "blasphemous titles," and in "lying wonders," lies, as you maintain, the proper evidence that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, then the great Gregory, to whom we Saxons owe our conversion, was Antichrist, for in him and in his times were those tokens of apostasy fulfilled, and our Church and its Sees are in no small measure the very work of the "Man of Sin."

("The Via Media of the Anglican Church" ii, VI. “On Froude’s Statements Concerning the Holy Eucharist,” 1838)

If we cannot consistently hold that the Pope is Antichrist, without holding that the principle of establishments, the Christian ministry, and the most sacred Catholic doctrines, are fruits of Antichrist, surely the lengths we must run are a reductio ad absurdum of the position with which we start.

(“The Protestant Idea of Antichrist,” British Critic, Oct. 1840; in Essays Critical and Historical, vol. 2, sec. XI)

The Decalogue

The Decalogue

“Similarly important is the link between faith and the Decalogue. Faith, as we have said, takes the form of a journey, a path to be followed, which begins with an encounter with the living God. It is in the light of faith, of complete entrustment to the God who saves, that the Ten Commandments take on their deepest truth, as seen in the words which introduce them: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt" (Ex20:2). The Decalogue is not a set of negative commands, but concrete directions for emerging from the desert of the selfish and self-enclosed ego in order to enter into dialogue with God, to be embraced by his mercy and then to bring that mercy to others. Faith thus professes the love of God, origin and upholder of all things, and lets itself be guided by this love in order to journey towards the fullness of communion with God. The Decalogue appears as the path of gratitude, the response of love, made possible because in faith we are receptive to the experience of God’s transforming love for us. And this path receives new light from Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mt 5-7)."

from 46 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.html

see here http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?recnum=4476
which helps explain this statement in the CCC  Well actually it just gives the context of the CCC here

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;²⁸ the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."<sup>29

note:</sup> 2067 The Ten Commandments state what is required in the love of God and love of neighbor. The first three concern love of God, and the other seven love of neighbor.

The obligation of the Decalogue

2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content,grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

Matt 18: 16And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

23And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27

John 15 :9ff As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19–20).

from here http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/booklets/the-ten-commandments?gclid=CPTs65SgurgCFYOe4AodHG0A9g

Christ had already summarized God's law into the two great principles: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind… You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37, 39). In fact, in the latter part of this summary of God's law, Jesus quoted directly from the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18)!

What, then, was "new" about Jesus' command to love our neighbors?

The answer is plain. The principle of loving our neighbors was not new, but Jesus' magnification of that principle in His own perfect life shed a completely new light on the spiritual intent and depth of this commandment.

Remember Jesus' emphasis—"As I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

Jesus' own perfect example of love and service was the greatest and most meaningful magnification of the love of neighbor as commanded by God. In His life, He demonstrated how that love actually functions in day-to-day life."

2 john 2 5 Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ ascoming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 [a]Anyone who [b]goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).

from the Council of Trent on Justification found in section VI

For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts[38] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.

For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39]

For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead[40] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity.[41]

This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give.

Whence also they hear immediately the word of Christ:
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[42]

.....
CHAPTER XITHE OBSERVANCE OF THE COMMANDMENTS AND THE NECESSITY AND POSSIBILITY THEREOF

But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one should use that rash statement, once forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified.

For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able.[58]

His commandments are not heavy,[59] and his yoke is sweet and burden light.[60]

For they who are the sons of God love Christ, but they who love Him, keep His commandments, as He Himself testifies;[61] which, indeed, with the divine help they can do.

For though during this mortal life, men, however holy and just, fall at times into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial, they do not on that account cease to be just, for that petition of the just, forgive us our trespasses,[62] is both humble and true; for which reason the just ought to feel themselves the more obliged to walk in the way of justice, for being now freed from sin and made servants of God,[63] they are able, living soberly, justly and godly,[64] to proceed onward through Jesus Christ, by whom they have access unto this grace.[65]

For God does not forsake those who have been once justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them.

Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself with faith alone, thinking that by faith alone he is made an heir and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with christ, that he may be also glorified with him.[66]

For even Christ Himself, as the Apostle says, whereas he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered, and being consummated, he became to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation.[67]

For which reason the same Apostle admonishes those justified, saying:
Know you not that they who run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize?
So run that you may obtain.

I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty; I so fight, not as one beating the air, but I chastise my body and bring it into subjection; lest perhaps when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.[68]

So also the prince of the Apostles, Peter:
Labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election.

For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.[69]

From which it is clear that they are opposed to the orthodox teaching of religion who maintain that the just man sins, venially at least, in every good work;[70] or, what is more intolerable, that he merits eternal punishment; and they also who assert that the just sin in all works, if, in order to arouse their sloth and to encourage themselves to run the race, they, in addition to this, that above all God may be glorified, have in view also the eternal reward,[71] since it is written:
I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications on account of the reward;[72] and of Moses the Apostle says; that he looked unto the reward.[73]

.....
Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own from ourselves,[102] nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated, for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is [the justice] of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ.

Nor must this be omitted, that although in the sacred writings so much is attributed to good works, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, Christ promises, shall not lose his reward;[103] and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory;[104] nevertheless, far be it that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord,[105] whose bounty toward all men is so great that He wishes the things that are His gifts to be their merits.

......

4.5 Law and Gospel

31.We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel "apart from works prescribed by the law" (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God's commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God's will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also.

32.Lutherans state that the distinction and right ordering of law and gospel is essential for the understanding of justification. In its theological use, the law is demand and accusation. Throughout their lives, all persons, Christians also, in that they are sinners, stand under this accusation which uncovers their sin so that, in faith in the gospel, they will turn unreservedly to the mercy of God in Christ, which alone justifies them.

33.Because the law as a way to salvation has been fulfilled and overcome through the gospel, Catholics can say that Christ is not a lawgiver in the manner of Moses. When Catholics emphasize that the righteous are bound to observe God's commandments, they do not thereby deny that through Jesus Christ God has mercifully promised to his children the grace of eternal life.[18] [See Sources for section 4.5].

typology

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/07/seventy-two-disciples-and-the-israel-of-god-a-reflection-on-biblical-typology/

decree on ecumenism

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

from this; a few quotes

 The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.
....................................
On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in His works and worthy of all praise.

Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.

Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. .....................
............................................
Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in church discipline, or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated - to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself - these can and should be set right at the opportune moment
...........................................................................................
20. Our thoughts turn first to those Christians who make open confession of Jesus Christ as God and Lord and as the sole Mediator between God and men, to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are aware indeed that there exist considerable divergences from the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning Christ Himself, the Word of God made flesh, the work of redemption, and consequently, concerning the mystery and ministry of the Church, and the role of Mary in the plan of salvation. But we rejoice to see that our separated brethren look to Christ as the source and center of Church unity. Their longing for union with Christ inspires them to seek an ever closer unity, and also to bear witness to their faith among the peoples of the earth