I am not sure how to respond. Your link is to the Catholic Catechism, and much of it reads like any standard Protestant treatise on the same subject, with some difference to be expected due to our differences over imputation versus infusion of righteousness, and perhaps others I could discover on a more careful reading. But in the critical point of our own disagreement, it appears to agree with the position I have taken, and not you:
“1972 ... a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law”
I have never dismissed, nor has any Protestant here dismissed the instructive value of the Old Covenant law, nor the universal and eternal nature of the moral law of God. God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. We come to a knowledge of our need for Him by our failure against that standard of the righteousness of God revealed in both the Old Covenant and more fully in the New.
But our salvation cannot come from a ministration of death. The law condemns us. Jesus saves us. But He does not save us so we can submit ourselves again to the law as if IT were our savior. Jesus is our savior, and He is actively involved in redeeming us. He truly becomes our shepherd and we His sheep.
But what happens is some do not have that life of the Spirit. Like Nicodemas, they cannot picture such spiritual realities, and they grasp after some physical meaning, something they can do, which establishes them as visibly righteous, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to cling to the “ritual and juridical observances” of the law, and elsewhere it says the “provisional” and “imperfect” elements of the Old Covenant system.
This is where you get folks coming along and pushing their own “betterness” by advertising they eat kosher, or they observe the best holy days, etc. etc. It is an exercise in futility. Those were never central to the heart of the law. They were teaching tools pertaining to the Old Covenant God made with national Israel, and have no place in the New, except as free options. If someone wants to eat kosher, God bless ‘em. But don’t sit there wondering if someone else doesn’t love God because they eat bacon. It gets beyond ridiculous to downright pernicious.
I have to get to work, so I don’t have time for treatment of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS), except to say that Once Elect Always Elect (OEAE) is a much better expression of the Biblical doctrine. OSAS is mostly caricature. In real life, nobody does that, “woo hoo now I’m free to sin” thing. There are other, more realistic ways to break that down, and anyone who thinks God will let them off for remaining in unrepentant sin will find that God is not mocked. Don’t think that Protestants don’t understand that.
Anyway, must go now.
Peace,
SR
I think the Catechism describes the critical point as "the Old Covenant has never been revoked." If you can admit this I think we can agree on most other aspects. The Spirit that gives life shows how Messiah explained the Law, holding us to a higher standard, and at the same time, giving us liberty and safety from judgment if we walk in the Spirit. I like how the Catechism explains it.
I have to get to work, so I don’t have time for treatment of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS), except to say that Once Elect Always Elect (OEAE) is a much better expression of the Biblical doctrine. OSAS is mostly caricature.
Concur, much better, OEAE, like Israel.
In real life, nobody does that, “woo hoo now I’m free to sin” thing. There are other, more realistic ways to break that down, and anyone who thinks God will let them off for remaining in unrepentant sin will find that God is not mocked. Don’t think that Protestants don’t understand that.
I think some (many ?) are lulled into a false sense of security because they can point to a day they had a salvific experience. They believe all their future sins are covered by that day and ignore, or forget, the many warnings of the LORD and his apostles. They think their mortal sins don't count against them and could only end their life on earth early, with them still gaining an immediate entry into heaven no matter what they do after that event.
And yet Catholics DO think that non-Catholics don't understand that.
What Catholics fail to understand as well, is the revulsion to sin that the born again believer usually has towards sin.
Nobody can sin comfortably with the Holy Spirit living in them prodding at their consciences.
For the believer who does go into sin like that, it's often a long process of hardening their heart towards the Holy Spirit for a long time. It's certainly not a flippant, Now I've got fire insurance mentality.
What it shows me is the attitude that believers are often accused of having, is the very attitude the accuser has towards sin and is an indicator of how they've behave if they had no EXTERNAL factors forcing their behavior.
IOW, they are projecting, revealing what's in their heart, what they would do if they thought they were saved and secure.