bunch of Mary's not consistent with the Biblical scripture.
"Bunch of Mary's" is like exactly Biblical Scripture. Who is the famous "other Mary" in the Gospels, in your opinion? And don't forget Mary Magdalene. This was a case of mistaken identity, somebody thought, because evidently Jesus as a boy spent a lot of time with his cousins (so much so that neighbors started to think He was their brother even though He WAS their cousin), that Jesus was brothers with His cousins. It was an accident. It's kind of sweet to think that He would spend days playing with all His cousins who were sons of His Uncle Clopas and Aunt Mary when He was a boy. Uncle Clopas was Joseph's real, full brother, and he too married a Mary. It might sound odd to our ears, and maybe it was then too, but it's clearly not ontologically impossible, which is what the other party might have you believe. What if it's actually the truth, the true nonfiction history of the matter?
The Reformers didn't even question this, which really tells you something about how far away modern Protestantism (Evangelicalism) has strayed from its roots. It's barely the same thing, as far as a movement goes. More and more eccentric as time goes on, hardly a place for a true conservative. If you're conservative in your core, you're shooting yourself in the foot to be Evangelical and not simply a Roman Catholic.
==
OP: " Is Faith Without Works Dead (Faith)? "
Look, it's important to consider exactly what James (the first cousin of Jesus, along with Jude) means by
works, and this can be "synced" with today's thoroughly modern (published c. 1992) Catechism of the Catholic Church (JP2's catechism).
The only two things he could mean is satisfying the grave moral obligations, or devotions.
If he means satisfying grave moral obligations by
works, all James is saying is that if you're committing grave sin, especially habitually, you better get yourself to Confession as you're under diabolic onslaught rn.
If he means devotions by
works, then we just need to recognize that there are untold numbers of devotions that count as a devotion. Other terms for devotions btw are penance and penitential acts, and they are all of the spiritual things that we do as simple Roman Catholics, to help cultivate the gifts of the Holy Spirit which we are all given, not for us personally, but for us the whole Church universally, we are all supposed to benefit from the gifts the Spirit gives to each of us, that are FOR the whole Church. We are waiting for your gifts to manifest too.
If you claim that you believe, but you don't even do a single devotion, like not even making the sign of the cross even once the whole year through, even though you are objectively satisfying all your grave moral obligations, then James is saying there is some reason to doubt your faith.
I find it very hard to believe a genuine original Christian would fail to even make the sign of the cross even once the whole year through, not even once. A nonbeliever—sure.¹ But not a real believer. Why would you fail to do even something so simple and small, but that counts as a devotion, thus escaping James's sharp words?
But nonetheless, devotions are not gravely obligatory for us. So even though we would agree with James ofc that faith literally without any devotions is dead (in that, its initial plausibility is high, and the defeaters offered against it have undefeated defeaters themselves, thus nullifying and blunting them all), it's hard to believe any ontologically true (i.e. not a hypocrite or actor) believer would opt against all supererogatory spiritual behaviors forever. So we don't think he's talking to anybody except unbelievers here.
¹ Those are the people who show up to Mass but only right before the presenting of the gifts, leaving immediately after the Victim is first consumed (everything beyond this window is supererogatory and thus devotion), except for precisely one Mass during Easter time when they receive Communion, just under one species, as receiving under both is supererogatory and therefore devotion or penance, with no spiritual acts like genuflection or crossing themselves with holy water, not even participating in the standing and kneeling devotions so universally popular among us—almost everybody does those. So this hypothetical person just doesn't exist is what I'm saying. ³Nobody goes to the trouble of satisfying their Mass obligation but doesn't first of all truly believe, and second of all ³refuses to even raise a finger wrt devotions like reading the Bible, praying, blessing your food, giving money, singing during hymns, etc. God loves a cheerful giver.
And then ofc the alternative, that James means satisfying your grave obligations as
works, and this I think is more likely. (At least, on the surface.)²
² So working beneath the surface, what James would have to mean is that if you're not satisfying your grave obligations, then you should worry about whether your faith is real. This is sharp language. But so how do we understand this, using JP2's Catechism as our handbook? By understanding the ontology of grave sin (such as failing to satisfy your Mass obligation). There are a whole lot of non-diabolic reasons why we gravely sin, if or when we gravely sin. That's first off, but mainly the issue becomes more about habitual grave sin, or grave sin binges. If all you do is live a life of perpetual grave sin, then James here is saying, perhaps your faith is dead, and that's why. And together with our Catechism we can also say, that if you're gravely sinning habitually, but you know yourself to believe in Jesus, then you're under diabolic onslaught, taking heavy casualties in the spiritual war, so get to Confession for some sweet sweet exorcism. Extra grace, free of charge. All you need do is honestly confess type of grave sin, and the number of times committed, and make an act of contrition, which is easily accomplished by reading aloud the traditional act of contrition, sometimes even provided for you in the physical confessional. You'll be absolved and given penance, do the penance, and you're good to go. You've been exorcised. Your job now is to avoid getting attacked again, and that means a firm commitment to amendment, and that means avoiding near occasion of that particular sin. The most common example is a drunk, and avoiding the near occasion of sin for him is going to be to not hang around liquor stores or bars. That's where his diabolic opponents wait for him. So he doesn't go there, and then he won't need to go back to Confession, which is the goal here. To stay out of the confessional. That's the goal for simple Roman Catholics. That means satisfy your grave obligations. And we read James as saying that grave sins are super-duper important to not do, and if you do do them, then get to Confession. This is the much more likely interpretation rather than that James is saying if you don't pray or sing hymns or close your eyes when you pray or kneel or cross yourself or whatever other devotions there are, like visiting shrines or going on pilgrammages, then you should question your faith. I find that much less likely as I tried to explain above.³
