Generally, there is room for discussing the scripture or the history of the Church at some length, or write books that elevate the spirituality. On hand however we have a simple fact that the Apostle wrote a definitive sentence and then Luther wrote a negation of it and Luther thinks he could get away with it. Great many people then went with Luther and abandoned the Apostle. Why? They cannot explain it plainly. There is always obfuscation of the content of the second part of James 2. Obfuscation cannot be succinct; it is the first sign of someone obfuscating that he takes time to explain. On an obscure verse I can understand the need for lengthy exegesis; on the plain “X is not by Y alone” there should be no need for any.
I am at work so I cannot offer a lengthy response, but a great deal of the length of Daniel’s response is in showing how even thoughtful Catholics have struggled to reconcile what superficially appear to be contradictory expressions, Paul version James, when we know for a fact the Holy Spirit inspired the writings of both. When I first was converted and read through the Bible for the first time, I encountered a number of passages that seemed to be contradictions, this among them, and it took some thought and lengthy analysis to find a solution. But there always was one.
I dont think the solution being offered here is too burdensome to the prima facie sense of either writer. Paul is speaking in strict forensic, legal terms, I.e., how does our legal status before God go from “condemned” to “forgiven,” to which the answer must ever be faith, not works, lest we fall into the heresy of Pelagianism.
Whereas James, whose entire tone was pragmatic and NOT forensic, describes what accompanies saving faith, and neither Luther nor any knowledgeable Protestant would deny that saving faith does not come to the party alone, but brings its most intimate companion, righteousness that flows from a heart of love for God and neighbor. Thus Paul describes the legal effect, and James the pragmatic effect, of faith suffcient to save lost sinners.
So this is not hard, or obscure. It is a mature reading of the text, which by its nature insists on a reconciliation, but once it is found, is clear and simple enough for a child to understand.