I'm not prejudiced against R.C.s BUT...

I've never seen this before, and I've read the passage plenty of times. I always thought (until now) that it sounded as though James was just chiming in with his opinion, after which the whole bunch decided (perhaps by general consensus or perhaps by a vote) to take his advice. But when looking up the Greek word κρίνω I found that it can carry the connotation of a decree or decision (sometimes a judicial one), and Zodhiates applies this connotation to the use of the word in Acts 15:19 specifically. The language of verse 28 can be seen to support this understanding.

It looks to me like they really intended to make a more-or-less official pronouncement in their letters after all. And James, brother of Jesus, was quite clearly more "in charge" than either Peter or Paul. The others deferred to him. It's as if he sat as a presiding judge, listening to the evidence and then making a ruling.

 

This is basically the same thing the Rabbis said about it a few centuries later. Remarkable coherence.

 

Well you’re not supposed to pray to the icon, you’re supposed to pray to the person. Only people who expect the icon to answer their prayer do this, and this is idolatry.

 

I seem to recall something about Moses being disallowed from the promised land because of a staff-conflation incident.

 

Exactly. It’s almost as if he were exercising some sort of…primacy…albeit, in an appellate capacity. The problem bubbled its way up to James, James called a meeting, listened to all sides, and made a decision. Then, his representatives - which did not include Paul - personally went to the other churches, and gave them their marching orders, in the form of official letters. That’s what the text describes. Neither ordinary universal jurisdiction nor Petrine primacy is to be found in it.

 

Num 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
Num 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Num 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

It's worth noting the distinguishing differences between the serpent on the pole and the icons we've been talking about.
1. God commanded that the serpent on the pole be made. God did not command icons be made; indeed, more likely the opposite.
2. It doesn't say that the people either reverenced or worshiped the serpent on the pole; they didn't bow to it or pray before it; they simply looked at it. Icons, quite the opposite.

 

Let alone infallibility

 

Distinction without a difference.

 

I think @Invictus certainly gave a clear example of Conciliar Decisions that may be in error, and obviously were different Council Decisions are seen in conflict there is a suggestion that they are not infallible. In reality this is part of the uncomfortable truth that we have no certainty beyond God, for God is not prisoner of book, nor tabernacle, nor institution.

I very clearly did not say that the Church should not have leaders, however I do believe that leadership in the Church should be markedly different to the leadership of an earthly Republic. Therefore I do not believe that the Pope should be like the President, in given the nature of some Presidents (without naming names) the Pope should be very very different to some of them.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, exercises a leadership within the Church of England, and within the Anglican Communion, as first among equals. This style of leadership seems to have been exercised by James at the Council of Jerusalem, where James spoke for the whole, once the decision had been taken, James spoke as first among equals. This style of leadership seems to have been understood at the First Council of Constantinople, where the Patriarch of Constantinople was seen to be second only unto Rome. This was not about Power and Authority, but simply a Primacy of Honour.

The correct name of the city that Constantine founded as his new Capital was Nova Romanum, Often called Constantine's Capitol, and contracted to Constantinople.

 

Really?
Idolatrous intentions vs using icons to recall the Saints or Christ to mind is not a distinction?
Why do you have images in your churches then? God prohibited any likeness of heaven or earth to be made…

 

But isn’t the Bible infallible?

 

First of all there were many fathers who outright didn't believe in a change. Such as Chrysostom, "The nature of bread remaineth in the Sacrament." (Epistle ad Caesar.) Thedoret, "The mystical tokens or sacraments after the Consecration, depart not from their own nature :  for they remain still in their former substance, and form, and figure." (Dialog 2.) St. Cyril: "Christ gave fragments or pieces of bread to his Disciples" (Commentary on John, Book 4, chapter 14)

And others did believe in a change of a kind. We too have Bishops who say that the sacrament undergoes a change of a kind. But change of elements is irrelevant because all you need is real presence; and on the other hand no one, not even ONE, venerated the elements.

And none of them, not a single one, believed the specific doctrine of transubstantiation. The same doctrine the denial of which today would make them heretics. And because of RCC veneration of the elements, makes them heretics in the patristic eyes.

 

I believe, as @Stalwart explained, the difference is the '*veneration*' which you describe. We do not salute them, as implied in Nicea II, nor do we kiss images of the Blessed Virgin, because the Blessed Virgin is not in the icon. In our culture, we hardly kiss pictures of our family either, so don't appeal to that practice.

 

Are we?

 

Lolol, did you read the actual text? He gives you the actual Acta Frankorum of 808, the other edition of 814. He gives you Papal edicts, councils. Every single text related to this subject written in that era referred to Nicea II as a pseudo council full of heterodoxy. Feel free to look up the documents for yourself.

I'm giving you the primary sources, not someone's interpretation. On the other hand you're giving me only your interpretation, without a single primary source.

 

Well, James was the bishop to Jerusalem Jews. Kinda makes sense he would exercise authority over them and he’s the person they’d listen to.
Sort of like eastern Catholics have their patriarchs. I’m sure if the pope disagreed with the patriarchs many would side with the patriarchs. Kinda like Elias zogbhy. Does this mean the papacy didn’t exist?
Not really…

 

Well, I’ll ask again.
Isn’t the Bible, written by fallible men, infallible?

 

Does this mean the Papacy existed? Not really...

 

This is eisegesis. James’ jurisdiction, if we can speak of it in those terms, included Gentiles, not just Jews. Otherwise, he could not have “imposed” (the text’s wording) anything on them at all.

 

Biblical inerrancy depends on God, as @Botolph was saying; it is not God who depends on the Bible's inerrancy. This is the umpteenth time in this thread that the topic of concilliar infallibility has come up, and we have ample evidence that councils are not, of themselves, infallible. Who knows where the wind blows? So it is with the Holy Ghost.

edit: To wit, the Holy Ghost teaching us all truths does not imply that He will do so when it is convenient for us. The robber council of Ephesus makes that clear.