>> James taught “works” because he was the head of a Jewish church that still observed the Torah. <<
The church at Jerusalem was sharply rebuked by Paul, Peter AND James for “Judaizing,” by which was meant insisting on observance of the Torah. Paul, in fact, admonished Peter for tolerating the Judaizing. Are you suggesting that the Letter of James was written prior to this correction? Or after James lapsed back into Judaizing? If so, it would be inconceivable that the early church would have preserved such a letter as scripture; you’re certainly correct that it is rejected by the vast majority of Christians!
What you liturgicals don't seem to understand is that it is this hypocrisy of condemning the Torah while insisting on the rituals and commandments of a "new law" that gave birth to protestantism in the first place.
If the commandments spoken by the very Mouth of G-d Himself are vain and meaningless (and an insult to the Holiness of G-d) then what are we to think of the traditional rituals of chr*stianity that (unlike those of the Torah) are nowhere to be found in the Bible?
At least the Protestants are more consistent. In theory if not practice they reject all post-Biblical commandments and rituals, not merely the Biblical Jewish ones.
This single-minded hostility to Biblical rituals while defending post-Biblical ones from Protestants is I am convinced related to the hostility liturgical chr*stians have towards the stories and narratives of the "old testament." The liturgical churches are far more tolerant and understanding of the feelings of American Indians, Eskimos, and "gay and lesbian persons" than they are people whose religious traditions have committed their consciences to an inerrant Bible.
PS: Every argument liturgical chr*stians make for the validity of their rituals goes in spades for the defense of Torah observance, which they attack and disparage every bit as Luther and Calvin did the "popish mass."