Bull. Shit. - Edit 2
Before modification by Tom at 11/03/2012 05:16:13 AM
Your first statement, which you're backing off from already in a big way, was:
Note that you say "the irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism". That doesn't sound anything like "the iconoclast controversy in the East led the Pope to intervene and centuries later that intervention was used as a precedent to establish papal primacy, which helped lead to the Great Schism". No. You're saying that iconoclasm was rejected in the West because of some pagan affiliation, and it was a key reason for the Schism.
Of course, you have absolutely no evidence to support this statement, which WAS pulled out of your ass based on its value. Iconic representations originated in the East, not in the West, and pagan conversion was ongoing in the East at the same time as it was in the West (the Bulgars, Serbs, Romanians and Russians were all being proselytized to by Eastern missionaries, such as Cyril and Methodius, who were active just as the second iconoclast wave was ending). There is no historical, cultural or geographic justification why the Western Church would be predisposed to attack iconoclasm any more (or less) than the Eastern Church.
So, we have a typical Joel rant that is dead wrong, making grandiose statements about iconoclasm that are dead wrong. So, if "the irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism" is not your attempt at saying that you believed the Popes were attacking iconoclasm for the spurious reasons you give, and that the Papist position on iconoclasm was a decisive factor (or does "irreparable damage" mean something else to you than to the rest of the world), then just what were you trying to say, Joel? Try working on your writing skills.
Incorporating pagan deities as Catholic saints rather than attacking them as idols was vital to Christianitys spread throughout both Western Europe and the New World, so iconoclasm has less orthodoxy. The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism makes more sense on that basis. The Roman Catholic Church would have been naturally reluctant to surrender a missionary tool indispensable in Early Medieval northern and western Europe.
Note that you say "the irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism". That doesn't sound anything like "the iconoclast controversy in the East led the Pope to intervene and centuries later that intervention was used as a precedent to establish papal primacy, which helped lead to the Great Schism". No. You're saying that iconoclasm was rejected in the West because of some pagan affiliation, and it was a key reason for the Schism.
Of course, you have absolutely no evidence to support this statement, which WAS pulled out of your ass based on its value. Iconic representations originated in the East, not in the West, and pagan conversion was ongoing in the East at the same time as it was in the West (the Bulgars, Serbs, Romanians and Russians were all being proselytized to by Eastern missionaries, such as Cyril and Methodius, who were active just as the second iconoclast wave was ending). There is no historical, cultural or geographic justification why the Western Church would be predisposed to attack iconoclasm any more (or less) than the Eastern Church.
So, we have a typical Joel rant that is dead wrong, making grandiose statements about iconoclasm that are dead wrong. So, if "the irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism" is not your attempt at saying that you believed the Popes were attacking iconoclasm for the spurious reasons you give, and that the Papist position on iconoclasm was a decisive factor (or does "irreparable damage" mean something else to you than to the rest of the world), then just what were you trying to say, Joel? Try working on your writing skills.