Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 13/03/2012 12:09:07 AM
Iconoclasm was certainly not a dispute over doctrine that led to the Great Schism. It had been thoroughly excoriated at the end of the second iconoclast wave and both the Eastern and Western Churches adhered to (and still adhere to) the findings of the Second Nicaean Council. The controversy was over 300 years before the Great Schism and both churches were in agreement.
If you bothered to read the article you would see that at no point was it stated that the iconoclast heresy had any impact whatsoever on the Great Schism. The schism of Photius was completely healed, just like the Avignon Schism in the West. It was totally irrelevant at the time of the Great Schism except, as I have repeatedly said, insofar as it set a precedent of papal interference in matters of the Eastern Church, which is at best a tangential affect.
If you bothered to read the article you would see that at no point was it stated that the iconoclast heresy had any impact whatsoever on the Great Schism. The schism of Photius was completely healed, just like the Avignon Schism in the West. It was totally irrelevant at the time of the Great Schism except, as I have repeatedly said, insofar as it set a precedent of papal interference in matters of the Eastern Church, which is at best a tangential affect.
Sorry if I was unclear; I will try to be more so, if belatedly:
Jurisdictional disputes between Rome and Constantinople existed long before iconoclasm, and continued long after it. The formal Great Schism occurred well after iconoclasm ended; I can subtract 842 from 1054 and get 212 (a fair number of years short of 300, incidentally.) HOWEVER, the permanent Schism due to jurisdictional disputes (in addition to secular politics and language,) was only the formal declaration of a practical schism reaching back to iconoclasm as surely as it reaches back further. Iconoclasms exacerbation of that split endured long after iconoclasm itself ceased; it is not "tangential," but illustrative. Again, just because the Pope, Patriarch and Emperors all ultimately came to agreement against iconoclasm does not undo the effect of a previous Byzantine emperor telling a previous pope he would come to Rome to destroy icons and imprison the Bishop of Rome, or a previous Roman emperor condemning the Second Council of Nicaea as heretical.
Which brings me back to my initial statement: everything you said in your initial statement was wrong. Rome, frequently headed by Greek-speaking popes who recognized Byzantium prior to the schism, was not menaced by pagans in the eighth century and had no more reason to find itself against iconoclasm than Constantinople, which was routinely attacked by pagan Bulgars and Russians during that exact period, and menaced by the Muslims in Syria and on the seas. Iconoclasm may have drawn inspiration from Muslim- and Jewish-influenced thinking, which was more prevalent in the East, but Rome was not drawn to a need to defend the images for any of the reasons you stated.
I already conceded my statements on WHY Rome defended icons was only speculation, which I thought indicated as such at the time. Those consist of two sentences, hardly the "rant" you condemned them as. Catholic absorption of paganism may not have been official policy, but was official PRACTICE reflected in adoption of customs, worship sites and yes, even deities and heroes preserved as saints, in some cases to this very day. That and iconoclasms contributions to pre-existing jurisdictional disputes culminating in the Great Schism are both attested by the Roman Catholic Church itself, as I demonstrated with links to the Catholic Encylopedia.
Just admit you're wrong. You not only look like a moron, but you post things that have nothing to do with the issue at dispute and string them together. On that note, may I recommend you read Matthew 27:5, Luke 10:37, and then Deuteronomy 13:18.
Correct me if I am wrong (or am not; you never need to be asked in either case) but I believe that series of passages is traditionally cited as NEGATIVE evidence with regard to the bible as random oracle. Deuteronomy 13:18 (or any of the bible) is hardly consistent with telling someone to commit suicide. That latest and most extreme ad hominem eliminates whatever faint hope remained of constructive discussion. I get that you dislike me and the way I write; you need not restate that each time I post, nor does doing so constitute a rebuttal of my posts. Rip into me again if you like, but do not mistake my silence for assent.