I spoke of Ecumenical Councils as being considered inspired, and you asked me about the iconoclastic one of 754. I believe you know very well that the Church does not recognize that council as one of the Ecumenical (7th) Councils, so why even ask me such a question unless you were suggesting it was?
Iconoclasm is heresy, and those "churches" who advocate iconoclastic ideas are preaching heresy. Although iconoclasm was defeated in less than one century in large part thanks to the orthodoxy of the popes of Rome who lended their support to their Eastern brothers, Rome experienced its own iconiclastic heresy by none other than Frankish zealots on whose good will the popes of Rome depended heavily.
However, complete break with iconography did not occur until the Protestant deformation, which is also a heresy. You know all that because the nagture of your questions clearly shows that you know the material, and that you did not ask me that question as anything but a straw man.
In my response I said, as you quote me: " The "council" you are referring to is iconoclastic and it is no wonder that heretics of all shades would consider it an 'ecumenical' council."
Nothing in this repsone suggests that you beieve or subscribe to the heretical views of that "council" or that you yourself are in agrement with its pronouncements. You are mentkjoned in a pronoun because you are the source of the question, not of the belief expressed in that "council."
Whether you agree with that council is not subject of my response. This "synod" is considered as valid by all iconoclastic groups and, given that iconiclasm is heresy makes them heretical.
There is not a shred of ad hominem in my response. But if you took an offense, I assure you I was not making it personal.
I spoke of Ecumenical Councils as being considered inspired, and you asked me about the iconoclastic one of 754. I believe you know very well that the Church does not recognize that council as one of the Ecumenical (7th) Councils, so why even ask me such a question unless you were suggesting it was?
There you go accusing me falsely of claiming that council to be an ecumenical council, which you cliam all heretics do, once again implying that I am a heretic.
I suggest you stop.
Iconoclasm is heresy, and those "churches" who advocate iconoclastic ideas are preaching heresy. Although iconoclasm was defeated in less than one century in large part thanks to the orthodoxy of the popes of Rome who lended their support to their Eastern brothers, Rome experienced its own iconiclastic heresy by none other than Frankish zealots on whose good will the popes of Rome depended heavily.
However, complete break with iconography did not occur until the Protestant deformation, which is also a heresy. You know all that because the nagture of your questions clearly shows that you know the material, and that you did not ask me that question as anything but a straw man.
In my response I said, as you quote me: " The "council" you are referring to is iconoclastic and it is no wonder that heretics of all shades would consider it an 'ecumenical' council."
Once again, the CONTEXT is you falsely claiming that I said that council was ecumenical, which you say all heretics do, which is directed at me personally.
There is not a shred of ad hominem in my response.
So you say after the fact.
But if you took an offense
What I found offensive, as I've already stated was your taking offense for the very thing you did yourself, which comes across as highly double minded and hypocritical.
, I assure you I was not making it personal.
So you say after the fact.
Do you also have some oceanfront property in Iowa to sell too?