Just like I am a heretic to you, as you so many times have called me and my beliefs
I never called you a heretic. Show me when and where I called you personally a heretic.
I do believe that you implied that I am a heretic when you misread what I said about the iconoclastic council:
To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
MLG: I suppose you do not include the council of Constantinople, AD 754 in that "inspired" category?
kosta50:St. John od Damascus sucessfully proved that incons were not idolatry. The "council" you are referring to is iconoclastic and it is no wonder that heretics of all shades would consider it an "ecumenical" council.
10,402 posted on 11/04/2007 4:46:47 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
kosta50 assumed that I was calling that council an "ecumencial council", which I did not, and thusly implied very heavily, directed at ME personally, that I was a heretic.
I received a message from the RM that it is ok to call a belief heretical, and you can call a church father a heretic, but we cannot call each other names. So, kosta50 is able to call the council of Constantinople or any other council for that matter heretic if it does not conform to his beliefs. You are perfectly capable and within your rights to call his beliefs heretical, but do not call him a heretic. At least this is what I understand from the RM.
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.