It is a given that the "quotes" posted by caww wer not accurate. Bad for them.
There never was a Pope Constantine V. However it was the Constantine's who effectively ruled the Church for 60 years and it was Constantine V who called the Council, ignoring the Pope. This Council, comprising 338 Bishops was one of the largest ever called.
The primary conclusion of this council- "No one is to possess or venerate an image, even in the secrecy of his home. All who disobey are to be excommunicated, and also to be punished by the law of the emperor, for their disobedience is also a crime against the state."
Leo III died in June 740. His son, who succeeded as Constantine V, was to reign for thirty-five years, and to show himself as capable as his father had been. Such a succession--nearly sixty years of continuous, good, strong government--was without precedent. The great event of the new reign, from the point of view of religion, was the council called by Constantine in 753, for the purpose of solemnly condemning the cult of images. For this emperor was much more of an Iconoclast than Leo III. In a treatise which he wrote, and circulated to the bishops on the eve of the council, he explained that all images of Christ were heretical, since they must portray Him as merely human, i.e., as though He had but one nature. At the same time that he thus, indirectly, seemed to reprobate the ancient Monophysite heresy, he used its terminology to explain himself; and as well as this, by refusing to the Blessed Virgin the name of Theotokos, by asserting her to be no more than Christotokos, he aligned himself with the Nestorians. It was at the first real breathing space of his reign--which had begun with a civil war, in which the rebels held Constantinople--that Constantine V held this council.
It met in the emperor's palace called Hieria, near Chalcedon, February 10, 753, and it sat for as long as seven months, with 338 bishops attending. So far as numbers went, this was one of the greatest of all the councils so far.
The pope was not invited to it; the see of Constantinople was vacant; Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were now well and truly sees in partibus infidelium. The president was that archbishop of Ephesus who, nearly thirty years before, had been one of the first promoters of iconoclasm. What took up the time of so many bishops for so many months was not the proposal to forbid the veneration of images. Here all were agreed. But the bishops resisted the emperor steadfastly when he proposed to go back on the earlier, acknowledged General Councils. They refused to endorse his heresies about the nature of Christ, the Theotokos, and her role of intercessor for mankind, the practice of prayer to the saints, the veneration due to their relics. So that the final summing up of the council does no more than speak of the images as being idolatrous and heretical, a temptation to the faith that originated with the devil. No one is to possess or venerate an image, even in the secrecy of his home. All who disobey are to be excommunicated, and also to be punished by the law of the emperor, for their disobedience is also a crime against the state.
The Church In Crisis
Yes, the site and quotes presented by caww contained significant errors but that does not detract from the main premise: The possession and veneration of images were outlawed.
The acceptance or rejection of the conclusions of this Council by the Pope is meaningless. The Pope was another Bishop, nothing else, and Constantine V was the effective leader of the Church.
It requires a retroactive writing of history to suggest the "Pope" was the leader of the Christian Church.
Is this another way of saying that, while there were a bunch of errors you still like it because of the conclusion that was reached?
That sounds A LOT like, "Fake but accurate."
The acceptance or rejection of the conclusions of this Council by the Pope is meaningless. The Pope was another Bishop, nothing else, and Constantine V was the effective leader of the Church.
This theory is all so fascinating, it's pretty much identical to the way the left rewrites history to fit their agenda.
The Constantine V who is referred to was the BYZANTINE EMPEROR who ruled from Constantinople (present-day Istanbul, Turkey); he NEVER set foot in Rome, in fact the Roman Empire had been gone for centuries at this time.
Nevertheless, if we are to believe your theory, we need to believe that the Church was being run by Turkish emperors, but that eventually authority was transferred to the Bishops of Rome. So, to support your theory, perhaps you can fill us in on some of the missing historical events:
1. When did this transfer of authority take place?
2. At what event did this transfer take place?
3. Who was involved? Which emperor, which bishops?
4. What was the reason for this transfer? Why did the emperors want to surrender authority?
5. Why was authority given to the Bishop of Rome and not the Patriarch of Constantinople?