Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

  • Site Restructuring

    The site is currently undergoing some restructuring, which will take some time. Sorry for the inconvenience if things are a little hard to find right now.

    Please let us know if you find any new problems with the way things work and we will get them fixed. You can always report any problems or difficulty finding something in the Talk With The Staff / Report a site issue forum.

Which historical version of the Catholic Church is infallibly correct?

Donations

Total amount
$1,642.00
Goal
$5,080.00

Alfred Persson

Free Will Reformed Baptist
2024 Supporter
There have been many changes in Catholic doctrine through the centuries. Those who believed the version that existed in the 4th century, which included Eastern Orthodoxy, likely would not accept all the changes that ensued up until the 21st century. Yet both faithfully followed the magisterium and both would claim they alone are authentically Catholic.

An example. Iconoclasm as it is called today, was Orthodox Catholic teaching for centuries, yet today seen as heresy. Can't have it both ways, if the Church is infallible, then both versions of the Church were infallible and that is irrational. One of the infallible versions was wrong.
 
EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC CONCILIAbULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754.

THE DEFINITION OF THE HOLY, GREAT, AND ECUMENICAL SEVENTH SYNOD.

The holy and Ecumenical synod, which by the grace of God and most pious command of the God-beloved and orthodox Emperors, Constantine and Leo,(2) now assembled in the imperial residence city, in the temple of the holy and inviolate Mother of God and Virgin Mary, surnamed in Blachernae, have decreed as follows.

Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the before-mentioned demi-urgos of wickedness could not endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles against the ancient idolatry with the power of the Holy Spirit, and sent them out into all the world, so has he awakened against the new idolatry his servants our faithful Emperors, and endowed them with the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the deception of demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved bishops, that they might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the deceitful colouring of the pictures ( omoiwmatwn ) which draws down the spirit of man from the lofty adoration ( latreias ) of God to the low and material adoration ( latreian ) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance, might express their view on the subject.

Our holy synod therefore assembled, and we, its 338 members, follow the older synodal decrees, and accept and proclaim joyfully the dogmas handed down, principally those of the six holy Ecumenical Synods. In the first place the holy and ecumenical great synod assembled at Nice, etc.

After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation--namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.

Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our present definition the error of such as make and venerate these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be depicted--that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy--the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate

544

the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart? So is it wish the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which has been made divine by being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians.

The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation. Bread he ordered to be brought, but not a representation of the human form, so that idolatry might not arise. And as the body of Christ is made divine, so also this figure of the body of Christ, the bread, is made divine by the descent of the Holy Spirit; it becomes the divine body of Christ by the mediation of the priest who, separating the oblation from that which is common, sanctifies it.

The evil custom of assigning names to the images does not come down from Christ and the Apostles and the holy Fathers; nor have these left behind then, any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or made anything else than ordinary matter.

If, however, some say, we might be right in regard to the images of Christ, on account of the mysterious union of the two natures, but it is not right for us to forbid also the images of the altogether spotless and ever-glorious Mother of God, of the prophets, apostles, and martyrs, who were mere men and did not consist of two natures; we may reply, first of all: If those fall away, there is no longer need of these. But we will also consider what may be said against these in particular. Christianity has rejected the whole of heathenism, and so not merely heathen sacrifices, but also the heathen worship of images. The Saints live on eternally with God, although they have died. If anyone thinks to call them back again to life by a dead art, discovered by the heathen, he makes himself guilty of blasphemy. Who dares attempt with heathenish art to paint the Mother of God, who is exalted above all heavens and the Saints? It is not permitted to Christians, who have the hope of the resurrection, to imitate the customs of demon-worshippers, and to insult the Saints, who shine in so great glory, by common dead matter.

Moreover, we can prove our view by Holy Scripture and the Fathers. In the former it is said: "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth;" and: "Thou shall not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath;" on which account God spoke to the Israelites on the Mount, from the midst of the fire, but showed them no image. Further: "They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,... and served the creature more than the Creator."
 

The early Christian traditions​

Since the earliest Christians were also Jews, the tradition of the early church did not involve the use of icons. Indeed, many Christians went to their deaths rather than offer incense to the images of Roman gods, and even eating food sacrificed in pagan temples was prohibited for early Christians. Acts 19 tells the story of how the idol makers of Ephesus feared that the preaching of the Apostle Paul would result in damage to their trade in images of Diana/Artemis.

As Christianity evolved away from its Jewish roots, however, it gradually began incorporating "pagan" traditions such as venerating icons of Jesus and Mary, while still abhorring images of pagan deities.


Logically, the only version of Catholicism that is correct is the first version once delivered to the Saints. That is the version successors to Peter must contend for, not different versions which arose later in time:

The true correct and infallible version was "once delivered" in the 1st century, therefore not subject to change as there would be no further deliveries:

3 Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.
4 For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not: (Jude 1:3-5 Douay Rheims)
 
Last edited:
I have looked into the long quote you give in post #2
You have misunderstood it.
1. The quote is from the EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC CONCILIAbULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754.
This was not the 7th Ecumenical Council which was held in Niceae and is called the Second Council of Niceae. That took place several years later in 787.

If you read further down your source you find this headline:
EXCURSUS ON THE CONCILIABULUM STYLING ITSELF THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, BUT COMMONLY CALLED THE MOCK SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE. AD 754.

It was not an Ecumenical Council and neither the Pope nor his representative were there.
One of the reasons for calling the true 7th Ecumenical Council was to condemn the claims of this CONCILIABULUM condemning the use of images.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia - On 6 October, in the sixth session, the doctrines of the conciliabulum of 753 were refuted.

Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church therefore changed anything regarding the veneration of images.
 
Last edited:
I have looked into the long quote you give in post #2
You have misunderstood it.
1. The quote is from the EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC CONCILIAbULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754.
This was not the 7th Ecumenical Council which was held in Niceae and is called the Second Council of Niceae. That took place several years later in 787.

If you read further down your source you find this headline:
EXCURSUS ON THE CONCILIABULUM STYLING ITSELF THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, BUT COMMONLY CALLED THE MOCK SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE. AD 754.

It was not an Ecumenical Council and neither the Pope nor his representative were there.
One of the reasons for calling the true 7th Ecumenical Council was to condemn the claims of this CONCILIABULUM condemning the use of images.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia - On 6 October, in the sixth session, the doctrines of the conciliabulum of 753 were refuted.

Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church therefore changed anything regarding the veneration of images.
History is written by the victors, not the vanquished. At the time of this event, it was a valid council. Had the wife of the emperor not overturned what her husband did, the annulment would never have happened.

The question remains, which version of the church was infallibly correct. I think the answer is elementary, neither.

Only scripture is 100% infallibly correct, not the vessels of clay interpreting it. That includes the Catholic Magisterium and pope.
 
History is written by the victors, not the vanquished. At the time of this event, it was a valid council. Had the wife of the emperor not overturned what her husband did, the annulment would never have happened.

No it was not ever a valid Ecumenical Council.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia in a long article on the subject (Link) there are three requirements relating to the Pope that must be fulfilled for a such a Councils conclusions to be validly accepted by the Catholic Church.
1. The Council must be called by the Pope or with his assent.
2. The Pope, or one of his legates, must be present and preside.
2. The results of the Council must be confirmed by the Pope.

The Council of 754 failed all three of these.
 
No it was not ever a valid Ecumenical Council.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia in a long article on the subject (Link) there are three requirements relating to the Pope that must be fulfilled for a such a Councils conclusions to be validly accepted by the Catholic Church.
1. The Council must be called by the Pope or with his assent.
2. The Pope, or one of his legates, must be present and preside.
2. The results of the Council must be confirmed by the Pope.

The Council of 754 failed all three of these.
To the Victor belong the spoils, and the writing of history. Yes, now defects are alleged, but had iconoclasm been victorious then Catholic apologists would cite valid reasons that excuse it from being a mock council.

Had you lived in 754 in Constantinople your tune would be different:

" This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ! You have banished all idolatry! You have destroyed the heresies of Germanus [of Constantinople], George and Mansur [mansour, John Damascene]. Anathema to Germanus, the double-minded, and worshipper of wood! Anathema to George, his associate, to the falsifier of the doctrine of the Fathers! Anathema to Mansur, who has an evil name and Saracen opinions! To the betrayer of Christ and the enemy of the Empire, to the teacher of impiety, the perverter of Scripture, Mansur, anathema! The Trinity has deposed these three!

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. 14, Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in Constantinople, (A.D. 754.), The Definition of the Holy, Great, and Ecumenical Seventh Synod). Here



(19) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. 14, Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in Constantinople, (A.D. 754.), The Definition of the Holy, Great, and Ecumenical Seventh Synod). "

 
To the Victor belong the spoils, and the writing of history. Yes, now defects are alleged, but had iconoclasm been victorious then Catholic apologists would cite valid reasons that excuse it from being a mock council.

It would appear that the rewriting of history is by yourself.

It is clear that the Council of 754 was never accepted by the Catholic Church.
Can you produce any Catholic Church documents that prove otherwise?

Had you lived in 754 in Constantinople your tune would be different:
Since the Pope did not accept it why do you suppose that I would have?

" This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ! You have banished all idolatry! You have destroyed the heresies of Germanus [of Constantinople], George and Mansur [mansour, John Damascene]. Anathema to Germanus, the double-minded, and worshipper of wood! Anathema to George, his associate, to the falsifier of the doctrine of the Fathers! Anathema to Mansur, who has an evil name and Saracen opinions! To the betrayer of Christ and the enemy of the Empire, to the teacher of impiety, the perverter of Scripture, Mansur, anathema! The Trinity has deposed these three!

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. 14, Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in Constantinople, (A.D. 754.), The Definition of the Holy, Great, and Ecumenical Seventh Synod). Here



(19) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. 14, Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in Constantinople, (A.D. 754.), The Definition of the Holy, Great, and Ecumenical Seventh Synod). "

Philip Schaff is a Protestant anti-Catholic. Why should I believe his opinions any more than I believe yours.

Provide some Catholic evidence that the Pope accepted the results of the Council and we will have something to discuss.
 
Last edited:
It would appear that the rewriting of history is by yourself.

It is clear that the Council of 754 was never accepted by the Catholic Church.
Can you produce any Catholic Church documents that prove otherwise?


Since the Pope did not accept it why do you suppose that I would have?


Philip Schaff is a Protestant anti-Catholic. Why should I believe his opinions any more than I believe yours.

Provide some Catholic evidence that the Pope accepted the results of the Council and we will have something to discuss.
Catholic evidence after 754 is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent to my Question "which version is infallible".

If you were an Eastern Orthodox Catholic in Constantinople in 754 (before the schism), you would have accepted that council as authoritative just as the Bishops attending it did.

Now, today...you claim the church is infallible. But before the schism we see the "infallible church" siding with iconoclasm, yet today it does not.

Therefore, your position the church is infallibly correct is disproved by its own history.

The rewrite of history declaring that a "mock council" is sophistry attempting to hide the historical proof your infallible church is very fallible.

Antipopes accomplish the same thing. They were infallible until deposed by a different "infallible" pope.

I recall there was a time when three popes competed for the "chair of Peter", which history shows doesn't "electrically shock an antipope" when he sits down pretending to be pope.

Nothing from the "chair" burnt his butt when he pontificated "infallibly," yet that reasonably would occur (or something producing the same effect)----to prevent fallible erroneous pontifications while "in the chair."

For example, as when these three competing popes took turns claiming:

"I am the Pope!" [Immediately his rear or tongue should have burst in flames as he spoke]


When a pope is declared an antipope by his competitors who won the war---its mere sophistry, a rewrite of history to maintain the fiction popes are infallible.
 
Last edited:
Catholic evidence after 754 is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent to my Question "which version is infallible".
The evidence I have provided shows that there is no difference between the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after 754. There are not two versions.


If you were an Eastern Orthodox Catholic in Constantinople in 754 (before the schism), you would have accepted that council as authoritative just as the Bishops attending it did.
What Eastern Orthodox believe is irrelevant. I’m discussing the Catholic Church.

Also what individuals, whether bishops or not, accepted is not relevant.

The Pope did not agree to the Council of 754, did not attend the Council, nor accept it’s conclusions. Therefore the Catholic Church did not accept it.

Now, today...you claim the church is infallible. But before the schism we see the "infallible church" siding with iconoclasm, yet today it does not.

We do not see the Catholic Church siding with iconoclasm
Therefore, your position the church is infallibly correct is disproved by its own history.
The Catholic Church’s history shows that it did not change its position.

The rewrite of history declaring that a "mock council" is sophistry attempting to hide the historical proof your infallible church is very fallible.
There has been no re-write of history by the Catholic Church.


Antipopes accomplish the same thing. They were infallible until deposed by a different "infallible" pope.
Antipopes were not infallible because they were not popes.


I recall there was a time when three popes competed for the "chair of Peter", which history shows doesn't "electrically shock an antipope" when he sits down pretending to be pope.

Nothing from the "chair" burnt his butt when he pontificated "infallibly," yet that reasonably would occur (or something producing the same effect)----to prevent fallible erroneous pontifications while "in the chair."
Now you are just being crude and insulting.

As an antipope was not pope he could not ‘pontificate’ infallibly.


For example, as when these three competing popes took turns claiming:

"I am the Pope!" [Immediately his rear or tongue should have burst in flames as he spoke]


When a pope is declared an antipope by his competitors who won the war---its mere sophistry, a rewrite of history to maintain the fiction popes are infallible.
Very silly. A pope does not become a pope just by claiming he is one. The Catholic Church has not re-written history. That seems to be a Protestant prerogative.


I asked you to provide some Catholic evidence that the Pope accepted the results of the Council (of 574). You have provided none.
 
That the Catholic Church did not change it's posion on images is clear in the article on iconoclasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's very long but here are some extracts.

Pope Gregory II died in 731. He was succeeded at once by Gregory III, who carried on the defence of holy images in exactly the spirit of his predecessor. The new pope sent a priest, George, with letters against Iconoclasm to Constantinople.…

In 754 Constantine, taking up his father's original idea summoned a great synod at Constantinople that was to count as the Seventh General Council…..

Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem refused to send legates, since it was clear that the bishops were summoned merely to carry out the emperor's commands. The event showed that the patriarchs had judged rightly……

Meanwhile the countries which the emperor’s power did not reach kept the old custom and broke communion with the Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople and his bishops. Cosmas of Alexandria, Theodore of Antioch, and Theodore of Jerusalem were all defenders of the holy icons in communion with Rome…..


We now come the true Seventh Ecumenical Council

The Empress Irene waited for an opportunity to do so and to restore the broken communion with Rome and the other patriarchates…..

Tarasius and the empress now opened negotiations with Rome. They sent an embassy to Pope Adrian I (772-95) acknowledging the primacy and begging him to come himself, or at least to send legates to a council that should undo the work of the Iconoclast synod of 754. The pope answered by two letters, one for the empress and one for the patriarch. In these he repeats the arguments for the worship of images agrees to the proposed council, insists on the authority of the Holy See….
 
That the Catholic Church did not change it's posion on images is clear in the article on iconoclasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's very long but here are some extracts.

Pope Gregory II died in 731. He was succeeded at once by Gregory III, who carried on the defence of holy images in exactly the spirit of his predecessor. The new pope sent a priest, George, with letters against Iconoclasm to Constantinople.…

In 754 Constantine, taking up his father's original idea summoned a great synod at Constantinople that was to count as the Seventh General Council…..

Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem refused to send legates, since it was clear that the bishops were summoned merely to carry out the emperor's commands. The event showed that the patriarchs had judged rightly……

Meanwhile the countries which the emperor’s power did not reach kept the old custom and broke communion with the Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople and his bishops. Cosmas of Alexandria, Theodore of Antioch, and Theodore of Jerusalem were all defenders of the holy icons in communion with Rome…..


We now come the true Seventh Ecumenical Council

The Empress Irene waited for an opportunity to do so and to restore the broken communion with Rome and the other patriarchates…..

Tarasius and the empress now opened negotiations with Rome. They sent an embassy to Pope Adrian I (772-95) acknowledging the primacy and begging him to come himself, or at least to send legates to a council that should undo the work of the Iconoclast synod of 754. The pope answered by two letters, one for the empress and one for the patriarch. In these he repeats the arguments for the worship of images agrees to the proposed council, insists on the authority of the Holy See….
Until the schism of 1054 everyone, including those Bishops were Catholics. So you have centuries later two versions of an allegedly infallible church fighting each other. Both can't be right, and its evident to anyone looking at history that neither were infallible.

When one is rational, aware of the human condition to err, that truth is self-evident. An infallible human run magisterium and popery are a self-contradiction.

Yes, the Catholic church changed its position on images, departing from the tradition of the apostles who refused to burn incense to emperors and images.

The complete absence of icon veneration explains the complete absence of icon veneration teaching or practice in the NT, where apostolic tradition is unchanged and manifest to all who read their Bibles and believe them.

Iconoclasm was a protest against the ever increasing idolatry overtaking the Christian church, and it lost the battle against darkness.

Soon after, Islam overthrew idolatrous Christianity, reversing their losses against the iconoclasts.

In a biblical parallel with apostate idolatrous Israel and its getting booted out of its homeland, so the iconodules were driven out, enslaved or executed by the rising tide of Islam.
 
Last edited:
Until the schism of 1054 everyone, including those Bishops were Catholics. So you have centuries later two versions of an allegedly infallible church fighting each other. Both can't be right, and its evident to anyone looking at history that neither were infallible.

The Oriental Orthodox broke away in the 5th century. In 1054 the Eastern Orthodox went into schism.
That some bishops dissented from the official Catholic Church teaching in the 8th century means just that; they dissented. That does not mean official Cathlic Church teaching changed at any point.
You keep ignoring the role of the Pope. He did not give his assent to any change in Church teaching regarding the veneration of icons. Therefore Church teaching did not change.
And there were not two versions of an infallible Church. There was only one "version" as you call it.

When one is rational, aware of the human condition to err, that truth is self-evident. An infallible human run magisterium and popery are a self-contradiction.

Yes, the Catholic church changed its position on images, departing from the tradition of the apostles who refused to burn incense to emperors and images.
As I have shown you the Catholic Church did NOT change its position on images.

The complete absence of icon veneration explains the complete absence of icon veneration teaching or practice in the NT, where apostolic tradition is unchanged and manifest to all who read their Bibles and believe them.

Iconoclasm was a protest against the ever increasing idolatry overtaking the Christian church, and it lost the battle against darkness.

Soon after, Islam overthrew idolatrous Christianity, reversing their losses against the iconoclasts.

In a biblical parallel with apostate idolatrous Israel and its getting booted out of its homeland, so the iconodules were driven out, enslaved or executhe issue of whetherted by the rising tide of Islam.
This is just a diversion (and just your opinions) from the issue of whether the Catholic Church changed its teaching on images. I have shown you extensively that it did not.
I would also point out that you have consistently failed to engage with the points I made about the position of the Pope regarding the validity of the council of 754.
I've asked you to provide some Catholic evidence that the Pope accepted the results of the Council (of 754). You have provided none.

You are just in denial of the facts of history.
 
The Oriental Orthodox broke away in the 5th century. In 1054 the Eastern Orthodox went into schism.
That some bishops dissented from the official Catholic Church teaching in the 8th century means just that; they dissented. That does not mean official Cathlic Church teaching changed at any point.
You keep ignoring the role of the Pope. He did not give his assent to any change in Church teaching regarding the veneration of icons. Therefore Church teaching did not change.
And there were not two versions of an infallible Church. There was only one "version" as you call it.


As I have shown you the Catholic Church did NOT change its position on images.


This is just a diversion (and just your opinions) from the issue of whether the Catholic Church changed its teaching on images. I have shown you extensively that it did not.
I would also point out that you have consistently failed to engage with the points I made about the position of the Pope regarding the validity of the council of 754.
I've asked you to provide some Catholic evidence that the Pope accepted the results of the Council (of 754). You have provided none.

You are just in denial of the facts of history.
The appearance of an "infallible pope" in the Catholic timeline, such didn't exist while Italian Catholics were in the catacombs hiding from the Emperor, proves there are different versions of the Catholic faith.

Just to be clear, I consider myself a "primitive Catholic", who would have been in the catacombs, but today's version is too different. I don't see it in the New Testament.
 
The appearance of an "infallible pope" in the Catholic timeline, such didn't exist while Italian Catholics were in the catacombs hiding from the Emperor, proves there are different versions of the Catholic faith.

Just to be clear, I consider myself a "primitive Catholic", who would have been in the catacombs, but today's version is too different. I don't see it in the New Testament.

You have proved nothing.
 
You have proved nothing.
On the contrary, I proved everything.

It is OBVIOUS Catholicism in the New Testament differs SO completely from what is claimed to be Catholic today, that "Saint Peter's" words and deeds bear no resemblance whatsoever to any modern Pope.

Especially "Pope Francis."
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, I proved everything.
You have proved nothing. You are just giving your opinions.

It is OBVIOUS Catholicism in the New Testament differs SO completely from what is claimed to be Catholic today, that "Saint Peter's" words and deeds bear no resemblance whatsoever to any modern Pope.

Especially "Pope Francis."

Another opinion.
Proof requires evidence not just your opinions.

All along you have just given claims not proof. You claimed the Catholic Church changed it's doctrine on images. I gave you evidence that it had not and that your claims were false.
 
You have proved nothing. You are just giving your opinions.



Another opinion.
Proof requires evidence not just your opinions.

All along you have just given claims not proof. You claimed the Catholic Church changed it's doctrine on images. I gave you evidence that it had not and that your claims were false.
Proof? Your eyes don't prove it? I challenge the eyeballs of every Catholic, believe what you see. Show me where anyone like Pope Francis is, in the New Testament.

That is your proof. The ONLY reliable record of true Catholic Christianity is in the Holy Scriptures.
 
Proof? Your eyes don't prove it? I challenge the eyeballs of every Catholic, believe what you see. Show me where anyone like Pope Francis is, in the New Testament.
Are you referring to trivial stuff like the size of hat he wears?
Or are you referring to serious stuff - i.e the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

If the former - don't waste my time.
If the latter then provide some actual example with proof it has changed.

That is your proof. The ONLY reliable record of true Catholic Christianity is in the Holy Scriptures.
That is a Protestant claim.
The Catholic Church is not, and never has been, sola scriptura.
 
Are you referring to trivial stuff like the size of hat he wears?
Or are you referring to serious stuff - i.e the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

If the former - don't waste my time.
If the latter then provide some actual example with proof it has changed.


That is a Protestant claim.
The Catholic Church is not, and never has been, sola scriptura.
Could anyone today say to Pope Francis what Paul said to Peter?

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal. 2:11-21 KJV)
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,642.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top