The response is necessarily more in-depth than the original post it responds to, because numerous quick claims are made there without much in the way of examination of their context or historic character. Part of what often makes the icon debate frustrating is that iconoclasts are almost never consistent in their critiques. To help counter-balance this, I will give just a few. It was claimed that the liturgical use of icons is both disputed and indebted to a mixed foundation.
This would imply an argument against the liturgical use of icons. By this, I can only assume it means their veneration honor : carrying them about, kissing them, censing them, and so forth. However, Tertullian also equated all images with idols, refusing artists to the catechumenate as a result. He was a fanatic β an extremist β and, as a result, an eventual Montanist, attacking the Church on a number of issues.
This is not an insult, but rather an historical assessment of the facts. Oh wickedness! This demonstrates that such artisans were officially sanctioned among the orders of clergy. There is no Patristic evidence against their liturgical use here, as Tertullian was on the outside looking in. With regards to the 36th canon of the local synod of Elvira, the finer points of canonical law were disregarded, and we were presented with a poor translation of this obscure, disciplinary canon.
Given the fact that this canon was ignored if indeed it means that images should not be in churches , it can reasonably be concluded that this canon bears no Patristic weight, and that it does not mean what iconoclasts imply it means.
We know for sure that it is not a theological canon, that it says nothing related to the kind of images on church walls, and that it was never obeyed or repeated in future canons in the way that iconoclasts assert.
