There are many dogmas of Roman Catholicism which fly in the face of anything that can be considered "apostolic tradition" and documented history, such as the Marian dogmas and the Mass. Perhaps the dogma with the most overwhelming historical/patristic evidence against it is that of the icon-veneration dogma from Second Nicea and re-affirmed at Trent and other sources (e.g, the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law; the 1992 Catechism, etc).
I prepared a PowerPoint presentation discussing what the debate is and is not about (e.g., it is not about images per se, but the veneration thereof) and the patristic evidence that shows early Christians all denounced veneration of images and the theological assumptions underlying that of later Christian apologetic thereof.
I have decided to upload it onto youtube:
A Case Against the Veneration of Images
BTW, here is a list of cross-examination
question one should pose to any Roman Catholic on this issue (if you are a Roman Catholic, please ask yourself these questions and research this issue as it is central, in spite of a lot of pop-level apologetics that tries to downplay the significance of this teaching):
(*) Is the veneration of images a de fide
dogma?
(*) was such a de fide dogma re-iterated
in post-787 sources, such as Trent, the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law, and
the CCC?
(*) was such also the understanding of
theologians (e.g., Liguori; Bellarmine) who commented on Trent as well as 2
Nicea?
(*) According to RC, her de fide dogmas
are apostolic in origin?
(*) According to RC, the Deposit of Faith,
while it can be appreciated in greater detail, allows for some form of organic
development of doctrines, cannot be added to or subtracted from? (cf. the
comments from Session IV of Trent; Vatican I; Pascendi, etc)
(*) Mutative change of doctrine/dogma is
condemned by Pius X, Vatican I, Trent, etc?
(*) Is the Roman Church infallible in her
dogmatic decrees?
(*) Is the Roman Church indefectible when
she proclaims, publicly/universally, laws and practices? (cf. secondary objects
of infallibility, etc--tied into indefectibility)
(*) Would it be true to say that, if the
dogma about the veneration of images is not apostolic but a man-made doctrine,
such would, on its very own, disprove Rome's claims to infallibility,
indefectibility, and to be Christ's one true church? (in other words, it is an
"all-or-nothing" issue)
(*) Is idolatry a mortal sin (assuming grave
matter; full knowledge; full consent to be present) in Catholic theology?
(*) Would you agree that *IF* Rome is
wrong and that, as I argue, this is not a truly Christian teaching/practice but
a perversion/error, Rome is [a] proclaiming as dogma idolatry and [b] allowing
for grave matter, full knowledge, full consent to be present, a mortal sin to
be perpetuated/encouraged?
(*) Can you present any evidence in the
New Testament for the veneration of images?
(*) can you present any evidence in
documents contemporary with the NT (e.g., Didache; 1 Clement) for such?
(*) 2nd? 3rd? 4th? 5th?
(*) when is the earliest attestation of
the veneration of images that you know of?
(*) if the practice is part of the Deposit
of Faith, being a (purportedly) de fide, apostolic-in-origin teaching inspired
by the Holy Spirit and/or revealed directly to the apostles by Christ as Rome
proclaims (cf. Session IV of Trent), why is it utterly absent in early
Christianity?
(*) (If "records are missing,"
etc is the “response”)--how is it that the extent records all speak with one
voice *AGAINST* the practice, not evidencing Christians were using images
beyond perhaps for teaching purposes (cf. Tertullian, On Idolatry) or for art
(per Ouspensky; Bigham and other scholars who have written on this?)?
(*) Related to the above, why would early
Christians speak with one voice against the practice, including the very
theological justifications later people, including those at 2 Nicea and Trent
and John of Damascene, Theodore the Studite, Bellarmine, Ligouri et al would
use to justify the practice?
(*) In light of this, why should *I*
accept the practice?
(*) (If the response is “Because Roman
Catholicism is the One True Church”): Are you not assuming in your answer that
Rome is the true church? Would it not be reasonable to say that, "if Rome
is the true Church, and her claims about the apostolic nature of her de fide
dogmas are true, as is her claims about infallibility, indefectibility, etc are
also true [being part-and-parcel of her claims to be Christ's only true
church]), we should test such claims at the bar of, not just the Bible, but
also history, the latter we have examined and clearly see she is found wanting?
(*) can you present any positive evidence
that the paradosis/oral tradition which is spoken positively about (contrast
Korban rule in Mk 7/Mt 15) contained the veneration of images?
