They would say the same about the filioque or whatever other thing you can come up with though, age234. If I had a dollar every time I had to sit through another lecture on how it was inserted to fight the Arians in Spain (certainly a worthy goal)...well, let's just say I'm fine with that, but it seems to have created bigger problems because it wasn't kept at that level, and was allowed to grow into something that became quite a bit more than what was apparently intended (or is adoring the Eucharist so central to RC Eucharistic theology now that it would be impossible to teach that Jesus is truly present without this practice? Because then it seems like you exchange one extreme for the other, and that's not the RCism that I was taught, where such things were certainly not mandated). If the veneration of icons had had the same effect (e.g., growing to the point where you were venerating the icon outside of its proper context), then that comparison might work a little better.
The thing I learned in my time in RCism is that it is indeed a very logical faith. Everything fits together quite well, and if you take the Vatican's stances based on their own internal logic then there's very little reason to ever have a problem with anything they do. If, however, you find that reason and logic can only take you so far because they are not truly faith, then...well, then I guess you end up like me. I don't disparage the Vatican for its logic, but I think it's missing the point in all of its immaculately constructed arguments. The reality is much more simple, if it makes sense to call a mystery simple. "Take, eat of this all of you"...you can't get anything simpler than eating, but of course if you want to, you can add all kinds of additional things to that, and reasons for them too.