@templariosccp You are not an Orthodox Christian. Orthodox Christians reject papal infallibility. Orthodox Christians reject filioque. Orthodox Christians follow the Nicene Creed.

@DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Why lie?

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Yes that statement was true in 680 AD. Which is to say Rome was still Orthodox. And that was despite the innovations happening in her jurisdictions.

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp You didn't actually read it

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp What did I miss? The “to the end” part? Do you got the original Greek?

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Original what? It was written in Latin, as you'd expect, and was translated into greek, but here it is. "illibata FINE tenus permanet, secundum ipsius Domiul Salvatoris DIVINAM POLLICITATIONEM" https://archive.org/details/pa...

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp ORIGINAL GREEK. Like the New Testament. Or do you think was that in Latin too? Anyways sounds like they were affirming that Rome was still Orthodox in 680. That statement doesn’t mean that Rome would never fall into heresy. Rome did a few centuries later when the money was right

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Hate to break it to you but the language spoken in Rome was Latin, and the letter was written in Latin, by Saint Pope Agatho whom you venerate. If you read "remains undefiled to the end" and claim it means "will be defiled before the end comes" then you're a lying son of satan.

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Well it happened. It’s not Jesus’s fault that the later Popes could not resist the temptation of wealth and secular power that came from cozying up to German heretics.

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Accusing Jesus of being too weak to keep His promise to uphold the Church is crazy. Let me get this straight, according to your "orthodox" theology, is Jesus a deceiver, or was He genuinely too weak to prevent from happening the one thing that He assured Peter wouldn't happen?

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp You might be happier with Calvinists? Any promise from God is a two way street. He’ll do his part but You have to do your part. It’s called free will. The Pope’s have it like every human. The later Popes chose schism and heresy because it meant wealth and earthly power. Tragic.

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp This is a nice opinion you want to hold, but it's not what the Church Fathers believed, quite the opposite. Read the context of the passage I linked Even St. Optatus writes explicitly that the criterion for belonging to the True Church is being in communion with the seat of Rome

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Now keep in mind that if you reject those statements, you're implicitly claiming the Church of the first 10 centuries had been corrupted, including the very Councils that define your Faith, and which your Church claims to stand by firmly, making your Church just as corrupt.

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Yeah no. My church did not invent this thing called purgatory just so they could sell get out of purgatory certificates like your Popes did. Do they gloss over that now or do they actually teach you guys about that weird heretical practice? If so, how do they explain it today?

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Neither did The Church and yet here you are lying for no reason whatsoever, because you're of your father the devil. Fortunately God doesn't grant protestants like you the intelligence to craft lies that stick. Your spiritual daddy Luther anathemized denial of indulgences.

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Ha! So the RC Church just pretends it didn’t happen. I’m Ortho since before Nicea dummy. Even my grandmother in the mountains of Greece knew about the pope selling indulgences. She couldn’t understand how the RCs (the Frankoi to her) fell for that or how the pope did not fear God

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp "Even my grandmother was lied to so it's true!" Idea that indulgences (which almost never even involved money) were a way to pay for salvation or avoid cleansing before Heaven is protestant. You never addressed the Council and Fathers condemning your schism before it happened.

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Either 1) the statements were written to remind or flatter the popes into remaining orthodox because we could see where you guys were headed OR 2) the communion with Rome assumed that Rome would remain, you know, Roman. Not german-franko-saxons former Arians who took Rome over.

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp "This is the rule of the True Faith..." "You cannot deny that you know..." Has to be nothing more than church fathers lying to appease a heretic so they can stay in communion? How about you try to address statements of your Saints instead of looking for ways to cope around them?

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Number 2 then. It assumed in 680AD that Rome of all places would remain Orthodox. They were wrong. Partially Orthos fault for allowing Rome to be taken hostage by German heretics but the popes should have had more fortitude. Leo III was prob the last to resist absurd innovations

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp In short, once again, either Jesus lied, or the Church Fathers were completely wrong about what every one of them who wrote on the topic, considered obvious and set in stone - the "Head" of the Church (as Leo I said, whom you venerate) was corrupted Mormons were right all along.

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Jesus doesn’t lie. it must mean something else. But let’s leave aside RC corruption and the theological/doctrinal innovations. If shuffling pedo priests from parish to parish so they can find new victims like the RC Church did does not defile Rome to catholics, then nothing will.

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp >It must mean something else because I don't like what it actually means *meaningless false slander* Yeah we get it, you have no idea how to deal with the statements at hand so you're manifesting, because you're demonized. Highly unfortunate, good you don't speak for your Church

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Yeah I get it. Cognitive dissonance is tough for you. For more information you can check out the Vatican’s own report which found that “saint” John Paul II was well aware of all that nasty stuff. Cheers.

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp >refuses to defend his own church with Patristics >makes provably false assertions without evidence >lies and slanders without any fear of hell We are NEVER making it through the purg- I mean toll houses with that attitude...

@ShadowMario83K @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp I take it on notice that the early church fathers would not defend pedophiles and their accomplices like you do. I don’t need to look it up. Toll-houses are not universally accepted but if we were Catholics we could probably buy some toll-house coupons from our bishops amirite?

@ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp @grok From a psychoanalytic lens, what issues could consistent refusal to back up one's claims with evidence, combined with responding to substantiated arguments with emotional slander, point to? What does this sort of behaviour say about the credibility of such person's claims?

@ShadowMario83K @ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Such behavior may indicate defense mechanisms like projection or denial, stemming from cognitive dissonance, insecurity, or narcissistic traits—avoiding vulnerability by deflecting with slander. It severely undermines credibility, suggesting claims lack empirical basis and rely

@grok @ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Highly relevant!

@ShadowMario83K @ChristoRobbie @DeEudaimon1 @templariosccp Glad it resonates. Spotting these patterns promotes healthier discourse—evidence always trumps deflection. If you need analysis on specific patristic quotes, I'm here.