re: Why is it always the Roman Catholic Church that gets political

My church split with the United methodist due to politics and agendas

Now they basically say a Bible learning church

Eta: when I was young going to a rural Methodist church it was hail, fire and brimstone teaching. Crazy how it changed

quote:

---

Being pro immigration and antiwar are natural Christian positions.

---

I disagree. For one, war is sometimes necessary to eliminate evil and protect innocents. Being "antiwar" in many instances just allows evil to prosper.

And the problem with being pro-immigration is that those people only consider the immigrants. Not once do they ever consider the people whose towns are ruined by immigrants.

They never consider how our sons and daughters are receiving a worse education while we cater to people that can't even speak the language.

They don't consider the wealth stolen from citizens to give to foreigners who refuse to take care of themselves.

They don't consider the higher costs and worse healthcare because we have to treat people who don't belong here.

They don't consider the citizens who are losing their culture.

They don't consider the citizens being killed by illegal drunks or careless truck drivers.

They don't consider false religions spreading in Christian nations.

They don't consider the victims of crime committed by people with no respect for our country or its citizens.

It is not a position of caring. It's a position of choosing favorites and telling those harmed to go frick themselves.

That is not Christian in any way whatsoever.

quote:

---

Being pro immigration

---

This is false

That’s a pretty fair take overall, and honestly I went through a lot of the same wrestling. For a while I was stuck between Catholicism and Orthodoxy and couldn’t make up my mind. What ultimately pushed me to Catholicism was the question of authority the papacy and unity, but I still have a lot of appreciation for how Orthodoxy explains certain things.

It actually took me a while to come around on the filioque. I get why the Orthodox push back on it, and I think they raise legitimate concerns about how it was introduced. At the same time, I came to see the Catholic explanation as not contradicting the East when properly understood. And on other issues, like essence versus energies, I still find the Orthodox framework really helpful and, in some ways, more intuitive.

I also agree with your broader point. Every group has failures, and a lot of the outrage is selective depending on whether people already agree with the Church on a given issue. The Church speaks consistently on moral questions, whether people like it or not, and suddenly it’s “too political” only when it cuts against someone’s preferences.

At the end of the day, for me it came down to what Christ established, not which group has the cleanest history or the least internal problems. That’s what made the difference, even while still recognizing there’s a lot the East gets right and preserves beautifully.

I’ve tried 100 times to explain that on here. People still either haven’t seen it or don’t get it.

“Millions of people hate the Catholic Church for what they think it is.”

Looks like the thread got anchored.

Most of the issues between East and West are pretty minor when you get down to it. Wheras the filioque and the changes made to it really are not that big, The Orthodox objected to changes and the authority of Rome to unilaterally enact those changes.....truth be told, the question is one that Bartholomew in Constantinople (Istanbul) would rather not take the time out to consider