What Rush just said about the Catholic Church

[buffalo]

What Rush just said about the Catholic Church

He just said the secular left believes that the Catholic Church is a competing Supreme Court, that the Pope is a chief justice to something that cannot change. Good stuff.

 

[mikev]

Imagine that, a supreme court that doesn’t rewrite laws. It merely interprets them. What a novel idea.

 

[mommy]

And it keeps intrepreting them the SAME way… not any which way the wind blows.

 

[KBarn]

I’ve heard him say that before. The more I give thought to it, the more it seems correct. The High Priests of the Left’s secular religion are the federal judges, especially the Supreme Court. To the secular Left, the Pope is a 10th member who often presents himself as an obstacle to their secular utopian goal.

 

[mommy]

The left is also terribly angry they cannot influence the election of a Pope, nor his viewpoints on anything. He is strong and sturdy in his convictions, and for that, he’ll always be a target for the media. (And I will always be thankful for him!!)

 

[marvin]

mommy:

The left is also terribly angry they cannot influence the election of a Pope, nor his viewpoints on anything. He is strong and sturdy in his convictions, and for that, he’ll always be a target for the media. (And I will always be thankful for him!!)

“Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah…And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 16:17-19

 

[buffalo]

Rush isn’t Catholic but he sure does respect the Catholic Church. Any chance he might convert?

 

[Richardols]

KBarn:

The High Priests of the Left’s secular religion are the federal judges, especially the Supreme Court.

And the High Priests of the Right’s secular religion are the Reactionary Republican Senators. Both sides have their “Holy Men,” it seems.

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

Rush isn’t Catholic but he sure does respect the Catholic Church. Any chance he might convert?

Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham also respect the Church. What are the odds of them being received into the Church?

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

And the High Priests of the Right’s secular religion are the Reactionary Republican Senators. Both sides have their “Holy Men,” it seems.

Richard, Richard, Richard. Please explain the Rights secular religion.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham also respect the Church. What are the odds of them being received into the Church?

I don’t know. It just looks like Rush searches harder for the truth. The other two are commited to their respective traditions.

 

[Hildebrand]

Richardols:

And the High Priests of the Right’s secular religion are the Reactionary Republican Senators. Both sides have their “Holy Men,” it seems.

Reactionary, oh please. Liberals are just as reactionary as conservatives, if not more reactionary.

Reactionary = opposition to progress

Progress can include development, land use, using minerals, increase in population, having many children, and the list goes on and on.

PETA is a reactionary group. The Sierra Club is a reactionary group.

 

[Richardols]

Hildebrand:

Reactionary, oh please. Liberals are just as reactionary as conservatives, if not more reactionary.

Well, at least we are agreed that my reference to some rightists as reactionaries is as valid as your reference to some liberals as reactionaries.

 

[ridesawhitehors]

Richardols:

Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham also respect the Church. What are the odds of them being received into the Church?

You say this like it is out of the question. There is great chance of that. Think of all the great converts throughout history. Check out the Coming Home Network.

Rush is so cool. I miss being able to listen to him.

 

[Richardols]

ridesawhitehors:

You say this like it is out of the question.

In Drs. Falwell’s and Graham’s cases, it is out of the question or at best about the same chance as seeing Cardinal Arinze becoming a Mormon.

 

[Brad]

KBarn:

I’ve heard him say that before. The more I give thought to it, the more it seems correct. The High Priests of the Left’s secular religion are the federal judges, especially the Supreme Court. To the secular Left, the Pope is a 10th member who often presents himself as an obstacle to their secular utopian goal.

Scott Hahn does an excellent analysis of the analogy between the court and the mass. Robes, biblical language, swearing oaths, respectful and honorable language etc.

The Supreme Court is wrongly named. They are not supreme. They must be obedient to divine law or their law is null and void.

 

[Brad]

mommy:

The left is also terribly angry they cannot influence the election of a Pope, nor his viewpoints on anything. He is strong and sturdy in his convictions, and for that, he’ll always be a target for the media. (And I will always be thankful for him!!)

You are right. The “tolerant” left is all about forcing their opinions on the rest of society. They cannot force their Pope in so they push judges in and take cases to the judges they like. According to Peter Kreeft, they cannot be progressive because they can never point to something higher or better, only the winds of popularity. The real progressives are those that believe in absolute moral truth - these are the ones that can correct a society and set it on the right track.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

And the High Priests of the Right’s secular religion are the Reactionary Republican Senators. Both sides have their “Holy Men,” it seems.

Reactionary? You think same-sex marriage and abortion is progressive and non-reactionary? I thought you were an orthodox Catholic.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

buffalo:

Richard, Richard, Richard. Please explain the Rights secular religion.

1.) Bluntly secular: Wall Street
2.) Cluelessly secular (one would hope): “Name it and claim it.”

As for Rush Limbaugh, I used to listen to him a lot, because I shared workspace with someone who listened to him every day. Rush came across as self-important, impatient, and incapable of admitting a shred of goodness in those who opposed his line of reasoning. He was fond of ad hominem attacks. He also made up “facts” that I found out later to not be true, presumably in order to make his point more strongly than the mere facts would allow.

His “analyses” normally struck me as a cruel, mean-spirited, and aggressive, far removed in spirit from anything I have heard coming out of Rome. He aimed at many of the same targets, but with weapons of an entirely different kind.

I hope he is a different sort of man these days, but I’ve had entirely too much of him to give him another listen. (Besides, if I ever hear that crumpling thing he does with paper when he runs out of words, I’ll go nuts. )

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

The Supreme Court is wrongly named. They are not supreme. They must be obedient to divine law or their law is null and void.

You don’t like the term? Try New York State. The Supreme Court there is no more than a low level court, one of the courts of original instance.