How well do you know the various organizations that occupy the English-speaking Christian marketplace? Well enough to figure out which one claims the above logo and tagline as its own?
[NOTE: Googling it is cheating. If you are certain that you know the answer, keep it under your hat, eh?]
UPDATE: I can leave you hanging no longer.
Who cares when you have THE TRUTH , the Catholic Church?
Funny thing is–he hardly relates to the gospel. It seems his basis is to feel good about yourself, no matter what..
I know who this is since he is on TV so much..
I voted for scientology. Scientologists are real modern. It’s to get you into one of their cosmological purification sessions. Like the ones the LCWR run.
……I must say, that as I was reading, my first thought was ……it must be the conciliar church……..seems, like I was right. Not because, I ever heard it, must be because I suspect them first……May God forgive me!
Halina, me too. The word ‘modern’ is the watchword for the new evangelisation, that and ‘new’.
p.s. may be off topic, or not, allow me to be a self-absorbed neo-palalgian (how do ya spell it?); I just watched the Archbishop Lefebvre documentary. It seems a worthy history, not only of the Archbishop, but of the birthpangs the ecclesial ‘self-awareness’ (according the Jean Guitton, it was only with VII that the Church became ‘self-aware’ [i need a drink]) barring 1900 and some years of unselfawareness (which must also include the Apostles and, indeed, Christ). if Guitton’s mindest is representative of the many chorazin capitulators of the council, then Archbishop Lefebvre and those of like mind were the only ones who were loyal unto God, rather than having itching ears for the greasy palms of the world.
Perhaps I am simply missing it, but what moral precept, Scriptural tenet, or pillar of Tradition does the above slogan violate? Have we really reached the point that simply saying people’s 21st century questions have answers in the Good News of Jesus Christ somehow constitutes liberal conspiracy?
@Bryan. i would think it is because ‘modern’ has been a tipping point word for the Church for a couple of hundred years, which is why, Pope St Pius X gave the complicit or ignorant world PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS – ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X – ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS.
unlike evangelllllllllllliiiiiiiiiigaaauuuuuudium circa 50,000 words, PDG is concise, orthodox and Gospel, depending on which side one might be on.
God bless those who seek the Truth rather than concede to the inculturation of their founding fibs.
p.s. I guess one should pray for those given up to the franchise of the founding fibs.
Brian said: “Have we really reached the point that simply saying people’s 21st century questions have answers in the Good News of Jesus Christ somehow constitutes liberal conspiracy?”
First Brian, I would just ask you not to let your paranoia get the better of you. With respect to the “liberal conspiracy”, this issue is a lot more nuanced. The real problem with the catchphrase is the concept of “modern man”. It is an oxymoron to say the least. Modern man was by definition always modern in that stone age man was “modern man”.. wait for it… during the stone age. Following that logical train of thought, during his time, Christ preached to modern man just as His Church has been preaching for the last 2000 years. For the Catholic Bishops to come out and say that now modern man has modern questions that can be answered by the Gospel is to suggest that somehow man, or rather the nature of man changes. I.e. that the nature of man changes with time. Yes? And this is the anthropocentric concept of ‘changing man needs a changing interpretation of the Gospel” that is at the foundation of the anthropocentric church and the disaster that is VII.
Here’s something to think about. Since the nature of man changes, and needs a new interpretation of the Gospel to accommodate him, it is only logical to assume that the liberals should be disposing as quickly as possible of the novelties introduced during VII since they no longer apply to ‘post modern man”. Yet they don’t do this, now do they. They are stuck in a time warp whereby they force on post modern man the interpretations of a “pre post modern man” stuck at a particular point in time, i.e. the 1960.
Follow up thought. From where I sit, post modern man is longing for something “new”, something “fresh” something “constant”. And it is these desires to return to an ageless concept of God and Church that is driving the Blitzkrieg assault on the conciliar church and the N.O. by big T Tradition. If you don’t believe me, just click on the following link: http://honneurs.free.fr/Wikini/wakka.php?wiki=PagePrincipalEn
I made mistake because USCCB was too obvious.
And while we are on the subject of liberal conspiracies and paranoia in general, over at Rorate Caeli one can only define as an “arithmetic miracle”. Just as Our Lord turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana, our very own miracle worker Cardinal Aviz turned 6% into 74%. The story and the link is here:
Looks like the conciliar age of miracles is upon us. And they will need may more of them to explain the disaster that is commonly referred to as VII 😉
I guess even numbers need to dialogue these days. as the saying goes, if you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything.
The truth is, the nature of man doesn’t change. What does change is the amount of damage a single man can do thanks to technological advances. Most “modern questions” (at least those that deal with man’s nature) are really not so modern.
Therefore, the objection, Bryan, seems to be the Church’s buying into the modern mindset rather than the modern mindset discovering the Church’s ancient wisdom. At least it appears that way by the apparent catering to “modern questions.” Kind of like Life Teen Mass -rather than moving teens toward the sacred, it moves the sacred toward the teens. I hope the “modern questions” slogan is a lure of sorts the Church uses to move “moderns” toward ancient wisdom, but it seems every time our Churchmen try to use lures that mimic the culture, it’s the Churchmen that get hooked.
“Perhaps I am simply missing it, but what moral precept, Scriptural tenet, or pillar of Tradition does the above slogan violate? Have we really reached the point that simply saying people’s 21st century questions have answers in the Good News of Jesus Christ somehow constitutes liberal conspiracy?”
A fair point. I answered “Catholic Church” – the answer was fairly obvious.
I don’t see what is wrong with the phrase “modern questions”, or with the Church’s having answers to them. If the Gospel is for all ages, the Church in every age needs answers for people of every age. And although there are permanent elements in such answers, that are not affected by the passage of time and the rise of unfamiliar challenges, some elements in the answers are affected by the passage of time, the changing of cultures, and other such changes in the life of the Church. If this were not so, the CC would still be living in exactly the same ways as the Jerusalem Church of AD 30.
What the Church has to say to 10th-century peasants is not much good if conditions of life in the 16th century are not those of the 10th. 10th century peasants did not have to bother with the ethics of taking interest – 16th-century merchants did have to. The Church had answers to give about the ethics of taking interest thanks to theologians such as St. Antoninus of Florence (1389-1459). It would have been negligent not to bother investigating problems that in the 15th century were modern. And the same is true for the Church in every age.
The word “modern” is not a synonym for “Modernism”, whether in reference to the theological Modernism condemned by St. Pius X, or to any other kind. “Modern” =////= “evil”. AD 30 was modern – once. So was the Council of Trent. So were the Councils of Baltimore. So were the Gospels. One of the leading ideas in the NT is that in Jesus God is doing something new. It doesn’t help that there seems, in US culture, to be a horror of phrases like “new age”, as though the words could never refer to anything except the Illuminati or the “New Age” “movement”. Modernity is simply a fact – something neither good nor bad. Question is: what, in modern conditions (= those we live in now, whenever “now” may be) is the Church going to say in those particular conditions at that time ?
One of the achievements of St. Thomas Aquinas was that he constructed a theological vision that took account not of change alone, or of permanence alone, but of both together. Progressivists seems to have difficulty in taking proper of permanence as well as change – Traditionalists seem to have the opposite problem: they are good with permanence, but not as good with change. Yet both are realities in this world.