Liguorian? opinions wanted

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sheeniac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
That’s true. I was tempted to write a letter in response to a recent article about the Gospel of Thomas, in which the author seemed to take for granted the existence of Q as a bonafide document. But overall it is still an orthodox publication.
Click to expand...
In all genuineness how much unorthodoxy is needed before we conclude the enterprise is not orthodox?
 
fix said:
In all genuineness how much unorthodoxy is needed before we conclude the enterprise is not orthodox?
Click to expand...
Well, I get the Liguorian, but I really haven’t subjected it to microscopic examination, because nothing objectionable has really jumped out at me.

In the article I mentioned above the author mentioned the “Q document” in passing, seeming to take it’s actual, as opposed to literary, existence, as a given. That struck a sour note for me, but the existence or not of Q doesn’t really involve orthodoxy, and I doubt if most Liguorian readers would even have noticed. It’s more intended for a general audience. And as a general audience Catholic magazine, I much prefer it to the St. Anthony messenger.
 
I am concerned about some of the writers they favor. I read St Anthony’s Messenger at the dr’s office. Oh my!! I’d hate for anyone to take some of that as gospel, so to speakl.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top