In article , ARBermudez3{at}yahoo.com
says...

[snip]

>Of course.  Again, I should have specified that my focus was solely on
>the Roman Catholic Church.

And this 'focus' has warped your conclusion(s).

>My point here is that the Roman Catholic
>Church did not think highly enough of the Greek text to make official
>use of it until after 1944.

But this is _sheer_ revisionism. And I fear it goes far to _misrepresent_ what
the Roman Church's real thinking was. Have you ever even _read_ the Council of
Trent's documents on Scripture? If you do, you will see that they showed no sign
of even _concerning_ themselves with the Greek sources of the Vulgate. No, all
they cared about was the Vulgate. It really is eerily reminiscent of today's
KJV-only groups.

There was certainly not even a _hint_ of the magical foresight you attribute to
them concerning the quality of the texts of the Vulgate.

> What other groups did was done of their
>own volition.

But Trent was binding on the _whole_ Catholic Church, not just the Latin Rite.
And that is part of the problem, since Trent specified that ONLY the Vulgate is
canonical, paying NO attention to the existence of Greek manuscripts and
Greek-speaking Churches. It really does look rather like Latin bigotry.


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/6/05 2:29:38 PM ---