Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article ,
ARBermudez3{at}yahoo.com
> says...

> >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.
>

That has been my point all along.  You're the one linking the Roman
Catholic Church to the Byzantine textform.  Remember that my original
question was what could the (Roman)Catholic Church possibly have to do
with the Textus Receptus?  In a strange, roundabout way we seem to be
in agreement here, despite your cry of "sheer revisionism."  The
Vulgate was the only text that mattered to the Roman Catholic Church
even as some people affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church worked
with Byzantine manuscripts (as you pointed out) in attempts to make the
Vulgate more accurate.  Since we seem to be taking different paths to
the same conclusion, does that mean we're both warped?  No.

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

Careful there.  At no time did I attribute "magical foresight" to
anyone.  I stated that there was no knowledge or understanding of
textforms.  It was simply a matter of Byzantine manuscripts differing
significantly from 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.

Bigotry?  Can you support that?  The Council of Trent acted in such a
manner because Bibles were being - and had already been -  circulated
which were based on manuscripts which the Roman Catholic Church
considered faulty.  The only text which was considered reliable was the
Vulgate.  The Vulgate did not originate from any bias or bigotry.  By
the time of the Council of Trent the most prudent thing to do was to
continue using the Vulgate, not out of bigotry, as you imagine, but out
of practical necessity to ensure that bibles were based upon the most
trustworthy text available. It occurred in reaction to the Protestant
Reformation, not anti-Greek bias.  It was the Roman Catholic Church's
way of drawing a line in the sand and saying, "These things are truly
Roman Catholic.  We will preserve them and fight for them.  Those other
things are not Roman Catholic, and anyone preserving them and fighting
for them is wrong."  Some churches who were in league with Rome felt
excluded, and that is unfortunate.  Faith united us and it is
unfortunate that language should divide.  Groups not in league with
Rome felt they had been "cursed" or "condemned."  I still hear
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals say these things.  That is unfortunate
as well.

>
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
> quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
> (St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
>
> (((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you
post.   )))

((( 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} 2/7/05 6:34:14 PM ---