We are supposed to passively accept a verse eliminated from the Bible because Textual criticism?

https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2022/12/another-heretical-plot.html

Be sure to read this for an explanation of TextCrit

10 October 2022

"Textcrit"

What is "Textual Criticism,"?  I thought I'd offer a few words about what that term means ... because, in my bitter experience, even very well-informed people often misunderstand it. You can even find the term misunderstood in otherwise respectable books.

Textual Criticism does not mean commenting on a text; going deeply into its meaning; explaining to people who don't understand it what the author was getting at; still less does it mean criticising it in the sense of explaining why it's wrong! 

NO!  

Textual Criticism means this: -

Pre-modern and early modern editions of an ancient text rarely give us that text as it sprang like Athene straight from the head of its author. Almost invariably, a text has been transmitted by scribal copying, during which changes will have been made. Sometimes these changes are mistakes (like leaving out a line in error); sometimes they are intentional (I can improve that; or He can't really have meant that; or I think I'll bring this verse of S Mark into line with the parallel passage in S Matthew; or This is in rather awful Greek ... I'd better correct it ...etc. ad infinitum). So you will find that no two manuscripts are entirely the same.

Textual Criticism means using very many different skills to try to get back, from the available copies, to what the author actually did write. Although ... many of us now doubt whether the 'original text' really is always (even in principle) ascertainable, because in the Ancient World at least some sorts of texts existed fluidly rather than statically (a bit like your favourite Cookery Book in your kitchen, where, over the passing years, you have entered in some of your own discoveries ... changed the quantities here ... extended the cooking times because of the idiosyncrasies of your own oven ... written in a new recipe there ...). 

Shakespearian scholars among you will know that, even after the invention of printing, Textual Criticism still cannot be avoided, because the questions of 'Actors' copies', modified within the actual process of dramatic production, and of 'pirated' editions, published from a shorthand copy, muddy the waters. 

And have you ever looked at the Oxford Edition of Wordsworth? Phew!!

Talk about "fluid texts"!!!

The Authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church has, for millennia, cheerfully accepted and employed Textual Criticism; perhaps most notably when S Jerome and, later, Roman Pontiffs were working on the Vulgate ... compare the 1590 Vulgate of pope Sixtus V; and the later Vulgate of pope Clement VIII ... which itself appeared in no fewer than three editions! Likewise, when S Pius V had the Missale Romanum revised ...

So it's Megauntraddy to be suspicious of Textual Criticism!

That doesn't mean that it's OK to behave like PF, and to monkey around with any bit of Scripture that doesn't fit ones own current personal fads.  

That is arrogant ultrahyperueberpapalist Bergoglianity.

The upshot of this is that "experts" (and haven't "experts" been such a blessing to His Church since the 1960s?) claim that Matt 17:21 is an interpolation of Mark 9:29 and it seems to me that the explanation of textcrit leaves out the fact that the Holy Ghost inspired the authors whereas the notes in your Mom's cookbook can not be said to be afflatic.

Now, I have the 1953 edition of  Dom Orchard's "A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture and in it, page 883 it is claimed that Matt 17:20, (Cast out by prayer and fasting) This verse is probably to be omitted with the 4th cent. uncials B and S as a harmonization with Mk 9:28 see note.

The note reads "This kind" it is uncertain whether this means deans in general or a particular class of demons whom it is especially difficult to expel "and fasting"; these words are missing from a few important MSS.

Before going on to respond to this claim, it is quite interesting to read the notes on page 902, "Jesus before Pilate" which observes It is before God and not before Tiberias that the Jews take responsibility upon themselves and their descendants."

We don't read much about that do we, rather we read, that the Jewish authorities weren't speaking for everybody etc and, as I recall from the top of my head, former Pope Benedict xvi called into question (In his trilogy on Jesus ) whether or not this passage of Matthew is legit. *

In any event, there are legit reasons why the bible verse in question is legit  - see page 214-215 of John Literal's "A Complete Comparison Of The Four Gospels" by John Litteral.

St. Augustine Matthew goes on in the following terms: “And when He was come to the multitude, there came to Him a certain man, kneeling down before Him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son; for he is lunatic, and sore vexed;” and so on, down to the words, “Howbeit this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.”(Mt 17:14-20) Both Mark and Luke record this incident, and that, too, in the same order, without any suspicion of a want of harmony.(Mark 9:16-28 Luke 9:38-45) 

I have the book but for those who don't  google this

https://tinyurl.com/4m2rwntx

There seems to be no awareness on the part of those who advocate or support casting this verse out of our Bibles that is a cause of great scandal.

Since the 1960s what the putative experts have done to the Faith of everyman Jack Catholic is execrable and this is just another cause of scandal to the simple faithful.

How is that putative interpolation an error or anything worthy of being cast out, especially when there exists legitimate explanations for its existence?

The Authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church has, for millennia, cheerfully accepted and employed Textual Criticism; 

OK, where is the evidence the Magisterium has decided it is right to cast Matt 17:21 out of the Bible?

* Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth – Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, 2011, p. 186: “An extension of Mark’s ochlos, with fateful consequences, is found in Matthew’s account (27:25), which speaks of ‘all the people’ and attributes to them the demand for Jesus’ crucifixion. Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus’ death? It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John’s account and in Mark’s.”

A Pope says that Matthew does not teach history; that is, Saint Matthew makes stuff up, that is, the New Testament is not true.

Thanks modern Popes, y'all have done a bang-up job.