[Leisler]

It depends upon what ‘it’ is. Remember?

Lefties always want to control language. Language is a tool and is not to be in control of the masses. Only an elite will talk to each other, in their own special language. For example, the Catholic Church and it’s long term use of dead Latin, and not allowing peons to read the Bible.

[Dr. Sivana]

For example, the Catholic Church and it’s long term use of dead Latin, and not allowing peons to read the Bible.

That was an ignorant statement. In medieval times, if you could read, you could read Latin. Latin was not a "dead" language. Even after the Protestant revolt, secular writers like Descartes wrote his works in Latin after he wrote in French so that more people could read it (and French was a pretty common language). Latin is superior to other romance languages in precision. The Latin language was not dead, but the word meanings were fixed. English has changed so much since the KJV that a merely literate person would get the wrong idea from the usage of words like "prevent," (cf. OED) which has changed to mean its opposite over the years. Many of the vulgar translations into local languages contained egregious errors. The monks of the Catholic church preserved the Bible, as Catholic monks and scribes made the copies in extant Greek and Hebrew, and the Latin.

The reason the Bibles were chained in the churches was because they were hand-copied and therefore priceless. Mass duplication before the printing press was impossible.

This is one heck of a thread to make offensive and inaccurate comparisons. We Catholics on FR avoid doing the same because we are going to have to work together on a common cause. There are better times and places to discuss these things.

You would best avoid making these sorts of statements, which are repeated even more frequently by the secular liberals, on this site, especially on these types of topics where it is completely unnecessary.