[RnMomof7]

As for the poor people being forced to listen in a foreign language, it never fails to amuse. Anyone who could read or write at that time could read and write Latin. Duh.

What about those that could not"read and write"?

Dave I do not believe the majority of the populous in 1600 could read and write Latin

So only those that spoke Latin could understand the gospel.

Dave do you know how pathetic that sounds?

Dave why do you think the church kept the Bible from almost everyone?

[dangus]

>>What about those that could not"read and write"?

They heard the homilies explain to them the meaning of the scripture. Homilies are not sermons (although in modern America there's far less distinction.). They are intended to teach the meaning of the scripture which has been read.

>> Dave I do not believe the majority of the populous in 1600 could read and write Latin

No, most could not. Far fewer could read or write in the vernacular. Vernacular bibles were published by Protestants to appeal to the merchant class.

>> So only those that spoke Latin could understand the gospel.

Your cascading logic is false. Yor are clinging to your presumption that there was a conspiracy to not speak the gospel in English. If you are explaining the meaning of something to someone, would you not translate it in pieces yourself? Even though the gospels and the homilies are now in the same language, I ferquently hear priests repeat the gospel in the course of his homily. Other than your presumption that they were tryin to hide it from people, what makes you think they did not do this? Have you not read the homilies of any ancient Christians? (of course not, silly question.)