[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.)

[SoothingDave]

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?

You need to totally buy into the conspiracy theory. Mom and the rest of the slandering nabobs would have you believe that no priest, brother, sister, monk, friar or anything ever spoke the vernacular, never taught anything about Jesus and God and most definitely never read any passage from Scriptures to anyone. Except in Latin.

Poor peasant #314 would ask the priest, "tell me what I need to do do make God happy?" and he would respond "sempere ubi sub ubi sub rosa ipso facto ad infinitum."

SD