[txzman]

Vatican II reasoned that the adoption of Latin as the universal language of the church in the fourth century was merely a concession to the times and that by conducting Mass in the language of the participants they could take a more active part in the ceremony.

Umm, this also conveniently ignores the fact that the Roman Catholic Church burned as "heretics" all those who tried to put the Bible into English for the layman.

Keeping the Bible in Latin meant one had to rely solely on the Church for guidance about your soul. In effect guaranteeing captivity for those wanting to know God.

Just one small example of the Catholic Church's intolerance - in 1516, two couples were burned at the stake in England for daring to teach their children the 10 commandments in English.

See Fox's Book of Martyrs: http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

It was ugly on both sides, that is a well known fact. It doesn't help when one acts like the violence and un-Christian acts only went one way. We had "Bloody" Mary I, in terms of religious charity and tolerance, Elizabeth I actually wasn't much better (though this is one Catholic who probably would have supported Elizabeth out of nationalistic reasons). There is blood on all sides, and that is truly regretable. God Bless

[Polybius]

Just one small example of the Catholic Church's intolerance - in 1516, two couples were burned at the stake in England for daring to teach their children the 10 commandments in English.

No group during those times had a monopoly on "intolerance".

Henry VIII's Protestant reign resulted in the burning of 81 individuals for their Catholic religious beliefs. Mary Tudor's Catholic reign then resulted in the burning of 280 individuals for their Protestant religious beliefs.

One may argue that 280 is almost three and a half times worse than 81 but the fact remains that the conduct of both sides was loathsome during those times.