***Wikipedia is written by anonymous sources who submit articles. Facts taken from wiki are suspect at best. I’d rely on some other sources.
I have, note for example Schaff.
And he supports what I said regarding the power of the RCC in the Middle ages aka, Dark Ages. ***
So does that other purulent anti Catholic bigot Ian Paisley.
***And try keeping focused on the issue, which was the language of the common people, which was not Latin. ***
The common people couldn’t read. Focus, focus.
***That’s correct, and where the British Empire took over, the Bible followed and literacy with it.***
It was not strict cause and effect and the time span was several hundred years. Literacy in 1600s England - at the time when the Empire and wealth were flourishing was only 30% for men and 10% for women.
Rather, wealth and leisure were increasing and only those in history up until recently who were literate were those with the wealth and leisure to be able to pursue it.
First, you attack the source, which is typical when you can't deal with the facts.
Second, Latin stopped being the spoken language of the common people long before the 1600's-try to keep up.
Third, the increase in literacy levels came with the increase of Bibles in the peoples own spoken language
And along with the King James, most homes in the Colonies and later the U.S. had Pilgrims Progress and Fox's Book of Martyrs.
Now don't waste my time anymore with your useless posts.
The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.