50 Million Deaths

Spiritual Deaths

When we talk about deaths we usually mean physical deaths. In reality Catholics caused way greater spiritual deaths than physical. Spiritual deaths are in the billions. I am certain of that. Infant baptism was never Christian and its implementation interfered with the church baptizing people as disciples. 

John 4:1

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 

Jesus baptized disciples and Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize disciples.

Matthew 28:19

Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 

Let this hit home with you, the Catholic Bishops and priests baptized as infants aren't actually Christian. They have no authority at all. Christ never recognized them. All the church councils with infant baptized priests and Bishops were just unsaved men discussing what they knew nothing about. They weren't born again as Christ instructed. They were the lost instructing the lost. Blind leaders of the blind. This may seem harsh, but it is the truth, it needs to be said. They were never Christian.

Matthew 7:22

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 

This verse fits the Catholic church exactly, they actually practice every element listed in the verse. They call Jesus Lord, they prophesy in his name, cast out devils with exorcists, and have social works galore  with mighty works like signs and wonders. But they work iniquity.

Matthew 7:23

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 

By implementing infant baptism Catholics interfered with the New Birth described by Christ in John 3:3-5 and I John 4:7 thru 5:18, which causes a man to follow his master and keep himself from sin. Discipleship is teaching a man to do what is right and commanded. This requires a knowledge of Christ.

1 John 2:29

If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him. 

Catholics came up with several theological excuses for infant baptism, some claiming infants would be lost without it. They came up with some misapplied scripture to justify it.

1. Baptism was New Testament circumcision. Yet Catholics missed that baptism corresponded to the new birth, not physical birth like circumcision. John 3:3-5 was the new birth, not physical.

2. That Jesus entertained infants in Luke 18:16, but this word infant or child doesn't actually mean infant. It means in most cases "students". An underling under another's authority. An infant is under their parents authority but the word isn't infant as in age but underling, so in a few cases infants are described with this word, but most cases it is a master/slave or teacher/student relationship. This word could describe the apostles under christ, being spiritual infants. The word doesn't mean any physical age, but position under another, someone lower. The one brought to Jesus in the temple was a student. You must receive the kingdom of God as a student, not the master. This was spoken to Peter as well. Peter and all Apostles received the kingdom as disciples/students. The same story in Matthew 18:6 says they could be believers, so child students of faith.

3. Men like John Chrysostom considered infants as saints from the Ephesian epistle, where Paul addresses children. Yet, Paul addressed children as able to obey and requite their parents, he quoted Christ in Matthew 15 where Christ taught on true worship by giving back to parents, they were wage earners who could care for parents, not all children are infants. Children can be adults. Wage earners are still their parents' children. In Ephesians they were to take faith to quench the devil's work in ch.6. So, Catholics were incorrect in assigning the word children to infants. Consider Acts 16:29-33 the household could rejoice or Acts 10:1-4 the household could fear God. Household generally applies to working members who bring gain, it didn't imply infant. The word household is an economic term, including servants and children old enough to pay some economic benefit or contribute to a household. Someone old enough to do chores.

The reality is that men are lost in infant baptism because they aren't born again as Christ taught. He baptized disciples. John 4:1 John 3:3-5 are some of the few except clauses, Catholics use it against baptists but not against themselves.

Since Catholic and many protestant babies are baptized as infants they never actually go thru the new birth as a disciple, causing them to be lost. They are lost due to sin, and they never recover thru the new birth. The Catholics reinforced their ideas by imprisoning or killing those who re-baptized the children as disciples. They killed and imprisoned anabaptists, or re-baptizers. Don't confuse anabaptists with modern Baptists who don't consider it worth re-baptizing, they teach faith only.

Infant baptism is a great argument against the Catholic Bishop system. If they were baptized as infants and they were never themselves made Christians thru the new birth, they would have no right to be bishops at all. If not born again themselves, how could they pass on authority to successors? If never sealed by the Spirit as in Acts 2:38-39 and Ephesians 1:13, how could their laying of hands pass the Spirit to others or ordain others? You see the Catholic system falls if infant baptism falls, and it does.

Church councils with infant baptism as a question were tainted, since admitting infant baptism was false would destroy their right to rule, they had a vested authority interest and economic interest to side with infant baptism, overturning it would overturn their right to authority and control money. Church councils were a major conflict of interest.

Catholics spun the Donatist persecution as re-baptizing priests who could be forgiven and re-instated, assuming they were actually Christian who had sinned as traitors, but it was really about re-baptizing those who had not become disciples before being baptized. This included adults, but also children who had been baptized, not baptized as infants only but as young children and adults, never becoming disciples. Some were baptized too early without a knowledge of discipleship which requires some knowledge of Jesus and his way of life. At the time of the Donatists, infant baptism was just taking shape, and the age children were being baptized was falling lower and lower, the debates over the necessity of knowledge were pretty loud. Infant baptism nor Un discipled children's baptism wasn't apostolic or of Christ, so there was opposition. The Donatists claimed many Priests were not born-again, so they rebaptized them.

The Bishops and priests did not meet the requirements of Leadership even if they repented as traitors to Rome.

1 Timothy 3:9

Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 

If they did not hold the faith, such as the new birth correctly, they would not qualify to be leaders. They failed in other respects as well.

The timeline of the controversy was: 

1. infant baptism started in the late 100's to early 200's, 

2. Origen wrote in support of it 248ad, 

3. the Roman bible collection under Diocletian around 303ad. 

4. Constantine came to power 306ad, but his father Constantinius had some power as early as 275ad, his father wanted to leave Christians in peace. 

5. Less than 100 years later New Bibles were introduced under Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Alexandrus.

This timeline shows that Constantine came to power at the end of the Diocletian persecution, the priests the Catholics wanted returned to the African churches had given up bibles that would later be replaced with altered Bibles. Since Diocletian collected Bibles but did not destroy the Churches as a group, it seems he was simply aligning the churches with Bibles he preferred.

We can conclude that Rome had plans to join the church to Rome as early as 275 when Constantine's father had power to influence the emperors. There were leaders who saw it as a viable option. This didn't come to be until Constantine became ruler years later. Constantine seeing a cross wasn't the start of the plan. It was hatched almost 50 years before it was implemented. I believe the takeover of the Donatist North African churches was part of the plan. There were also other groups of churches taken over in Egypt that are hardly ever mentioned, 

Some of the new Bible copies left out around 200 key Bible verses. Some related to authority and some baptism. If you look closely leaving out some verses would be useful in implementing infant baptism and a more commanding Bishop style.

1 Peter 5:3

Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. (left out of Vaticanus)

I Peter 5:3 was one verse removed, with its removal came the concept of Bishop lordship.

Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 

The concept of belief before baptism was removed. See also Acts 8:37 was removed.

In essence, Roman government removed Bibles, and 100 years later someone introduced Bibles more suited to their wishes. Under Roman law new religions would not be recognized, so the bishops argued over which Christianity was oldest. New Bibles seemed to solidify victory for Catholics. Augustine made legal arguments that Catholics were oldest, Roman rulers agreed, making Catholic the officially recognized Christianity of the empire. Most former persecutions were against Christianity as a whole, after Augustine's legal arguments were recognized, it became persecution of opposing sects. If Catholics could brand them as a new religion, Roman law allowed their persecution and disrupted their progress. 

Augustine himself changed to Catholic after his manichean religion became illegal. Becoming Catholic was necessary for him to gain Roman political power.

Keep in mind the councils used by Catholics were called by the emperors, they were tools of the emperors to weed out conflicting views and establishing peace, so there was no way Donatists, or any others were going to overcome councils called by an emperor. The same is true of any council with authority from an emperor. Emperors called councils to create peace, they labeled whoever they wanted as a new sect or religion in order to remove them, yet there is no proof emperors cared which side was true or factual. They wanted peace with the power of their kingdom in mind. 

Leaving out I Peter 5:3 would consolidate authority, and it did. The 200 or so verses left out of the new bibles was strategic. There were older copies that survived, but the damage was done. It amazes me that bishops of this period would argue for the papacy thru Peter, but then accepted a Bible leaving out Peter's directive to Bishops. Maybe they didn't believe in Peter's authority as much as they claimed. There was as much argument for Rome's supremacy based upon the city itself being central to Roman politics, even more than Peter being supreme.

Origen said, "wherever Peter's chair is found, there I will be" but this on the surface contradicts Luke 22:30 where all apostles are given chairs "to judge the 12 tribes". In other words, all Apostles had this authority to make judgments and had their own Cathedra chair. All being guided by the Holy Spirit. Peter didn't have the only chair. Origen may have been supporting Peter's sermons in Acts without lifting him above other Apostles. The writers often dealt with those pitting one Apostle against others, Origen may have just been affirming he didn't doubt Peter. Peter's recorded sermons in Acts were used as foundational to the church. Origen wasn't supporting a Papacy but supporting Peter's judgments, without regard to any successors. Peter's works were the first recorded and other Apostles have very small footprints. The other Apostles didn't speak anything less or different, but Peter's were recorded in scripture as a foundational history along with Paul's. The word Petros and Cephas means a broken off stone, which indicates a messenger.

Though Catholics don't support sola scriptura, the scripture is the only place Peter's work is recorded. Catholics do not possess Peter's works and speeches without scripture. They too must rely on scripture though they deny the ramifications. Peter and Paul used scripture as their guide. There was no church judgment without first understanding the scripture. Catholics argue the church gave scripture and came before it, but Old Testament scripture and prophecy existed before the church. The New Testament scripture came by the Holy Spirit and was inline with the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit and his understanding was before the church. The Spirit would guide them into all truth.

In all cases the church wasn't first, which is what Catholics have taught. All scripture is inspired of God, so God came first. All apostolic judgments had preceeding authority involved before them.

Luke 24:45

Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 

The Donatists were arguing with Catholics about discipleship, this is apparent because the idea of disciple baptism was left out of some bibles just after Rome's Donatus decision, the Roman government under Diocletian was collecting bibles from churches, these had the concept of disciple baptism clearly taught, Rome was removing all traces of Christian teaching, but these early Bibles were different from Bibles produced a little later in the 4th century, Rome, whether intending to or not, was allowing for the alteration of the New Testament. This can be seen in modern arguments concerning Mark 16:9-20 being left out of Codex Vaticanus and other manuscripts. The Priests during the Diocletian persecution turned over Bibles containing the concept of discipleship, the issue was spun as being traitors, but the real issue was whether they believed in disciple baptism and whether they were true disciples. The new versions produced in the 4th century said less about discipleship. Donatist Bishops considered discipleship a fundamental requirement in the new birth and the Priests didn't acknowledge discipleship publicly. Did their baptism highlight discipleship or were they baptized as infants, this was 50 plus years after Origen endorsed infant baptism. This would mean the priests in many cases were never made disciples, and that is why they became traditors so easily. 

The traitor priests were not originally connected with the Donatists, they were in Roman aligned Churches. Rome wanted to force them into Donatist churches thereby forcing Romes's doctrine into the Donatus churches. Rome did this with other groups than the Donatus, there is record of groups in Egypt not accepting the Roman priests. If we forced baptist preachers into the Catholic Bishop positions, I am sure they would throw a fit and start a war over it. Catholics have started wars over less. Anyway, forcing Roman priests into non-Catholic churches was a cause of disruption. This occured when the Roman government sided with the Catholic branch.

Catholics called them re-baptizers, but that is assuming what they went through as infants was a real baptism. You couldn't be re-baptized if the infant baptism wasn't Christian at all. What they termed re-baptism would be the first real baptism.

Catholics like to use John 3:3-5 against faith only groups, I do as well since i'm not faith only, we must realize it doesn't say: "except you be baptized" but says, "except you be born again". The new birth is more than baptism though it is through baptism, the new birth includes some education, knowledge of Christ, acceptance of who Jesus is, and his cross and resurrection, then comes baptism. Catholic baptism doesn't include the new birth as Christ instructed and meanders around it theologically.

1 John 5:1

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 

Rome and Catholics didn't love those begotten of God through new birth, it is obvious.

Faith and love toward the Christ is a sign of being born of God. It isn't the only sign, but believing Jesus is the Christ means you have been educated by God and your mind is changed concerning Jesus. One must be born again to see the kingdom of God which is the messianic kingdom under Christ, and one must be born again to enter the kingdom. John 3:5 expresses a belief in the person of Christ and belief in water and spirit. This is taught by Peter in Acts 2:38-39. 

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 

John 3:3-5 requires belief in water and Spirit through believing upon Christ's name or authority.

John 3:16-18 is a continuation of teaching on the new birth from earlier in the chapter. Believing on the name of Christ is how we are born again. This is not simply believing Jesus existed, but belief upon his name. One believes upon Christ's name by accepting the communications and commandments Jesus gave and going through the process he explained. This means a knowledge of Christ's life and teachings concerning salvation.

By not accepting the structure of the new birth, which is disciple baptism, Catholics and many protestants fall under the condemnation declared in v.18. "hath not believed in the name" since they established infant baptism which is of human origin outside of Christ's name.

We see this also in I John.

1 John 2:3

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 

Realize how simple this is, Catholics for the most part dropped disciple baptism, thus dropping a command of Christ. They don't really know him. The word know in Greek can mean to recognize, perhaps to recognize his authority above your own. They are imposters. Also, don't let them say babies will be lost without the new birth since they aren't guilty of sin, the context of John 3 is sinners. The context is men loving darkness over light. This could be a condition in the Old or New covenant. Deeds are evil because men love darkness, and we must come to love light. Condemnation is toward those with evil deeds while having the opportunity to see the light.

John 3:19

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 

The Greek Gnostics had washings of babes in Greek culture. If you consider all the infants baptized as babies and never rebaptized as disciples, the number of lost souls is into the billions. All becoming convinced their souls are secure, so they need no disciple baptism. Realize, no soul has ever been lost when baptized as a disciple and then staying faithful. Their doctrine completely supplanted Christ's.

Matthew 28:19

Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 

Also, in the New Testament grace is given through teaching the Gospel, Ephesians 1:13, the grace of Ephesians 2:8 is through the Gospel message, not apart from it.

Ephesians 1:7

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 

Ephesians 1:8

Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 

Grace is being given wisdom concerning redemption, "wherein" in verse 8 is a reference to the redemption in Christ. This grace is not apart from some specific wisdom.

Physical Deaths

When discussing physical deaths there were many excuses why people died or were incarcerated, etc. I will discuss some reasons like preaching without Bishop ordination, not believing transubstantiation, not believing infant baptism, not believing in the Bishop system, not honoring the Papacy, etc. I will look at some below and infant baptism above. Anyone not practicing official Catholic dogma could be persecuted. After discussing the reasons you will see the Catholic dogma was normally wrong.

In the 1500's alone 10.5 million were killed in Mexico, and close to that number in Brazil and across South America. We can start with a number of around 20 million in one century. These were mostly indigenous peoples and not Christians, but other Christian sects received their share of persecution. Persecution occured all over the world.

I'm showing here that the physical deaths were in the millions, and If those killed had been allowed to teach, that form of Christianity would likely be as large as the modern Catholic church. Possibly larger. Persecution by Catholics caused billions of souls to be lost spiritually. I am sure that in the judgment all the Popes will be held accountable as well as all priests. It also caused discipleship baptism churches to be much smaller over time. There were not as many people to pass on their faith. Infant baptism was Satan's greatest tool to defeat the new birth.

The catholic inquisition against re-baptizers from the 2nd century Donatists to the people of England in the 15th century along with genocidal depopulation killed over 50 million people, more Christians than Muslims. This can be approximated, no one knows the actual number, it may be higher. The Inquisition against Islam is usually meant in today's conversation, but most of the killing was against Churches of Christ, who rejected Catholic theology and re-baptized Catholics, if they believed it was necessary. Paul provided a precedent for re-baptism in Acts 19:1-6.

Modern wars such as Russia-Ukraine teach us that wars can have a secondary religious reason such as Orthodoxy wanting to have control over greater regions or one orthodoxy fighting another orthodoxy. In this war 2 million people have already lost their lives. When you add up all the religious wars and persecutions in history it comes to millions. The Spanish conquest of Mexico in the 1500's killed 10.5 million. The Catholic war with Huguenots in the 1500's up to four million. Gallic wars 1.5 million. These are just a few.

Secular wars like world-war II had the greatest casualties (80 million), but even in secular conflicts religions take advantage by displacing other religions, as in Italy invading North Africa. For every major conflict there are ten smaller ones not mentioned. Think of Mary of Scots and wars with sects. Mary's family, father and sister, had over 1000 people burned at the stake. Yet this doesn't count death by other means. It doesn't count starvation, imprisonment. The actual total deaths are severely understated.

These do not mention non wars like mass killings by private parties, genocides, or small parties killing other parties. My estimates are more reasonable than you might think. The depopulation of 800 thousand in Brazil by the Portuguese is a small amount of the depopulation throughout South America since the 1500's. This was economic but also religious. Depopulation is an interesting statistic since it counts starting population of say 1 million and an ending population years later of 200 thousand. The depopulation of 800k does not include births. That means the overall deaths could be much higher than 800k in Brazil.

 Some sects were slaughtered in mass, Cathars lost as many as 500,000, and Catholics rejoiced that they could use force. The term Churches of Christ was used by Apostles and Church fathers before the name Catholic, and was used by the non-Catholic sects. The term Catholic isn't in the New Testament but Christian or Churches of Christ is. Most early churches whether sect or not were named with Churches of Christ. Ignatius in his letter to the Ephesians used "corrupt the Church of Christ", Clement used the term in his fragments. It was common throughout the period. Church of God was also used widely and interchangeably. The reality is most deaths were Christians, not Muslims.

Catholics went in the way of Cain, killing because the sects deeds were good. Disciple baptism was a good deed and the right way.

Hebrews 11:4

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 

Faith was associated with Abel's sacrifice, not with Cain's. A baptism in faith God accepts. Cain's faithless sacrifice was not accepted. Catholic infant baptism lacks faith. The child has no knowledge of Christ's kingdom and infant baptism is nowhere directly commanded.

1 John 3:12

Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. 

Jude 1:11

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 

Never forget the lust for power involved. Greed.

Most deaths are deflected away from the Catholic church by their lawyers and apologists, they used secular authorities to persecute so they have legal cover, but the Roman church was behind the deaths. Lawyers are good at demanding 100pct proof of deaths, but we don't need each death to statistically prove there was a lot of persecution. The Cathars are an example of crusades ascribed to secular government, but there is little doubt catholic leaders were behind it, paying barrons with land promises if they gave to the cause of their holy destruction. They paid landowners to take land and kill people. The big land owners were promised entrance into heaven if they would take land and destroy sects. That is conspiracy to steal and murder by the Catholic hierarchy. It was sin of the highest order. It made the Catholics wealthy while impoverishing the sects. Most of the wealth of today's Catholics can be traced to stealing property and other organized activities. Isaiah prophesied the Gentiles would bring wealth into the Church, I don't think he meant by stealing and killing others.

They changed God's word for their own policies and then murdered people to enforce changes.

1 John 3:15

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 

Anytime you create the conditions for someone's death you are part of the death. Catholics had political and legal cover by using government and other indirect means, but they were guilty. Forced migrations, imprisonment, destroying crops, poisoning wells etc. In the Exodus from Egypt God intervened with water and manna and quail, but in such migration, they could have easily died without intervention. With all migrations it is common to see death. In Matthew 24 Jesus said to pray you aren't pregnant or it isn't winter, because that makes travel difficult. People die in the elements.  Anyway, catholic authorities created the conditions for death in these cases, whether they killed them directly or not.

Murderers can't lead the Church; Christ doesn't recognize them or give authority to them. Bishops must be blameless and mass murderers and thieves don't qualify. This would discredit all church councils, having no authority from Christ and in the shadow of persecution, all votes would be tainted as men feared retaliation, and since some opposition was already removed before voting by death. Church councils held by men who coveted power and used force had no backing from God, that is simply common sense. As mentioned above, men baptized as infants were not born-again Christians, and not actually Bishops. They are imposters.

Catholics want you to believe the Roman denomination that killed dissidents was authoritative and legitimate, they teach all dissidents left them, but reality is they themselves were a rogue denomination, using their political alignment to force compliance and remove opposition. They weren't actually Christian in doctrine. 

In Rome there were 9 titular churches at the end of the first century, some disagreed doctrinally. Not all were the true church. The groups that grew to power were not all true Christians and not all followers of the apostles, though they claimed they were. Rome had men who had left true Christianity.

Romans 16:17

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 

Rome from an early date had men who had left the true faith, the true church avoided them. Yet, they still existed and continued to teach their theology and seek legitimacy, over the course of years they grew and existed beside the true church. Their doctrines infiltrated the church and leavened it in some cases. The Catholic church we know today did not come from the true body of Christ. The true church avoided them but did not persecute them, per Christ's instructions. There were church groups in Rome who from the beginning disagreed with the current Roman church. Some were driven out, arrested, killed.

Matthew 13:30

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. 

Christ did not endorse killing those who disagree, but commanded the opposite, though men like Augustine concocted verses to try to say compelled conversion was Christian, it was actually the opposite. The only compelling activity was preaching and letting people know the final judgment would take place. Christ would judge all men. The only way they compelled men was through testimony and miracles. Deaths such as Ananias and Saphira were caused by God, not a choice of man. In their case there was no hint of doctrinal disagreements but lying to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit wasn't compelling them to change doctrine to Catholic but leaving an example to walk honestly.

Acts 17:31

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men,] in that he hath raised him from the dead. 

Compelling others from a Christian perspective involves giving assurance of truth, and warning men of consequences. The Roman hierarchy will be destroyed at Christ's coming for not adhering to Matthew 13:30. From the start God allowed the true and false to grow together. From the beginning the Catholic idea was that opposition and division came decades or centuries later through the Donatists or sects, or later Protestants, but this isn't true. The false grew from the beginning. What became the Catholic body was the false tares.

Catholics want to portray men like Augustine or Gregory who instigated violence using government as true saints, but they were actually disobedient to Christ, he commanded not to pluck up the tares so that the good would not be destroyed as well. Catholic persecution of others proved they were disobedient, and they were tares themselves. Augustine used Luke 14:23 to justify imprisonment and taking lands, sometimes death.

Luke 14:23

And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel [them] to come in, that my house may be filled. 

When you study this verse closely you realize how wrong Augustine was. The word compel is in the imperative mood, meaning its a commandment. If it meant to kill or imprison Augustine would be obligated to kill everyone not obedient in any area. We know he killed selectively and imprisoned selectively. Usually killing leaders.  Whatever the word compel means it means to do it to all. 

The word compel itself can mean to imprison but usually not. It means to make necessary. If you told passersby that going to the wedding feast was a requirement in God's kingdom then that meets the definition. You tell them of its necessity. They must attend the feast have a need to attend. The same word root is found in v. 18 and is translated "needs". One just makes the case that there is a need to do something, and in v.18 it isn't a must if it can be excused. It isn't a 100pct requirement.

Luke 14:18

And they all with one [consent] began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused. 

 In the parable only the master could have them removed; his servants acted upon his command. Notice the king's command was that they do not taste of the feast. They were prohibited from tasting. They were removed.

Luke 14:24

For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. 

The punishment was to be removed from the feast, not to be forced to stay. That means compelling people to stay and partake of the feast was opposite of Christ's usage. The reality is that none compelled would eat of the supper. The word bidden is the word called out, as in the church. V16 and v24 have the same word. Those called to the feast but making excuses would then be compelled, but even if they came being compelled they wouldn't have time to prepare and wouldn't be allowed to eat. 

There is no killing or incarceration in this parable at all. Not in the slightest. There is no time window between being compelled and attending the feast for incarceration to occur, and if put to death they couldn't physically attend. It was all a figment of Augustines wicked imagination. The parable begins with, "at supper time", so there was no time window to incarcerate them, and they get to the feast. There was no window of opportunity to take their lands before the supper.

Augustine and the consultants he used, his lawyers, were lying evil men.

The apostle Paul in Romans 15 explained the process of making the Gentiles obedient as preaching and miracles, not imprisonment and death. Those receiving the kingdom are those who receive it willfully, not being compelled.

Romans 15:18

For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 

Romans 15:19

Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 

Miracles and preaching were sufficient. Paul didn't have anyone killed or arrested.

The 2nd and 3rd century Donatists were the first killed under this policy, before Constantine the Bishop Donatist was killed and a few others that I am confident of, but once Constantine came to power many Donatists were killed using government, these deaths are not generally assigned to the church, but the Catholics were responsible. Under Constantine 3500 deaths are widely stipulated by writers but normally assigned to Rome's government, and not the Roman church. A stipulation of 3500 deaths is a gift to Catholics, since the number could be 100 times that. No source will speculate on the grand total since records were not officially kept. Any records were suppressed and destroyed. I take the liberty to speculate because such crimes against church members should not be underestimated or lawyered into non-existence. The total number will be fully known in the judgment. I am confident the 3500 doesn't include those dying from starvation or imprisonment, etc.

Since the persecution lasted about 400 years it is higher, the 3500 usually entails a short period of a year or less.

If deaths were only a few thousand, up to one million over 1000 years, it still makes them murderers, lowering the number doesn't improve their moral liability. They still wouldn't have the right to rule under God's criteria. Murderers lose the right to rule. I believe 50 million is possible, and when using Christ's definition of murder in the sermon on the mount it may be way low. "he who hates his brother without a cause is guilty of murder". At the least we can say murderers did not have the Christian spirit, they were not qualified to be leaders. 

Catholics say Donatists were once Catholic and needed to be compelled to rejoin them, but there is no evidence they ever accepted Catholic views in a way they were Catholic. It is more plausible the Catholics left the presence of Christ and separated themselves from the true church visibly, aligning themselves with Rome's government and religion. 

"they went out from us, but were not of us" I John

Catholics can't get completely off the hook since 1 murder is still murder. 3500 is murder. Five hundred thousand through holy war is murder. 10.5 million depopulation is murder. There is no doubt the Catholic leaders conspired with government to murder. Murderers can't be God's leaders, they would lose God's endorsement if they ever had it. Therefore, church councils called by conspiring murderers would have no real authority. We can remove any legitimacy of the Catholic councils.

There were sects before the protestants, generally Catholics provided reasons why their destruction was necessary

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Once there were many sects of heretics but they have now been almost destroyed. Two of importance, however, are still to be found, the Cathars, or Patarini, and the Leonistae, or Poor Men of Lyons. Their beliefs are presented in this work.

The above quote from a Catholic leader admits that multiple groups were destroyed before 1300ad, some no longer known by name. It shows it was premeditated and endorsed. They were in agreement with evil deeds. The term sects may have been the same groups of churches, just in different locations. By naming them as smaller sects vs one large one, they give people the impression these were small off shoots of the Catholics, regionally leaving their faith, this gave them a propaganda tool to discredit them. They also named them wars vs persecutions to give political cover. Opposition to persecution turned into war. Nevertheless, it was the Catholics who created the conditions.

Realize Catholics attacked the government of the region who presided peacefully with the sects, thus Catholics can't actually claim government had the moral authority to use the sword, since the true government didn't turn their sword on the sects. This was very widespread. One Catholic inquisitor used the phrase:

"Filled the world", The sects "filled the world". Let it sink in, this wasn't simply regional.

Notice that before the removal of the Cathars, there were many sects not actually included in history. Before the Protestant reformation, before the 12th century, there were those that Catholics called sects that the modern Catholics don't want you to know about. They aren't named in the documents for all to see. Yet, they physically destroyed the people, and we know it because of a few broad quotes in history. All other documentation is missing. In a way, the destruction of documentation is proof they are guilty, and they fear the ramifications of public scrutiny.

This proves the Catholic church wasn't universal to Europe and Africa and Asia. They weren't truly Catholic by ruling in all Christian locales. There were several groups they termed sects in disagreement with them. There were other beliefs that broke up the religious landscape. Catholics always designated these groups as new schizmatics but this isn't necessarily true. Almost all were influenced by early groups so that there was an unbroken succession of ideas passed from one group to another. Terming them new wasn't actually factual, but it served Catholics purpose.

By calling them new schizmatics they complied with laws like we see in Russia today, new denominations are illegal. In the 1990's with the breakup of the soviets religion became tolerated, but they continued the practice of banning new religions. Those who meet illegally can be imprisoned and eventually killed. It has been a common practice since Rome.

 Catholics became dominant through forced adherence to their policies. Most they called sects followed a religious pattern. They didn't believe in the papacy, they didn't believe in the Catholic priesthood, they didn't believe in transubstantiation, they didn't believe in infant baptism. They did believe Jesus was God in the flesh and the Son of God, without accepting the Trinity doctrine that God was substance, they taught he was Spirit which has biblical roots. Jesus taught God is Spirit in John 4:23-24.

John 4:24

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. 

The trinity doctrine is more than simply saying Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, their nature is God, but it actually redefined the nature of God as having a corporeal body. Most sects refused to accept this definition. In Catholic dogma Christ maintained this essence while becoming man. In their view Jesus was begotten of the Father before time out of the Fathers substance, so that Christ's substance was eternal but Christ as an individual in the Godhead was not. This was actually from Gnostic thought. Catholics now change the word substance to essence, in disagreement with the council of Nicea, they realized their mistake. It doesn't help them since saying Christ was begotten before time of the Father's essence still implies Jesus was begotten and not eternal.

In most cases Catholics called the sects Gnostics, but it is doubtful they were. Catholics on the other hand often had Gnostic teachers embedded in their priests and Bishops. The sects were accused of believing the world was evil, meaning the physical universe was evil. The word translated world in the New Testament often refers to our system of government and society. John the apostle used the term this way. Catholics didn't want this publicized since they were implementing a worldly system into the church, so they twisted the sects meaning in some cases.

1 John 2:15

Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 

Those who used the word world as a system weren't gnostic, they were Christian. Since we have no exact quotes it can't be proven by either side what was meant, Catholics who accused them of Gnostic teaching have little support if any for a broad based belief in gnosticism. It seems they may have just believed in a spiritual foundation for church government vs. worldly.

In most cases there are no extanct writings from the sects to disprove what Catholics said about them, any documents were lost or destroyed. The Cathars for example only have two documents remaining, these provide little detail and may not be representative of the group as a whole. One quote doesn't prove that much.

These groups were not unreasonable, they didn't believe in catholic transubstantiation, priestly incantations to bring a resurrected Jesus, who was given a spiritual body through his ascension to heaven, to be changed back weekly in a million locations into a fleshly body for the Lord's Supper. They simply didn't believe in transubstantiation. Catholics had taken about 6 words in John and expanded it into books of false theology. Christ's new body couldn't be changed back into a fleshly body. It wouldn't produce confidence that the resurrection was permanent. It was just a bad doctrine. It was a made-up doctrine based upon a paragraph that contained nothing substantial about Christ becoming a fleshly body again. The sects simply didn't accept myth as doctrine. No magic of Christmas or Santa Claus. The magic of Greek, Jewish, and Roman religion were not accepted. Greek Neoplatonism was based on magic. 

I Corinthians 10  is often used by Catholics to say the church partakes in the actual body of Christ, but ch10 following says the church itself is the body of Christ. The bread and body.

1 Corinthians 10:17

For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 

1 Corinthians 12:27

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 

We could say the church is transubstantiated into Christ's body, but we know that isn't true. No one believes that even though the wording says we are his body. Neither is the eucharist his actual body. The text says Jesus "took bread", not his actual body.

We can't always assume what Catholics teach. There are verses calling the communion bread the body of Christ and there are verses saying the Church is the body as we fellowship in the communion table of Christ. We musn't create a doctrine when it doesn't exist. Nothing in the wording teaches a conversion of the bread into the actual body of Christ. No verses hint at priests invoking the bread. Quite the opposite is true.

I Corinthians 10:1-5 says all who crossed the Red Sea were partakers of Christ, does that mean the manna or shew bread were his actual body, or just representations, since the Old law was a shadow.

The Greek word for "this is" is present tense and means something already in existence. When Jesus said "take eat, this is my body" no transubstantiation would be possible since it presently existed as a figure. One can't transform something that already exists. This word is also used in metonomy where something already stands for something else. It can be used for figurative representations. There is no need for a priest to magically transform anything, for it already existed as a symbolic shadow going back to the Old Testament. The bread at the passover represented Christ. The lamb represented Christ, the bread Christ, and the cup a new covenant in his blood.

This is the physical bread at the Lord's Supper, it isn't Christ's literal body because it says we partake of the "one bread", by metonymy it attaches us us to the body of Christ, but the bread is bread, not a mystical flesh. The Holy Spirit referred to it as bread. By partaking together the Church is the body of Christ. Just as baptism symbolically attaches us to the death and resurrection of Christ. These are physical acts that stand in for Christ's real acts, with spiritual consequences. Consider the next verse,

1 Corinthians 10:18

Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 

The sacrifices of the Old Testament were not the real body of Christ, but they were symbols and shadows of Christ, 

The Waldensian group came from about 1170, so it wasn't protestant. There were many groups before the protestants. It might not seem plausible that so many died, but the stats make it plausible. With 300 million on earth in Christ's life, 500 million in the fifth century, and 1 billion in the 17th century multiplied by 1000 years it comes to 300 billion people total, minimum. Divide that by 50 million, one in 6000 people would die from persecution. In a small city of 6000 one person would die. It adds up to be plausible. Dying in prison was common, so they didn't cause death directly, but they caused it. 

I'm not saying 50 million killed in a few massacres, but over time. Over 1000 to 1500 years. Realize that lists made up of executions by Papal inquisitors often only mention one or two towns in a province, as if the inquisitors only caused a death in one city, but they worked all the cities. The lists are clearly not even close to complete. Plus, only records with exact numbers of deaths are used. Consider also some inquisitions were referred to as wars. Most were carried out by secular authorities or local landowners being compensated.

Until all of these methods are pieced together no one can arrive at an exact number, Catholics can't disprove any number. I only have to prove the Catholic hierarchy were murderers to discredit their authority, I can do that.

I have heard estimates of 40 million killed from the 2nd century to the 9th century, so the actual number may be higher. Some died during imprisonment or starved to death after their lands and property were taken. There were some mass killings. In 1099 Catholics wiped out the entire population of Jerusalem, without notice of what religion they were killing. Many were Muslim or Jewish, the Eastern Christians were removed from the city before the siege because they weren't trusted to be neutral, but some Christians remained if the Muslims saw them as peaceful. The Eastern Christians were forced to migrate and i'm sure that caused some tragedies. In mixed marriages between Muslim and Christian, if the man was Muslim the family would stay. So, there were Christians killed in the slaughter. Catholics want us to think only Muslims died. That isn't true. Western Roman Catholics saw it as an opportunity to remove eastern Catholics also.

We know that from the 5th century on there were governmental persecutions led by Catholics to completely wipe out those they saw as threats. Men like Augustine and Gregory called for compelled conversion. They used government agency to do it. This led to the distinction between Papal inquisition, Episcopal inquisition, and governmental inquisition where governments worked at the asking of Bishops and such. And there was the act of men simply thinking they would go to heaven if they killed other religions. Popes promised Catholics they would receive a heavenly reward for killing the sects or taking their property. Much like Muslims promise 100 virgins today, Popes promised eternal life through murder.

Catholics tend to deflate this history saying it is exaggerated, but it is very possible and there is enough documentation to make such claims. Many Catholic sources deny persecution at all, clearly misrepresenting history. We know persecution was widespread and consistent from the 2nd century on, the Catholic argument with Donatists churches in Africa lasted several hundred years, it wasn't a short persecution. Donatists endured about 600 years before leaving Africa visibly and ending up in other countries. You don't leave your homes in Mass unless there is persecution.

We can add up the number of cities and make estimates. Catholics did not have to wipe out entire cities or towns, they simply had to make examples of 2 families per city over the course of 1000 years. Germany currently has 11,000 towns and cities. Kill one person in each for 1000 years it comes to 11 million people. These people could be killed by burning, sword, hanging, famine, imprisonment, exposure, etc. Murder doesn't require a direct cause of death like firing squad.

In the siege of Jerusalem Catholics poisoned the water around the city, poisoning wells was common in military actions. We can add dehydration to causes of death around Europe. If they wanted families to leave just poison their water. They would often die on their journeys. As in North America, Indians died on their journeys to new homes in other states by the thousands. About 20k estimated during the trail of tears. Relocation always caused death before the 1900.s. Relocation in mass by the Donatist, Lollards, Waldensians, Cathars, and many no longer known. As in North and South America some Indians resisted, leading to war. These deaths are not listed under persecution. North Florida was an area of Catholic leadership; the Seminole wars were Catholic instigated.

In South America Indian populations were wiped out by slavery and disease, freedom only coming by conversion. One way to estimate genocide is population decline. It may be impossible to know exact numbers of deaths, but population decline gives a big clue it occurred. Some tribes in South America declined by as much as 90 pct. When measuring decline amongst the Donatists Catholic sources say, "their population eventually wained or declined", this is just a soft way of admitting population decline. This can be from migration, forced conversion, slavery, and death. When studying the persecuted sects you see population decline in all cases. Often over 90 pct, leading to the conclusion that extreme persecution was present.

Kansas has 627 incorporated towns, not near as many as Europe, Asia, and Africa combined; just ten people killed per year per town over a 1000 year period would be 6.27 million killed. Imagine all the towns in Europe and Africa and Asia. Let it sink in, just ten per year in 627 towns over 1000 years is 6.2 million and there are ten times more towns in europe and asia and africa than Kansas. Europe alone has 800 towns over 50k population, with hundreds more under 50k. So i'm sure in my own mind Catholics killed over 50 million christians over 1000 years. They had a long-held policy of stamping out opposition. This started early in the Donatist era, and accelerated over time. 

They were simply burning a few families per town per year to keep their population in fear. Taking lands, starvation, exposure. In England a burning of 31 was documented and there were other occasions. 180 in another city. We don't have records of all cities because the official total only lists records where exact numbers are known, so that thousands of records could be missing in the total. Catholics have ways of hiding numbers, records destroyed, etc. Many were killed under other charges after investigations into their lives, so they aren't listed in totals, but the investigations began religious. Made up charges just as Christ was killed. There are many ways to hide and skew numbers. Catholic lawyers aren't dumb. They won't admit it even if they know we know it.

There is some documentation of mass killing as listed above with the Cathars (500k) and Antioch (40k) and Jerusalem in the thousands, but most were just a small group of 10 or so, 50 million is not inflated. It could be much higher if you add those dying in prison or from starvation. They would take an Elder or preacher and family and make them examples, keeping the masses fearful. 

The Waldensian inquisition was partly over authority of secular men preaching. Catholics insisted they stop preaching citing Romans 10, they insisted they could only be sent by Catholics.

"how can they preach except they be sent"

The word how here is not limiting the speakers but is an adverb, it is speaking of the manner in which preaching would occur. It could be translated "in what manner" or "how would they do the preaching, not really speaking of the need for an authority to preach. Authority was assumed within the word. The question is how it would be done. It of course was done by foot, upon the mountains and into the nations. They be sent was future in the prophecy but fulfilled in the apostles and early church. The adverb is most often about how it would be done not who can do it.

Matthew 10:19

But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 

Christ sent them, so Isa 52:7 uses the term him, the prophecy uses a singular pronoun. This could speak of Christ himself or any single individual preaching. Literally, anyone preaching the word accurately would be beautiful to Christ. Paul in quoting the prophecy uses a plural pronoun "them", perhaps viewing the him as any individual involved. 

Since only the apostles were sent directly by Christ even the Catholics would fail to meet the conditions of being sent. If Isaiah 52 is Christ sending, they themselves couldn't preach based upon their usage. The Catholic hierarchy of today were not sent directly, so Isa 52 would need to be general to encapsulate them into the passage. If you consider they never went through disciple baptism as a group, it is hard to fathom this prophecy thinks of them exclusively as they teach.

This section of Romans was a prophecy about the apostles being sent, it wasn't meant to regulate who else could preach later as Catholics used it. It actually authorizes all teaching of the Gospel for any era. You have to read the Greek to understand this. They limit what God has given the authority to do. Preach is future tense here, but this was a prophecy from centuries before and he quotes it as it was written by the prophet. It was future to the prophet but past tense to the audience as in v. 18. 

The word except is not specifically in the text, that is a translation that is likely not exact since the conditional Greek word means "If". It is a word used in hypothetical situations. There are two Greek words for if, one that is absolute and one that is conditional and hypothetical. The word translated except is actually "if not". It doesn't mean one has to be sent to preach. It means no prophet would have a proclamation unless sent with a message. The act of preaching implies a sender. "If not they be sent" has a different meaning than "except they be sent". This may be difficult to understand, but it is important. "If not" they be sent" means the authority is given and the fact they have a new message is proof there is a sender who is God, except they be sent would imply you need the authority to do it. The passage stipulates authority was granted not must still be granted. "If not" can imply having the authority, "except" is needing authority to be in the group. Quite different applications. Modern English bibles could be worded different to reflect the truth of its meaning.

When the adverb pos is used with a negation such as "if not", it can mean by any means necessary. Instead of limiting how it is done, it gives full authority for multiple means.

Romans 10:15

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 

Change "except" to "if not" and you get a slightly different meaning. At the time of translation, I doubt translators knew this verse would be used to justify killing and imprisonment. Catholics killed the Waldensians based upon the Papal misrepresentation of the meaning of this verse. The actual question in the verse is, Why would any group start proclaiming a new message without being sent. This is proof of a sending authority, not a made-up message. A visible universe is proof of a creator. A new message heard, especially from a group of witnesses, is proof of a common authority who sent them. The New Testament fills in the history of Christ sending the early church.  It shows all have the right to proclaim what we have received because a common authority grants the right. We don't have the right to alter the message, we do have right to proclaim the same message. This is seen in 

Acts 8:4

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. 

Many people preach locally in their own towns and don't need to be sent into the world. Others are scattered without it being their choice. Either way, anyone with the ability can preach if need be. This is why the church in Rome was not started by Paul or Peter as many Catholics taught, but by Christians who came to reside in Rome, chapter 16 mentions men of note among the apostles before Paul's conversion. They possibly started the congregation there. Paul wrote Romans 15 saying they had all knowledge before him or Peter visited the church there.

Romans 15:14

And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. 

As a Church the Romans had the ability to admonish one another and to preach without restrictions. The church in Corinth had the same rights. Every man could build if they built carefully. All must build upon the original foundation that was laid, Jesus Christ. We seem to have the general authority to teach if using the original foundation. We aren't required to be teachers, but we have a general right.

1 Corinthians 3:14

If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 

 This speaks of those sent by Christ with his word. Official apostles of Christ, sent into the world to lay the foundation. Also, sent doesn't mean ordained. When Jesus sent the 70 to preach and work miracles, there were no Bishops to send them. There was no ecclesiastical authority to send them since the church did not exist yet. The concept of being sent is solely by the Father through Christ. The apostles, the 70, etc were not ordained as Catholics would require today through an ecclesiastical ordination. 

Mark 3:14

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 

The word ordained does not mean ordained in an ecclesiastical process, it means to set apart for the future work. It is actually used here in preparing them, not receiving the office immediately. "That they might" implies preparation to do something. Traveling with Christ to receive education and training. They were ordained to accompany Christ full time, that he might send them forth. This was made possible by the training. Ordained just means establishing a purpose for someone.

The word ordained can be used many ways, it just means to work towards a set goal, to establish a set purpose. It does not imply ecclesiastical ordination, but can be a practical use of preparation, so that students will complete tasks properly. In this case on the job training and experience. It can come with formal prayer and laying of hands, but not always, some ordination is informal.

So, the Waldensians were targeted for actually doing what Christ allowed, they could teach and preach without ordination. The they in verse 15 matches their in v.18.

Romans 10:15

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 

Romans 10:18

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 

The word preach here is the idea of proclaiming something new and unknown. It is the apostles proclaiming the word of Christ, not later preachers repeating that which was proclaimed. This is from Isaiah 52 and at the writing of Romans 10 was already fulfilled. The Jews had received the word and the Gentiles were in the process.

Isa 52:15

So shall he sprinkle many nations;the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

This matches with Matthew 10:18,

Matthew 10:18

And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. 

This is prophetic of the apostles work but does not restrict anyone else from speaking the word. Many believe Isaiah 52 speaks of Christ using the church in general. That all have been sent. 

This shows a fulfillment of v. 15, thus it isn't speaking of preachers in the future. The Catholics murdered them for doing Christ's will. Roman's 10 shows a progression from Christ to the Apostles with God's word. It isn't saying you must be sent by Catholics. That is a heresy in itself. How can Christians be sent by false Christians, that is the question. Don't assume Catholic is the true body of Christ. It isn't.

Though Cathars had some really bad doctrinal errors according to Catholics, they also refuted Catholic doctrinal errors very well, as in refuting the actual body of Christ in communion (Transubstantiation) by using the Lord's prayer. So Catholics and Cathars had some equally bad errors. They argued with each other.

Imagine 500k losing their lives over two words, "special vs daily", with the word special being in a Greek manuscript. 

The Cathars used a Greek manuscript that disagreed with the Latin Vulgate translation in wording, making daily bread a spiritual food vs actual physical food. Instead of "daily bread" it read "special bread" , distinguishing it from physical bread, "Jesus was the bread of life every day, not just in a Eucharist" , this was the point they made. This is very true. When Jesus said he was the bread of life he was speaking of daily spiritual food and not just Sunday's eucharist. He was also speaking of eating God's word, which is our food.

Matt 4 

man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

So Jesus as the Logos was God's word and bread. Give us this day our special bread the Cathars would pray.

Though the word "special" may not be correct, the daily bread of the Lord's prayer may include physical and spiritual. Jesus is the bread of life without ceasing, daily. Not just in the eucharist.

The Catholics attacked and murdered them for disagreeing and stating the obvious.