Monday, 26 May 2014



It has taken me 60 years to come to realise that the Roman Catholic Church is built upon several serious lies!

Lie 1: That Peter - the head of the Apostles - was in Rome.

Lie 2: That Peter was the first "Bishop of Rome".

Lie 3: That Peter's body is buried in Rome under St Peter's Basilica.

Lie 4: That Rome is the primary "see" of the Christian church.


There is no evidence either from the New Testament or from historical sources that Peter was ever in Rome. Peter being in Rome is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament!

Peter was designated by Jesus to be the apostle to the Jews or the "circumcised". It was Paul who was the "Apostle to the Gentiles" and Rome was very definitely a gentile city. "To me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision" (Galatians 2:7). For a longer and expert discussion of this google:
Professor Otto Zwierlein

Or if you have time and can read German you can buy Otto Zwierlein's two book on Amazon:

PETRUS IN ROM (April 2010)


The Vatican was so worried about Otto Zwierlein's scholarship that they called two separate conferences to refute his findings - but failed. The Vatican regard Zwierlein as an enemy of the Church.

Professor Zwierlien was born in 1939. He is a German classical scholar. He is a professor emiritus of the University of Hamburg and in 1986 he was the Neville Wallace Lecturer at the University of Oxford.


If Peter was never in Rome he could not have been the first Bishop of Rome. It he had ever visited Rome (which is unlikely) neither could he have been the first Bishop of Rome. Why have a visitor - who is going away again - as bishop.

Saint Paul was the founder of the Church in Rome and there is ample evidence of Paul's present in Rome. It was Paul, not Peter who wrote the New Testament book - The Letter to the Romans.

Also the role of "apostle" is very different from the role of "bishop" or overseer/episcopi.

The Apostles were missionaries and founders of churches - not bishops. Their mission was to the whole church - not to one church in any one place. Father Sullivan says:

a.     The Apostles were not bishops in our present day understanding of bishops but they were instead missionaries and founders of churches.

b.    Some early local churches did have bishops but it is not at all clear that these bishops were ever appointed or ordained by Saint Paul or by any other apostle.

For a ful discussion of this point google Father Frank A Sullivan SJ or read his fascinating book:

FROM APOSTLES TO BISHOPS - available on Amazon in hard copy and as an e book on Kindle.
Father Frank Sullivan SJ
Father Sullivan was born in 1922 and completed his doctorate in theology in 1954. From 1956 until 1992 - 36 years he was the Professor of Ecclesiology at Rome's GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY. From 1967 until 1970 he was the Dean of Theology at the Gregorian.


The Roman Catholic Church claims that the body and bones of Saint Peter are buried under the main altar of St Peter's Basilica in Rome. This is NOT TRUE!

Father Bellarmino Bagatti - an Italian Franciscan priest and skilled archeologist found a stone ossuary / coffin in 1954 during and archeological dig under the DOMINUS FLAVIT (Jesus wept) chapel on the Mount of Olives in Jeruslame. The insctiption on the coffin read: SHIMON bar YONAH - Simon the son of Jonah. 
Father Bellarmino Bagatti OFM
Father Bagatti reported his findings to Pope Pius X11 who replied:

"Well, we will have to make some changes....but for the time being keep this thing quiet!
Pius X11
Father Bagatti was a faithful Italian Roman Catholic Franciscan monk. He would have no reason to lie. He was a loyal son of the Church. He completed his doctorate in 1934 at the Pontifical Institute of Christian Archeology on the Cemetery Commodilla in Rome. In 1935 he was a professor in the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum in Jerusalem. In 1955 he was mae a Knight Commander of the Order of Merit in Italy.

His priestly and archeology colleague Father J T Milke said of his work:

"There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome".

Yet in spite of al this scholarship Pope Paul V1 in the 1960's declared that the bones of Saint Peter were in The Vatican and just a few months ago Pope Francis put those bones on display! All the scientists can say - without DNA evidence - about the bones in the Vatican are that they belonged to a man of sixty or seventy from the 1 st century. They could be anybody's bones. They are not St Peter's bones!
Fake bones of St Peter at the Vatican

The Christian Church was founded in Jerusalem. If any episcopal see is the primary see of the Christian Church it must be Jerusalem.

Jesus never intended to found a new religion. He intended to reform Judaism. Christians are really the "New Jews" who accepted Jesus as the Savious and Messiah. 

When the Christian Church in Jerusalem was persecuted it moved to Antioch. Antioch therefore would be entitled to claim primacy way before Rome.

The Apostles were not "bishops" but missionaries and founders of churches. There would be some foundation to the claim that Peter as the head of the Apostles might have been the first "bishop" of the church and of Jerusalem. 

When after the persecution the early church moved to Antioch Peter appears to have stepped back in favour of James - the "Brother of the Lord". James would have a good claim to have been the first "bishop" of Antioch. 

"But it must be remembered that the Early Church was not organised centralistically. It was a community of the faithful in which presbyters, deacons and episkopoi served various functions. 

The monoepiscopacy did not develop until that late 2nd century in the fight against the gnostic movements. 

ALL the bishops of the Christian communities sawthemselves as successors of the apostles on whom the Holy Spirit had been poured out INDISCRIMINATELY at the feast of Pentecost. 

The primacy of the bishp of Rome is due to PURELY historical reasons and it took time to develop into an absolute monarchy, which it still is today by adopting Roman imperial law in the High Middle Ages". (Zwierlien)


The above has been a VERY BRIEF summary of how the Roman Catholic Church is established upon lie after lie.

I am continuing to study all these matters and  would appreciate all comments.

+Pat Buckley


  1. Good man Pat!
    The more you, or anybody with an open analytical objective mind studies religion, let alone its catholic hocus pocus preposterous belief system, the more evident becomes its spurious claims.
    What does become increasingly evident though, are the strategies used by the hierarchy to suppress honest searching for truth in favour of preserving the status quo, ....and their authority.

    1. Thank you MMMICHAEL

      We must ALL and ALWAYS look for the objective truth.

      "There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see"

      I want the truth - even when and if it is uncomfortable.

      I know you and I differ on the question of faith, the supernatural etc.

      I respect your views more than 100%

      My Christian beliefs are based on my own insights and not on anything that any man has said to me.

      If anything the God I believe in has been done a great diservice by his so called followers - Rome being chief among them.


  2. Bishop Pat,

    If all this is true then why should any of us Catholics believe in Catholicism?

    What alternatives have we?

    D. Ligoneil

    1. D,

      We must distinguish Christianity from "Roman Catholicsm".

      We must distinguish Jesus from popes, cardinals, bishops and priests.

      We must distinguish man made doctrines from the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

      The challenge for all of us as Christians, I think, is to rediscover the Church of Jesus, the New Testament and Apostolic times from the institutions that men have created to exercise power, control and wealth.

      This is a journey that we must make individually and together. Are you ready to go on that journey - a discovery of truth - a discovery that requires keeping the baby and throwing on 20 centuries of "dirty water".

      That's where I am at.


  3. am reminded of a quote " you are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church" Come to think of it the word Church would have been foreign to Jesus. Peter does stand out among the apostles. There were 12 apostles or were there. 12 = 12 tribes of Judah. How much of what we read is construct. What is unrefutable is that there was a Jesus who did have followers whom he thaught. I believe the hierarchical church we know would be far from Jesus' mind or human experience. The Roman Church tried to anchor faith/doctrine in concrete reference points such as the bones of the saints. Humanity has now moved to a higher level of reflection and consciousness which debunks the "mythologies" of the church. This journey should lead to wonder and freedom but the consequence of this journey is that the flutes in cassocks are acting like frightened dogs because control is being taken from them. Sean

  4. For God sake Pat will you stop publishing the musings of this amateur theologian and pundit ros common man. He is proof, if proof were needed that a little learning is a dangerous thing. How much more of his drivel do we have to put up with? I am seriously thinking of stopping commenting Pat to avoid the extensive coverage you give him.

    1. Thank you for your comment.

      Sean actually studied for the priesthood in Ireland and Rome for seven years and my understanding is that he has a degree in philosophy and a degree in theology.

      I think Sean's style is unusual.

      But he does comment regularly and I publish all comments I receive. I don't think you would like me to censor him surely?

      If you don't like his comments why not skip them when you see his name?

      I would not like to lose your comments either.


  5. Pat, I through you held that your episcopal ordination was valid on the basis of apostolic succession within the Catholic Church.

    1. I don't think that Apostolic Succession should be considered like a "pipeline" or passing on the baton.

      In its purest form Apostolic Succession is holding on to the faith of the Apostles.

      The Roman Catholic Church cannot trace its episcopal lineage accurately past Cardinal Rebiba in the 16th century.

      Basically a bishop is the "overseer" - episkopi - of a church in a particular place.


  6. Pat, I don't find Sean's comments"drivel", (unlike anonymous above). Sure I don't always concur with him, but underlying his comment seems to be a searching for truth, and that's to be valued, .......rather than criticising the messenger I try to understand his message.

    1. Sean is very sincere and like us all perhaps a bit eccentric.


  7. Eccentric-I suppose I am but then was Jesus "Normal". As for Anonymous I am quite happy to tollerate his comments under of the banner of free speech and respect for the other person. Anonymous not being able to recipricate in like spirit is an internal issue for his own deliberations. As for me I will not loose much sleep. Pat you have been nothing but objective and fair. Sean

  8. The eccentricity I can live with, its the amateur punditry that sticks in the throat. As for a theological and philosophical "education" in Rome...I doubt it would come close to "O Level" Theology and Religious Studies in a secondary modern. The old joke at the Irish College was in sign above the loo roll in the jacks: "Pontifical Doctoral Degrees - Please Take One".
    My last word on the matter is that Sean reveals it all really when he compares himself with Jesus Christ. As any shrink will tell you, there is no delusion as deep as that of a religious maniac.
    Pat we want to hear more from you and less of him. Please.

    1. I do understand how you feel.

      And knowing all I do about The Irish College in Rome I strongly agree - but I had not heard the Loo Roll / Doctorate one :-)

      You will hear more from me


  9. Make Wisdom your friend for Wisdom wipes out all fear!! And the truth shall set you free indeed !!