Wednesday, 15 February 2017




The "church" Jesus founded consisted of the Twelve Apostles, the 70 "disciples" and a number of other peripheral others. The women in the group were extremely prominent.

They WERE NOT CALLED CHRISTIANS. In fact they remained JEWS. They went to the Temple in Jerusalem to pray and met on the "Sabbath" (Sundays) to Break Bread in each other's homes.

They had no pope, no cardinals, no archbishops, no bishops and no priests.

They had no Vatican, no basilicas, no cathedrals, no churches etc.

Eventually as the community and its needs grew and as the occasional heresy showed its head some organisation became necessary.

This took the form of the emergence of elders - who were not CLERICS but community members who were APPOINTED BY THE COMMUNITY to be the organisers. This eventually led to a group of elders who were there to preach the Gospel and the appointment of deacons who were to look after the widows and orphans.

With further organisation each community had a group of elders and it was seen fit to have a SENIOR ELDER. This led to the development of the development of OVERSEER episcopus or bishop) elders (presbyters or priests) and deacons - the forerunner of our Holy Orders of bishop, priest an deacon.

THE 12 APOSLES - with the possible exception of James who was leader of the Christian Community in Antioch - WERE NOT OVERSEERS / BISHOPS.

The Apostles commission was to THE WHOLE CHURCH and not to an individual community. 


Bishops are the successors of the overseers or episcopi.

Quite early on the office of Apostle seemed to die out.

In the Roman Tradition they claim that the 5,000 + bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

How did 12 become 5,000?

Would it not be more in keeping to have 12 Apostles running the Roman Church than a pope and a civil service or curia?

THE REAL ROT SET IN when Christianity ( a name that emerged at Antioch after the Jerusalem Christians moved there after being persecuted) became the state religion of the Roman Empire.

This was the first occasion when the then Christian leader in Rome formed an unholy alliance with Constantine, the Roman Emperor.

Constantine, for political reasons, pretended to convert to Christianity but in fact continued to worship pagan gods for the rest of his life.

This was one of the first time the world witnessed the UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

It is questionable if St Peter was ever in Rome and if he was there is no grounds for saying that he was the first bishop of Rome.

As I say above he was an APOSTLE and not a BISHOP !

There is no evidence whatever that the bones that are under the altar of St Peter's are the bones of Peter at all. People are venerating old bones that could have been anyones.

Wikipedia says:

"The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops[18] and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century.[19][20][21][22][23] The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of AlexandriaPope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248).[24] The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century, when it was used in reference to Pope Vitalian in an Old English translation of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.[25]

"During the Early Church, the bishops of Rome enjoyed no temporal power until the time of Constantine. After the fall of Rome (the "Middle Ages", about 476), the papacy was influenced by the temporal rulers of the surrounding Italian Peninsula; these periods are known as the Ostrogothic PapacyByzantine Papacy, and Frankish Papacy. Over time, the papacy consolidated its territorial claims to a portion of the peninsula known as the Papal States. Thereafter, the role of neighboring sovereigns was replaced by powerful Roman families during the saeculum obscurum, the Crescentii era, and the Tusculan Papacy"..

The pure church that Jesus founded lasted a few hundred years and was gradually replaced by a series of man made teachings, doctrines and practices.

I know that when I publish this today there will be people coming on here claiming that Jesus instituted the office of pope and the RC institution.

The devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.

If we want to belong to the church Jesus founded we need to get back to the early Christian community and its characteristics and indeed its purities.

In the words of the graph on the top of this blog we need to back to 33 AD and forget all the add ons ever since.


  1. Pat, you omitted your goodself circa 1990 who founded your own version i.e. The Larne Oratorians, the one true interpretation of the Gospel.

    1. You got the date wrong - 1986.

      The Oratory Society is not a denomination.

      It is a small Christian community. We model ourselves on the early communities.

      Christ is our head. I am the overseer. The community makes decisions at our informal meetings after our Sabbath Eucharist.

    2. You sound exactly like so many of the "Makey-uppers" who have come and then disappeared without a trace......Return to the fold Pat before it's too late! Despite its sinfulness it is still the church to which Jesus entrusted the keys!

    3. Why sabbath as this is Jewish occult and your not Jewish.

    4. We Christians are Christ completed Jews.

      In the holy city of Jerusalem there are three Sabbaths - Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

    5. The Sabbath was NEVER Sunday, the Sabbath remains to be Saturday. However, as Christians we are no longer bound by Jewish law and because of this we do not have any obligation to observe the Sabbath. Instead, we observe the resurrection of the Lord: The Lord's Day. Which is Sunday.

      The sabbath remains Saturday. We do not observe the Sabbath. We observe the Lord's Day.

    6. And how, 20:44, do you observe the Lord's Day? By following rules set down by old , clerically collared men in the Roman Catholic Church ? Or by following your loving heart?

  2. Actually, Pat, anyone who considers themselves inspired by Christ is in a Church whenever he meets anyone and believes they should be treated Christ-like. Jesus said so: Whenever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there.
    Brian Redmond. Japan

  3. History in a nutshell. Thanks again. Someone said God made us in his Image and ever since we are trying to do the same to God. Religion and state have been combined in many cultures. I believe this is in part to protect their territory and control the people. God works with what He has got not what we would like him to have. We should not be too quick to throw everything away. How far should we go back? The Creeds? Marks of Catholicity?. I believe when we stop trying to own God we will grow spiritually.

    1. Simple.

      Anything that fits with Jesus' 33 ad church is authentic.

      Anything that contradicts that or is man made power control + is not.

      Eg: papal infallibility.

      Mary as Co redemptrix.

      Canon law

      Clerical celibacy


    2. Pat a couple of questions.
      Why do you maintain that you are a bishop? Surely that goes against the early Church.
      Do you believe that Mary remained a virgin all her life?
      Who is the successor to Peter?

    3. I am a bishop because I am the "overseer", episcopus, presiding presbyter of a Christian community.

      I do not believe that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

      If Peter was in Rome ??? and was the presiding presbyter of the Christian community there? ??? then the current Bishop of Rome - Francis is his "successor".

      If Peter was not he has no successor!

    4. Pat, one thing I have a problem with is that the RCC claim the pope is the successor of St. Peter based on a few vague references by the Church Fathers, but even if he was, Peter founded the Church at Antioch,this is attested to in scripture, the Church Fathers and every Christian ever since, so does that not mean that Gregory III Laham (Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Alexandria, and Jerusalem of the Greek Melkites), Ignatius Joseph III Yonan (Patriarch of Antioch and All the East of the Syrians), Bechara Boutros Rahi (Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and the Whole Levant), John X of Antioch (Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East) and Ignatius Aphrem II, (Patriarch of Antioch and All the East)are his guaranteed successors?
      Now given that there are a couple of patriarchs who can categorically trace their roots back to Peter, the only logical reason for the primacy of the pope, actual in Roman Catholicism and honorary in Eastern Orthodoxy, is based on his being bishop of the capital of the Roman Empire. This is supported by the fact that the Council of Chalcedon (451) gave Constnatinople the second place of honour as both the new seat of the Emperor and the new capital, or as they describe it the new Rome.
      I concede that Peter was made overseer of the Apostles, but as to the extent of that power and prestige we do not know except for vague references, and even if he was "the boss" of the apostles, he certainly didn't act like a pope, with all the trappings and pomp, he was a fisherman and a humble man who served his lord, a true vicar/regent of Christ.

  4. + Pat if you believe in the blog content then it follows that you must not and no longer call yourself Bishop as much as anyone else with the title.

    It surely must also go that Jesus did not intend for the Gospels to be written or he would have commanded it, further more they are written many years after his death so who can say they are accurate.

    We only have a dubious account that Jesus even existed. An account of a Roman who wrote about a Jew with that name who was crucified by Pontius. So surely as in most things we all love a good story we all want to believe that there is a meaning to this existance. You probably right that Jesus's view of church is not what it has ended up as. So whats to be done Bishop, I am all ears to hear your direction.

    I know that the Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslim or all others 7 day this or that, Mormons can be right 100% in what they see as God and Gods ways.

    BISHOP PAT do what is right or give direction as to where to go.

    1. A Bishop is simply the overseeing presbyter if a Christian community.

      The Gospels and NT books were written by men writing down their memory or others memories of what Jesus was, said and did.

      Their "accuracy" is a point for discussion / debate and certainly the authors wrote from their own cultural perspectives and limitations.

      I think that it is well established that there was a historical Jesus.

      The Christ of Faith is that - faith and not forensic evidence. I believe in that Christ.

      All religions have aspects of the truth - just aspects.

      Where to go?

      Inquiry, discussion, scholarship and then the LEAP OF FAITH.

    2. The Bishop of Jerusalem or the Bishop of Antioch probably have more right to be Christianity's "primate"?

    3. Pat, I suggest you begin some serious research and stop with the soundbites. In your own logic then, I recommend you read some of the writing of the first Bishop of Antioch after St John the Apostle.
      Begin here
      You will find that he, who was taught by the apostles, disagrees with you on aspects such as Mary's virginity, the apostles' successors, the importance of the Lord's day, etc, etc.
      You claim to have a MA in history. It seems clear that this is not one in Christian history. For 'to be steeped in history is to cease to be a [Buckleyonian]'. Read and you will find the teachings of the Catholic Church closer to the original teachings of the early Christians (aka the first Catholics, the members of Christ's original Church, and so on)

    4. I cannot accept that.

      Papal infallibility?

      Transubstantiation came to us in the 12th century.

      (I do believe in the Real Presence).

      The second Bishop of Antioch would be horrified at modern Roman Catholicism, the Vatican, etc.

      At 64 and having be a catholic Christian all my life - and after 40 years dealing with Romanism - I know deep down in my heart that Jesus Christ would be / is horrified at what they did to His church.

    5. PS: I think the same of nearly all other denominations / abominations.

    6. You say that "Transubstantiation came to us in the 12th century" and "I do believe in the Real Presence" - doesn't this rather disprove your point?

      The fact that a word (i.e. transubstantiation) came into use to describe what happens in the Mass, does not mean that belief in the Real Presence is an invention. Development and deepening of doctrine does not equal invention.

  5. There are many stories of converts to Catholicism who could not accept that truth deserted the Church until Luther came along. Once they read the Early Church Fathers (those taught by the Apostles) they see that the early Church was very Catholic in its practices. The Thomasian Church in India is a clincher, it was founded by an Apostle (St. Thomas) and developed in isolation but is clearly Catholic in belief and practice.

    1. I like what you say.

      Have we evidence that Thomas made it to India?

      Just wondering?

    2. Er, truth truth did not desert the (Roman Catholic) Church 'until Luther came along'? Grow the fuck up! And read a book or two on the subject, instead of relying on your juvenile, sectarian prejudice.

      Surprised to know that you liked what this bigoted ignoramus had to say, Bishop Pat.

  6. Pat - Just out of interest, what liturgical books do you use in your oratory? Not a Roman Missal surely?

    1. We actually use the Vatican 11 Roman Missal - not the new translation brought in recently.

      I would love to have the time / resources to compose a new missal but alas :-(

      Personally I do not pray for Francis in the Mass.

      But other Oratory priests do.

      I am not a dictator.

    2. Thanks for clearing that up...But then again, "Jesus' 33AD Church" didn't have a Roman Missal, did it? So you reject the "Roman Construct" and the rotten institution (as you have called it) of the Roman Catholic Church, but its prayer books are ok. Interesting.

      Surely out of charity you would pray for Francis - that he who calls himself Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter would come to his senses and return to the 33AD Church of Jesus.

    3. You are right. Jesus Church used the Jewish Prayer Books and Texts in the Temple and when they celebrated the Breaking of the Bread in their homes I imagine that at the beginning they used few words and simply imitated what Jesus did when he was with them.

      They would not have thought about Real Presence, Transubstantiation etc.

      So of course there has been and can be development - both of practice and of beliefs.

      But the problem is when that development contradicts either the fact or the spirit of the early church.

      I would of course pray for Francis out of charity.

      What I mean is I do not use the words: "WE PRAY FOR FRANCIS OUR POPE".

      I usually say:


      I have Jesus.

      I don't need a pope!

    4. Because you're your own pope...deciding which truths to accept and which to reject because you don't like them.

      Of course you're right about development of practice and beliefs. However, some of the ones you reject - as you mentioned earlier - like the perpetual virginity of Mary is hardly contrary to the "spirit of the early Church". After all, it is either true or it isn't that she remained a virgin - and early Church fathers such as Origen, Ambrose, Augustine and Athanasius taught that it was true. Nor is celibacy contrary to the spirit of the early Church - indeed, this is not a doctrine but a discipline - the fact that at least some of the apostles were married does not make celibacy wrong. With regard to Mary as Co-Redemptrix, this is not a dogma of the Church. Even if it were, it does not say that Mary redeemed us - that was the work of Christ alone - but it is an acknowledgement of her essential part of Christ's work of redemption as the "Second Eve".

      Finally, whether or not the early Christians referred to transubstantiation or the Real Presence is irrelevant. Not having the same words that we use 2000 years later - in the case of transubstantiation, because of the development of belief in the Real Presence - does not mean that they did not believe in those realities. Again, the early Church fathers attest to the fact that they did believe these things even in "Jesus' 33AD Church".

    5. I dont decide which truths to accept or reject.

      I accept those truths found in Jesus.

      I prefer Jesus to Origen, Ambrose, Augustine and Athanasius.

      As to the perpetual virginity of SAINT MARY - the brothers and sisters of Jesus are referred to in the NT.

      Virginity is a big Catholic hang up.

      Why would Saint Mary have deprived Joseph for life of his "jungle rights".

      That sounds un Christian and unkind to me.

    6. The Roman church has driven many good people away. There has been no freedom of speech for a long time. It bullies people into submission. It binds them in fear and guilt, lies and deceit. It brought in humanae vitae. It allowed the child abuse scandals. It imposed on us that horrible new mass. It became a tyrant and a bully. Many have left but they still have faith and pray. It will never be the same again. We will never let it have that much power again. Our priest is a lovely humble man of prayer, but I think he suffers horribly knowing how corrupt it is.

    7. "I prefer Jesus to Origen, Ambrose, Augustine and Athanasius" - there is hardly any opposition if they were teaching the truth. They were teaching "those truths found in Jesus". You said yourself that there is development of doctrine and practice, yet you present a dismissive attitude towards the early Church fathers who were merely articulating this development and passing on apostolic teaching.

      Come on, Pat - you should know that in Hebrew and Aramaic there were no words for "cousin", "nephew", "aunt", "step-brother", "step-sister", etc. so the word "brother" or "sister" was used. It is clear that Jesus was Mary's first-born. If there were other sons (i.e. younger brothers of Jesus), why did Christ entrust Mary to the care of John at the crucifixion? In Jewish law, the responsibility of caring for a widowed mother passed to the eldest son - but Jesus passed it to John.

      Virginity is not a Catholic hangup - in fact, you, Pat, seem to have more of a hangup about it by denying that which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence of Scripture and the testimony of the early Church fathers.

    8. Jane - if there has been "no freedom of speech for a long time", when do you think there was "freedom of speech" exactly? John 6:66, perhaps? Do you think the truth and the teaching of it should be decided by a majority vote? Teaching the truth - even truths that are hard - is not bullying; on the contrary it is a divine mandate. There is no freedom of speech if what one is speaking is contrary to the truth: that is not freedom.

      I do agree with you on the Church imposing the "horrible new mass"...You are always free to attend a traditional Latin Mass, if there is one near you...but it's probably the only Mass at which you will hear authentic Catholic doctrine being preached, including Humanae Vitae!

    9. 16:47, only John, the last of the gospels to be written (and, therefore, the least likely of them to be chronologically reliable) has Mary at the foot of the Cross. Doesn't this tell you anything?

  7. So in essence wether I call myself Bishop, Pope, Priest is absolutely of mo benefit. The written word I I agree are just memories and mans memories at that. But the main point is this Jesus as God and having lived as a man, would agree with the statement that his mission failed.

    Now this God is not bound by will he cannot be manipulated in any way or form. This being the case he can do as (for the point of using a term), he/she can do as he/she likes. To bulid or destroy to reveal or to hide.

    So where am I going with this I suppose its to say 2000+ years on and we have no evidence of the Divine, all that """" power and nadda neyt nout nothing zilch zero, judt interdenominational bickering and besting. Whats yhe point """" God in standing the side lines.

    God we need your help, +Bishop Pat do you need to change? Is there any point, if so tell us.

    1. Personally I have a strong faith in God and in Jesus Christ.

      But that is PURE FAITH. I offer no proofs.

      I feel that I have had personal experiences in my life both of God / Jesus and of Satan.

      I would not want to live without faith.

      But any good / healthy spirituality will get you to the same place.


      I believe that someone like MMM is a seeker of the truth.

      I believe that God will give him a warm welcome for his integrity.

      I also believe that God would enjoy a chat with Magna Carta and a glass of whiskey with Dalriada Dick :-)

    3. And no doubt certain ones of the aforementioned would not hesitate to tell God where he was "going wrong"!! Isn't it good that God is patience itself - -

    4. As one of the aforementioned may I say, that should it somehow come to pass that after my death I find myself on the 'right' side of some pearly gates to be greeted by God I would certainly hesitate to tell Him where he had "gone wrong".
      But I would certainly venture to ask many questions:
      Why did You give me an intelligence and reasoning faculties, and then constructively make it so difficult to know and understand You and Your wishes without abandoning that intelligence and reasoning ability You gave me?

      That, in essence, is the nub and summation of my many questions such as those posed in the above comments about the origins, interpretation and significance of the christian bible. And that is only in relation to the Christian traditions of belief. I would also venture to ask what credibility have the myriad of other religious belief systems in relation to You, and how and why have You allowed such disparate beliefs to evolve and persist?
      In point of fact, if such should come to pass I would certainly be delighted to have the opportunity to ask such questions and rely on the patience you refer to to permit me such liberty.
      But I'm not a betting man.
      PS. Thank you for the questioning comments above relating to the origins of christian belief.

    5. On the right side of the pearly gates, you will see things clearly and possibly not need to ask anything! We are told in Corinthians 1 13 that now we see things "through a glass darkly" but in the presence of Almighty God our perception will not at all be so restricted and limited as it must necessarily be on earth.
      "Blessed are those who have NOT seen and have believed "

    6. 15:41, not God, but his so-called 'Church'.

  8. Pat, I am a gay seminarian and I am unsure how far I can go without breaking my commitment to celibacy. Is it ok to kiss and massage other students? I have experimented but did not ejaculate.

    1. I would have no problem with you kissing, loving, massaging and even ejaculating with another person in the context of love and affection.

      However the Church you hope to become a priest in forbids all those things outside the context of a valid marriage.

      How do you feel about that?

      How do you feel about living - now and in the future - a "double life"?

    2. Seminarian - were you ever with Deacon Michael E Jackulate Byrne :-)

    3. Gay Seminarian I wouldn't feel guilty about kissing etc, just enjoy it and live your life to the full. Life is too short to be hung up on things like this, let's face it quite a few Seminarians are having sex anyway.
      Fellow Seminarian

    4. Not all seminarians are having sex, many are actually serious about the priesthood and willing to commit to celibacy. You guys who are having sex or looking to have sex are a joke. If you cant keep it in your pants in seminary then you wont be able to hack it as a priest. Be honest with yourselves! If you want to spend your time massaging guys become a massage therapist or something, you clearly dont have a vocation to religious life. God save us from the products of Maynooth!

    5. I can't believe this is a serious question. However if it is serious, the fact that the questioner has obviously been sexually active with other men but can persuade himself this is ok because he didn't ejaculate, suggests a fine future for his career in the church. Diocesan safeguarding officer in no time!

  9. Surely massage is not sexual unless there's a happy ending

    1. I think it's one of those things which while non-sexual in themselves, can be seen to be overly intimate - particularly if the news of massage in the seminary should hit the papers!
      There would also be a very different atmosphere if, say, sports massage was given by one straight man to another. If one ir both is gay, the closeness and touch involved would already mean a sexual atmosphere, with or without a happy ending lol

  10. Bishop Pat I can't help but notice that you haven't posted anything about Deacon Michael gorgeous Byrne in recent weeks. The story on the streets of his homeland is that you have been "warned off" is that true? Concerned friend of both Gorgeous and You.

    1. Absolutely untrue.

      I have heard nothing from Gorgeous or anyone associated with him - apart from Archbishop Diarmuid Martin weeks ago.

  11. I wonder if the Co. Derry PP refered to in yesterday's blog is in the Diocese of Derry or the Archdiocese of Armagh? The one seen with the dolly bird in restaurants pretending she is a relative.

  12. I presume all of Co. Derry is in Derry Diocese.

  13. Not all - as part of Coleraine is in Down & Connor, and area around Magherafelt is in Armagh - so could be 3 dioceses

  14. Pat, in all seriousness, the position you take here is one I have heard repeatedly from Protestants of all denominations or none. I am really finding it difficult to see what makes you Catholic in this case...

    1. Think about your comment. There are overlaps between historical findings and Christian historical claims and there are contradictions. What makes you think Pat is talking theology here? If the historical evidence denies Peter died in Rome there is nothing Protestant about telling the truth. Pat could be speaking from a historical perspective not a Protestant one. Try and work out the difference. And do not forget that many Catholic scholars deny that the Letter of clement which allegedly says Peter was martyred in Rome necessarily means he was killed there. Peter lived a jew and died a Jew. He was not a Catholic or a Protestant or a Pope. Catholicism is another Mormonism (lives in fantasy land with its historical claims) and both would rewrite truth and history completely if they could manage it.