roots


The controversial pope who gave the King of England permission to invade Ireland

Pope Adrian IV, “The Bull” handed Ireland over for the "correction of morals" and "introduction of virtues”


Pope Adrian IV, “The Bull”
Pope Adrian IV, “The Bull”
Photo by Hertfordshire County Council; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

Guinness PubFinder Ad

Pope Adrian IV is one of the most controversial popes for the Irish. He issued  the “Laudabiliter” or as it is better known “Bull,” which gave Henry II  the Pope’s permission to invade Ireland “for the correction of morals and the introduction of virtues, for the advancement of the Christian religion.” The Papal Bull became the most well known and controversial part of the pope’s legacy. 

Born near St. Albans in England around 1100, Nicholas Breakspear as he was originally known went to France at an early age for his studies. There he took the vows and habit of an Austin canon. He was later elected abbot and made a cardinal by Pope Eugenius III when business regarding the monastery took him to Rome. In 1152 Nicholas was sent as a papal legate on a mission to Scandinavia, where he established an independent archiepiscopal see. When he returned to Rome he was hailed as the Apostle of the North. Soon after Pope Anastasius died in December of 1153 and the cardinals unanimously made Nicholas the next pope, the only English born pope to date. 

The early years of Adrian IV’s papacy were fraught with conflict and power struggles. King Henry II petitioned the new pope for a papal Bull, but Adrian IV did not issue it from some years. When Adrian IV  refused to recognize William I of Sicily in 1154, William I responded by laying siege to the papal possession of Beneventum. Adrian IV excommunicated him and his vassals marched on Beneventum, where he stayed until 1156. 

During that year, Adrian IV issued the Bull. Scholars debate whether an Italian born pope would have given Henry permission or whether Henry would have invaded Ireland even without a papal Bull. Some scholars suggest that Adrian IV believed Henry would invade regardless and issued the Bull so the Church would end up on the winning side. 

The Bull is erroneously believed to have given Henry a carte blanche to conquer Ireland. Adrian wrote that Henry was to respect the Church in Ireland. In translation from The Wild Geese, the Bull states, “And may the people of that land receive thee with honor, and venerate thee as their master: provided always that the rights of the churches remain inviolate and entire, and saving to St. Peter and the holy Roman Church the annual pension of one penny from each house.”  Later English monarchs would violate this part. 

When Adrian IV issued the Bull in 1156, Henry II was not in a position to invade Ireland. Henry was occupied with subduing the Welsh abroad and subduing Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket at home. During that year, Henry proposed giving the job of subduing Ireland to his brother, William, but this idea was not pleasing to his mother Matilda, whose opinion carried considerable weight, and the expedition was postponed. 

Ireland at this time was flourishing in the arts. The monastery Columbia had founded in Durrow, Co Laois in the sixth century taught students from a diverse geographical background by the seventh century. Irish students boasted achievements in architecture, astronomy, and science. The Normans never fully conquered Ireland; they intermarried and adopted Irish law, manners, language and became “more Irish than the Irish themselves.” 


See more: Irish Roots , Irish History , Irish Catholic Church
Nster.com


40 Comments

15 - 40 | See all comments

phlutie is off his meds again, maybe its shell shock from the eggs he had at breakfast time.
The equation of Holy Roman and Anglo-Norman/Anglo-Saxon imperialism - 4 Adrian's and 2 Henry's equals 0 Ireland! But then, what could one expect from the triumph of Christian orthodoxy over heterodoxy and it's kingdom being of this world, unlike the Messiah it supposedly follows. (PS Thanks seanomelb! Had though so but wasn't sure. Mixed up Archbishop Paul Marcinkus of Chicago with Archbishop Makarious of Cyprus.)
This is parallel to John XXIII signing off on a secret agreement with Ho Chi Minh to allow for the invasion of South Vietnam with consideration for Catholics once the occupation took place. It is stated that Ho Chi Minh allowed for the repatriation of Catholics to South Vietnam with the realization that this would destabilize the South. It is also noted that John XXIII who called the "Fatima Three" deluded shepherd children knew this as well. The XXIII had been a medic in WWI. To a Vietnam era Navy vet, this is disconcerting to say the least. While our boys, including J Mac, were POWs defending the rights of Catholics, John XXIII was "selling them down the river" just as Adrian VI. There is no doubt that we left POWs behind to serve as slave labor. William Jefferson guaranteed this because of his rush to make economic accomodation with the new Communist government.
Gaelic resurgence (1350–1500), The Tudors, Cromwell, The Ascendancy, Irish War of Independence, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Wow great now everyone is up to date.
The plague killed of most of the Normans in Ireland around 1348 to 1350 and the Gaels of Ireland whom had fled from the Normans especially in the Pale survived because the disease was spread through the Trade ports. What was left of the Normans Joined the Gaels.
Archbishop Paul marcinkus of Chicago
coleenmb! The original Britain was Wales, then much more extensive than now prior to incursion by low country (Belgium/Netherlands) Angles. After the fall of Wales, Ireland must surely have only been a mater of time. My point, Pope Adrian may not have been a British pope proper but merely an Anglo-Norman one, or an Angle. The Commentator! Pope John Paul II's bodyguard, ex-American footballer from Chicago (whose name excapes me), once said: "Your can't run a church on Hail Mary's!" Someones got to lick a stamp. Besides, the Anglican Church are not exactly penniless, and have a rather impressive global real estate portfolio just like the Vatican. What sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
St Columbanus, one of the great Irish Saints and who established many religious houses across Europe in the 6th-7th centuries A.D. wrote these words to a pope- "We Irish, though dwelling at the far ends of the earth, are all disciples of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Catholic Faith, just as it was first delivered to us by yourselves, the successors of the Apostles, is held by us unchanged. We are bound to the Chair of Peter."
St Columbanus, one of the great Irish Saints and who established many religious houses across Europe in the 6th-7th centuries A.D. wrote these words to a pope- "We Irish, though dwelling at the far ends of the earth, are all disciples of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Catholic Faith, just as it was first delivered to us by yourselves, the successors of the Apostles, is held by us unchanged. We are bound to the Chair of Peter."
@Citizenwhy, There never was a celtic "church" in the institutional meaning of the term and the natives of Ireland back in the early days of Christianity, would've been nonplussed by your attempts to separate them from the rest of Latin Christendom. Most reputable experts on the early Christian centuries in Ireland would not subscribe to this myth of a "celtic" church which only religious sectarians, new agers, and those who have an animus towards Rome seem to support. The reality was both Irish Christians and their counterparts in continental Europe, believed in the same doctrines and tenets. There were slight differences in the rite of mass, monkish hairstyles and penitence but these should not obscure the fact that they were all part of the one universal Catholic Church. There was also a dichotomy concerning the dating of Easter but all these differences were thrashed out and resolved at the momentous Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D.
@Citizenwhy, There never was a celtic "church" in the institutional meaning of the term and the natives of Ireland back in the early days of Christianity, would've been nonplussed by your attempts to separate them from the rest of Latin Christendom. Most reputable experts on the early Christian centuries in Ireland would not subscribe to this myth of a "celtic" church which only religious sectarians, new agers, and those who have an animus towards Rome seem to support. The reality was both Irish Christians and their counterparts in continental Europe, believed in the same doctrines and tenets. There were slight differences in the rite of mass, monkish hairstyles and penitence but these should not obscure the fact that they were all part of the one universal Catholic Church. There was also a dichotomy concerning the dating of Easter but all these differences were thrashed out and resolved at the momentous Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D.
@Citizenwhy, There never was a celtic "church" in the institutional meaning of the term and the natives of Ireland back in the early days of Christianity, would've been nonplussed by your attempts to separate them from the rest of Latin Christendom. Most reputable experts on the early Christian centuries in Ireland would not subscribe to this myth of a "celtic" church which only religious sectarians, new agers, and those who have an animus towards Rome seem to support. The reality was both Irish Christians and their counterparts in continental Europe, believed in the same doctrines and tenets. There were slight differences in the rite of mass, monkish hairstyles and penitence but these should not obscure the fact that they were all part of the one universal Catholic Church. There was also a dichotomy concerning the dating of Easter but all these differences were thrashed out and resolved at the momentous Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D.
@Citizenwhy, There never was a celtic "church" in the institutional meaning of the term and the natives of Ireland back in the early days of Christianity, would've been nonplussed by your attempts to separate them from the rest of Latin Christendom. Most reputable experts on the early Christian centuries in Ireland would not subscribe to this myth of a "celtic" church which only religious sectarians, new agers, and those who have an animus towards Rome seem to support. The reality was both Irish Christians and their counterparts in continental Europe, believed in the same doctrines and tenets. There were slight differences in the rite of mass, monkish hairstyles and penitence but these should not obscure the fact that they were all part of the one universal Catholic Church. There was also a dichotomy concerning the dating of Easter but all these differences were thrashed out and resolved at the momentous Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D.
@Citizenwhy, There never was a celtic "church" in the institutional meaning of the term and the natives of Ireland back in the early days of Christianity, would've been nonplussed by your attempts to separate them from the rest of Latin Christendom. Most reputable experts on the early Christian centuries in Ireland would not subscribe to this myth of a "celtic" church which only religious sectarians, new agers, and those who have an animus towards Rome seem to support. The reality was both Irish Christians and their counterparts in continental Europe, believed in the same doctrines and tenets. There were slight differences in the rite of mass, monkish hairstyles and penitence but these should not obscure the fact that they were all part of the one universal Catholic Church. There was also a dichotomy concerning the dating of Easter but all these differences were thrashed out and resolved at the momentous Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D.
@Citizenwhy, There never was a celtic "church" in the institutional meaning of the term and the natives of Ireland back in the early days of Christianity, would've been nonplussed by your attempts to separate them from the rest of Latin Christendom. Most reputable experts on the early Christian centuries in Ireland would not subscribe to this myth of a "celtic" church which only religious sectarians, new agers, and those who have an animus towards Rome seem to support. The reality was both Irish Christians and their counterparts in continental Europe, believed in the same doctrines and tenets. There were slight differences in the rite of mass, monkish hairstyles and penitence but these should not obscure the fact that they were all part of the one universal Catholic Church. There was also a dichotomy concerning the dating of Easter but all these differences were thrashed out and resolved at the momentous Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D.




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail