St. Bernard of Clairvaux's Life of St. Malachy of ArmaghBernard, of Clairvaux, Saint
History
St. Bernard of Clairvaux's Life of St. Malachy of Armagh
Bernard, of Clairvaux, Saint
Malachy, Saint, 1094?-1148
In the list of dioceses there is an omission which demands explanation.
No mention whatever is made of Dublin, the oldest diocese in Ireland.
Not only so; the northern limit of the diocese of Glendalough is marked
by Lambay Island and Greenogue, which lies due west of it in the County
Meath. Thus the diocese of Glendalough, as contemplated by the
Synod--and, it may be added, as it was in fact forty years
later[57]--included the whole of the actually existing diocese of
Dublin. The Danish Christians of Dublin and their Irish bishop are
treated as interlopers; they are absolutely ignored. It may be said that
this was due to the mutual hostility which divided the diocese of Dublin
from the native Church, and to the fact that the bishops of Dublin had
always been subject to Canterbury. But it is not enough to say this; for
the estrangement of Dublin from the Irish is the very thing that has to
be accounted for.
It had its root in the growing prosperity of the Danish city. The Irish
had no towns. Town life was introduced among them by the Norsemen. And
of their towns Dublin was always the chief. By this time it had become
so important that it had good right to be called the metropolis of the
country. And its citizens were thoroughly aware of this. As early as
1074 the burgesses of Dublin and their bishop, Patrick, claimed for it
that title.[58] Now in all reason a metropolis should have a
metropolitan as its bishop; and no doubt the bishops of Dublin thought
themselves _de facto_, if not _de jure_, superior to the other bishops
of Ireland. In fact we find one of them playing the archbishop. We have
two interesting letters of Anselm, written apparently about 1100. One of
them is addressed to Malchus, bishop of Waterford, directing him to
rebuke Samuel O'Hanley, bishop of Dublin, for various irregularities, in
particular for having his cross carried before him like an archbishop;
the other is addressed to Samuel himself, and complains of the same
actions.[59] These proceedings are not likely to have been brought to an
end by Anselm's letters; and we may assume that they were continued as
long as Samuel held the see of Dublin. It was but natural that Cellach
should strongly resent them, for they were disrespectful both to himself
and to the archbishop of Cashel. We are not surprised, therefore, to
find that on the death of Samuel in 1121, eleven years after
Rathbreasail, Cellach tried to get possession of the Church of
Dublin,[60] most probably with the intention of bringing it under the
jurisdiction of the bishop of Glendalough. Nor are we surprised that the
men of Dublin at once replied by electing another bishop and bidding
Ralph of Canterbury to consecrate him if he desired to retain the
suffragan see which they had so long preserved for him.[61] We shall see
hereafter how the bishops of Dublin were at length induced to look with
favour on the Irish Church. Meanwhile we learn that they were not very
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account