WI: Irish Forced to Convert to Anglicanism

I would only agree up to a point. Certainly the Celtic Church saw itself as owing loyalty to and in communion with Rome. And no doubt the degree of separateness has been somewhat exaggerated by historians of either a protestant or chauvinistic bent. But such evidence as we have suggests that Rome regarded the pre conquest Irish church with at least a degree of suspicion in terms of its practice and doctrine. It may have been the only English pope who authorised the English conquest but his decision was quite uncontroversial in Rome.

Lots of popes have raked lots of local Churches over the coals because of perceived doctrinal or practical irregularities, but that doesn't mean that they were considered separate Churches. E.g., Leo I was so concerned about the praxis of the Sicilian Church that he made them send delegates annually so he could tell them if they were doing anything wrong, but nobody talks about "Sicilian Christianity" as a separate Church to Catholic Christianity.

And of course, even if Rome was suspicious of the Irish Church by the 12th century, there's no evidence of such suspicions in earlier periods. So, any claim that the Irish had practised a unique form of Christianity from the time of St. Patrick seems dubious.
 
Fair point but (as far as I know I am no expert on the Catholic church ) Sicily did not have Ireland's distinguished history of keeping faith alive in the sixth and seventh centuries and converting a variety of other nations including the Franks Germans and Hungarians. While those glory days were long past her 500 years later, Ireland could claim to be the church of Columbanus, Fall and Colman
 
A Protestant Ireland means big cultural impacts overseas. 10.5% of Americans are ethnically Irish, here in Massachusetts, it's 22.5%. America's catholic population becomes a lot smaller, and that butterflies away a lot, notably conservative views on abortion and contraception.

Isn't it more the Evangelical Protestants that favor social conservatism? The regions of the USA with large Catholic populations (e.g. East Coast) don't seem very conservative, in general.
 
Lots of popes have raked lots of local Churches over the coals because of perceived doctrinal or practical irregularities, but that doesn't mean that they were considered separate Churches. E.g., Leo I was so concerned about the praxis of the Sicilian Church that he made them send delegates annually so he could tell them if they were doing anything wrong, but nobody talks about "Sicilian Christianity" as a separate Church to Catholic Christianity.

And of course, even if Rome was suspicious of the Irish Church by the 12th century, there's no evidence of such suspicions in earlier periods. So, any claim that the Irish had practised a unique form of Christianity from the time of St. Patrick seems dubious.

Rome's suspicion with regards to the Irish Church in the 12th century is a matter of historical fact, thus the Papal authorisation for the Norman invasion. As to the uniqueness of the Irish Church perhaps it would be better to say while by 9th century Irish Church was not unusually divergent from Roman practice by the 12th century the Gregorian Reformation has been going on for a century it was unusually divergent. As for the Celtic nomenclature it represents the fact that there were certain similarities between the Irish and Scots churches before the 12th century, though the Scots Church was brought into line with Roman practice on it's own.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Isn't it more the Evangelical Protestants that favor social conservatism? The regions of the USA with large Catholic populations (e.g. East Coast) don't seem very conservative, in general.
Catholics are conservative in terms of contraceptives and abortion but the religion specifies to help the poor, with volunteer and help those that are disadvantaged. So the issue is how do Catholics balance the conservative aspect of their faith which is supported by Republican party with their helping poor and disadvantaged and making sure people are not starving and without medical care which is supported by Democratic party. So here is the dilema Catholics face. Which is more important?
 
Last edited:
Fair point but (as far as I know I am no expert on the Catholic church ) Sicily did not have Ireland's distinguished history of keeping faith alive in the sixth and seventh centuries and converting a variety of other nations including the Franks Germans and Hungarians. While those glory days were long past her 500 years later, Ireland could claim to be the church of Columbanus, Fall and Colman

If anything, the history of those missionary efforts strengthens the argument against a separate Celtic Church. Apparently those Irish missionaries had no difficulty working with their coreligionists on the continent, the people they converted were considered part of the Catholic Church and not of some schismatic sect, and any distinctive Irish features the missionaries had don't seem to have been particularly evident.

Rome's suspicion with regards to the Irish Church in the 12th century is a matter of historical fact, thus the Papal authorisation for the Norman invasion. As to the uniqueness of the Irish Church perhaps it would be better to say while by 9th century Irish Church was not unusually divergent from Roman practice by the 12th century the Gregorian Reformation has been going on for a century it was unusually divergent. As for the Celtic nomenclature it represents the fact that there were certain similarities between the Irish and Scots churches before the 12th century, though the Scots Church was brought into line with Roman practice on it's own.

Nobody doubts that the Irish Church had its own peculiarities, but then so did the Churches of every other country. Saying "Ireland didn't have a history of Catholicism, but a history of Celtic Christianity" greatly exaggerates the difference between Irish praxis and that of other nations.
 

kernals12

Banned
Isn't it more the Evangelical Protestants that favor social conservatism? The regions of the USA with large Catholic populations (e.g. East Coast) don't seem very conservative, in general.
Lots of catholics in the midwest (particularly Michigan and Pennsylvania), they're pretty conservative (they produced pro life Democrats like Bob Casey and John Dingell). Also there's the Cajuns in Louisiana.
 
As someone who was in Seminary for a significant amount of time and who has done extensive research on early Christianity, this is objectively false.
Yeah, a lot of what he said was... odd. But I think he may have been referring to early Christianity incorporating a lot of Hellenic/Platonic thought and philosophy when he called it a synchronized form of Judaism.
 
Nobody doubts that the Irish Church had its own peculiarities, but then so did the Churches of every other country. Saying "Ireland didn't have a history of Catholicism, but a history of Celtic Christianity" greatly exaggerates the difference between Irish praxis and that of other nations.

Remember before 1054 and the Great Schism Constantinople, Rome and Dublin were all part of the same Church with enormous variation in liturgy, theology and structure, in fact it's difficult to regard the pre-1054 Chalcedonian Church as a Church in the modern sense because it was so broad and varied. So it wasn't that the Irish Church of the 8th and 9th century wasn't unique it's that that uniqueness was normal and acceptable.
After the Schism you had the Gregorian Reformation but one of the big elements of that religious movement was making the "new" Catholic Church a much more uniform and united Church in the modern sense with common liturgical practice and structure from Sicily to Sweden. While you can point to Papal disputes with every national Church over the next century over this element or that I think any impartial view would accept that the Irish Church remained divergent for longer and was more resistant to Rome led uniformity, in large part precisely because of the prominence of the early Irish Missionaries. If it was good enough for Patrick and Columbanus it's good enough for us today was presumably behind much of the Irish thinking at the time. So at the time of the Reformation Ireland had been "Roman Catholic" in liturgical and theological terms for less time than almost any other part of the Catholic world.
 
From what I've been able to puzzle out, the reason Ireland remained Catholic was largely because Britain did not have the Will and ruthlessness to do a true mass conversion like Europe.
 

The Catholic Church was pretty broad and varies throughout the middle ages, really -- in England, for example, you had at least three liturgical rites in common use (Sarum, Hereford, and York; and quite possibly others which I can't remember). The ritual uniformity we see today didn't really get going till after the Council of Trent, when the Roman Rite started to gradually displace other, local, rites. As for the Gregorian Reforms, they were more about freeing the Church from secular interference and tightening up moral standards among the clergy than about imposing liturgical uniformity.

As for the Irish Church specifically, whilst it may have differed in some aspects of practice from the Church in other countries by the 12th century, the most important thing when considering how attached they were to Catholicism was how they saw themselves; and, as far as we can tell, they never saw themselves as anything other than faithful Catholics.
 
Very interesting discussion. This is a fascinating topic, one I'll admit I know little about, so learned something new. Anyway, trying to sum up what's been covered here, so here goes;
1. England was never really interested in a full scale conversions after Elizabeth I onward, partially because London lacked the will/finances for forced conversions and partially because the Irish Church was a sinecure for the English elite, so if Ireland converted in mass the upper offices of the Irish Church would have to be opened for the natives. Also the Irish had no more deeper attachment to Catholicism than any other nationality. Finally there's several potential scenarios that could see a large-scale conversion which follow.

2. Scenario one, a continuing and well funded missionary effort towards the native Irish. Probably the most peaceful solution but might not the most successful.

3. Scenario two, a violent forced conversion by Protestant fanatics. Would basically be a Protestant version of what happened in the Southern Netherlands and would work best under a surviving Edward VI.

4. Scenario three, stripping the native Catholic nobility of their lands entirely, sending in missionaries and violently suppressing any uprisings. Basically similar to the way the Habsburgs handled their Protestants in Bohemia and Austria during the Thirty Years' War.

Kinda gives me some ideas for a Thirty years' war TL if Henry Frederick survived as Henry IX. So have I missed anything major?
 

Lusitania

Donor
Very interesting discussion. This is a fascinating topic, one I'll admit I know little about, so learned something new. Anyway, trying to sum up what's been covered here, so here goes;
1. England was never really interested in a full scale conversions after Elizabeth I onward, partially because London lacked the will/finances for forced conversions and partially because the Irish Church was a sinecure for the English elite, so if Ireland converted in mass the upper offices of the Irish Church would have to be opened for the natives. Also the Irish had no more deeper attachment to Catholicism than any other nationality. Finally there's several potential scenarios that could see a large-scale conversion which follow.

2. Scenario one, a continuing and well funded missionary effort towards the native Irish. Probably the most peaceful solution but might not the most successful.

3. Scenario two, a violent forced conversion by Protestant fanatics. Would basically be a Protestant version of what happened in the Southern Netherlands and would work best under a surviving Edward VI.

4. Scenario three, stripping the native Catholic nobility of their lands entirely, sending in missionaries and violently suppressing any uprisings. Basically similar to the way the Habsburgs handled their Protestants in Bohemia and Austria during the Thirty Years' War.

Kinda gives me some ideas for a Thirty years' war TL if Henry Frederick survived as Henry IX. So have I missed anything major?
Good summary but the thing that makes it different than other conversions on the continent is that there people could move away to another region. Ireland an island and without an escape people will become more desperate. So we can see greater resistance and attacks against the British snd Protestant missionaries. Higher costs to maintain order and lower profits for all involved in Ireland. British need to have very high commitment to the conversion process as
 

I'm not convinced of the viability of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 and 3 are basically the same imho just with the minor flavour differences. Elminate and replace the native elite and hang the lower orders until they go to the right church and act with a degree of enthusiasm. Even if the first generation are faking in order to keep their heads by the third or fourth it will be genuine in the majority.
 
Good summary but the thing that makes it different than other conversions on the continent is that there people could move away to another region. Ireland an island and without an escape people will become more desperate. So we can see greater resistance and attacks against the British snd Protestant missionaries. Higher costs to maintain order and lower profits for all involved in Ireland. British need to have very high commitment to the conversion process as

I guess England could offer incentives to make hardcore Catholics emigrate. Like, IDK, set up a colony in North America where Catholics have freedom of religion, and then grant land and passage to anybody who wants to settle there.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I guess England could offer incentives to make hardcore Catholics emigrate. Like, IDK, set up a colony in North America where Catholics have freedom of religion, and then grant land and passage to anybody who wants to settle there.
Oh I like that it would be real game changer during ARW. How hostile would other British colonies be against it?
 
Top