The synod of Raith Bressail, which met near Borri-soleigh (County Tipperary) in the year 1111, is, by far, the most important of all the synods associated with the twelfth-century Church Reform movement in Ireland. While the synod of Cashel, which preceded it by ten years, has been seen as introducing reform, Raith Bressail has been perceived to be revolutionary. It sought nothing less than to bring about a complete change in the way the church in Ireland was administered. Up to the time it was convened the church did not have the administrative structure (a few Hiberno-Norse cities excepted) that existed in most of the rest of the Western church—a hierarchical, territorially based system of dioceses under the control of bishops. It was precisely that system that the synod would now set about introducing.
Before this happened, some preparations were made. A bishop was chosen for a new diocese that was established in Limerick, the headquarters of Muirchertach Ua Briain, then the most powerful king in Ireland. This bishop, Gille, set about preparing the clergy of Ireland for the changes that were about to be implemented. He prepared a tract on the constitution of the church, De statu ecclesiae; this explained the organization of the overall church within which the structure, about to be introduced, fitted. He sent this to the bishops and priests of the whole country accompanied by a letter that deplored what he saw as the fault of the contemporary organization: lack of uniformity of religious practice. In this he also urged them to be zealous in striving for unity of practice in conformity with the rules of the Roman church. At some time prior to the actual meeting of the synod, Gille was appointed papal legate by Pope Paschal II and it was in this capacity that he presided over it.
The Synod Meets
The synod is widely reported in the annals; all report the presence of the king, Muirchertach Ua Briain; the coarb of Patrick (i.e., the abbot of Armagh); the important Munster cleric, bishop Mael Muire Ua Dunain; and varying numbers of other unnamed clerics and laymen. None report Gille’s presence despite its importance. Nor do they report on what it decreed, being content with only rather formulaic references to it. For this we have to depend upon a chance survival. As part of his great work on the history of Ireland, Foras Feasaar Eirinn, Geoffrey Keating, the seventeenth-century historian, transcribed some details about the synod from an old book, now lost, that he found in Clonenagh. It is here that we also discover the important role played by Gille. Keating reports one of the more important decisions when he summarizes what he has read in the old book: "It was at this synod that the churches of Ireland were given up entirely to the bishops free for ever from the authority and rent of lay princes." The property of the existing church was thus to be handed over to the bishops and they were to hold it free of any charge that may have been exercised against it by laymen—a major transfer that must have been very difficult to implement in practice. Even more important, however, was its decision to divide Ireland into dioceses and to nominate their sees.
The Diocesan Structure
Based apparently upon what was originally planned (but never put into practice) for the English church as described by the Venerable Bede, it was decided that there would be two ecclesiastical provinces in Ireland, one for the northern half with its archiepiscopal see in Armagh and the other for the southern half with its see in Cashel. This corresponded with the long-established tradition of two political divisions in Ireland, Leth Cuinn (the northern half) and Leth Moga (the southern half). Lesser political divisions had to be taken into account when decisions were made about individual dioceses. This was likely to have been difficult, exacerbated as it was by the number of existing ecclesiastical establishments often associated with these political divisions that would have aspired to become diocesan sees. In this the chosen English model proved to be of considerable help in that it provided what was likely to have been an acceptable precedent for the number of dioceses to be established: thirteen, including the diocese of the archbishop, in each ecclesiastic province. Given that Bede’s work was known and respected in Ireland, it would have provided a bulwark against pressures to establish a multiplicity of dioceses, and there is strong evidence that a major concern was that a cap be placed on the number of dioceses to be established.
For each province the synod specified not just the sees but the boundaries of each diocese, except in the case of Limerick, which, reflecting the role played in the synod by its bishop, Gille, is described in considerable detail: the diocesan boundaries are delimited by four named topographical points such as a mountain, a river, or the sea. The diocesan sees chosen for the northern province were Armagh (the primatial and metropolitan see), Clogher, Ardstraw, Derry or Raphoe, Connor, and Down (all six in Ulster); Duleek and Clonard (both in Meath); and Clonfert, Tuam, Cong, Killala, and Ardcarn or Ardagh (all five in Connacht). Those chosen for the southern province were Cashel (the metropolitan see), Lismore or Waterford, Cork, Ratass, Killaloe, Limerick, and Emly (all seven in Munster); Kilkenny, Leighlin, Kildare, Glendalough, and Ferns or Wexford (all five in Leinster).
Armagh and Munster Predominant
After outlining the sees and diocesan boundaries that were to be located in Connacht and Leinster, the synod added a rider that had the same purpose in both cases. This is more explicit in the case of Connacht. It states: "If the Connacht clergy agree to this division, we desire it, and if they do not, let them divide it as they choose, and we approve of the division that will please them, provided there be only five bishops in Connacht." Here we see clearly that the synod is more concerned with the number of dioceses that are being created in Connacht and Leinster than with the actual boundaries that are being delimited. Something else is apparent from these riders; the clergy of these political provinces were unlikely to have attended the synod—otherwise, the riders would not have been necessary or would have been written differently. It seems unlikely also that the clergy from Meath were present or, if they were, they were not representative of the whole of the province of Mide since, later in the same year as the synod met, the Meath clergy held their own synod at Uisnech and redivided their territory differently, with Clonmacnoise and Clonard as the agreed sees.
The absence of these clergy suggests that the synod was predominantly a Munster and Armagh synod. This is confirmed by the names of those who subscribed to the report of the synod as found in Keating’s transcription: Gille, papal legate and bishop of Limerick; Cellach, coarb of Patrick and primate of Ireland; and Mael Isu Ua hAinmire, archbishop of Cashel. It is further confirmed by the names that we have already seen in the reports of the synod that appeared in the annals. At this stage of the reform process, therefore, the main thrust behind the move to introduce a new administrative structure into the Irish church was to be found in both Mun-ster and Armagh.
It will have been noticed that when the dioceses of the southern province were specified by the synod, only twelve dioceses (including that of the metropolitan at Cashel) were given—that meant that it was left with one diocese short, if it were to follow the original English model. It will also have been noticed that there is no mention of the diocese of Dublin, despite the fact that it had at that time been a canonical diocese for nearly a hundred years. The reason for its omission seems to be reasonably clear; Dublin had aspirations to be the metropolitan see for the whole of Ireland under the primacy of Canterbury. What was happening at Raith Bressail was an effort to counteract this by setting up an ecclesiastical structure within Ireland itself, independent from Canterbury. However, such a structure would obviously have to accommodate Dublin at some stage and, to allow for this, room was now left for it to join in ultimately. Had the synod wished to exclude Dublin completely it would simply have allocated twelve suffragans to Cashel as the model it was following suggested. It did not do that and it would appear, therefore, that it was its intention that Dublin would be encouraged to join and would be expected to do so at some point in the future.
Although there would be difficulties experienced in the implementation of its decisions and many adjustments would be made subsequently, the synod’s work was, nevertheless, momentous and what it set out to do can still be recognized in the church structure that has endured until the present day.
