Page:The ancient Irish church.djvu/177

 with regard to the Pope was unchanged. His supremacy was neither admitted nor rejected. It was simply ignored. This was shown very clearly in the way in which bishops and the more powerful ecclesiastics were appointed. Clergy and laity alike had their voice, and when their votes were given, no other sanction was thought necessary. When, as in the case of Malachy, a candidate came with the recommendation of the Papal legate, he was promptly rejected, and the popular nominee successfully held the place against him.

In the matter of ordinations exactly the same differences continued as before. Only one bishop officiated in the consecration of new bishops, and the institution of archbishop did not exist. The celibacy of the clergy was little insisted on, and in the higher orders was seldom followed. Auricular confession was unknown, as was priestly absolution and the so-called sacrament of penance. They still had their peculiar liturgy, stigmatized by the Pope's legate as schismatical, and so different from the Romish that a person accustomed to the one form of worship found himself unable to follow the service when the other form was employed. In baptism they still omitted the use of chrism.

That many believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation is more than probable. That the doctrine was not universally received is shown by an interesting incident related by Bernard. The case arose in Lismore. This was one of the places where an old Irish monastery existed, with an Irish monastic bishop and abbot. No sooner, however, was a Danish bishop appointed to the neighbouring town of Waterford than he began styling himself 'Bishop of Lismore,' as if he were the representative of the old Irish Church, whereas he really had no jurisdiction