"After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church survived intact in Ireland"
That's the revised history. Ireland and Scotland and to a great extent England followed Christianity for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, and the Catholicisation (control by the Pope and adoption of Catholic dates and practices) of the islands was resisted for well over a thousand years.
Patrick preached to the Irish celts in 405 and the conversion of Ireland began.
In 431 The Pope sent Palladius to convert the Irish to Catholicism and the Christians drove him out.
Patrick's statue shows him in priest's robes and a fish-mouth hat. That's Catholic revisionism, too.
The Catholic Church was founded in Jerusalem in the year 36A.D. by Jesus Christ. There was only one Christian Church from the year 36A.D. to 1054A.D., and that was the Catholic Church (after the Protestant Reformation it was known as the Roman Catholic Church). In 1054A.D. the Orthodox and Catholic Church's fell into schism with each other, and it would still be over 500 years until the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.
Ireland and Scotland and to a great extent England followed Christianity for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, and the Catholicisation (control by the Pope and adoption of Catholic dates and practices) of the islands was resisted for well over a thousand years.
I take it from that comment that you do not believe Catholics are Christian. If that is true, than you are either really ignorant or really stupid. Do you even know what year the Roman Empire fell? The year is traditionally placed at 476A.D. You wrote St. Patrick started conversions in the year 405A.D. That is completely impossible, especially if the were "Christian for centuries after the fall of Rome" Christianity simply did not spread that far, that fast, and according to the provided dates, it is completely illogical.
The Pope sent Palladius to convert the Irish to Catholicism and the Christians drove him out....Patrick's statue shows him in priest's robes and a fish-mouth hat. That's Catholic revisionism, too.
Seriously, are you retarded?
I suggest you lay off the bigoted sources that you are exposed to, if you even posses the intellectual capability and aptitude to educate yourself this subject matter, before you throw garbage like this out there and go up against someone like myself who knows their history.
Patrick preached to the Irish celts in 405 and the conversion of Ireland began. In 431 The Pope sent Palladius to convert the Irish to Catholicism and the Christians drove him out.What odd distortion of history fed that tidbit to you?
Maewyn Succat (birth name of St. Patrick) was a 16-year-old slave in Ireland in 405. He was only later given the baptismal name of Patricius (or Patrick) by Pope Celestine, who had him trained in the faith by his close friend and homey Bishop Germanus of Auxerre and then consecrated Maewyn/Patricius a bishop and sent him to Ireland in 432.
Communication was poor and travel long and risky between Ireland and Rome for centuries before and after the Synod of Whitby. But at no point did the Celtic believers ever rebel against, excommunicate, or break faith with the rest of the Church. That makes them Catholic; or Orthodox, if you wish: Catholic and Orthodox were the some at that point: same Church --- one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism ---all represented at Church Councils and all praying for each other and all in communion with each other.
AMDG.
Wacking a hornets nest, der hey...
:::Hmmmm, now where'd I put that popcorn?:::
You really should stop smoking crack.
It's just not good for you.
To be sure, he (Patrick) was not the first regular missionary to the island. He had been preceded by a certain Palladius, who had entered upon the mission under the sanction of the Roman bishop Celestine. Little, however, is known of the work of Palladius. The results of his labors were probably not great, and the honor of founding the Irish Church may well be accorded to his successor...
Regarding the 'Catholic' influence,...the relations of the early Irish Church with the Roman see do not appear to have been very intimate; for we find the Irish, like the Briton across the channel, cherishing non-Roman customs ( in a footnote it is observed that in all the correspondance of Leo the Great, who was a contemporary of Patrick, there is no mention of Ireland. He adds (W.D.Killen) 'it is acknowledged that for one hundred and fifty years after the death of Leo, the church of Ireland continued to be in a very flourishing condition; and yet there is not a shadow of evidence that meanwhile any bishop of Rome addressed to any of its ministers so much as a single line of advice, warning or commendation (History of the Christian Church, Henry C. Sheldon, Vol1, The Early Church, pg 407,409).
Philip Schaff states
The Roman mission of Palladius failed; the independent mission of Patrick succeeded....The church-history of Ireland is peculiar. It began with an independent catholicity (or a sort of semi-Protestantism) and ended with Romanism,....Lying outside of the bounds of the Roman empire and never invaded by Roman legions, that virgin island was Christianized without bloodshed and independently of Rome and the canon of the ecumenical synods....After the Norman conquest, it became closely allied to Rome....The first traces of Irish Christianity are found at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century (History of the Christian Church, Vol.4, pg.43-47)