Vatican Regesta 765


Institute of Historical Research



J. A. Twemlow (editor)

Year published





Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'Vatican Regesta 765: 1492', Calendar of Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 14: 1484-1492 (1960), pp. 300-303. URL: Date accessed: 16 April 2014. Add to my bookshelf


(Min 3 characters)

Vatican Regesta, Vol, DCCLXV. (fn. 1)

Bullarum Liber LXVIII.

8 Innocent VIII.

8 Id. July.
(8 July.)
St. Peter's, Rome.
(f. 210v.)
To the bishop and the chancellor of Lismore, and Robert Hedran [sic], a canon of the same. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of William Oduyn, a monk of the monastery of Holy Cross, Woctharlayn, O.Cist., in the diocese of Cashel, contained that after Paul II's renewal of all papal sentences of excommunication, etc., promulgated against simoniacs, and his reservation of absolution therefrom to himself and his successors, except in the hour of death, upon its being reported to the present pope by the said William, then a secular clerk (who had been previously dispensed by papal authority on account of illegitimacy, as the son of a preceptor of the house of Clonol, of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, in the said diocese, and an unmarried woman, to be promoted to all holy orders and hold a benefice even with cure, and who had been made a clerk), that Matthew Omulruon (?), then abbot of the said monastery, had committed divers crimes, then expressed, the pope ordered Thomas Michil, a canon of Cashel, if the said William would accuse the said Matthew before him, to summon the latter, and if he found that what had been reported was true, to deprive and remove him, and in that event to receive the said William as a monk of the said monastery, give him the regular habit and receive his profession, and thereupon, if he found him fit, to make provision of him to the said monastery, the pope further dispensing him to rule it, without making his profession and notwithstanding the said defect of birth, and to rule it for two months after obtaining peaceful possession, without making such profession; that subsequently, the said William having accused the said Matthew, and having caused him to be summoned before the said Thomas, the latter (who in virtue of the said letters had received the said William as a monk of the said monastery, and had given him the habit), wrongfully proceeding, promulgated an unjust sentence in the cause, by which he absolved the said Matthew from prosecution by the said William, who appealed therefrom to the apostolic see, and obtained papal letters to the archbishop of Cashel (Cassallen. [sic]) and the chancellor of Killaloe (Laon[i]en.), their proper names not being expressed, and Denis Ohogayn, a canon of Cashel (Cassallen.), and in virtue thereof caused the said Matthew to be summoned in the cause of the said appeal before the said Denis, who, lawfully proceeding, promulgated a definitive sentence by which he [decreed] that the sentence of the said Thomas was bad, deprived the said Matthew, and made provision of the said William to the said monastery, in virtue of which he obtained possession, or almost, of the rule and administration; that afterwards he and the said Matthew, without any ordinary or papal authority, made a friendly arrangement to the effect that the said Matthew should leave the said William in peaceful possession, or almost, of the rule and administration, and that the latter should pay him a yearly pension from the fruits of the said monastery, thereby incurring the said sentences, etc.; that at length the said Matthew, alleging that by virtue of certain letters of the present pope the abbot of SS. Cuan and Brogan, Mothel, in the diocese of Lismore, was by his own name joined to the said archbishop, chancellor, and Denis for the decision of the said cause, and that order was given to them [sic] that (in case proceedings had been taken at the time of the presentation of the said later letters impetrated by the said William, up to an interlocutory or definitive sentence, inclusive, and an appeal had been made by any of the same parties from such sentence or sentences), he should take cognizance of such proceedings and sentence and appeal, and alleging that he had appealed from the said sentence delivered by the said Denis, caused the said William, under pretext of the aforesaid or other letters obtained in the matter, to be summoned for judgment before the archdeacon of Cashel (to whom the abbot of the said monastery of Mothel had, as he alleged, given commission in the matter in his stead), and the said archdeacon, wrongfully proceeding in the said cause, and causing the said William to be summoned for judgment to a place to which he dared not go in safety, promulgated an unjust definitive sentence in favour of the said Matthew, and against the said William, from which appeal was made on behalf of the latter to the apostolic see, but, inasmuch as the said archdeacon had assigned to him a certain term, then expressed, to receive the apostles in the place where the said sentence had been delivered (?), the said William, who could not, without danger of his person, have gone to receive the said apostles in the said place assigned to him, neither went nor sent to the said place to receive the said apostles; and that without authority of any superior he and the said Matthew similarly entered into another agreement or arrangement concerning the said pension to be paid to the said Matthew if the latter would leave him in peaceful possession of the said monastery, thereby incurring simony anew, and the same censures and pains. Seeing that, as the said petition added, (fn. 2) it is alleged that neither the said William nor the said Matthew has any right in or to the rule and administration of the said monastery, the pope, at the said petition of the said William, who alleges that he has made his profession, hereby orders the above three to absolve him from the said simony and sentences, etc., enjoining a salutary penance, etc., and rehabilitate him, summon the said Matthew and others concerned, and, taking cognizance of the principal matter also, decide what is just, without appeal, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure, etc., and moreover, if they find that neither the said William nor the said Matthew has any such right, and if they find the said William to be fit, to make provision of him to the said monastery, yearly value not exceeding 100 marks sterling. The pope further grants him special dispensation and indult to be blessed by any catholic bishop in communion with the said see, notwithstanding the said defect [of birth], etc. Sedis apostolice copiosa benignitas. [6¾ pp. In the margin: ‘Jul(ii).’]


1 On the back of the volume: ‘Inn. viii. Bullar. Ann. viii.L. lxviii.’ On the front cover of the original sheepskin binding, preserved at the beginning of the volume, is the contemporary ‘lxviij. bul. In.’, above which is again ‘lxviii,’ and on the back of it is the usual later ‘Innoc. 8. Lib. 68.’ There are 1–357 ff. of text (all foliated in arabic numerals), and no ‘rubricelle.’
2 ac demum dictus Matheus asserens se vigore quarundam litterarum nostrarum abbatem monasterii sanctorum Cogniti ac Viogani (recte Coani ac Brogani) de Methulia [sic] Lismorensis diocesis, eius proprio nomine, archiepiscopo cancellario et Dionisio predictis ad decisionem dicte cause adiungi, et eis (? recte ei) dari in mandatis quod casu quo temporep[rese]ntationis posteriorum litterarum predictarum per ipsum Wilhelmum impetratarum usque ad interlocutoriam seu diffinitivam sententiam inclusive processum foret et per quancunque ex eisdem partibus a sententia seu sententiis huiusmodi appellatum esset, de processu et sententia ac a[p]pellatione huiusmodi seu appellationibus cognosceret, et a predicta sententia per dictum Dionisium lata appellasse, eundem Wilhelmum pretextu predictarum seu aliarum litterarum desuper obtentarum coram dilecto filio archidiacono ecclesie Cassellensis, cui abbas dicti monasterii de Methalia [sic] super hoc ut asserebat commiserat vices suas, fecit ad judicium evocari, ipseque archidiaconus in causa huiusmodi perperam procedens, et eundem Wilhelmum ad locum ad quem secure accedere non audebat faciens ad judicium evocari, diffinitivam pro dicto Matheo et contra ipsum Wilhelmum sententiam promulgavit iniquam, a qua pro parte ipsius Wilhelmi extitit ad sedem predictam appellatum, sed cum dictus archidiaconus certum terminum tunc expressum eidem Wilhelmo ad recipiendum apostolos in loco dicte late sententie assignasset, dictus Wilhelmus, qui ad recipiendum dictos apostolos in eodem loco sibi assignato sine periculo persone sue accedere non potuisset, ad dictum locum accedere ad receptionem dictorum apostolorum non accessit, neque misit, et etiam ipse et dictus Matheus aliam similiter de predicta pensione dicto Matheo persolvenda si dictus Matheus eundem Wilhelmum in possessione dicti monasterii pacificu(m) [sic] dimitteret, absque alicuius superioris auctoritate innierunt (recte inierunt) concordiam sive transactionem, simonie labem et easdem censuras et penas de novo incurrendo. Cum autem, sicut eadem petitio subjungebat