The Anglo-Saxons and the Roman Church (Currently Editing)

 Today, some Anglo-Catholics revere C. S. Lewis as one of their own. Lewis, however, preferred low-church styles of worship (Duriez 117). Yet, Anglo-Catholics are attempting to rewrite far more of history than the life of C. S. Lewis. Indeed, one need not venture far into the social media of Anglo-Catholics to find many of them making the erroneous and pseudo-historical claim that their present Anglican Church is somehow the same in theology and in practice as the English/Anglo-Saxon Church before 1066. They often assert that William, duke of Normandy, with papal approval, invaded England and suppressed Anglicanism while imposing the tainted teachings of Roman Catholicism, which remained in force until the English Reformation of the sixteenth century. In this post, I have set out to disprove their thesis and argue my own: that the Anglo-Saxons before 1066 were not Anglican. 

Let me start off by noting that J. R. R. Tolkien, a long professor of Anglo-Saxon at Pembroke College in Oxford, was not only a scholar of Old English language and literature, but as an expert in his subject, would vehemently reject the claims of such Anglo-Catholics. In fact, Tolkien considered Anglicanism a distortion of the Roman Catholic Church (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Christianity#:~:text=Anglicanism%2C%20which%20Tolkien%20considered%20a,distortion%20of%20the%20previous%20Catholicism), showing that he wouldn't have approved of the idea that the Anglo-Saxons before 1066 believed the same faith as the later Anglican reformers. I also find it interesting that I've never once heard C. S. Lewis, though being Anglican, postulate the view in any of his books on Medieval literature that the English Church before 1066 was somehow Anglican. In fact, I highly doubt that Lewis would have believed that. 

In past blog posts, I discussed the topic of whether or not the Anglo-Saxon Church (the English Church before 1066) was a pre-Anglican/papal resisting church or a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Church. Concerning the former theory, while at times I defended the view that the Anglo-Saxons did not hold to papal supremacy, I see much doubt for such a theory now. True, Archbishop Stigand did refuse to comply with certain papal demands in the eleventh century (though this still doesn't prove whether or not Stigand would have approved of the later English Reformation and Anglican Church). But I don't think the historical evidence weighs strongly in favor of the idea that the Anglo-Saxon era-English Church was Anglican or a pre-Anglican Church, whether or not one supports the Protestant Reformation. (Should I include this section or make this post one long post with various sections defending my thesis and appealing to my past sources). 

Early Medieval Europe saw the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. While the Franks played a role in these efforts, the papacy did even more (Cruz and Gerdburg, 168). Rome had long been absent from English politics, showing that its eventual influence over the English Church couldn't have been just about it being a neighboring country to England (the Franks and other people groups would have been geographically closer to the Anglo-Saxons than the Romans would have been). Interestingly enough, Augustine of Canterbury, as he came to be known, had been commissioned by Pope Gregory of Rome to Christianize the British people (168). Augustine actually modeled the eventual structures of the Anglo-Saxon Church off that of the Roman one (169).  

Recently, I read from two scholars, Jo Ann H. Moran Cruz and Richard Gerberding, who, as Medieval historians, I believe, provide further insight on this topic in their book's section on the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity: 

''The Roman liturgy was adopted, although it is clear how quickly and to what degree this came about. It also became the custom of the Archbishops of Canterbury from the time of Augustine onwards to receive from the pope himself the pallium, the reciprocal giving of many costly gifts between England and Rome, and the importation of Roman books and personnel all indicate the strong papal influence in the English Church'' (169). 

To me, not only does the great liturgical influence of the early Medieval Roman Church on the English Church bear witness against the narrative presented by many of today's Anglo-Catholics (who often argue that the Anglican Church was somehow present long before the English Reformation), but the deep contact between the archbishops of Canterbury and popes seems to greatly link the two together in one church. Had Canterbury been equal in dignity and in honor to that of Rome, why follow Rome's practices concerning liturgy? In my opinion, the evidence doesn't testify to the view (again held by many Anglo-Catholics) that the bishop of Rome was perceived in England as just as another bishop, no greater than those presiding over Canterbury. 

Historian Jackson S. Spiegel notes that papal supremacy was already known and regarded in the fifth century (218). This, of course, was before the Anglo-Saxons of England converted in the sixth century (Cruz, Gerbeding, 168). Pope Gregory, who had sent Augustine to Britain, was heavily involved in overseeing parts of Europe (not just in England), converting to Christianity, largely by his initiatives (Spiegal, 219-220). When Gregory did acknowledge a higher authority in Europe, it was the Byzantine emperor (220). 

King Alfred the Great (849-899) was a devout Anglo-Saxon monarch who not only attended Mass faithfully but listened to Scripture read to him (Damrosch and Dettmar, 129). Alfred translated several works into Old English, including Pope Gregory's Pastoral Care (129). Much like the Anglo-Saxons long before him, he had strong ties to the Roman Church. 

When William, the Duke of Normandy, invaded England in 1066, he had papal approval (add citation). He had already conquered other places beforehand (341). But why would the pope approve his conquest of England? Was it because the English Church had all along been opposed to papal supremacy, and the pope was now forcing the English to obey his rule? 

When one looks carefully at the situation of England prior to and during 1066, Stigand, the archbishop of Canterbury, held several bishopric positions (something the papacy said was corrupt). He also received his office while the prior bishop was still alive (add citation). Furthermore, Sitigand supported an antipope (add citation). The archbishop had also stolen his position from the bishop before him (add citation). Perhaps most strikingly, Stigand submitted to the Norman conqueror after the Battle of Hastings (add citation). Had the archbishop of Canterbury believed his religion was something entirely different than the Roman Church or that of the conqueror, why would he have accepted the loss of his position and submitted to his new king? 

Which is why I believe the Norman Conquest of 1066 has very little relation to the later English Reformation. The idea that the Anglo-Saxons under Harold Godwinson, king of England, had been trying to stop the spread of Roman Catholicism over England during the Battle of Hastings is alien to the facts of history. While there were issues of tension between Rome and Canterbury in 1066, I don't see any of those that validate the view that Anglicanism had been present in England centuries before Medieval Catholicism. 

Methinks (as the Medievals would say) that the burden is left with those who assert that the English Church before 1066 was Anglican. Though the Anglo-Saxons did translate Bibles before the Norman Conquest in the eleventh century into Old English, not only did they rely on Latin translations for their own (again, showing Roman influence), but how does this prove Anglicanism? There were translations of the Bible into German long before the eleventh century as well*(https://www.aberdeennews.com/story/lifestyle/faith/2017/08/20/martin-luthers-history-changing-translation-of-the-bible/116804024/). Does this prove that early Medieval Germans were not Catholic? I don't think so. In fact, the Middle Ages bear witness to a number of Catholic attempts to translate at least part of the Bible into the vernacular long before the Protestant Reformation (add the Trent source). As Anthony E. Gilles notes concerning the work of monks on Bible translations, ''This process of copying took time, and there were few who could either afford or read what the monks' hands produced. For these practical reasons, and not because of a clerical conspiracy to keep the laity ignorant of God's Word, Bibles were seldom owned or read by the laity (50).'' 

Gilles later adds, ''Yet the core of lay spirituality was biblical nonetheless. 'The Bible' for the average Christian became the oral Bible, which he or she heard preached during liturgies, and the graphic Bible, which was painted on the walls of churches and stitched into tapestries'' (50). Indeed, many of the medievals believed that the manifold wisdom of God was protected by the church (Ephesians 3:10). To them, the church was the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Thus, whether it was Bible translations by monks or reliance on Western icons, the British people found hope in Catholic Christianity. And for many in the West, including the Anglo-Saxons, the primary guardian of Christian faith and practice in early Medieval Europe was the pope himself. 

Medieval Catholicism 

Was England a Roman Catholic country before the Norman Conquest of 1066? I think the evidence shows that it was either Roman Catholic or Western Orthodox, as both of these churches long pre-dated the Protestant Reformation and Anglicanism. Whether or not it was Catholic or Orthodox, however, may depend on whether or not one believes the papacy was the same before 1054 as it was after. Either way, I see no firm evidence that the English Church of the Anglo-Saxons was somehow an early Protestant or Anglo-Catholic Church, which held the views of the papacy, among other topics, of later reformers like Thomas Cranmer. 

Of course, some of the Anglican reformers, like Matthew Parker, well knew that, past Anglo-Saxons like Ælfric of Eynsham had a different philosophy of the Lord's Table than transubstantiation*3. However, it is widely recognized today that Transubstantiation was not universally taught in Medieval Western Christianity (especially before the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, though also after). Until sufficient evidence is shown that the Anglo-Saxons viewed the popes as no more than standard Western bishops, I think the evidence is clear that the Anglo-Saxons could only have been Roman Catholic or Orthodox. 

Additionally, I think it should be noted that the Anglican Church of the sixteenth century rejected monasticism, which had been practiced by Normans and Anglo-Saxons long before the sixteenth century. In fact, it was not until the Anglo-Catholic/Oxford movement of the nineteenth century that monasticism was embraced by many in Anglicanism (https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/dailystory/permalink/ayres-restored-monasticism-to-the-anglicans). Had the early Anglican Church of the sixteenth century been the same as the Anglo-Saxons of the early Middle Ages, I don't think something as important as monasticism would have differed between the two so greatly. Scholars like (the author of Thomas Cornwall) also acknowledge that the Church of England did not start until the Protestant Reformation. To Cornwall, it was the Protestant Edward VI, not the Anglo-Saxons who started the Church of England. 

Recent research also undermines the idea that England was headed toward a Reformation of its own from the Catholic Church before the rise of Henry VIII to power. For instance, Catholicism was vibrant in England before Henry VIII's breach from Rome (Spielvogel, 436-437). There was no massive, suppressed attempt to make the church in England a separate entity devoid of papal supremacy in late Medieval England before the Protestant Reformation. 

What do the consequences of Henry's breach of Rome mean for us today? After all, it has long been argued by Catholics that England would still be Catholic if it hadn't been for Henry VIII. If true, Anglicans, as well as those that came from them, including Methodists, Baptists, and other Christians, derive from a tradition founded on a desire for divorce (leaving Baptists and others who came from the Church of England little to no room to critisize Henry VIII as the founder of the Anglican Church if their own tradition wouldn't exist apart from his desire for divorce). On the other hand, if one claims that Edward VI or Elizabeth I was the founder of the Church of England (as some scholars do) and not Henry VIII, then one may conclude that the English Reformation was about more than divorce. Nevertheless, neither of these topics is the subject of this post. In this post, I'm not interested in either defending either Rome or Canterbury during the sixteenth century. Rather, I again assert that the English Church before 1066 was a Roman Catholic country. 

In my opinion, there is a reason why so many professional historians argue that the pre-1066 Anglo-Saxon Church was Roman Catholic and why so many Anglo-Catholics argue otherwise. I think that in the latter case, many of the Anglo-Catholics hold to a pseudo-history of England, not much respected by prominent historical scholars like Eamon Duffy and others, who have England strongly for England's Roman Catholicism prior to the 1066 Norman Conquest. Duffy points to the taking down of the altars (formerly used for the Eucharist) during the English Reformation as a breach of the Church of England from the Catholic Church of England*4. While many Anglo-Catholics today would acknowledge the importance of altars in worship, they are diverting from traditional Anglicanism, as seen in the early English Reformation, which sought the simplicity of the Lord's Table*5. 

Other factors are also important to be aware of. For instance, the English Reformation saw the end of monasticism in England. The Anglo-Saxons before 1066 had practiced it, however, showing that the latter were not early Anglicans. While it is true that not all priests were celibate in the Anglo-Saxon Church before 1066 (much like today's Anglicanism), neither were all church clergy in Catholic Europe at the time (https://today.duke.edu/2005/10/priestsoped.html). Furthermore, I don't think many of the clergy in England being married proves anything against the English being Roman Catholic (a later term innovated by Anglicans during the English Reformation). Indeed, many past Catholic clergy were married before the eleventh century (Gilles, 70), showing that this was not limited to just England (and many Orthodox in the East were married as well). If anything, I think the fact that there were married clergy in England would at most prove Orthodoxy, not Anglicanism. 

Therefore, while there are arguably many nuances to this discussion, I think it's either historical ignorance or a willful denial of facts on the part of many Anglo-Catholics to claim that their church existed before 1066. Of course, the purpose of this post was not to debate whether Anglican or Catholic theology is more biblical. Nor am I here to discuss whether or not the English Reformation was legitimate and necessary. I do, however, want people to be aware of the massive fraudulent claims posed by some Anglo-Catholics across internet discussion boards and how their claims often contradict the facts of history. I think that there is a reason that so many Anglo-Catholics have degrees in theology, though not in history, as they are often reading their views into the past. 

Finally, as someone who has studied the Middle Ages my entire life and is now a PhD student in Medieval literature, I find the claims that Anglicanism or any Protestant Church, for that matter, historically pre-dated the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches to be historically absurd. Western Europe, both before and after 1066, was heavily connected to the Church of Rome through its secular and religious rulers. While many Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics will differ on whether or not the church of Rome asserted the same type of papal primacy before 1054 as it did after, I think the evidence is clear that the Roman Church exercised an important role in Western Europe. Regarding the Anglo-Saxons, I also think that the evidence is clear that they were not Anglicans before William the Conqueror overtook them during the Norman Conquests. 

Recent Academic work

Several important incidents have occurred over the last several months. Among them was a bug hitting my eye back in Spring (which later resulted in my eye surgery). My eye is still in pain on the date that I write this post. 

On the other hand, I recently finished all the requirements for a Master of Arts in Theological Studies. Honestly, I am now considering the option of becoming an English professor again. I canceled the Greek class I was intending to start this August due to my eye pain. Whether I pursue a PhD in Biblical Studies, history, Theological Studies, or English, I don't know yet. What I do know, however, is that I want my eye to be better. 

Prayers appreciated! 

Why France was England's Rightful Claim During the Hundred Year's War

The Hundred Years' War lasted from 1337 to 1453. Widely recognized as among the most important series of events in the Middle Ages, it helped usher in the end of the Medieval period and the being of the modern era. 

The war (or series of wars), of course, was primarily between England and France (though other countries did get involved as well). Many famous medievals, including Edward III, Edward, the Black Prince, Henry V, and Joan of Arc, were all involved in different stages of the long conflict that began during the Black Plague. 

But while the Hundred Years' War is important to students of history, there is one particular question that I hope to address in this post: who was right? Did England or France have the greater claims of righteousness in the struggle that lasted one hundred and sixteen years? 

There are many reasons to believe that England was in the right when it came to the Hundred Years' War. For one, one of the origins of the conflict was Philip VI of France ordering Scotland to have peace with England. When England refused, he made war upon its people. Thus, France was actually the aggressor---which is contrary to what many today would probably think. By seizing Aquitaine from the English, the French instigated the long brawl between the two countries simply because England would not make peace with Scotland, France's ally. 

Even so, England won the majority of the Hundred Years' War. Joan of Arc did play a hand in helping the French win the Siege of Orleans (1428-1429), but her inspiration for France was not enough to cause the defeat of the English. Rather, England's internal conflicts allowed the rise of Joan of Arc and other French leaders, who only began to win the war in its last stages---during which England was divided by itself. 

So, in short, France ushered in the war because England refused to make peace with Scotland. England won the majority of the war (including some of the most famous battles, such as Sluys, Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt). France only began to win during the last stages of the war, and this had little to do with Joan of Arc. The French had better supply lines to defend the castles near their armies, and their use of the canon continued to give them an advantage. Lastly, England came into conflict with itself, setting the stage for the Wars of the Roses. 

Considering these reasons, the conflict was simply hard for England to win. Though Henry V conquered France, his English successors to the crown could not keep it. 

And even strategy aside, England had controlled lands like those in Aquitaine before the war. Considering that France chose to seize them in their attempt to force England into peace with Scotland, England had the legitimate right to invade France with its forces. 

Another reason to solidify England's claims to authority over France is found in the Salic Law, mentioned in Shaskespeare's Henry V. 

As historical background, when Phillip IV of France died in 1314, he left a daughter, along with three sons. However, none of his sons had any heirs, which meant that the French throne passed through his daughter, Isabelle. Nevertheless, she married Edward II of England and had with him a child, Edward III. The English rightly considered Edward III as the legitimate heir not only because the English said so but because he was in direct lineage from Philip the Fair, king of France. 

However, the French dismissed Henry V, for instance, from being king of France according to the rules of the Salic Law, which the French used against him. Their interpretation of the document was that it barred any king from taking the throne whose line was only through the woman (in this case, Henry V's claim was through Isabelle). 

In the opening of Shakespeare's play of the same name, the archbishop of Canterbury persuades Henry Plantagenet to invade France. As they discuss with one another Henry's claims to power, they are persuaded that the document has no binding force against them as the land of Salic they recognize to be part of Germany (though France considers it to be its own). Perhaps more convincing, though, is that even though the French disregard Henry as the rightful heir to the French throne considering his lineage through the female line, Hugh Capet, a former king of the Franks, had done the same in the tenth century. 

And as further proof of Henry's claims for rightful reign, Louis X ensured his grandmother as having a legitimate bloodline to the monarchy (also demonstrating that Louix X recognized the female line as having power in itself). In general, there were cases of French monarchs long before Henry V who were regarded as rightful kings despite their claims to power coming through the female line, yet why did the French not question them as they now did the claims of the English? And since many of the French kings had descended in power through their female lines, the Archbishop of Canterbury concluded that the Salic Law had never been intended as a binding document on all of France but only on the lands claimed by France in the German region. 

But what about Joan of Arc's apparitions? Don't they prove the French were in the right? 

One of the interesting aspects of apparitions is who is recording what the saint is saying. Take, for example, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who both believe in apparitions, but Eastern theologians are likely to question the authenticity of Our Lady of Fatima. In the same way, Joan of Arc claimed apparitions from God, but who is to say that her apparitions are more holy or true than any potentially given to the English side? Oftentimes, people who point to the apparitions of Joan start with the presumptions that she was given revelation from God to the exclusion of all else on the English side. 

And let me add that as a side note, while the English and French at this time agreed that a woman could not rule on her own as queen, they disagreed over whether or not she could pass such lineage to her children. However, for reasons already demonstrated, the French had many times considered their movements legitimate even when they succeeded only through the female line. 

In conclusion, the French contradicted themselves about their legal claims to possess territories such as Aquitaine (and other places in Northern France). The English did not instigate the war, though the French did. Invading Aquitaine (at that time, England's territory) provoked England to begin a massive war on the Kingdom of France. Though England won more substantial victories over the French than the reverse, England had to pull out its troops for the reasons already mentioned. 

The Hundred Years' War remains one of the most important events in the Middle Ages. Separating it from fiction is important along with any event in history. 

An Update on my Academic Pursuit

 Over the last several years, I have blogged about Medieval Studies. Indeed, I began this blog back in 2019. Since that time, many people online have been exposed to many of my writings. 

When beginning this blog, I said that I wish to get a Bachelor of Science in History and a Master's in English. I also wanted to get an MA in Medieval Studies. However, I later switched to majoring in English and am now about to graduate with a Bachelor of Science in English and Writing. 

There were many reasons that I switched to English. Among them was because I wanted to learn more about literature, writing, and publishing. Since enrolling at Liberty University four years ago, I have done that. However, now, I wish to return to historical and theological studies. Majoring in English has prepared me to pursue a career as a novelist, which I will be doing as I also pursue seminary. As I also no longer have any interest in being a secondary teacher, I wish to become a college or university professor. 

I'm in the last semester of my degree. Soon, I will be done with my undergrad in English. I am grateful for this. I am ready to move on. I no longer desire to be an English professor or teacher. I now wish to become a professor of either history or theology. Back in 2015, when I graduated from high school, I struggled to decide between majoring in religion or history. In 2019, though, a year before I enrolled at Liberty, I decided to switch out to English. With my Bachelor's degree essentially now done, I am ready to return to my academic pursuit of religion. 

Finally, I originally desired to major in history or religion. While my Bachelor's degree is in English, my Master's degree will be in a seminary field. From there, I will pursue a doctorate, either in history, theological studies, English literature, or in a biblical studies field. 

An Update on My Religious Views

The study of ancient Christianity has always been inspirational to me. I love to learn about Early Christianity. Yet the more I learn of Early Christianity, the weaker I see the theology of Baptists, Presbyterians, and Pentecostals. Not only was the early church very liturgical, but its beliefs about free will, salvation, baptism, and the Eucharist were far from much of contemporary Evangelicalism in America. 

To make matters more clear, I no longer consider myself a Protestant. There are many reasons for this. I find Peter Leithart's Reformation Catholicism more attractive than what many today think of Protestantism*1. For example, Leithart says Protestants believe whatever is opposite of the Catholic Church, which is an area where he disagrees with them. On the contrary, he affirms the Reformation and sees himself as a Reformation Catholic. 

Leithart's opinion is not alone, however. Some Lutherans don't consider themselves ''Protestant'' as the word originally had political implications about protesting the Holy Roman Emperor rather than that of the Catholic Church's theology. Perhaps more complicated still, Protestantism has lost theological meaning, with Kenneth Copeland, Baptists, and Lutherans all classified by Catholics as Protestants. And even if the term ''Protestant'' is used only to describe those denominations that were born in the Reformation, this too changes its original meaning as the word was historically used to describe German Lutherans who dissented from the emperor's condemnation of Luther (and did not refer to Lutherans in Noway or Anglicans in England). Luther himself preferred the term ''Evangelical.'' Unfortunately, in the present day, the meaning of the word, ''Protestant'' is often deployed by people who disregard everything about the Catholic Church. 

As discussed in one article written by a Lutheran*2, ''Protestants'' referred either specifically only to German Lutherans or, perhaps even more specifically, to those Holy Roman princes who objected to the emperor's condemnation of Luther. Certainly, over time, Anglicans and others would eventually grasp the term, but the meaning of Protestantism has changed over time. 

Furthermore, the history of the term is full of so many complications, often depending on one's theology. While the Catholics considered all other Western Christians to be ''Protestant,'' Anglicans disregarded Baptists and others from being considered ''Protestants.'' And as already mentioned, Luther did not prefer this word to describe his followers and associates. Instead, the early Lutherans wished to be called ''Evangelical,'' as they saw themselves as being Gospel-centered. 

Moreover, the early Anglicans, during Henry VIII's reign, accepted many Catholic practices and beliefs. While there is debate about whether Anglican should be considered ''Protestant,'' it's important to recall that Charles II, before his beheading by the Puritans, professed loyalty to the Protestant faith. The Episcopal Church, likewise, was historically titled ''The Protestant Episcopal Church,'' yet both of these were not at the origins of the Anglican Church. When one looks at the Church of England before the reign of Edward VI, for instance, the church itself was very Catholic. 

Still, some may argue that Edward VI, not Henry VIII, founded the Anglican Church. Regardless of one's view on the origins of the Anglican Church, however, Anglo-Catholics were always present in the Church of England—long before the Oxford movement of the mid- and late nineteenth century. 

How else can the term be defined? Some Catholics now list Mormons as ''Protestants.'' Likewise, some Reformed Baptists would consider themselves ''Protestants,'' though others would reject their legitimacy as Reformed Baptists were not born out of the Reformation. And if being simply a daughter church or a grandaughter church of a Reformation Church makes one ''Protestant,'' who has the authority to declare Kenneth Copeland or Joel Osteen from not being ''Protestant?'' Reformed Baptists? Why do they think that they get to define who is ''Protestant'' and who is not? 

And even if we say that ''Protestant'' only refers to those Christians who dissented from Rome in the sixteenth century (as I once argued in the past), then can most Christians in even the Lutheran or Anglican denominations of today even claim to be Protestant, when most Anglican and Lutheran communions originated even later. Look at dictionaries to see how they define ''Protestant.'' You get various definitions. That's because it is more or less dead, with Catholics mostly keeping alive as they often generalize all other Western Christians (including KJennth Copeland) as Protestants. But whether it be TV Evangelists like John Macarthur, Ray Comfort, or Kenneth Copeland, none of these men have much in common with the early Lutheran Reformation. In fact, if the reader takes the time to study Luther's writings, in many ways, he is far closer to Rome than he is to these men. 

Those who today consider themselves ''Protestant'' have essentially nothing in common with all those who have aligned themselves under this label. There is no confession, no creed, and no church council that they all agree with. To many Evangelicals, icons and images are in themselves breaking the Second Commandment, yet these were never the views of mainstream Lutherans before or after the Reformation. 

In general, I think it's unfair how many Evangelicals disregard everything about Catholicism. I also think it's unfair, however, that many Catholic Apologists lump Joel Osteen, ELCA Lutherans, Southern Baptists, and the Church of England all into the fold of being Protestants. Mainstream American Evangelicalism has almost nothing to do with the Reformation, either in theology or history. 

Previously, I used the term ''Moderate Protestant'' to distinguish myself from extreme Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. More recently, though, I would rather identify with the Reformation movements following the Book of Concord or The Thirty-Nine Articles than with those often classified as ''Protestants.'' Part of my change of view is learning more about the origin of the word ''Protestant'' and how it was originally only about a very specific group of people (which also concerned their political differences from their emperor). 

Now, I no longer identify as a ''Moderate Protestant. I feel closer to both Confessional and High Church Lutheranism, along with Anglo-Catholicism, than I do with mainstream American Protestant Christianity. I also align closer with Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, than I do with Fundamentalism. In many ways, Luther and the early Lutherans looked far more Catholic than today's Baptists or Presbyterians. 

Finally, I appreciate the definition of ''Protestant'' by Brittinnicca: ''Throughout the eighteenth century the word Protestant was still defined in relation to the 16th-century Reformation*3.'' This certainly would exclude Baptists from being true Protestants, as the Baptists were a separatist movement out of the Church of England in the seventeenth century. 

For more information, I urge the reader to read the articles listed below. 

*1-https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/11/the-end-of-protestantism

*2-https://katolikken.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/why-i-am-not-and-will-never-call-myself-a-protestant/

*3-https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protestantism

A Recent Update on Plans

For the past several years, I have majored in English. Finally, I'm grateful to say that my English degree is nearly finished. I am in the last semester of my bachelor of science. 

Majoring in English has prepared me for post-graduate studies in either history or theology, both of which greatly interest me. Learning about English literature and writing are not only particular passions that I have, but have also prepared me for skills in other fields, such as Biblical Studies, where it is important to analyze and interpret the meaning of Scripture. 

Now, I'm about to finish my bachelor's in English and Writing. Once finished with my current program, I will be pursuing an MA in Biblical Studies, with a focus on the New Testament. After that, I will be pursuing some sort of PhD, though I am not sure which one I wish to do yet. Of course, Medieval history and Early Christianity remain top interests on my part. 

Whether I pursue a PhD in Medieval history or in a theological discipline, I hope to connect my academic studies to Medieval Studies. In the case of theology, for example, the study of the New Testament and Early Christians can aid the medievalist as the individual tries to learn more about Medieval Christianity. 

For the past five years, I have used this blog to reach others about Medieval history and propel myself to becoming a professional medievalist. 

I appreciate all my prayers for my journey. Thanks to all who have followed this blog. 

The Cause of the Great Schism According to an Eastern Christian Perspective

 

The so-called ''Great Schidsm of 1054'' played an important role in the history of the post-Classical world. In the Middle Ages, there were various attempts to reunify the Latin and Greek Churches, though none of them were long-lasting. 

Below, I have decided to quote Mark of Ephesus, the only Eastern bishop at the Council of Florence who objected to the union of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Traditionally, Catholics regarded him as a heretic for his theology. 

It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism— the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God." "The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics*1. 

-Mark of Ephesus 

*1-http://constans_wright.tripod.com/romans.html