The issue of the Filioque had been causing theological debates for at least half a millennium. The fact that The Council of Hatfield in 680 A.D. accepted the procession of the Spirit from the Son into it's creed further relates the acceptance of the Filioque in England. Why is this significant? Possibly, because this may refute the claims of many Eastern Orthodox Christians that pre-1066 England was an Orthodox country. On the other hand, the Filioque's acceptance in England may not disprove England having been an Orthodox country as many Western Christians long before 1054 recited and believed in the Filioque while still being honored by the Orthodox as true Christians. Still, even if the Orthodox claim that England was once Orthodox, this evidence of the Filioque's acceptance into the Creed at Hatfield does perhaps disprove the notion that the Anglo-Saxons of King Harold Godwinson were in fact Orthodox Christians resisting Roman Catholic oppression from the Norman Conquest. Perhaps the only legitimate way then the Orthodox could legitimately claim pre-1066 England as Orthodox would be to admit the non-heretical status of the Filioque in the Western Creed, a position unlikely to gain acceptance in many Orthodox circles.
According to Samuel Willard Crompton, Pope Alexander II supported the Normans as he had studied in Normandy in years prior. Pope Alexander had also been the first pope according to Crompton to have been chosen by the college of cardinals rather than the Holy Roman Emperor. William of Normany promised to clean up the abuses of the English Church and even put England under the authority of the pope. Duke William of Normany was out to make The Church of England be submissive to the papacy. Why is this significant? Because this points to evidence that the papacy knew many of the Anglo-Saxons did not hold to the type of papal primacy that was growing more and more. The Roman Catholics could of course claim that the conquest was just political rather than theological but history seems to say otherwise. William of Normany was given a blessing from the pope and even a papal banner. The Duke of Normany used Pope Alexander's support to his advantage by making his conquest of England a holy war, a sort of Crusade. This fact could demonstrate that even pre-1066 Anglo-Saxon England wasn't an Orthodox country but also that it may very well have not been a Roman Catholic one either.
Whether the Normans or the Saxons were right is the subject for another post. My opinion based on these historical facts, though my opinion may indeed change later, is that pre-1066 England was neither Orthodox or Catholic, at least not in the ways we see those Churches today. Pre-Anglican? The claims made by some the Anglicans that The Church of England was always free from Papal Jurisdiction until 1066 does provoke some deep thoughts. But for now, that subject is for another time.
Further Sources: Hastings by Samuel Willard Crompton, Anglo-Saxon England Volume 15 by Peter Klemoes, 1066: The Year of Conquest by David Howarth.
An interesting thesis. The problem is that the Filioque was banded back and forth, and not just between "east and west" and had been "resolved" at various points. Keep in mind that the Orthodox always refer to the "One united Church" which existed formally until 1054 when the "final spit" occurred. And it's not just the Normany conquest which brought "papalism" to England. St Augustine of Canterbury is considered the first archbishop of that See. If one were going to inquire about "orthodoxy" in England prior to 1054, or 1066, you would have to study the kind of liturgy offered there. Did it resemble the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom? (which the Orthodox rightly claim is older than the Latin Rite) For example, did they use leavened or unleavened bread? Did they accept the notions of purgatory, etc? I mean, sure there were probably several rites existing not just in England, but in France as well. An to be fair, the English (along with the French) have always had a "problem" with papal jurisdiction. Just ask Cardinal Woosely.
ReplyDeleteGreat points Pete. Yes, St. Augustine of Canterbury did bring Christianity to the monarchs of England having been sent by Pope Gregory I, also called Pope Gregory the Great. However, Gregory resisted the bishop of Constantinople for describing his own self as ''universal bishop.'' Of course, there is a great debate on whether or not not Gregory I saw himself as the head of the church. But that is not even the main point here.
DeleteThe fact that England was heavily influenced by the Bishops of Rome before the Norman Conquest does not prove though that England had always been a Roman Catholic kingdom. Orthodox and Anglicans have respect for many popes in the first millennium for example.
According to Roman Catholic theologian Michael Davies, The Roman Rite was gradually accepted in most of the west by the 8th century. For more information on this see A Short History of the Roman Mass by Michael Davies.
The Use of Sarum became widely accepted in England in the 11th century.
Before 1066 England had used largely Celtic Anglo-Saxon Rites. On this point, the liturgy would have been akin to the Byzantine Rite as used by many Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics today. The artwork of the Celts indeed is also akin to that of the Greeks.
As far as Purgatory is concerned, Drythelm was a monk from the 8th century that is said to have saw a vision of Purgatory.
Saint Bede the Venerable also records numerous cases of visions of Purgatory in his writings.
The Purpose of this post is only to discuss where England was religiously.
DeleteWhile the use of liturgy in England during the Early Middle Ages is important, Roman Catholics and Orthodox and Anglicans all use different rites so that probably wouldn't prove which one pre-1066 England actually was.
DeleteThe Celtic Rite of course, varied from place to place. That said, modern day Celtic Rites vary on the use of unleavened or leaved bread. I assume that was the same case then.
Yes, the debate over the Filioque had been a long one as I mentioned. However, it had been in the Western Creed long before 1066. Further, this fact would demonstrate historical problems to the claims of the Orthodox, though that is not another whole subject.
DeleteAnd as far as Papal Primacy goes, the whole idea of a College of Cardinals rather than the Holy Roman Emperor or the people of Rome choosing the pope was a new phenomenon.
DeleteI am definitely out of my depth, here.
ReplyDeleteHaha! Thanks Ronnie.
DeleteInteresting. Thanks Josh!
ReplyDeleteSure Doug!
DeleteI knew that when Paul came to England he planted a Baptist church!!!! Thanks for helping me come to this conclusion!! Seriously though, it is a very interesting conversation. Like you said, politics, unfortunately, invade every are of human life. Thanks for sharing Joshua!
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteI’m going to hang with Ronnie on this one! Again, you blow my mind!
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteIntriguing, especially the last sentence on the Anglican Church. Enjoying and learning a lot! Whitney
ReplyDeleteThank you Whitney!
Delete