Thoughts on The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

- J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit Chapter I: An Unexpected Party

Some of you that know me well may know by now that I was not a big fan of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit Trilogy. While I still thought that The Hobbit movies were better than most of the Marvel movies for example, that is actually a pretty low standard in my view. Azog the white orc, Azog's son Bolg, Tauriel the Elf, the two hour battle in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, the incorporation of extensive dialogue for Smaug and Bilbo, and the comedy of the dwarfs in the first Hobbit movies, which I found to conflict with their later heroic ability to wipe out dozens of orcks, were all some major issues I had with the film trilogy based on Tolkien's book. Cast Hollywood aside however, and I think we will find a much better fantasy story from Tolkien himself. 

The Hobbit is about a reluctant Bilbo Baggins who has no interest in adventure and is self absorbed in his home of the Shire. Bilbo is the last character in fiction that many readers would think would arise as a hero but Gandalf and Tolkien are wiser than we are about what constitutes a hero and a good story. Gandalf brings Bilbo on a quest with a group of dwarfs through far away lands and eventually to a dragon's lair. The story includes elves and battles and magic. Of course, the plot of the The Hobbit is also not the subject of this post. 

What I am attempting here is merely reflect some personal thoughts about the story and the text. It is interesting to note for example that Beowulf was an inspiration to The Hobbit. Like The Hobbit, the story of The Hobbit sees a dragon arise out of his lair and burn an entire town. Also like Beowulf, Beorn the bear has a similar linguistic name to Beowulf according to some scholars. It is no surprise that Tolkien, professor of Anglo-Saxon, incorporated many elements of Old English Literature into his stories. I am fond of Beowulf and Old English Literature in general. My appreciation of Anglo-Saxon literature helps me appreciate The Hobbit more.   

I personally have always enjoyed the Rankin Bass cartoons about Middle Earth. I probably like their cartoon of The Hobbit based on Tolkien's book better than the second and third films based on it by Peter Jackson. While I felt The Hobbit an Unexpected Journey was close to the book, I felt The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug to stray not only from the text but even from Bilbo himself as it diverted towards other characters that weren't even in the book. These problems with The Desolation of Smaug only intensified in The Battle of the Five Armies. The Hobbit book was just quite superior to The Hobbit movies. While I enjoyed the book when I read it years ago, I'm sure I'd appreciate it much more now. 

I read The Hobbit 9 years ago, so my memories of it may not be entirety fresh. Forgive my rustiness concerning my knowledge of the text and go read it for yourself. While I am fond of this work, I consider it inferior to The Lord of the Rings, though that is getting a little off topic. At any rate, the story is an easy fun read that children and adults will both enjoy. 

How Many Evangelicals Have Separated from Reformational Theology Concerning the Authority of Scripture

 First of all, I don't like to overgeneralize people in religious groups and bash them. The purpose of this post is merely to show ways that many Christian Evangelicals on many accounts, have departed from the theology of the Reformation. 
Sola Scriptura was a key teaching of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation at large. At a time when many of the hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church did not want the common man to have the Scriptures, the early Protestants insisted that the Scriptures were intended for all. Many in the leadership of the Catholic Church felt that the Scriptures could only be understood according to the teachings of the popes and councils. Gradually, the Protestants came to formulate on a doctrine of the Reformation known as Sola Scriptura which said that Scripture is the highest authority. On the contrary, the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century would equate Scripture and Tradition. A key difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants from the Reformation was the role of tradition and Scripture, though that debate is not the subject of this post.  

For years, Protestants have held to the Supremacy of the Holy Scriptures over all other authorities such as elders or pastors. But Sola Scriptura has been largely misused today by Evangelicals though. For example, some Evangelicals criticize Roman Catholicism for following men such and elevating the popes on a level beyond that of other men. Roman Catholicism is not without its criticism of course, some of which I have made in other posts.
As examples to authorities many Evangelicals put so much trust in, when Martin Luther, John Calvin, A. W. Pink and John MacArthur etc. are treated as authorities instead of the papacy. So many Evangelicals may say that Catholics follow tradition but in many respects many Evangelicals do as well though they are often ignorant of this hypocrisy! They preach aloud ''By Scripture!'', but sometimes their own pastors resort to being mini popes over their congregations when they are questioned or disagreed with by a layman. Suddenly, the Apostle Peter does not have the Keys of the Kingdom but so some individual pastors think they do. This is all the danger of ever putting anyone we admire or we are told to submit to on the equality of authority as is found in Holy Scripture. In disputes against heresies, the church fathers of Ancient and Medieval Times usually appealed to Hoy Writ. over the judgments of church authorities.   
Some criticize Catholics for following the pope absolutely but then follow their own pastors as if they cannot err. While Evangelicals may not put their trust in traditions of the fathers, many of them replace such trust in seminaries and college education or traditions they were raised in instead. Perhaps also, many Evangelicals would find it surprising that Seminary was started by the Catholic Church in the Counter Reformation. Yes, a religious institution that so many Evangelicals put so much trust in, originates from the Catholic Church though they reject the Roman Catholic Church as their authority. 

In reality, the Evangelicals that put so much stress and emphasis on where their pastor went to college or seminary, and how much education he has, actually goes against the roots of Reformational Theology. The Protestants believed the common man could understand the Scriptures without the interpretation of a priest. Now however, it is quite common for Evangelicals to recite certain theologians they trust in as having the true understanding of the Scriptures due to their supposed formal training in it. If one is going to put such trust in men, one needs not be a Protestant.
It seems Luther's intent of Sola Scriptura has largely been lost among Evangelicals. They may call themselves Protestants, but in many respects they have left much of what the Protestant Reformers stood for. Protestants may highly regard theologians of the past, but the Holy Scriptures, not popes, not councils, and not education, is the standard to consistent Protestant theology of what is true or false, and what is right and wrong.

Further Sources: Reformation Thoughts by Alister Mcgrath

A Review of the Prologue to The Canterbury Tales Part II and a Little Info on The Canterbury Tales

For the first part of the post see the link here: https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-review-of-prologue-to-canterbury.html

The General Prologue sets up everything to the story that it needs to do. We are introduced to the characters. We peek into characters like the knight or the wife of Bath which later avails us as we get into the actual stories they tell. Further, Chaucer starts off the story with enough humor and description of the characters to keep many readers interested. Satire is used by Chaucer throughout The Canterbury Tales. Chaucer has quite the way of showing inconsistencies and corruption in the characters. 

It is interesting to note that the pilgrims actually never make it to Canterbury in The Canterbury Tales. 31 pilgrims are  in the prologue with 21 of them described. I won't get into detailing all of the characters here. The pilgrims only make it to Canterbury in John Lydgate's The Siege of Thebes. I think this also shows that Chaucer was intending the story to be actually much larger than it ended up being. 

As we turn to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales we will find all sorts of stories therein. The Knight's Tale is a traditional story of chivalry about two knights fighting over a maiden by the name of Emily. The Miller's Tale is about sexual innuendo and uses much farce to give enough laughs to those that enjoy a little crude humor. The Nun's Priest's Tale represents comedy with a Reynard Cycle. For those that aren't aware, the villainous fox named Reynard in The Nun's Priest's Tale also appears in various other Medieval Stories. Reynard and Chanticleer are rivals in the Nun's Priest Tale that ends with a lesson about the danger of arrogance and giving into flattery. In short, The Canterbury Tales are full of so many different stories that their ability to appeal to so many people is not surprising.
As the prologue rightly adds just before The Knight's Tale is told:


Anoon to drawn every wight bigan,
And shortly for to tellen as it was
Were it by adventure, or sort, or cas,
The soothe is this, the cut feel to the knight;
Of which ful blithe and glad was every wight,
And tell he moste his tale, as was resoun,
By forward and by composicioun,
As ye han herd. What needeth words mo?
And whan this goode man sawgh that it was so,
As he that wis was and obediant
To keep his forward by his fee assent,
He said, ''Sin I shall biginne the game,
What, welcome be the cut, in Goddes name!
Now let us ride, and herkneth what I saye.''
And with that word we riden forth oure waye,
And he began with right a merye cheere
His tale anoon, and saide as ye may heere


Further Sources: English Literature by Benjamin W. Griffith, The Nortan Anythology of English Literature: The Middle Ages by Stephen Greenblatt.

How the English Reformation was Different

For previous posts I made on the English Reformation check out the following links: https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/an-introduction-to-bibles-of-english.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/bibles-of-english-reformation-wycliffe.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/bibles-of-english-reformation-tyndale.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/bibles-of-english-reformation-william.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/09/bibles-of-english-reformation-king.html


Whether one is Roman Catholic or Protestant, understanding the English Reformation is key to understanding some of the most important works of English Literature. Whether one sees the Protestant Reformation as a rebellious act against the true church of Jesus Christ, or a restoration of true Christianity, it is important that people understand the role of religion behind some of the most important works of English Literature. Further, this post is not intended to give a history of the English Reformation but simply to show how it was different.
Many different views have emerged of the Protestant Reformation over the years, with traditional Roman Catholics despising much of the movement and evangelicals glorifying it. I personally support the Protestant Reformation as many of the English Protestants understood it. Elizabethan Anglicans saw themselves as both Catholic and Protestant.

Archbishop John Bramshell understood Anglicanism to be a part of the Catholic Church for instance, though not of the Roman Catholic Church 1*. While I personally believe many Anglo-Catholics have over exaggerated the separation in thought of the English Reformation, I also believe that the English Reformation has too often been seen as indistinguishable from the rest of the Protestant Reformation as many evangelicals believe. Many of those in the English Reformation retained elements of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism while clearly identifying as Protestants. The Anglo-Catholic movement in the 19th century reflected many values that had been around in Anglicanism since its beginning but the concept that some Anglo-Catholics present concerning the Church of England to be a non-Protestant church is historically false, and propaganda on their parts to say the least. Evangelical Anglicans have tended to overemphasize only the Protestant roots of Anglicanism but this too is historically unjust as the English Reformation represented a big tent of many factions and thoughts within the Anglican Church.

 Thomas Cranmer had denounced the papacy as Antichrist. He was was not alone. The Articles of the Church of Ireland of 1615 for instance, denounce the pope as Antichrist. The articles also showed to be closer towards Calvinism in some respect than The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. John Jewel, author of An Apology for the Church of England, also saw the papacy as Antichrist. John Jewel believed understanding the papacy as Antichrist was significantly important as it would justify separation from Rome. If the papacy was not Antichrist, the reformation in vain to him.  Bernard Gilpen believed the church of Rome had kept the true faith until the Council of Trent, at which point he understands the Roman Church to be the Whore of of Babylon. For more on Jewel's and others view of the papacy being Antichrist see the book, Bishop Jewel. Bernard Gilpen. Richard Hooker. Archbishop Whitgift. John Donne. George Herbert pp. 93-95.
 Under Henry VIII, The Six Articles of the Church of England had taught Transubstantiation. During the reign of Edward VI, Protestantism became heavily influenced by Calvinistic thought. Thomas Cranmer originally held to a more literal view of the Eucharist but later in life he adopted a view closer to Zwinglie {though in recent years, some scholars now claim Cranmer's view was more a of Receptionist one}. Richard Hooker held to a receptionist view of communion 2*. Lancelot Andrews on the other hand, saw the Mass as a sacrifice, though not according to the Roman Catholic concept *3.
Richard Hooker held to a view of Prima scriptura. He rejected the understanding of Sola scriptura as it was understood by the Puritans.
Alister Mcgrath claims that the English Reformation was more influenced by Saint Augustine's understanding of justification by love rather than justification by faith. This is interesting too as many wrongly think that Luther's view of justification by faith alone was the sole purpose of the English Reformation. 
Of course, political purposes too here are key. It is now commonly believed that without Henry VIII's desire of an annulment to Catherine there would have been no major Protestant movement in England. Cambridge historian Eamon Duffy has held the newer view and his view has since been adopted my many others. Many scholars now believe differently than historians of the past did about this. Roman Catholic historian Duffy takes a different historical view then did Anglican historian Winston Churchill {no surprise!}. Whereas Churchill believed the church in England was losing popularity before the reformation, Duffy sees Roman Catholicism as having been popular in England all along.  For more on Duffy's view see his book The Stripping of the Alters.
 Another difference that separated Anglicanism from other Protestant movements was the fact that it was led by a king. Other Protestant countries had monarchies of their own too, but in some countries like Spain or Italy the Protestants were so successful. 
After Henry VIII, the Church of England would be much more Calvinist under Edward VI. After Edward VI, Mary Tudor would unite the Church of England again to Roman Catholicism. Under Elizabeth I though, the Church of England would not only separate from Rome for the second time, but Protestantism and Catholicism would mix to form Anglicanism as we have often historically known it since. 
Under Henry VIII, the Church of England held to semi-Lutheranism in the Ten Articles. Later, it adopted the Six Articles which were much more Catholic. The Forty-Two Articles under Edward VI were more Calvinist. The Thirty-Nine Articles under Elizabeth I, which have been used by the Church of England since, were more moderate Protestant.
One last difference I'd like to show about the English Reformation compared to Protestant movements in other countries. Although it commonly claimed by Evangelical Christians that charity and love are interchangeable, that is not the case according to the Northan Anthology of English Literature. The King James Version of the Holy Bible retained the word ''charity,'' rather than love,'' in 1 Corinthians 13, an implication of the former with more emphasis on good works. Once again, Anglicanism seemed to pretty always be less influenced by Luther's understanding of justification than some other countries were. 
I won't get into the controversies of whether or not Henry VIII had a legal right to annulment. Such a topic like that needs a lot of fresh air and words to write. As I said above, this post was only intended to show how the English Reformation was different. 

Clearly diversity of thought existed on many accounts for those members of the Church of England. That is one way alone that made the English Reformation more different than the reformations in some other countries at the time.
























1*http://laudablepractice.blogspot.com/2019/04/we-had-not-left-catholic-church.html
2*https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15234/how-do-aquinas-and-hooker-differ-in-their-doctrine-on-communion
3*http://mariannedorman.homestead.com/Eucharistic.html

Further Sources: The Nortan Anthology of English Literature: The Sixteenth Century The Early Seventeenth Century, The Mystery of Baptism in the Anglican Tradition by Kenneth Stevenson, Reformation Thought: An Introduction by Alister Mcgrath, The Nortan Anthology English Literature: The Sixteenth Century/The Early Seventeenth Century by Stephen Greenblatt, general editor, The Protestant Face of Anglicanism by Paul F. M. Zahl.

Orthodox Britain? Part V

 First off, I reccommend reading the last four posts I wrote on this subject if you haven't already. Along the way, I have changed my position towards the Christianity of the British Isles several times.
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/01/orthodox-britain-some-thoughts-on.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/01/orthodox-britain-some-thoughts-on_25.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/02/orthodox-britain-part-iii.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/04/orthodox-britain-part-iv.html

More recently I have to come to be more assure of my commitment towards Protestantism than I have in many years. Whereas my differences with Roman Catholics are more ecclesiastical, my differences with Greek Orthodox are more theological. Protestantism has many, many faults, and has been quite faulty since its origins in the sixteenth century.  That said, I believe historic Protestantism reflects more Biblical doctrine than is found in present day Roman Catholicism, and more than was ever found in Eastern Orthodoxy. While that maybe a little unrelated to this post, I want to demonstrate that Anglo-Saxon Christianity was in many ways the roots of sixteenth century Anglicanism.

In my previous post I outlined some reasons why I believe that Anglo-Saxon Britain was not Roman Catholic, at least not in the sense that Roman Catholicism would come to be known under the pontificate of Gregory VII. Call Anglo-Saxon England Roman Catholic if you will, but the theology of England's leaders at the time of the Norman Conquest were quite different than the understanding of papal authority that would gravitate much of the church under Gregory VII. In short, it is my opinion, and was the opinion of many Protestants in the past, that the papacy dramatically changed with Gregory VII. Lest some attribute this to Protestant bias, Catholic historian Klaus Schatz would agree. It is interesting that many Catholic historians give a different portrayal of history than do many catholic theologians.

First off Celtic Christianity has been twisted by some modernist to be a pro-feminine, anti-celibate and liberating church. In reality, the Celts were very attached to the doctrine of the reality of hell. Also, the Celts had much stronger ties to the Roman Church than the attitude some Christians over the years have given of a pure Celtic Church that resisted Rome with no hierarchy of its own. Such views originated only in modern times. While several church fathers spoke of Christianity as having come to Rome before Rome came to it, this in no ways proves the theories about Celtic Christianity be a past hippie movement. For more on this see Following the Celtic Way: A New Assessment by Ian Bradley, pp. 7. In his book, Ian Bradley refutes some of his earlier romanticized views of the once Celtic Christians.

Concerning Celtic Christianity, several Protestants of the Reformation Era saw it as a once distinct church from Roman Christianity. This was the case for John Bale, a Carmelite friar, and also Archbishop Matthew Parker of Canterbury. In Following the Celts: A New Assessment of Celtic Christianity pp. 20-21 by Ian Bradley. Bradley, a minster in the Church of Scotland, claims that Christianity first came to the British Isles from Rome. This claim from Bradley indeed contrasts from the legends sincerely believed by others that Christianity came to Britain with Saint Paul the Apostle or Joseph of Arimathea. Were Tertullian and others wrong about the early roots of Christianity in Britain? Was Augustine of Canterbury the first to preach Christianity to the British? Those questions maybe hard to answer due to lack of historical evidence concerning Celtic Christianity. If we say the church fathers claims are originated in legend rather than history can we be certain of them then when some of them claimed Peter went to Rome? Likewise, there maybe no proof that Christianity came to Britain in the first century but then again there maybe no proof Peter the Apostle actually went to Rome! If Britain has no apostolic Christian origins it shows some historical claims Anglicans and others make about it are wrong, but if Peter the Apostle actually didn't go to Rome it proves Roman Catholicism is building much of its theology upon legend rather than history.  It does seem the same Catholic apologies that doubt the medieval legends about Christianity coming to Britain in the first century or so are so quick to believe ancient and medieval legends when it justifies the teachings or practices of the Roman Catholic Church. For the historical claims concerning whether or not Peter the Apostle went to Rome see The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages pp. 336 by Norman F. Cantor.
 Whether or not Britain's Christianity originated in Rome or elsewhere, is not my intention to address here. I will focus my study here on why I believe Anglo-Saxon Christianity was not the same as the theology proposed by the popes of the eleventh century {especially Gregory VII}. If my views on these matters should changed then I will openly retract where I believe myself to have fallen into error.

 
I do think it is important to remember though that certainly after the seventh century England had strong ties to the Roman Church. This post will not be addressing the religion of the Celts before the Anglo-Saxons, but only Christianity in Britain after Pope Gregory I sent Augustine of Canterbury to it. It has been claimed that Pope Gregory the Great intended to subject the Anglo-Saxon bishops to his rule. For more on this see pp. 29 of The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society by John M. Blair. True or false, good or bad {though more good in my view}, the Roman Church had had a tremendous influence upon the Anglo-Saxon Church for many centuries to come. Either way the Anglo-Saxons viewed Pope Gregory as their apostle according to Anglo-Saxon Spirituality pp. 30 by Robert Boenig. 

Roman Catholicism is the roots of Protestantism. Contrary to some Catholic myths, many kings and emperors continued to reject the type of Papal Supremacy that popes Gregory VII and on understood themselves to have. The Investiture Controversy, which happened after the Norman Conquest, came to see Pope Gregory VII as understanding himself the power to depose kings and emperors. Gregory's claim of such power, were unfounded for most of the history of the Western Church. Before I continue to discuss the theology and religious heritage of the Anglo-Saxons in this post, let us first  discuss briefly some facts of the western church concerning separation of state prior to 1054. For me, these facts were what of some impact into my eventual rejection of the claims that Gregory VII claim to have. While this is no place for an entire history of the papacy, it is a place to think and debate England's religious history. Whether or not one is Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant they cannot ignore obvious facts {or I guess they can}. In any case, our theological implications should be made from our study of history whether than reading into history the theology we already hold or desire. Last, many historians and theologians have debated these topics for centuries so I pray this post shed further light on what information about Anglo-Saxon England's Christianity be spread as illumination to continue the debate as further archaeology and history proves or disproves whatever my own beliefs may be.  At the end of the day, for us aspiring scholars, our work of study in history should not be about proving one's point but actually to provoke further study. Indeed, some of the falsest historical claims allow others to examine them and retract various alleged errors to the closer historical understanding. My thoughts here on the Anglo-Saxons is to provoke discussion rather than controversy or unnecessary division.  Alister Mcgrath is a highly respected Protestant theologian that gives facts rather than opinions throughout his posts. While it is impossible to be unbiased, I hope that many will find provoking thoughts in my writings that disagree with my own conclusions.
Now, to move on to the topic!

It is commonly claimed by Roman Catholics that the Roman Catholic Church has never changed. Such a claim is not unfounded about the Orthodox Churches among Orthodox Christians as well. In reality, both have changed some of their doctrines on several issues, though that is not the subject of this post. Finally, it should be noted that my intention here is not to claim that whatever the theological beliefs of the Saxon Christians were, that that somehow determines which of these churches is true and which isn't. For example, many historians now acknowledge infallibility of the pope to have been a later addition towards Catholicism. Even though Palamism claim early church roots, when one looks closely at it, Archbishop Rowan Williams and others have claimed Palamism is not unanimous with the understanding of the church fathers. Of course those subjects are to broad to mention here, and I will say no more of them. The link at the bottom is of an article concerning the errors {and great heresies of Palamism.} I will no more of the history of Palamism here except that its lack of teaching among the Anglo-Saxons shows the lack of historic continuity between Anglo-Saxon Christianity and Greek Orthodox theology from the fourteenth century on. At the time that Palamism became accepted as teaching in the Orthodox Church a number of Greek Christians joined communion with Rome including Demetrious Kydones. C. S. Lewis once said that Palamism was ''strange,'' and made no sense to him. A number of western theologians, both Roman Catholic, and Anglican, have rightly pointed out that Palamism borders on Polytheism and Pantheism. For more on Palamism, see the article by James Likoudis at the bottom.

Further, there is no evidence that I am aware of that the Anglo-Saxon Church before or after the great schism of 1054 removed the Filioque from their creeds. Also, Edward the Confessor even after 1054 kept mutual good relationships with a number of western bishops. Contrary to a want a be history of the many Greeks then, we must conclude Anglo-Saxon England was either Roman Catholic, or some other western church. That leaves two of the most likely positions towards the Anglo-Saxons which will be discussed in brief detail below.   

First off, relations of church and state had changed dramatically in the west by the eleventh century. Ambrose of Milan had taught a separation of powers between church and state, but by he eleventh century the papacy was coming to see itself not simply the head over ecclesiastical matters, but even over the heads of states. That too will be discussed  more below.
It is no doubt that Anglo-Saxon Christianity had strong ties to the See of Rome. Augustine of Canterbury had brought Roman Christianity to Britain by the command of Pope Gregory the Great. Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne translated the Psalms from Latin into Old English. Bede the Venerable made a translation of the Gospel of John from the Vulgate into Old English. King Alfred translated parts of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into Old English. During the time of the Norman Conquest, most of the English Church's scholarly works were in English rather than Latin. Corruption existed in all churches, but historian David Howarth said the English Church may have been better than most. It is interesting that the pope and his Italian friend, Lanfranc, would accuses the English Church then of corruption despite corruption existing in many other regions of Christendom that the pope never called for an invasion upon. Perhaps this is also evidence that the English Church had not subdued to the reforming Papacy of the eleventh century as the popes were hoping. England had been very loyal to the church of Rome for years, Whatever one's historical conclusion, England's loyalty to the Roman Church before the 11th century is quite factual.  But the Norman Conquest was not simply an issue of questioning about England's loyalty to the Roman Church but England's loyalty or lack of to the reforming papacy that was changing Christendom. The Norman Conquest became supported by the papacy, and this particularity became beneficial for Duke William of Normandy, as he could justify his conquest as a ''holy war.'' The papacy too believed it was benefited by supporting William, for Pope Alexander believed that by supporting William he would subject the English church further to his jurisdiction.  For more information concerning Lanfrance and the papal work concerning the Norman Conquest see 1066: The Year of Conquest by David Howarth, that addresses this at various points throughout the book.   

Perhaps contrary to Protestant myth, John Wycliffe or William Tyndale did not start the work of a vernacular Bible. The Anglo-Saxons had brought parts of the Bible into Old English long before the Protestant Reformation, though Wycliffe was the first to complete the entire Bible in English. The work of the Anglo-Saxons would largely be halted by the Norman Conquest, which was little sympathetic to the Saxon attempt of producing vernacular Scriptures. For more on the role of King Alfred the Great in relation to the vernacular Scriptures check out the following link:
bible-researcher.com/anglosaxon.html

It is indeed interesting to remember and contrast the role of the vernacular Scriptures of the Anglo-Saxons, compared to the coming disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church on the matter. Whereas the Saxons supported the Scriptures being accessible to laity, later Roman Catholicism would become much more restrictive on access to the Holy Scriptures. Yes, some Protestants have exaggerated these claims to portray the Roman Catholic Church as an evil institution. I moreover disagree with those that make such claims. To the Roman Catholic Church is to be found much credit in my view for having been the protector of the Holy Scripture and guardian of Orthodoxy on so many issues. Nonetheless, I do believe that for many of the hierarchy the withholding of the chalice in Holy Communion and the withholding of the Holy Scriptures even after the invention of the printing press, was often due to corruption. Anglo-Saxon Christianity was clearly more in the favor of the laity than would be western Christianity in the coming centuries until the Protestant Reformation. While there would be Middle English translations of parts of the Bible in the coming centuries, The Wycliffe Bible would begin a new era of English scholarship concertinaing Bible translation.

Concerning the claims that the Roman Catholic Church were against the laity having the Scriptures this is one of those half truths of history exaggerated by many Protestants and undermined by many Roman Catholics. In the thirteenth century was the work Genesis and Exodus that was a paraphrase of the Biblical story for the uneducated laity.  There were no doubt some individuals and attempts throughout the Middle Ages made by faithful Roman Catholics to help the laity gain more access to the Holy Scriptures. Such facts seemed ignored by many modern fundamentalist Christians.

But the point is that Anglo-Christianity did welcome the laity towards both Holy Communion and the Holy Scriptures then would be the case towards the laity by the Norman Latinized Church after the Conquest of 1066. Lest some see Anglo-Saxon Christianity being Eastern Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic let them see several evidences that too diminish this theory.  

We may me able to see, Anglo-Saxon Christianity rejected a number of Roman Catholic beliefs and practices that became gradually enforced on England after 1066. 

In a letter addressed to Wulfsine, it has bee claimed that Elfric rejects the doctrine of Transubstantiation. For more information on this see The Church Historians of England: Reformation Period, Volume 5, Part I pp. 275-276. Also, see History of the Holy Eucharist in Great Britain Volume 1 pp. 145-146 by Thomas Edward Bridgett. The first book I listed here argues for Elfric not believing in Transubstantiation, while the second take the affirmative in claiming that he did believe it. 

Elfric of Eynsham is commonly used elsewhere against Substantiation. For further information see The Anglo-Saxon Church: Its History, Revenues, and General Character by Henry Soames. The old Catholic Encyclopedia took is a good source here in that it talks of Archbishop Matthew Parker as turning to Elfric as evidence before Transubstantiation. The article concludes however, by understanding Elfric's concept of Holy Communion to not be philosophical, and to be in harmony with Transubstantiation teaching. For more from The Catholic Encyclopedia on Elfric see the following link: 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01171b.htm

We may not know for certain in either case what was Elfric of Eysham's view of the Eucharist were. We turn now to a different matter to determine the Christianity of the Anglo-Saxons. 

 Long before Stigand was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by Harold Godwinson, Anglo-Saxon kings appointed bishops, many times without the popes explicit approval, which is another whole reason I argued in previous posts that the papacy was changing in the eleventh century to understanding itself as having further power not only over bishops but over kings and emperors. Don't take simply my word for it however. Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz would agree in his book Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present. pp. 85. Anglo-Saxon 9th century Archbishop Ethelred came into conflict with Alfred the Great as Alfred attempted to interfere in the role of Canterbury. The papacy took Ethelred's side. This fact of course, but be used for either side in the long rivalry to come between kings and emperors. For more on Alfred the Great's role with the church A History of The Church in England pp. 41-43 by J. R. H. Moorman. 

Pope Leo IX had been removed from office by Holy Roman Emperor Henry III. In many ways, Leo was the originator of the 11th century reform movement of the papacy. Henry III appointed Victor II as Leo's successor to the papacy. The College of Cardinals became under Pope Nicholas II the sole empowerment of who chooses the pope. In early Christianity, the Roman people had chosen the bishop of Rome. Later in history it became the emperor that would choose the pope, and now it was the college of cardinals to diminish the power of princes over the matter. Slowly by slowly, the reforming papacy would not simply try to gain independence of church authority from the rule of Christian monarchs but also subject the monarchs to power of the papacy! I won't say anymore of the reform papacy here as that is getting off topic of the post. For more information on this subject see History of the Catholic Church by James Hitchcock pp. 144-145. Also see The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor, pp. 243.  With some of that as a background to the later Investiture Controversy after the Norman Conquest, it should also be noted that this same issue was a matter of conflict in the reign of King Henry I of England between the king and Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury. Some have pointed out that Anselm actually didn't agree with Pope Paschal II or his king. For more on this see the following link: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0304418180900287

Keep in mind too that Henry I was a Norman king of England. So even after the Norman Conquest, there would continue being a rivalry between kings and popes for centuries. Many Roman Catholics mock at Henry VIII as if he had started some new regime of seeing himself as head over the English Church but in many ways English kings had already saw themselves as holding that right centuries before the Protestant Reformation. Furthermore, Gallicanism would be a prominent conflict even after the Reformation between the Roman Catholic monarchy of France against the papacy. Thus, Henry VIII was actually holding to an older tradition of appointing his own bishops etc. than were the popes from the eleventh century on that saw themselves as head over kings not merely in spiritual matters, but in many ways secular matters as well. Check out History of the Church in England by J. R. H. Moorman pp. 68-69.  For more information on this topic see the following article. 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Investiture-Controversy

Pope Urban II had argued in 1099 that clergy should not pay homage to their secular rulers. Anselm of Canterbury has been influenced by the pope on the matter and even threatened excommunication against Henry for the king's traditional support of the monarchy choosing bishops. Henry I gave into the pressure. So not until after the Norman Conquest were the English bishops no longer appointed by the king. Contrary to many Catholic myths, Henry VIII restored the traditional right of the English monarchy to appoint bishops. Not until Henry I of England then, did the English kings lose the power to the church hierarchy to select bishops. By the thirteenth century, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in England, became virtually only accountable to the pope. While Norman kings still retained many nominating rights of bishops, they had lost much of their authority. The power of the papacy and the kings would be rivals over this matter for centuries. For more on this see  see Henry I: King of England Duke of Normandy pp. 68 by Judith Green and England under the Norman And Angevin Kings 1075-1275 pp. 402-403 by Robert Bartlet. Also, see Henry I by C. Warren Hollister pp. 97 and Queen Victoria's Archbishops of pp. 10-11 by Michael Chandler, as well as The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century pp.155-157 by Ulta-Renate Blumenthal, and King and Bishops in Medieval England 1066-1216 pp. 36 by Roger Wickson, and Encyclopedia of Medieval Literature pp. 35-36 by Jay Ruud  Later, Pope Innocent III would see Archbishop Stephen Langton as being only accountable to him rather than King John of England. For more on this see the following link: 

https://osvnews.com/2019/07/12/church-history-pope-innocent-iii-and-the-interdict/

One of the most striking facts about the Norman Conquest of England is that shortly after Britain was captured for good by the Normans, William not only deposed Anglo-Saxon Archbishop Stigand of Canterbury {an archbishop Rome never recognized for political reasons discussed in the previous post}, but William replaced Stigand with an Italian archbishop that supported the reform papacy: Lanfranc. This was in many ways the true reason for the Norman Conquest in that it subjected those Anglo-Saxons that didn't have a high view of Papal Supremacy to Pope Alexander II's rule. Lanfranc  attempted to force several roman practices on the Anglo-Saxon Church including priestly celibacy. Interestingly enough, William I of England never acted as the pope's subject despite the pope's expectations as such. William I actually resisted the reforming papacy at times. So even under Norman rule, England despite being in communion with Rome until 1534, was not always the puppet for the reforming papacy that some would think of it as being. While the Normans had introduced the papal reform movement into England, William would still see the church clergy in the land as inferior to his authority by their oaths of fealty towards him. Thus, Rome had only partly succeeded by its growth of power during the Norman Conquest over the region of England. For more about the role of William the Conqueror and the Norman Church see The Norman Conquest: England After William the Conqueror by Hugh W. Thomas.  

Let us now turn to another matter to show that Anglo-Saxon Christianity was not ecclesiastically the same as the disciplines enacted during the Gregorian Reforms. In Anglo-Saxon Christianity, the Saxons often heard heard sermons in the Vernacular. Although Biblical instruction in the Vernacular indeed existed log after the Norman Conquest, it seems to have been more limited to the laity than it had been previously. In contrast to every Sunday teaching in the Vernacular as it had been in Anglo-Saxon England, it would eventually come to be done only four times a year.  For more on this see the introduction to Tan Publishing's The Roman Catechism pp. XX. The Sarum Rite of Mass had only been instituted in the eleventh century. Before this, various different liturgies were used through England including the Celtic Rite. The Council of Clovesho in 747 A. D. conformed the liturgical practices of the Anglo-Saxon Church to the Roman Church. On this point it can be conceded then that the Anglo-Saxons were in harmony with the leadership of the Roman Church at this time concerning the liturgy. For more on the liturgy of the Anglo-Saxons see Anglo-Saxon England: Volume 26 pp. 44-46. Alfred the Great had been a strong supporter of education and long promoted works in the Vernacular. With some exceptions, after the Norman Conquest the common language of the church was in Latin and the common language of the court was French. Not until the 15th century, would English again became the dominant language of literature from the British isles. For more on Alfred the Great see Encyclopedia of Medieval Literature pp. 15-16 by Jay Ruud. Bishop Wulstan of Worchester wrote a number of famous hymns including ''Wolfe's sermon to the English. For more on Anglo-Saxon vernacular works see English Literature by Benjamin W. Griffith. IT was Alfred the Great that invented the golden rule. Also see, The Birth of Britain: A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume I by Winston Churchill. 

In fairness, the Anglo-Church shared similarities and differences from the Church of Rome. Liturgical there was much in common between 8th century England and Rome. As discussed in a previous post, both also read the Filioque in the creed {with some Anglo-Saxon exceptions}. But when it goes to the issues of authority, I find more of a divide between the Christianity of the Anglo-Saxons and that of the Romans. These differences concerning the authority of the king or pope would clash like Greek gods of the Heavens in the firestorm of the religious upheaval during the Protestant Reformation. But even besides the issue of kings and emperors, the Anglo-Saxon Church had other differences from Rome. Pope Innocent III would come to oppose the Bible being the Vernacular, something the Saxons had supported. I currently have no reason to believe that the Anglo-Saxons ever supported a censorship of who could read the Scriptures. On the contrary, even Alfred the Great translated parts of the Holy Scriptures from Latin to Old English. One claim of history that doesn't particular favor Catholicism or Protestantism over the other is that the Anglo-Saxons saw communion given only under one form. If this is true though, it should be remembered that the Six Articles of the Church of England itself taught this. Either way, communion under one or two forms does not prove the Anglo-Saxon Church was Roman Catholic. It could have also been pre-Anglican. For more on the Communion under both kinds issue, see The Church of our Fathers as seen in Saint Osmund's Rite for the Cathedral of Salisbury: With Dissertations on the belief and ritual in England before and after the coming of the Normans, Volume 4 by Daniel Rock. 

For those that claim that Anglo-Saxon England was actually Orthodox instead of Catholic, their arguments are in someways more lacking historically than those that claim Anglo-Saxon England was Roman Catholic. I know of no evidence for example that after 1054 the English Church kept unity with the Eastern Churches rather than the Roman Church. Edward the Confessor kept many close ties to Rome, and despite the fact that some Saxons fled to Russia I find none of the theories proposes by the Orthodox as sufficient evidence that Anglo-Saxon England was actually an Orthodox country. The similarities between Anglo-Saxon and Celtic art is not nearly as theologically important to England's history in the East-West schism as is the fact that the Anglo-Saxons recited the Filioque in the Creed and had taught the Filioque at a council in Hatfield. The evidence then points towards Anglo-Saxon Christianity clearly being mostly western in its theology. Concerning whether pre-1066 England was Roman Catholic or pre-Anglican, I prefer the latter over the former mostly due to reasons I listed in the previous post, and because of those parts of the Bible translated from Latin into Old English by the Saxons. The only way the Orthodox could then claim Saxon England as their own is to either prove that the Saxons were either ignorant of the west and east split, or to hold the great schism to be a later date than 1054. The biggest hole in Roman Catholic claims of pre-1066 England being Catholic is that for centuries Saxon kings had appointed bishops without facing any serious criticism for the most part until the reforming papacy of the eleventh century that was gaining more and more universal power over the entire church. Further, and for another time, the claims of papal power professed by Gregory I and his belief in ''Antichrist,'' by any bishop that saw himself as universal is quite different than when Gregory VII claimed to be universal in Dictatus Papae. For this very reason, many Orthodox and Protestants have accused the papacy from Gregory VII on of being Antichrist for years. I have carefully read over articles by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant apologist on this matter before I concluded that Gregory VII contracted Gregory I on the issue of universal power by the Roman See. I will say nothing more of that here though, and save that topic for another time. 

Winston Churchill claims that by the fourteenth century the church in England had been become unpopular. He speaks of there being much anti-papacy. He also claims anti-clerical feeling had grown in parliament. If Churchill is correct about these claims, it maybe easy for Protestants to see why. In the centuries after the Norman Conquest of England, which began in 1066, the hierarchy of the church grew in many ways more and more powerful while access to the Holy Scriptures was scarce if not non-existent for much of the laity at all. In many ways, the Protestant Reformation restored many of the values and legal status for the common people that had mostly lost in England and elewhere since the Norman Conquest {though the Magna Charta in 1215 did indeed defend the rights of the Englishmen.} For more on Churchill's claims about the alleged corruption of the church see pp. 302-303 of The Birth of Britain: A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume I.

 Another topic that can be tied to this is the role of Scripture and tradition. It is interesting in that Mcgrath claims most medieval theologians generally looked only to the scriptures to justify their beliefs in particular doctrines. Keep in mind, that Mcgrath is referring not simply to Protestants here but to those before the Reformation era that held Scripture was the ultimate authority. This was the case for Medieval theologians that defended the Holy Eucharist as being the literal Body and Blood of Christ, or of their defense of infant baptism. The Medieval Church's judgement was considered to matter yet no way as being seen as higher than Holy Scripture. Tradition became a stronger force only by the Late Middle Ages. The theologians of Medieval Times turned primarily to Holy Scripture as they rooted their teachings within Holy Writ. rather than to tradition. Such a concept is a striking difference from modern day Roman Catholicism. The sixteenth century Council of Trent, would be a breach from tradition by affirming the equality of Holy. Writ on par with traditions of the church.   For more on Scripture and tradition see Reformation Thoughts: An Introduction pp. 145-168 by Alister Mcgrath. While much of the role of scripture and tradition may seem off topic, I only added it to the present discussion to further prove those ways the English Church was actually more traditional than the Roman Church.  

I stand by my commitment towards the British crown as it being the head of The Church of England. Whereas the English monarchy does claim rule with its land, the Roman Catholic papacy does not claim simply that power for a region or country, but universal jurisdiction over the entire world. It is my view then that the Anglo-Saxon Church, and the Norman Church of England were not strictly Roman Catholic as in many aspects they never give into the type of papal supremacy that Rome demanded. In short, the Christianity of the British Isles before 1534, I see in many respects as the roots towards the future Church of England. Whereas some Anglicans may believe that the Church of England was destroyed by the Norman Conquest, and restored under Henry VIII, I believe the English Church even during the Norman's rule was never structured entirely Roman Catholic in the way that Pope Gregory VII had intended. If we concede Anglo-Saxon and Norman Christianity to be Roman Catholic, then we must also point out their distinction from the reform Catholicism of Gregory VII saw kings as subjects to the papacy. For Roman Catholicism after all is determined more by what the pope teaches, then the reception of that teaching throughout the church. The reception towards Gregory VII's reforming papacy was not as positive by all throughout Christendom as it would for some. Therefore, it would be hard to claim that all of Christendom was simply Roman Catholic according to Gregory VII's theological understanding. 

Further Sources: The Western Church in the Middle Ages pp. 97-98 by John A. Thompson. This last reference is mostly in relation to the Investiture Controversy. For more on the reform papacy of the eleventh century see 1066: The Year of Conquest pp. 101 by David Howarth and Pope Gregory VII 1073-1085 pp. 9 by H. E. J. Cowdrey. Fore on motives for the Norman Conquest see William the Conqueror pp. 120 and 337 by David Bates. For more on Celtic Christianity see https://www.britannica.com/topic/Celtic-Church


Gregory of Palamis contradicted the teachings of both the eastern and the western church fathers concerning the energy of God. For information on Palamism see:  file:///C:/Users/awrit/Downloads/Reflections_on_Palamism_as_Impediment_to%20(1).pdf

The Crusades in English Reformational Thought

To this day, England bears the colors that were worn by knights during the Medieval Crusades. Crusading has been a big part of English heritage with legends about Saint George and the Dragon reflecting the tales of chivalry and courage. The Crusades were not simply a historical movement from the High Middle Ages though. These expeditions impacted all areas of culture: art, literature, etc. Indeed, literature has flourished for centuries about expeditions of knights on crusades.
 Unfortunately many Christians today are ignorant of the history of the crusades movement. Those that are aware and knowledgeable of it {whether they be for or against it} tend to especially overlook the literature of the sixteenth century which concerned the crusades. Having studied and written about the crusades for years, I just recently discovered the role of the crusades in English Literature during the Protestant Reformation. Today, many Roman Catholics see the crusades as an embarrassment of their church's ''Dark Ages,'' and many Evangelicals find in the crusades all room to simply criticize the Roman Catholic Church for all of its supposed great persecutions of people down throughout the ages. Of course, many evangelicals while being so quick to judge and criticize the pre-reformation church often overlook the killings of witches or accused heretics from the Puritans. This discussion here though, will not be to justify the medieval crusades as I have done that elsewhere. Rather, here, I will simply speak of how the Medieval Crusades were glorified by some of the Protestant writers during the Protestant Reformation.
The historical background behind the portrayal of the crusades must be understood   Shortly before the Protestant Reformation, knighthood had been in decay. The world was changing with the emergence of developed canons, the printing press, more successful navigation, and more knowledge of the Greek language (especially from the twelfth century on). Likewise, more knowledge of Aristotle's Philosophy and Arabic Math had flourished in Europe during the crusades. All of these brought western Europe into the early stages of what we now call the ''Twelfth-Century Renaissance.'' 

 It is interesting to note that there was actually a positive view towards the medieval crusades in much of post-Reformational English Literature. Yes, English Literature not simply before the Protestant Reformation but even afterward tended to glorify the crusades movement. Some of the protestants who looked upon the Medieval Crusades with admiration in their literary works will be discussed here.

Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queen glorified the Crusades movement. In Book I, the Redcrosse Knight slays dragons and giants. In Book II of the Fairie Queen, readers will encounter Guy of Warwick. Guy of Warwick was a legendary figure in English and French literature for centuries that appeared in various different stories doing different work such as being a pilgrim to the Holy Land. In Book II of Spenser's most famous work, Guy of Warwick is known as Sir Guyon, a character from Arthurian legends. In the story, Guyon faces many temptations as the sorceress Archimago temps him into fighting the Redcrosse Knight.

Spenser though was not the only English writer to express admiration towards the crusades. King James I of England celebrated the Christian victory over the Muslims at the sixteenth-century Battle of Lepanto in his poem ''Lepanto.'' Likewise, Christopher Marlowe's Tamburlaine the Great dealt with some Muslim-Christian relations. In this play, the Koran is burnt. For these reasons, Marlowe's play is currently controversial. For more on Spenser's support of the crusades see Narrating the Crusades: Loss and Recovery in Medieval and Early Modern English Literature by Lee Manion.
While certainly not explicit, some scholars have found Othello to reflect the Medieval Crusading Spirit. To some, the success of Islam in Othello shows that Shakespeare was intending Christians to see unity as essential in fighting against the Muslims.
Guy of Warwick is also mentioned in Shakespeare's Henry VIII. The lines below are from Act Five, Scene Three:

Porter: You did nothing, sir.
Man: I am not Samson, nor Sir Guy, nor Cobrand,
To Mow em 'down before me: but if I spared any
That head ahead to hit, either young or old,
He or she, cuckold or cuckol;maker,
Let me ne'er hope to see a chine again;
And that I would not for a cow, God save her!
[within]Do you here, master porter?

Richard Knolles was a sixteenth-century English historian that was explicitly supportive of the Crusades in his General History of the Turke. Knolles's prose was admired by later English writers including Samuel Johnson and Lord Byron.
Seventeenth-century Baptist minister John Bunyan, got the name for one of his books about Christian allegory called ''Holy War,'' from works by Thomas Fuller, an Anglican theologian. Fuller had a complicated view about the crusades that in part supported the old medieval movements of England's former days despite Fuller's disagreements with other issues in the church at the time of the Crusades. On the way hand, he sees the crusades as a violent movement in which the papacy used England for its agenda, but on the other hand, he supports defending Christians defending Christendom against the Turk.
As has been shown above, English Literature in the years of the Protestant Reformation were generally supportive of the Crusades movement. In a future post, I would like to expound on Spenser's understanding of the crusades. 
Finally, over the years, the crusades attained glorification in other famous literary works such as Ivanhoe and The Talisman by Sir Walter Scott, as well as Winning His Spurs by G. A. Henty, and The Adventures of Robin Hood by Howard Pyle. The sixteenth-century battle of Lepanto would also be glorified in Lepanto by G. K. Chesterton.

Further Sources: The Legend of Guy of Warwick by Velma Bourgeois Richmond, Narrating the Crusades: Loss and Recovery in Medieval and Early Modern English Literature by Lee Manion.

Orthodox Britain? Part IV

 Before reading this post, please read the other three parts if you haven't. Whereas I formerly defended Anglo-Saxon England pre-1066 as a Roman Catholic kingdom in the most previous post, I have again changed my opinion on this matter. The purpose of this post is not merely for theological discussion, but to understand the context and world of Old English Poetry. 

Understanding why the Anglo-Saxon Church operated the way it did may help us understand its theology and life of worship. The Filioque was sung in Old English hymns. The Filioque had come to be recited universally through the West with the exception of Rome itself by Pope Leo III who agreed with the theology of the Filioque but chose not to push its acceptance into the Roman Creed. The procession of the Spirit from the Son had its roots in Western creeds going back so far as A. D. 447, though it was not used until 1014 in Rome at the request of the Holy Roman Emperor towards the pope.

I did formerly hold the use of the Filioque in the western creed as evidence that Anglo-Saxon England prior to 1066 had all along been a Roman Catholic kingdom. My further education of Eastern Orthodoxy's understanding of the use of the Fiilioque before 1054 has again changed my mind though.   
Some Orthodox believe that those Christians before 1054 that recited the Filioque in the creed did so in good faith. Indeed, the Filoque had been recited during Mass in some places for centuries before the great schism or even the 9th century schism that some consider an earlier or beginning of the overall great schism. Thus the acceptance of the Filioque in the Anglo-Saxon creeds may not prove the Anglo-Saxon Church to have been Roman Catholic after all.
The Latin Nicene-Constantinoplian  Creed was commonly cited in Anglo-Saxon England, though sometimes only the Creed from the 4th century Council of Nicaea, was read as well.
Elfric considered Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans to be canonical as Anglo-Saxon England did not agree with the canon of Scripture proposed by the Africans or the Romans. 
The liturgical sources and practices though are perhaps not as trivial to our understanding of Anglo-Saxon England as is the authority the Saxons saw the church to have. For example, baptism by immersion was common in Anglo-Saxon England but Catholic Apologist can always claim this was a discipline rather than a dogma of theology. Let us now turn to the issue of authority, to see that Anglo-Saxon England before 1066 was indeed not Roman Catholic. 
As discussed in previous posts, William the Conquer was given a papal blessing by Pope Alexander II to conquer Anglo-Saxon England to depose Archbishop Stigand of Canterbury. While William actually continued to see himself as head of the English Church after the Norman Conquest he had first gained the pope's support for this Crusade against the Saxons by the pope's assumption that England would be his vassal.  But why exactly did the pope approve of William's coming to be conquest? Was it simply that the pope wanted control over England? I did formerly claim that Archbishop Stigand's support of Antipope Benedict X as evidence that Stigand was Roman Catholic. I now retract this view as I have found the gathering evidence to tie into what will later become the Investiture Controversy between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry VI of the Holy Roman Empire.
As I discussed in a previous post, Anglo-Saxon Archbishops of Canterbury had not been appointed by the pope for quite sometime before Stigand's promotion to the office. That said, the pope now intervened in this affair while having never recognized him as a legitimate heir to the bishropc of Canterbury. 
A little more background needs here to be added. First, Pope Leo IX was more and more pushing the the role of the power of the papacy that would later go to an extreme with Pope Gregory VII during the Gregorian Reforms. Pope Leo lived at the time of the so called great schism of 1054, while Pope Alexander II lived at the time of the Norman Conquest. Robert of Jumieges had been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by Edward the Confessor, king of England. Edward the Confessor had desired to place Spearhafoc as the new bishop of London, a seat formerly held by Robert of Jumieges before his promoted to Canterbury. Despite the king's wish, Pope Leo IX forbid Spearhafoc to be recognized as the bishop of London. Already now, though to a much larger scale later, we see the roots of the Investiture controversy. Whereas bishops {and even some popes!} had historically been appointed by king and emperors, popes more and more since at least the time of Leo III began to see it the other way around. Here, the papacy does not recognize the authority of the king of England in placing individuals as bishops without papal permission.
As to Archbishop Stigand, he was appointed by Edward the Confessor as Archbishop of Canterbury in replacement of Robert of Jumieges.
Stigand's support of Antiope Benedict X further demonstrates the lack of Roman Catholicism in the English Church. Benedict had opposed much of the reforming papacy in the 11th century that would only heighten with the later Gregory VII.  Thus, Stigand was no puppet to the pope's power, and Alexander had, and would successfully see, both Stigand and the Anglo-Saxon Church fall to the papacy growing supremacy over the church. Stigand would be deposed in 1070 A. D. partly due to the claim that he held more than one  bishopric. What a lousy case Rome made for Stigand's downfall of the chair of Canterbury, which many have pointed out to be mostly from political reasons. Indeed, many bishops in the church at time held more than one bishopric yet were not demoted by the pope for it. 
The Roman Catholic Church will come to see the Anglo-Saxon nobility essentially all wiped out by the Norman lords. The Feudal System will set in, putting millions of Saxons at the service of their feudal lords and bishops for centuries to come. 
It seems the pre-1066 Anglo-Saxon Church was probably either an Orthodox Church or a pre-Anglican Church. I currently lean towards the latter, given England's usual profound connection towards the West. Either way though, England before 1066 was probably not Roman Catholic, at least not in the sense that Roman Catholicism would come to be known by Pope Gregory VII in the Investiture Controversy and on. On the contrary, we see evidence in Anglo-Saxon England of the monarchy have a profound authority over the English, a fact which could be used to justify either Anglican or Orthodox theology. The English's relation to the papacy over the years before 1054 doesn't seem to give any substantial evidence that England supported Papal Supremacy that I am currently aware of. England was certainly influenced by the papacy before 1054, but I don't see that as any explicit evidence that England saw itself as a vassal under one universal bishop in Rome. The autonomy of the Anglo-Saxon Church in many affairs actually further lays ground towards the eventual sixteenth century split between The Church of England the Roman Catholic Church. 

Further Sources: The Hymns of the Anglo-Saxon Church: A Study and the Durham Hymnal {Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England}by Inge B. Millfull, The Encyclopedia Americana, A Library of Universal Knowledge Volume 11, Church in Eight Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford by Henry Soames, Preaching Apocrypha in Anglo-Saxon England pp. 99 by Brandon Hawk, An Inquiry Intp the Doctrines of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 1066: The Year of Conquest by David Howard.


http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/852/western-saints-filioque/