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