Please know that this article may not be understood if you have not read my previous posts on this topic.
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
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/04/orthodox-britain-part-v.html
I thought my articles on this subject were over. I previously concluded that the Anglo-Saxon Church that existed before the Norman Conquest could not have been Roman Catholic {at least not in the way that we think of Roman Catholicism when defined by the reforming papacy of the eleventh century.} I also formerly did hold that the Anglo-Saxons were more likely Roman Catholic than Eastern Orthodox based upon the fact that many Anglo-Saxons recited the filioque in their creed since at least The Council of Hatfield. As I learned a few new things though, I could hardly resist blogging!
1 Further Evidence that the Anglo-Saxons were not Roman Catholic
Researching events and correctly interpreting texts from centuries ago can be a heavy work. When we study the past there are some facts and there are plenty of opinions. How we interpret the facts maybe areas of disagreement, but the facts speak for themselves.
As such, it is a fact that the Anglo-Saxons baptized by immersion. Why is this significant you may ask? Well, because Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism today, don't typically baptize this way. If memory serves me correct, baptism by immersion wasn't even allowed in the 1917 Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, though it is permitted in the more recent canon law. Through the ages, baptism has been practiced by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring throughout the western tradition.
While Roman Catholics would recognize the validity of many baptisms by immersion {actually the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia calls the baptism of Baptist ''doubtful''}, for many ages, immersion, to my knowledge, has been quite rare within Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics practiced baptism by immersion until 1311 A. D*1. . Does that sound late? Strangely enough, it would seem that many of the Protestant groups from the Reformation too held to this latter conformity of practice, as few of them regularly practiced baptism by immersion. Perhaps the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and the Methodist, as well as the Presbyterians should reconsider their lack of common baptism by immersion, as they are actually following a Roman Catholic practice that only originated in replacement of baptism by immersion 1300 years after Christ.
It is interesting that this was not always so. In fact, baptism by immersion was in many ways the common practice of the church since ancient times. While much more could be said on this, many early Christian documents testify to this. But for the purpose of this discussion, we will not get into the long held debate on the issue, as I intend here to reflect more on some aspects of Anglo-Saxon Christianity that actually fits more in harmony with the present day Eastern Orthodox than it does the Roman Catholics and Anglicans.
The Anglo-Saxons practiced baptism by immersion. So too, have the Eastern Orthodox for 2000 years. Were the Anglo-Saxons in fact, Eastern Orthodox? I don't think now we can say that the Anglo-Saxon Church was Anglican. Those Anglicans that claim their church is the continuation of the Celtic-Anglo-Saxon Church, should return to the ancient practice of baptism by immersion. At least the Eastern Orthodox baptize the way that many did before the great schism! The Celtic Church baptized by immersion, unlike the Anglican Churches that claim to the Celtic Church's successors.
Today, the Eastern Orthodox and the Baptist are some of few Christian groups that I know of that for the most part, only baptize by immersion. Now while the Baptist and some Orthodox would claim baptism by sprinkling to be a later addition to the history of the church, they would differ on the issue of infant baptism. Unlike many western Christians that baptize their infants by sprinkling, many Orthodox Christians today immerse their babes in baptism.
Now returning to the practice of baptism of the Anglo-Saxons, laws in England commanded the people to baptize their infants. This practice was long held, not just for theological reasons, but to keep count of the king's subjects. Infants were baptized by immersion, in agreement to the same practice as that of the Eastern Orthodox. The young babes in pre-1066 England, were infant baptized within thirty days after their birth.
In short summary, the Anglo-Saxons baptized their infants as do Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodist. On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxons baptized them by immersion as do the Eastern Orthodox.
2 Final Thoughts
We may not prove whether the Anglo-Saxon Church was Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, or neither, before the Norman Conquest of 1066. What I do know though, is that the Anglo-Saxons did not subscribe to Roman Catholicism as it has existed since at least the time of the Reformation.
*1-United States Catholic Catechism for adults pp. 56-57. See also Our Faith and the Fasts by C. F. Donoban pp. 399, and The New Interpretation of the Mass by Henry Bogmann pp. 120.
Further Sources: https://oldenglishteaching.arts.gla.ac.uk/Units/2_Life_in.html, History of the Anglo-Saxons Volume 2 by Sharon Turner.
