Today, some Anglo-Catholics revere C. S. Lewis as one of their own. Lewis, however, preferred low-church styles of worship (Duriez 117). Yet, Anglo-Catholics are attempting to rewrite far more of history than the life of C. S. Lewis. Indeed, one need not venture far into the social media of Anglo-Catholics to find many of them making the erroneous and pseudo-historical claim that their present Anglican Church is somehow the same in theology and in practice as the English/Anglo-Saxon Church before 1066. They often assert that William, duke of Normandy, with papal approval, invaded England and suppressed Anglicanism while imposing the tainted teachings of Roman Catholicism, which remained in force until the English Reformation of the sixteenth century. In this post, I have set out to disprove their thesis and argue my own: that the Anglo-Saxons before 1066 were not Anglican.
Let me start off by noting that J. R. R. Tolkien, a long professor of Anglo-Saxon at Pembroke College in Oxford, was not only a scholar of Old English language and literature, but as an expert in his subject, would vehemently reject the claims of such Anglo-Catholics. In fact, Tolkien considered Anglicanism a distortion of the Roman Catholic Church (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Christianity#:~:text=Anglicanism%2C%20which%20Tolkien%20considered%20a,distortion%20of%20the%20previous%20Catholicism), showing that he wouldn't have approved of the idea that the Anglo-Saxons before 1066 believed the same faith as the later Anglican reformers. I also find it interesting that I've never once heard C. S. Lewis, though being Anglican, postulate the view in any of his books on Medieval literature that the English Church before 1066 was somehow Anglican. In fact, I highly doubt that Lewis would have believed that.
In past blog posts, I discussed the topic of whether or not the Anglo-Saxon Church (the English Church before 1066) was a pre-Anglican/papal resisting church or a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Church. Concerning the former theory, while at times I defended the view that the Anglo-Saxons did not hold to papal supremacy, I see much doubt for such a theory now. True, Archbishop Stigand did refuse to comply with certain papal demands in the eleventh century (though this still doesn't prove whether or not Stigand would have approved of the later English Reformation and Anglican Church). But I don't think the historical evidence weighs strongly in favor of the idea that the Anglo-Saxon era-English Church was Anglican or a pre-Anglican Church, whether or not one supports the Protestant Reformation. (Should I include this section or make this post one long post with various sections defending my thesis and appealing to my past sources).
Early Medieval Europe saw the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. While the Franks played a role in these efforts, the papacy did even more (Cruz and Gerdburg, 168). Rome had long been absent from English politics, showing that its eventual influence over the English Church couldn't have been just about it being a neighboring country to England (the Franks and other people groups would have been geographically closer to the Anglo-Saxons than the Romans would have been). Interestingly enough, Augustine of Canterbury, as he came to be known, had been commissioned by Pope Gregory of Rome to Christianize the British people (168). Augustine actually modeled the eventual structures of the Anglo-Saxon Church off that of the Roman one (169).
Recently, I read from two scholars, Jo Ann H. Moran Cruz and Richard Gerberding, who, as Medieval historians, I believe, provide further insight on this topic in their book's section on the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity:
''The Roman liturgy was adopted, although it is clear how quickly and to what degree this came about. It also became the custom of the Archbishops of Canterbury from the time of Augustine onwards to receive from the pope himself the pallium, the reciprocal giving of many costly gifts between England and Rome, and the importation of Roman books and personnel all indicate the strong papal influence in the English Church'' (169).
To me, not only does the great liturgical influence of the early Medieval Roman Church on the English Church bear witness against the narrative presented by many of today's Anglo-Catholics (who often argue that the Anglican Church was somehow present long before the English Reformation), but the deep contact between the archbishops of Canterbury and popes seems to greatly link the two together in one church. Had Canterbury been equal in dignity and in honor to that of Rome, why follow Rome's practices concerning liturgy? In my opinion, the evidence doesn't testify to the view (again held by many Anglo-Catholics) that the bishop of Rome was perceived in England as just as another bishop, no greater than those presiding over Canterbury.
Historian Jackson S. Spiegel notes that papal supremacy was already known and regarded in the fifth century (218). This, of course, was before the Anglo-Saxons of England converted in the sixth century (Cruz, Gerbeding, 168). Pope Gregory, who had sent Augustine to Britain, was heavily involved in overseeing parts of Europe (not just in England), converting to Christianity, largely by his initiatives (Spiegal, 219-220). When Gregory did acknowledge a higher authority in Europe, it was the Byzantine emperor (220).
King Alfred the Great (849-899) was a devout Anglo-Saxon monarch who not only attended Mass faithfully but listened to Scripture read to him (Damrosch and Dettmar, 129). Alfred translated several works into Old English, including Pope Gregory's Pastoral Care (129). Much like the Anglo-Saxons long before him, he had strong ties to the Roman Church.
When William, the Duke of Normandy, invaded England in 1066, he had papal approval (add citation). He had already conquered other places beforehand (341). But why would the pope approve his conquest of England? Was it because the English Church had all along been opposed to papal supremacy, and the pope was now forcing the English to obey his rule?
When one looks carefully at the situation of England prior to and during 1066, Stigand, the archbishop of Canterbury, held several bishopric positions (something the papacy said was corrupt). He also received his office while the prior bishop was still alive (add citation). Furthermore, Sitigand supported an antipope (add citation). The archbishop had also stolen his position from the bishop before him (add citation). Perhaps most strikingly, Stigand submitted to the Norman conqueror after the Battle of Hastings (add citation). Had the archbishop of Canterbury believed his religion was something entirely different than the Roman Church or that of the conqueror, why would he have accepted the loss of his position and submitted to his new king?
Which is why I believe the Norman Conquest of 1066 has very little relation to the later English Reformation. The idea that the Anglo-Saxons under Harold Godwinson, king of England, had been trying to stop the spread of Roman Catholicism over England during the Battle of Hastings is alien to the facts of history. While there were issues of tension between Rome and Canterbury in 1066, I don't see any of those that validate the view that Anglicanism had been present in England centuries before Medieval Catholicism.
Methinks (as the Medievals would say) that the burden is left with those who assert that the English Church before 1066 was Anglican. Though the Anglo-Saxons did translate Bibles before the Norman Conquest in the eleventh century into Old English, not only did they rely on Latin translations for their own (again, showing Roman influence), but how does this prove Anglicanism? There were translations of the Bible into German long before the eleventh century as well*(https://www.aberdeennews.com/story/lifestyle/faith/2017/08/20/martin-luthers-history-changing-translation-of-the-bible/116804024/). Does this prove that early Medieval Germans were not Catholic? I don't think so. In fact, the Middle Ages bear witness to a number of Catholic attempts to translate at least part of the Bible into the vernacular long before the Protestant Reformation (add the Trent source). As Anthony E. Gilles notes concerning the work of monks on Bible translations, ''This process of copying took time, and there were few who could either afford or read what the monks' hands produced. For these practical reasons, and not because of a clerical conspiracy to keep the laity ignorant of God's Word, Bibles were seldom owned or read by the laity (50).''
Gilles later adds, ''Yet the core of lay spirituality was biblical nonetheless. 'The Bible' for the average Christian became the oral Bible, which he or she heard preached during liturgies, and the graphic Bible, which was painted on the walls of churches and stitched into tapestries'' (50). Indeed, many of the medievals believed that the manifold wisdom of God was protected by the church (Ephesians 3:10). To them, the church was the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Thus, whether it was Bible translations by monks or reliance on Western icons, the British people found hope in Catholic Christianity. And for many in the West, including the Anglo-Saxons, the primary guardian of Christian faith and practice in early Medieval Europe was the pope himself.
Medieval Catholicism
Was England a Roman Catholic country before the Norman Conquest of 1066? I think the evidence shows that it was either Roman Catholic or Western Orthodox, as both of these churches long pre-dated the Protestant Reformation and Anglicanism. Whether or not it was Catholic or Orthodox, however, may depend on whether or not one believes the papacy was the same before 1054 as it was after. Either way, I see no firm evidence that the English Church of the Anglo-Saxons was somehow an early Protestant or Anglo-Catholic Church, which held the views of the papacy, among other topics, of later reformers like Thomas Cranmer.
Of course, some of the Anglican reformers, like Matthew Parker, well knew that, past Anglo-Saxons like Ælfric of Eynsham had a different philosophy of the Lord's Table than transubstantiation*3. However, it is widely recognized today that Transubstantiation was not universally taught in Medieval Western Christianity (especially before the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, though also after). Until sufficient evidence is shown that the Anglo-Saxons viewed the popes as no more than standard Western bishops, I think the evidence is clear that the Anglo-Saxons could only have been Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
Additionally, I think it should be noted that the Anglican Church of the sixteenth century rejected monasticism, which had been practiced by Normans and Anglo-Saxons long before the sixteenth century. In fact, it was not until the Anglo-Catholic/Oxford movement of the nineteenth century that monasticism was embraced by many in Anglicanism (https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/dailystory/permalink/ayres-restored-monasticism-to-the-anglicans). Had the early Anglican Church of the sixteenth century been the same as the Anglo-Saxons of the early Middle Ages, I don't think something as important as monasticism would have differed between the two so greatly. Scholars like (the author of Thomas Cornwall) also acknowledge that the Church of England did not start until the Protestant Reformation. To Cornwall, it was the Protestant Edward VI, not the Anglo-Saxons who started the Church of England.
Recent research also undermines the idea that England was headed toward a Reformation of its own from the Catholic Church before the rise of Henry VIII to power. For instance, Catholicism was vibrant in England before Henry VIII's breach from Rome (Spielvogel, 436-437). There was no massive, suppressed attempt to make the church in England a separate entity devoid of papal supremacy in late Medieval England before the Protestant Reformation.
What do the consequences of Henry's breach of Rome mean for us today? After all, it has long been argued by Catholics that England would still be Catholic if it hadn't been for Henry VIII. If true, Anglicans, as well as those that came from them, including Methodists, Baptists, and other Christians, derive from a tradition founded on a desire for divorce (leaving Baptists and others who came from the Church of England little to no room to critisize Henry VIII as the founder of the Anglican Church if their own tradition wouldn't exist apart from his desire for divorce). On the other hand, if one claims that Edward VI or Elizabeth I was the founder of the Church of England (as some scholars do) and not Henry VIII, then one may conclude that the English Reformation was about more than divorce. Nevertheless, neither of these topics is the subject of this post. In this post, I'm not interested in either defending either Rome or Canterbury during the sixteenth century. Rather, I again assert that the English Church before 1066 was a Roman Catholic country.
In my opinion, there is a reason why so many professional historians argue that the pre-1066 Anglo-Saxon Church was Roman Catholic and why so many Anglo-Catholics argue otherwise. I think that in the latter case, many of the Anglo-Catholics hold to a pseudo-history of England, not much respected by prominent historical scholars like Eamon Duffy and others, who have England strongly for England's Roman Catholicism prior to the 1066 Norman Conquest. Duffy points to the taking down of the altars (formerly used for the Eucharist) during the English Reformation as a breach of the Church of England from the Catholic Church of England*4. While many Anglo-Catholics today would acknowledge the importance of altars in worship, they are diverting from traditional Anglicanism, as seen in the early English Reformation, which sought the simplicity of the Lord's Table*5.
Other factors are also important to be aware of. For instance, the English Reformation saw the end of monasticism in England. The Anglo-Saxons before 1066 had practiced it, however, showing that the latter were not early Anglicans. While it is true that not all priests were celibate in the Anglo-Saxon Church before 1066 (much like today's Anglicanism), neither were all church clergy in Catholic Europe at the time (https://today.duke.edu/2005/10/priestsoped.html). Furthermore, I don't think many of the clergy in England being married proves anything against the English being Roman Catholic (a later term innovated by Anglicans during the English Reformation). Indeed, many past Catholic clergy were married before the eleventh century (Gilles, 70), showing that this was not limited to just England (and many Orthodox in the East were married as well). If anything, I think the fact that there were married clergy in England would at most prove Orthodoxy, not Anglicanism.
Therefore, while there are arguably many nuances to this discussion, I think it's either historical ignorance or a willful denial of facts on the part of many Anglo-Catholics to claim that their church existed before 1066. Of course, the purpose of this post was not to debate whether Anglican or Catholic theology is more biblical. Nor am I here to discuss whether or not the English Reformation was legitimate and necessary. I do, however, want people to be aware of the massive fraudulent claims posed by some Anglo-Catholics across internet discussion boards and how their claims often contradict the facts of history. I think that there is a reason that so many Anglo-Catholics have degrees in theology, though not in history, as they are often reading their views into the past.
Finally, as someone who has studied the Middle Ages my entire life and is now a PhD student in Medieval literature, I find the claims that Anglicanism or any Protestant Church, for that matter, historically pre-dated the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches to be historically absurd. Western Europe, both before and after 1066, was heavily connected to the Church of Rome through its secular and religious rulers. While many Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics will differ on whether or not the church of Rome asserted the same type of papal primacy before 1054 as it did after, I think the evidence is clear that the Roman Church exercised an important role in Western Europe. Regarding the Anglo-Saxons, I also think that the evidence is clear that they were not Anglicans before William the Conqueror overtook them during the Norman Conquests.
