England before 1066

[Vlad]

I have heard it said (even by my former Priest) that England and the British Isles were pretty much Orthodox until 1066 or therabouts is this generally excepted as true?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Yes.

[John of the North]

Yes.

[Justin Kissel]

What happened in 1066?

[SoleRedemption]

What happened in 1066?

The Norman Invasion, in which a Gallican style of Christianity is introduced to the British Isles.

[Justin Kissel]

Ahh, thanks!

[Sakeneko]

Vlad: yes.  (Bet you're getting tired of seeing that.) ;-)

[Riddikulus]

Sorry, if you are tired of seeing it, Vlad.... but yes!

[witega]

It depends on what you mean by 'pretty much Orthodox'. While the 'Great Schism' is generally dated to 1054, it's not like the West was thoroughly Orthodox in 1053 and then suddenly became completely unorthodox the next year. Rather, the formal anathemas and break in communion in 1054 were the culmination of a long process of growing separation between East and West and the gradual growth of unorthodox positions in the West that went unchecked because of that separation.

England was a part of the Western Church and shared in that slow growth away from Orthodoxy. To point to just the two most important issues in the schism, the filioque is attested in England later than Spain and Gaul--but earlier than Rome. And because it was founded by missionaries personally sent out by Pope St. Gregory the Great, the Church of England was always directly under the authority of the bishop of Rome in a way older parts of Western Christendom didn't come to be until later. For the English, Rome literally and unquestionably was 'the Mother Church' without even considering the general Papal claims (and it was English missionaries who converted Germany with the same understanding).

On the other hand, situated at the edge of the world, England was generally more conservative (in the Orthodox sense) than Gaul or Italy. The relationship with Rome was strained in the 11th century to the point that the Pope blessed the Norman invasion of England, and in its wake replaced (or condoned the replacement) of most of the native hierarchy with Gallican clergy who brought the latest in innovative Western thought to the country (the 'father of Scholasticism' was the second Norman Archbishop of Canterbury). There is no evidence that had the invasion not occurred (or failed) that the native English bishops would have broken with their Mother Church to side with the distant East, but given the circumstances we'll never actually know.


-witega (whose patron is St. Caedmon, the first Christian poet of the English language)

[John of the North]

Supposedly the hierarchs of the Metropolitanate of York excommunicated the Pope in 1068. Based on the source of my info (which is not primary) it seems that this was action not only independant of Constantinople, but in fact the excommunication occurred without even knowing that Constantinople had done the same.

Holy Martyr Harold, pray for me a sinner!
Ivan

[witega]

Supposedly the hierarchs of the Metropolitanate of York excommunicated the Pope in 1068. Based on the source of my info (which is not primary) it seems that this was action not only independant of Constantinople, but in fact the excommunication occurred without even knowing that Constantinople had done the same.

Holy Martyr Harold, pray for me a sinner!
Ivan

If they did so, it was almost certainly in connection with Edgar the Aetheling's resistance to the Norman invasion (which as I mention was backed by the Pope) rather than being related to events in Asia Minor.

[Riddikulus]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, had been excommunicated earlier than 1066; 1054 from memory. It was in the Pope's interest to back William the Bastard's invasion of England. In fact, IIRC Harold having been crowned by Stigand added to the Norman claim that Harold's kingship was illegitimate. The Norman invastion was certainly the death-nell for the English Church and she suffered greatly in the early years of William. It wasn't long before the Celtic Church succumbed to Roman dominance.

[Michał]

Vlad, I recommend you "The Fall of the Orthodox England", a book by Vladimir Moss. You can download it from here: http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/books/downloads.php?book_id=104

[Liz]

There were still married priests well into the 14th century. Whether that was an hang-over from Orthodoxy or simple ignorance, I don't know. If you wanted to find out what the clergy/ congregations were doing that was Orthodox post-1066, John Mirk's 'Advice to Parish Priests' would probably tell you - the author ticks people off for things they believe that aren't properly Catholic. Some of the things he mentions are probably simply superstitions and mistakes, but it'd be interesting to see how many were survivals of Orthodox teaching.

[Michał]

Another recommendable text: http://orthodoxresurgence.com/petroc/index.htm#A%20BRIEF

[Vlad]

Thanks for the info everyone and the links Michat.

[Vlad]

There were still married priests well into the 14th century.

Were these "officially" allowed in England? I had thought Pope Gregory VII had put an end to married clergy in the west. At least thats what I was taught as an RC.

[deusveritasest]

What happened in 1066?

The Norman Invasion, in which a Gallican style of Christianity is introduced to the British Isles.

What style of Christianity did Augustine of Canterbury bring?

[Vlad]

What happened in 1066?

The Norman Invasion, in which a Gallican style of Christianity is introduced to the British Isles.

What style of Christianity did Augustine of Canterbury bring?

From what I have heard it was Latin but still Orthodox pre schism and it mixed with the Celtic Church.

[Riddikulus]

What happened in 1066?

The Norman Invasion, in which a Gallican style of Christianity is introduced to the British Isles.

What style of Christianity did Augustine of Canterbury bring?

Well, I suppose we need to remember that the Roman church at that time was Orthodox, too; though there were different traditions that the Celts were slow to accept; the Roman style of tonsuring, is one example.


edit: Sorry, my comment is really a bit superfluous. I see that Vlad has already said something similar.

[Liz]

There were still married priests well into the 14th century.

Were these "officially" allowed in England? I had thought Pope Gregory VII had put an end to married clergy in the west. At least thats what I was taught as an RC.

No, they weren't officially allowed! But a lot of medieval high-ranking clergy spend a lot of time worrying about the ignorance/heterodoxy of parish priests and their flocks. Some people were so isolated, of course, that it was very hard to keep track of them.

In fact, when Cranmer married, much later on, I believe he used the argument that the good priests of old England (ie., the Orthodox priests under, say, Alfred the Great) had been married.

[Vlad]

There were still married priests well into the 14th century.

Were these "officially" allowed in England? I had thought Pope Gregory VII had put an end to married clergy in the west. At least thats what I was taught as an RC.

No, they weren't officially allowed! But a lot of medieval high-ranking clergy spend a lot of time worrying about the ignorance/heterodoxy of parish priests and their flocks. Some people were so isolated, of course, that it was very hard to keep track of them.

In fact, when Cranmer married, much later on, I believe he used the argument that the good priests of old England (ie., the Orthodox priests under, say, Alfred the Great) had been married.

Ahh thanks.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Convert Issues (Moderator: Thomas) > Topic: England before 1066