Idk if I’ve made a thread similar to this one, but I haven’t gotten the material I was looking for. I’m wondering if anyone has any books that trace British Christianity before the pope took over, and how their doctrine was different from the Roman churches. Also if any of the British resisted the papal takeover. I’ve looked it up on google on the books section and haven’t found anything. I’m starting to think early British Christianity might’ve had all the corruptions Rome and Constantinople did.
Not quite sure what you are looking for. This link may help, of the references and sources may be some of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity Not sure if you have read Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, however it is also a valuable source of information, and is widely available.
Could try these, although I'm sure the experts in this field could bring in a lot more examples. Stillingfleet wrote a pretty famous history of the first centuries of the church of england, from the 1st century AD and ending in the 5th century: Origines Britannicae, or, The antiquities of the British churches Christopher Rosdell, A godly and short discourse shewing not only what time the inhabitants of this land first received the Christian faith: but also what manner of doctrine was planted in the same. Whereby may appear, how the reformation at this day in England is not a bringing in of a new religion, but a reducing again of the old and ancient faith
I know the later differences between Celtic and Roman Christianity revolved around procedures rather than theology. The synod of Whitby 664 resolved issues such as what "hair cut" monks should have and the dating of Easter. The dating of Easter was important because the King of Northumbria (celtic influence) at the time was enjoying Easter feasts with all his mates, while his wife a princess from Kent (Roman) was doing her lenten fast. This synod probably marks the eclipse of Celtic Christianity by the Roman variety.
I think it would be more accurate to call the latter the "Latin" variety, in that after Whitby it becomes a participant in Latin Christianity. Before that, Celtic spirituality seemed to have formed a rather different form of Christianity altogether, neither Greek nor Latin. Afterwards, it became more part of the Latin Church. However you had Greek archbishops of Canterbury even after that. And as I posted in another thread, in the 900s England was one of the hotbeds of resistance to the new doctrine of transubstantiation.https://forums.anglican.net/threads/eastern-orthodox-divine-liturgy.4434/page-4#post-48746 The real watershed moment that the Church of England becomes Roman Catholic, was 1066 AD when England was invaded and then conquered by the Normans (aka, the French). The old church hierarchy was imprisoned and/or degraded, and the new archbishops of Canterbury and York, as well as most of the hierarchy, were placed with firm loyalty to the Pope, being imported from Normandy and other parts of the Roman Catholic world. However what's funny is that even after this conquest you still have moments of resistance, and tension between England and the rest of Roman Catholicism. Bishop Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253) rebuked the Pope for stepping out of his bounds: https://forums.anglican.net/threads...al-english-bishop-to-the-papacy-in-rome.3983/ The Magna Carta (1200s) establishes a firm repulse from the Bishop of Rome's encroachments, using the king of England as the new locus of power (presaging the Reformation). Etc.
This is all accurate stuff, but I think what's worth highlighting is that after William, the monarchs and the clergy were often at heads with each other. The monarch wanted to control the church, and so the clergy increasingly deferred to the authority of the Pope in Rome, and sought to empower the Pope in England, as a way to weasel out of complete subjection under the English monarch. In a way this sort of shows how the Pope could be an effective force in keeping the integrity of the faith. So yes, there was a big turning point after 1066 when William replaced the clergy with people loyal to Rome (probably not out of any real religious belief, but rather to oust the rebellious Anglos and put in loyal Normans), but not soon after, and especially after Thomas Becket became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1162, the Norman monarchs and barons and their close allies in the clergy were the resisting force against Papal influence, and it was the church in England itself that was increasingly seeking to be put under the yoke of Rome.
To find what you want search for Celtic Chrisitanity. That's what it's called before the Norman Conquest brought Roman Catholicism to the British Isles. It was resisted, of course, because no matter when you talk about nobody likes change. It was resisted more in remoter parts of Britain. Examples would include places like Wales because we must rmember the Normans only really conquered England. It took a lot longer for European Roman Catholicism to spread throughout the entire British Isles.
Yeah but the Pope wasn't a force in keeping the integrity of the faith, was he. If the clergy remained supervised by the monarch, the Church of England would've continued in the faith she had in the 900s, 800s, and before that; as opposed to completely altering her faith and adopting many of the Roman errors. There's this idea that the king controlling the church = bad; the pope controlling the church = good. I think that's a narrative fueled by secularism, by specific 20th century anxieties where we obviously don't want insane secular atheistic loonies having any say in the Church. But that's not the context of, say, the 12th century, where the monarchs were often more Christian, and more faithful to the gospel and to the ancient church, than the popes were. For example Charlemagne for his entire reign prevented the Latin Church, and even the Popes, from embracing the adoration of images, which came out of the East in the 700s. That's a good, right? The popes kept trying to push for it, but he by his monarchical power specifically forbade the Pope and the rest of the Church from embracing this innovation. The same with transubstantiation: you see the Popes starting to push for it, but the (old) catholics resisted it, and they had the kings of England to help them. I see nothing wrong with that. So when we look at medieval England and the clergy who resisted the oversight of the Crown, I don't see a triumph of religion, or an intact integrity of the faith. I see romanizing errant clergy, that sought to alter the Anglican piety, and used the power of the Popes to effectuate that in their lands. Also let's not forget that the Popes successfully lobbied to make the Clergy be exempt from secular laws. If a priest raped somebody, the local constable was forbidden from arresting him; only the Roman courts could try him. Thus you had two parallel legal codes in England (and the rest of Europe), where if you became a part of the clergy, you were immediately immune from all the laws around you. That's a big part of why the post-1066 English clergy resisted the King and clung to the Pope; he was the source of their power, and their immunity! By the time of the Reformation, the clergy were known as some of the most criminal elements of the English society, because the arm of the law was simply powerless to reach them. Priests buggering vulnerable people; Bishops who stole vast fortunes with no punishment; monks in sodomy orgies. Cardinal Wolsey who fancied himself a shadow king of England itself, making and unmaking the monarchy as he saw fit. That was the result of the horrible parallel law system introduced by the Popes, to keep their underlings throughout Europe safe and in power. So no, I don't buy into the Thomas Becket myth, and I definitely don't buy into the Popes as bulwarks of religious integrity myth. I'd argue it was literally quite the opposite. The Christian monarchs were the bulwarks of the faith, and the Popes undermined them in order to attain power. The local clergy, seeing the Pope as a potential source of their power, decided to cling to him and do his bidding, and in return received immunity from all laws, becoming free to do anything they wanted to.
Aelfric's homilies would also be a good resource. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jenglgermphil.113.3.0308