Question:
Answer:
England’s Christian origins date to the early Church, but Pope St. Gregory the Great’s sending of St. Augustine of Canterbury during the late 500s firmly established the Church in England and thereby provided the basis of great growth.
In addition, we can’t imagine what the Orthodox Church apologists you referenced mean in saying that England sided with the “Eastern churches” in the Schism of 1054. It’s similar to what is claimed in this article. England by that time was a long-established part of the Latin Church. The issue was functionally settled at the Synod of Whitby in 664, which adopted the Roman discipline for the north, especially the dating of Easter and the Roman tonsure, thus ecclesiastically uniting the whole island.
The Archbishop who later carried that unity into effect and established synodal government in the English Church was, ironically enough, from the East: St. Theodore of Tarsus, which is located in the south-central region of modern-day Turkey. St. Theodore was born in Tarsus and studied in Antioch, Constantinople and Rome. He was living in Rome when the central see of England (Canterbury) fell vacant, and he was appointed and sent to Canterbury by Pope St. Vitalian in 668, centuries before the East-West Schism of 1054.
St. Theodore’s successors also went to Rome—or sent legates there on their behalf—to have their elections confirmed.
England’s fidelity to the Catholic Church continued up to and through the Battle of Hastings in 1066, which William the Conqueror led. Of crucial note is the reign of King Edward the Confessor, who reigned from 1042-1066. There was no defection from fidelity to Rome during his reign. To the contrary, when papal legates again visited England in 1062, “they were responsible for the appointment of one of the greatest native churchmen of Anglo-Saxon times, St. Wulstan, Bishop of Worcester.” And this was eight years after the East-West Schism of 1054.
The death of King Edward provided occasion for the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and William the Conqueror, with papal support, arrived in England, in part, to foster ecclesiastical reform. Yet, contrary to what some Orthodox apologists maintain, William affirmed bishops who were already faithful to Rome:
All the best elements in the Saxon hierarchy he retained and supported. St. Wulstan was confirmed in the possession of the See of Worcester. Leofric of Exeter and Siward of Rochester, both Englishmen, as well as some half-dozen prelates of foreign birth who had been appointed in Edward’s reign, were not interfered with. On the other hand, Stigand, the intriguing Archbishop of Canterbury, and one or two other bishops, probably his supporters, were deposed. But in this there was no indecent haste. It was done at the great Council of Winchester (Easter, 1070), at which three papal legates were present. Shortly afterwards the vacant sees were filled up, and, in procuring Lanfranc for Canterbury and Thomas of Bayeux for York, William gave to his new kingdom the very best prelates that were then available.
Very few people at all in 1054 thought that the East-West Schism would harden and remain as it has. In substance, it should have been less important than the Photian Schism of the ninth century. Earlier in 1054, the Pope, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Patriarch of Constantinople (the leader of the Eastern Church) were exchanging letters about how to cooperate in opposition to the Norman expansions into papal and imperial holdings in southern Italy.
So the idea that nations in 1054 would be “taking sides” on an issue between the Pope and the Patriarch seems a preposterous anachronism. But in this case it would have to mean either some act of the king, St. Edward the Confessor, or of the convocations of Canterbury or York. We have never heard of such an act and we would charitably challenge any Orthodox apologist to provide a source. In contrast, as noted, the English Church’s longstanding fidelity to Rome is well-established.
Perhaps the Orthodox apologist in the aforementioned article is attempting to extrapolate from the problems that Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, had with the papacy. He was holding multiple sees and knew that Rome wouldn’t stand for it. Thus, unlike his predecessors for hundreds of years, he did not go to Rome to be confirmed or request the pallium from the Pope but just wore his predecessor’s pallium.
Finally, it occurs to us that this Orthodox apologist may also be engaging in historical retrojectionism, inaccurately imagining an “Orthodox England” before 1066 because a number of Anglo-Saxons left England and migrated to Constantinople after the Norman Conquest. However, as noted, the English’s Church longstanding fidelity to Rome is well-established, irrespective of some Englishmen who left the country after the Norman Conquest.