This post is part of a series. If you would like to read the first post and access the full list in the series, please follow this link: On the Synod on Synodality: Part I.

Structure

Roman Catholicism can sometimes be understood as equivocal with the universal Church, the Pope, and the far-reaching power of the Vatican. The Church is one of gothic cathedrals and high, vaulted corridors strewn with the bejeweled light cast from the thousands of stained-glass windows. The Church contains millennia of saints and scholars who get their doctrinal diktats from Rome, the buzzing center of the Catholic faith. That is to say, Catholicism is Roman.

However, Catholicism, as a system of belief, was not always universally Roman. The system of faith slowly became institutionalized from early antiquity into the medieval period until it took the form that we recognize as “Roman Catholicism” today.

Rome, Italy (the seat of the Vatican) followed what could be easily called Roman Catholicism, but the hinterlands of the Christian faith often came into conflict on issues of doctrine and procedure, which allowed for regional varieties that did not exactly reflect Roman (er…Italian) practice. Conversion did not always follow an easy path, so that early Christians did not immediately became doctrinaire Roman Catholics. For example, secular powers such as Charlemagne converted his kingdom by the sword. Ecclesiastics like Pope Gregory I encouraged conversion through syncretism, in which pagan temples and holidays were replaced with Christian ones to make it easier for people to convert (discussed below). Both methods, regardless of their ethics, resulted in unique expressions of Christian practice that often did not reflect Roman practice because converts were forced or retained much of their own customs.

Britain as a Hinterland

One such far-flung area of the world was Britain. The British Isles were exposed to Christianity during the Roman invasion in late antiquity, but after the Fall of Rome, the legions gradually left the islands. The Celts––or, “the British,” as Venerable Bede refers to the native people of Britain––retained regional forms of Christianity, in particular in Ireland, where it thrived along with literacy, scholasticism, and Irish monasticism. The Celtic Christians included certain very famous and pivotal early figures, such as St. Columba of Iona, St. Cuthbert of Lindisfarne, and St. Hild of Whitby. The famous Lindisfarne Gospels are decorated and written in the Irish style, just like the Book of Kells which was produced later.

Detail of “Christ Enthroned” from the Book of Kells, Folio 32v. Wikimedia, Public Domain. Source: Barry, CM. “Calculating Easter,” Irish Philosophy. https://www.irishphilosophy.com/2018/04/01/irish-computus/.

Roman influence officially returned to the British Isles in the sixth century when Pope Gregory I sent missionaries to England because of the beauty of the Englisc people (the Angles and Saxons had begun to migrate from Germany to Britain by this time). According to the Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People:

“Gregory himself went with the rest [to the Roman market], and, among other things, some boys were set to sale, their bodies white, their countenances beautiful, and their hair very fine. Having viewed them, he asked, as is said, from what country or nation they were brought? and was told, from the island of Britain, whose inhabitants were of such personal appearance. He again inquired whether those islanders were Christians, or still involved in the errors of paganism? and was informed that they were pagans. Then fetching a deep sigh from the bottom of his heart, “Alas! what pity,” said he, “that the author of darkness is possessed of men of such fair countenances; and that being remarkable for such graceful aspects, their minds should be void of inward grace”.¹ He therefore again asked, what was the name of that nation? and was answered, that they were called Angles. “Right,” said he, for they have an Angelic face, and it becomes such to be co-heirs with the Angels in heaven. What is the name,” proceeded he, “of the province from which they are brought?” It was replied, that the natives of that province were called Deiri. “Truly are they De ira,” said he, “withdrawn from wrath, and called to the mercy of Christ. How is the king of that province called?” They told him his name was Ælla: and he, alluding to the name said, “Hallelujah, the praise of God the Creator must be sung in those parts.²

While the Celts had retained knowledge and practice of Christianity, Angles and Saxons required conversion. Gregory I, who was praised as the pope who brought Christianity to the British (or English, or British, or Celtic, or Anglish?–even historical sources aren’t sure who Bede might be referencing as the British people in his Ecclessia). Gregory instituted the practice of syncretism to gradually convert the British. The Pope wrote to Bishop Mellitus in England “that the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed; but let the idols that are in them be destroyed; let holy water be made and sprinkled in the said temples, let altars be erected, and relics placed,” so that the populace “may the more familiarly resort to the places to which they have been accustomed.”³

Over the next century and under several popes, Britain continued the slow process of conversion. The royal houses of Kent, Anglia, and Northumbria converted relatively quickly to Christianity, but if we are to believe the historians of that age, Mercia and Wessex remained filled with untamed and rather scary war-lords.

The Debate over Easter

In 652 AD, Bede writes that a conflict arose about the keeping of the date of Easter, so that it was celebrated twice a year.⁴ The Scots (or the Celtic Church) celebrated Easter two weeks later than the Roman Catholic Church. Christians from both traditions lived among one another in the British Isles at this time, since the mission from Roman had arrived to find the Celtic Church. Therefore, Queen Eanfleda of Kent celebrated according to the Celtic date, while her husband King Oswy of Northumbria followed the Roman calendar. This meant that Queen Eanfleda was still fasting for Lent and could not attend the court while King Oswy was celebrating Easter.⁵

The state of two calendars had been tolerated and managed by Bishop Aidan, but without his conciliatory skills, the problem came to a head after his death. King Aldfrith of Northumbria called for a synod to decide the date and various other matters,⁶ such as the shape of the monk’s tonsure. Ecclesiastics from Northumbria, including St Hild and Bishop Cedd, sided with the Celtic date.⁷ St Wilfrid, Bishop Colman, and the kings, sided with the Roman calendar. The Synod was hosted at Whitby and presided over by the Abbess Hild.

The synod’s deliberation also included a strong political factor since an alliance of kings for or against Rome could sway British politics. By allying with Rome, a kingdom could become more cosmopolitan and powerful; however, it would also sacrifice its independence to the authority of the Pope. A century and a half in France in 800 AD, Charlemagne was crowned by Pope Leo III, which initiated the custom that divine authority consecrated secular authority, so this period of history helped to establish the balance of powers between Church and State for the next millennia.

When the debate over Easter occurred, it fractured the ecclesiastical body in England across old party lines. While the issue appeared surface-level, or simply the date of a holiday feast, the British adoption of a Roman date implied a seismic change. As Mayr-Harting notes, Irish (Celtic) monks tended to have a more imaginative personality (as the fantastical miracles in any Irish life will reflect), in contrast to their silent, meticulous Roman counterparts. In addition, Irish monasticism derived from Egyptian eremiticism, of a more Eastern and Byzantine Christian derivation, with a focus on intense solitude and difficult deeds, while Roman monasticism echoed Benedictine, communal monasticism.⁸ Finally, Irish law maintained ecclesiastical monastic lands within families; abbots could preference their family members as their successors, even though they were supposed to be elected upon their individual virtue.⁹ This is to say, the debate on Easter exposed a cultural question over the expression of Christianity. While the concerns were not particularly fundamental to the faith, they were human, daily, and tied to personal histories.

This brings us to St. Wilfrid, his periods of exile, and his appeals to the authority of Rome, as well as its repercussions for the hierarchical structure of the Church in Britain. This discussion will follow in the next post!

Notes