Canterbury–York dispute

The main locus of the dispute was the attempt by post-Norman Conquest Archbishops of Canterbury to assert their primacy, or right to rule, over the province of York.

[1][2] It began under Lanfranc, the first Norman Archbishop of Canterbury, and ended up becoming a neverending dispute between the two sees over prestige and status.

The historian David Carpenter says Lanfranc's actions "sucked his successors into a quagmire, and actually weakened rather than strengthened church discipline and the unity of the kingdom.

The kings of England, who might have forced a decision, were more concerned with other matters, and were ambivalent about Canterbury's claims, which removed a potential way to resolve the dispute.

[4] The popes, who were often called upon to decide the issue, had their own concerns with granting a primacy, and did not wish to actually rule in Canterbury's favour.

Once Anselm was out of office, however, the popes began to side more often with York, and generally strived to avoid making any final judgement.

[4] The dispute began under Lanfranc, who demanded oaths of obedience from not just the traditional suffragan bishops of Canterbury but also from the archbishop of York.

Some historians, including Frank Barlow have speculated that it was because Thomas was a disciple of Odo of Bayeux, one of Lanfranc's rivals in the English church.

However, a main influence was probably the so-called False Decretals, a collection of decrees and canons from the ninth century, which mentioned primates as the equivalent of patriarchs and placed them between the pope and the metropolitan bishops in the hierarchy.

[13] When Lanfranc attempted to find documentary proof to rebut York's refusal, it was discovered that no explicit statement of such a primacy existed.

There was documentary evidence from the papacy that stated that Canterbury had a primacy over the island, but these dated from before York had been raised to an archbishopric.

Another historian, Richard Southern, holds that the statements relating to primacy were inserted into legitimate papal letters after Lanfranc's day.

Likewise, Hugh the Chanter, made the primacy dispute one of the central themes of his work History of the Church of York.

York based its claim on the fact that no metropolitan bishop or archbishop could swear allegiance to anyone but the pope, a position guaranteed to gain support from the papacy.

King Henry, however, refused permission for Thurstan to appeal to the papacy, which left the dispute in limbo for two years.

Although Thurstan did not reveal that the pope had ordered his consecration, he continued to refuse to make a profession, and resigned his see in the presence of the king and the council.

Hugh the Chanter, a medieval chronicler of York, stated that when the cardinals heard that explanation, they laughed and ridiculed the documents "saying how miraculous it was that lead should waste away or be lost and parchment should survive".

[30][notes 2] Hugh goes on to record that the attempts by the Canterbury party to secure their objective by bribery likewise failed.

[32][notes 3] Pope Honorius II made a judgment in York's favour in 1126, having found the documents and case presented by Canterbury to be unconvincing.

This foundered when William of Corbeil arrived at Rome and told the pope that he had not agreed to the surrender of St Asaph.

[39] Also important was the impetus that the disputes gave to efforts by both York and Canterbury to assert their jurisdiction over Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

[40] After the settlement of the profession issue, the dispute turned to other, lesser matters such as how the respective chairs of the two archbishops would be arranged when they were together and the right of either to carry their episcopal cross in the others' province.

[42] Most of the time, however, Theobald was not concerned with reopening the dispute, as demonstrated when he consecrated Roger de Pont L'Evêque, newly elected to York in 1154.

Theobald, at Roger's request, performed the consecration as papal legate, and not as archbishop, thus side-stepping the question of a profession of obedience.

Roger argued, that based on Gregory the Great's plan that primacy should go to the archbishop who had been consecrated first, he had the right to the more honourable placement at the council.

Eventually, Alexander placed them both on equal terms,[41] but not before the council spent three days listening to the claims and counter-claims, as well as Roger relating the whole history of the dispute.

[46] During the reign of Henry II, the dispute took a new form, concerning the right of either archbishop to carry their archiepiscopal cross throughout the kingdom, not just in their own province.

During the vacancy between the death of Theobald of Bec and the appointment of Becket, Roger had secured papal permission to carry his cross anywhere in England.