Hello, my siblings in Christ. I present to you "The Orthodoxy of the Anglo-Saxons." There is actually a lot of speculation, I suppose sources are going to be rare for such a niche theological topic. I haven't had the time to fully comb the paper because of school but here is the complete article and some excerpts and observations I think are worth mentioning. My small list of quotes is not at all representative of the text and only a fool would cite greentext instead of reading the article themselves.
>the filioque, or at least the theology behind the filioque, was already known in England well before the Norman Conquest. The Council of Hatfield (680), presided over by Theodore of Tarsus, produced a credal statement which included the affirmation that the Holy Spirit procedentem ex patre et filio inenarrabilier. The statement is
surprising in part because it comes from a council presided over by a Greek bishop
>For Anglo-Saxon England − although the decrees of Hatfield are the first mention of filioque − by the time the issue was taken up by Photios, double procession was already an accepted dogma and a fixed part of the creed.
>Leavened bread had been used in Insular Christianity,
judging by the Derrynaflan paten (only mention at all of Celtic Rite)
>Most likely, leavened bread was originally used even in the West and
gradually was changed to unleavened bread. The change was probably uneven in most places, though Alcuin of York was under the impression that unleavened bread was a universal custom
>In other respects where the Latin Church was in conflict with the
Greek Church, the Anglo-Saxons would have been more closely associated with the Latins than with the Greeks, and subject to the same prejudices that the Byzantines associated with the Latins as rustics.
>After the conquest, Anglo-Saxon exiles and
refugees fled to Norway, Denmark, and France and only rarely to the East.
>That there were Anglo-Saxon refugees in
Constantinople, particularly in the Varangian guard, is well attested in near-contemporaneous accounts
>stuff about how Edward the Confessor had steady contact w Rome but not as much w Constantinople
>Lanfranc was permitted to journey to Rome for his pallium but was prohibited from attending any other synod of the Roman Church, as were all of William’s bishops
>Normans were actually more anti-Latin than the Anglos.
>Like the Orthodox East, most Anglo-Saxon clergy were married, even
among the bishops, but later chroniclers noted that after the Conquest, married clergy were forced to cease their ministry or live in perpetual continence
>The Norman bishops actively attempted to suppress clerical marriage,
but with poor results; there were still complaints about married priests even until the end of the century. There were those who felt that it was impossible to completely eradicate clerical marriage in any case, with Herbert of Norwich directly stating that if he were to suspend all the married priests in his diocese he would have to close down
all his parishes
>Normans also led the campaign to canonise Edward the Confessor as a saint, finally succeeding in securing papal recognition in 1161 under Alexander III.
>Though she documents evidence of Norman
disdain for Anglo-Saxon saints, Susan Ridyard argues that just as often the Normans were ready to co-opt the very same saints and proceeded to fully document local patron saints’ lives precisely because they understood their utility in maintaining a functioning religious community
>Edward the Confessor and Harold Godwinson were already importing bishops and canons and that the reform undertaken by the Normans was relatively conservative, at least given then-current standards espoused in Rome