For a lot of us, we associate the medieval Church with accusations of heresy and terrifying inquisitions. However, at the time period of the Anarchy, the practice of the Church conducting inquisitions has not yet been invented. Heresy is greatly disapproved of, but actual executions for it are rare, and the Church is reluctant to get the secular authorities involved (as they typically must if punishments are to be meted out) altogether. Persuasion and, where that fails, more minor punishments up to and including imprisonment are favoured.
Although up until the 400s AD the Church went through a series of furious disputes over heresy, after the various Trinitarian and Gnostic quarrels were settled executions for heresy became almost unheard-of in Western Europe. In 1022, the King of France burned some sixteen alleged heretics, in what is believed to have been the first such execution in Western Europe for about some 600 years; only six more legally enforced executions of heretics took place over the next span of time, more or less all of them on the Continent, and it was only in the 1160s and after that that the Church and secular authorities would start executing heretics again in earnest (with the conflicts with the Albigensians at this time being the flashpoint that kicked off the inquisitions).
That is not to say that it is safe to loudly espouse opinions at odds with established doctrine, mind - but those who spread and teach heresies often find they are in more danger from the outraged public than the actual authorities. Whilst procedurally proper trial, conviction, and execution for heresy is still quite rare in general, there have been recent incidents of heretical preachers being murdered extrajudicially. In 1115, Tanchelm of Antwerp was murdered by a priest, and 25 years later Peter of Bruys was tossed onto a bonfire of crucifixes by his own congregation, both having caused great outrage with their heretical claims.
Although some heresies have been gaining adherents here and there on the Continent in recent years, England isn’t currently home to any full-blown, organised heretical movements. (It won’t be until the rise of the Lollards in the 1300s that such things will be recorded.) At the time of the Anarchy, heresy in England is more likely to arise on a personal level, either through people’s individual theological deviation from the norm or, as is much more common, simply accidentally misinterpreting Church doctrine. (Indeed, even the outbreaks of heresy on the Continent at the moment seem to be momentary bubbles surrounding particularly charismatic individuals.) Generally, if the Church notes that someone has heretical beliefs, this is pointed out to them and they are encouraged to recant; if they do, all is well. Refusal to recant makes the matter more serious - it’s one thing to be a lost lamb who has become parted from the flock by mistake and another to be a stubborn goat who is wilfully running away from it.
What is even more outrageous, and makes punishment or violent reprisal far more likely, is actually attempting to spread your heresy and teach it to people in defiance of Church doctrine. Whilst debate and discussion of less nailed-down matters are permitted in the correct venues, some very fundamental aspects of theology - the divinity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, and so on - are considered to be settled fact, and public, open denial of them a terrible social ill. Damning yourself is terrible enough; attempting to damn others by luring them away from the Body of Christ is perhaps the most evil thing anyone can think of.
The question of how to tackle heretics is a tricky one for the Church, and getting the secular authorities involved is something they are reluctant to do (especially if the heretic in question isn’t actively preaching their ideas). Remember the Investiture Controversy - a lot of the politics of the Church at the moment revolve around disputing the idea that the secular authorities have any say in spiritual matters to begin with. By the end of the century, the work of inquisitors collaborating with the “secular arm” would provide a solution to the problem. For now, there is no settled approach, and the Church in England gives thanks that no Continental-style movement of heretics has arisen to give them the sort of headaches the clergy of the Languedoc are currently dealing with.
Why Is Heresy Arising Now?
You might wonder why there's currently an uptick in instances of heresy across Catholic Europe. Hasn't the Church been cleaning house for nearly a century now? Surely the Gregorian Reforms would tend to bring wayward sheep back into the flock, rather than encouraging them to wander?
The roots of heresy in this era are complex, but one of the contributing factors might, ironically, be the Gregorian Reforms themselves. It is true that before the Reforms, Popes and others in the Church hierarchy were behaving in a manner far removed from what is typically expected of holy men with their minds on the spiritual well-being of their congregations instead of worldly pleasures. However, precisely because Gregory VII and his successors have been trying to reform the Church and root out flagrant examples of corruption, they have been drawing attention to the fact that such behaviour exists in the first place.
Gregory VII himself said that people didn't have to obey bishops who allowed priests under their authority to marry. That being the case, why should the people obey or listen to any clergy who misbehave, or allow misbehaviour under their watch? Tanchelm of Antwerp, when he began his preaching, started out by decrying the fact that the local priest was living in open concubinage. From that starting point, he escalated his attacks further and further, until he declared that the entire Church had lost all authority, and that the sacraments it gave were invalid and corrupting because they were offered by unworthy hands - thus did he persuade his adherents to abandon the Eucharist and church attendance.
(Eventually, Tanchelm would perform bizarre ceremonies like betrothing himself to a statue of the Virgin Mary and then demanding that his followers give him wedding presents, with the piles divided into gifts from men and gifts from women to see which sex loved him and his saintly bride better. To Tanchelm and his followers, this may well have had a meaningful symbolic purpose - disavowing worldly wealth is part of orthodox Catholicism too, after all. But to those who love the Church, it's a shocking example of what happens when you walk away from orthodox doctrine - at best daft nonsense, at worst an attempt by Tanchelm to simultaneously enrich himself and lead the people of Antwerp to damnation. It was only thanks to the amazing miracle-worker Norbert of Xanten coming in to preach after Tanchelm died that the people of Antwerp and the surrounding areas were brought back to the bosom of Rome.)
The Making of a Heretic
What prompts someone to take this dangerous path? Whilst ignorance and poor teaching of theology are obviously widespread, simply not having that good a grasp of theology is not enough to be considered a heretic - you might believe incorrect things as a result, but nobody expects an illiterate peasant to be able to coherently explain the arguments supporting the doctrine of the Trinity. (Of course, if said peasant persists in promoting a false teaching after they have been corrected, that's a whole other matter.) Here are just some examples of ways you can end up actively making the choice to leave the orthodox position your entire society has been encouraging you to stick with:
Religious experience. Sometimes people undergo powerful experiences which they attach great spiritual importance to. A certain Leutard, a peasant of Chalons-sur-Marne, claimed to have gained enormous insights into the gospel after he fell asleep outside and dreamed that a swarm of bees had entered his body. Such inspiration is a powerful motivator, though it's easy for the authorities to portray you as having fallen for a trick of the Devil or as being severely mentally disturbed.
Theological contemplation. The theology of the Church is complex and asks you to take a great many things as axiomatic. What happens if, after you have studied it extensively, you find that the arguments given in support of orthodoxy simply don't convince you? What if you have devised a magnificent argument that you believe can reconcile all the contradictions of faith, but which requires you to abandon canonical doctrine?
Historical discovery. Numerous noncanonical texts are in circulation in Europe despite the Biblical canon having largely been settled. The Crusade has provided an opportunity for many documents left previously forgotten to re-emerge. Even entirely orthodox texts can give insights into heresies: the early Church fathers had numerous clashes with heretical movements, and documented them extensively for the purpose of methodically refuting them, but what if on reading, say, Irenaeus' Against Heresies you found the heresies he described more compelling than the arguments he used to refute them?
Of course, using such a document as the basis of your heresy means that you might be basing your ideas not on what those early heretics believed, but what their enemies claimed they believed for the sake of attacking them… but heresy is heresy even if long-dead heretics would consider your heresy to be a heretical misrepresentation of their heresy. It's heresy all the way down! A bigger problem with inspiration from historical sources is that precisely because the Church fathers documented those early heresies so extensively, it's that much easier for knowledgeable clergy to figure out what it is that you're preaching - especially if they've read the same sources.
Existing movements. As mentioned, these are thin on the ground in England, but with pilgrimage heavily promoted (especially to the Holy Land) who knows who you could have ended up talking to on your travels? Such movements are unlikely to be able to offer you any support beyond kind words and prayers, at least at first, though if they are well-connected they might be able to give you a heads-up about approaching danger (especially if it's in the form of nosy Papal investigators).
Sheer frothing outrage. The Church is the custodian of orthodox doctrine. Some people in the Church behave in a stalwart and upstanding manner. Others behave like total jackasses and degrade the whole thing by their actions. If you have become severely disillusioned with the Church and have decided that it's irredeemably corrupt, you're going to be strongly motivated to question pretty much anything it says. After all, if clergy ignore their own rules on things like marriage and simony, why should you trust their word on doctrine? Although loudly opposing the Church as an institution is a dangerous game, having examples of blatant corruption to point at and scream about may be more persuasive to the masses than esoteric ideas about Sophia and Ialdabaoth and archons and whatnot.
Not Necessarily Heresy
Here are some things which are not, despite what you may think, automatically heretical:
Visions: Hildegard of Bingen, who becomes famous during the Anarchy, received numerous visions and developed an extensive theology drawing on them. She’s not a heretic, and is actually a very respected member of the Church. Visions may lend themselves to heretical interpretations, but it is accepted that the Holy Spirit works to inspire such things.
Noncanonical Gospels and Other Such Books: An apocryphal book is apocryphal, the clue is in the word. It would certainly be very wrong to second-guess the Councils that decided which books would become canonical parts of the Bible! That said, just because a book isn’t the authentic, inspired word of God doesn’t mean you can’t learn from it! Some extracanonical books are very, very heretical indeed - pretty much all the hardcore Gnostic ones are - but other apocryphal books may provide handy stories and imagery to help teach doctrine. There’s a scene widely depicted in this era of Christ going down to the mouth of Hell to let people out - that’s from the Gospel of Nicodemus, not any canonical text, but it’s such a useful and vivid image for explaining Christ’s role in salvation that the image is used anyway.
Unrecognised Saints: The Church fully accepts that there are people in Heaven it probably hasn’t recognised as such; moreover, recognition of saints is not yet the exclusive right of the Pope. If someone claims a miracle happened and attributes it to someone, they could well be right, and they aren’t saying something inherently heretical.
G-g-g-GHOSTS!: Ghost stories are widespread in this era, and the Church does not consider them to be automatically heretical. The view of the Church is that ghosts come in two types - mischievous demons who will flee the name of Jesus Christ, and the spirits of the dead undergoing the process of Purgatory and unable to pass into Heaven until they have done so. The idea that sin burdens the soul is one which the Church puts a lot of energy into promoting.
Common Subjects of Heresies
A lot of heretical deviations from doctrine concern controversies that have raged throughout the history of the Church. In fact, the distinction between doctrine and heresy is largely defined by who won and lost particular arguments over the history of Christianity, with the various ecumenical councils throughout history having been intended to settle the various issues once and for all. (They have proved largely ineffectual at doing so.)
Over this history, various battles have been fought over and over and over again, with regular subjects of heresy being outlined below. This has resulted in some of the heresies concerned being extensively documented, although often by unsympathetic chroniclers. If you want to know about heretical movements of the past that your character might uncover by reading the works of the early Church’s heresiologists, check out Historical Heresies.
Christology: What is the nature of Christ? Was he a human being, perhaps some sort of prophet? Was he wholly a divine entity, only pretending to be human? If so, was he formed of the gross matter of this world, or was his substance purely spiritual? Was he both human and divine? If so, how did that work? The doctrinal answer is that he is entirely human and entirely divine, but more or less all the other possible answers to this question have been espoused over the history of the Church.
The Trinity: The position that God has a triune nature as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with none of them being superior to any of the others, is absolutely axiomatic to orthodox theology. A large proportion of the Christological heresies above would inherently mess with that, but there are other deviations from it too.
The place of Jewish law and doctrine in Christianity: Orthodox doctrine reveres the Old Testament as presenting moral teachings, describing the Old Covenant, and offering insights into the nature of God. The Church considers Christians to be bound by some but not all of the Old Testament’s laws. The Ten Commandments are supposed to definitely still apply, the stuff about kosher food and sacrifice in the Temple are generally accepted as no longer binding, where you draw the line for the stuff between those two is fuzzy. (Thomas Aquinas will give some helpful distinctions eventually, but he is not alive yet.) Heresies relating to this subject may consider the law of the Old Testament to either be more binding than this, or not binding at all. (In the latter case, this may have an antisemitic dimension arising from a desire to get the Jewishness out of Christianity.)
Rejection of the God of the Old Testament: Some may go so far as to outright deny that the God of the Jews has anything to do with the true God. Any heresy taking this position would need to undergo some impressive mental gymnastics to be able to discount most-to-all of the Old Testament entirely whilst still dealing with the fact that Christ is depicted referring to and quoting from it at points in the New Testament.
Sacraments Given By Misbehaving Priests: An interesting thing about doctrine is that, whilst it’s tempting to imagine that it’s chosen by the Church for the convenience of the Church, it isn’t always the case. It would be very convenient to the Church - the Papacy in particular - to be able to declare that a priest who breaks certain rules or who is excommunicated by the Church or who is otherwise a wrongdoer loses his ability to confer the sacraments. However, that is not the case - once given the powers of a priest, you always have them. This doesn’t sit well with some.
Denial of the Church’s authority and sacraments: Just as a heretic may believe that individuals can lose their spiritual faculties, other heretics may hold that the Church itself has either lost its authority due the corruption of its power structure or misbehaviour of its leaders, or never had that authority in the first place. A heretic may also deny the effectiveness of the sacraments of the Church. In particular, denial of Transubstantiation is a rather serious heresy - after all, that’s the whole basis of Mass and the Eucharist!
Marian heresies: The Church reveres the Virgin Mary, but has very specific ideas about her. She was born without original sin, thanks to the Holy Spirit intervening to prevent it contaminating her, so that she could be a perfect vessel to give birth to Christ. She is an intercessor unparalleled among the saints thanks to her special position as mother of Christ. Ascribing more or less importance to her than that can lead to heresy.
Iconoclasm: is the idea that the respectful veneration of images of saints or Christ or other such figures is the same thing as worshipping them, and all such images should be destroyed as debased idols.
Some Current and Recent Movements
So, we have a range of heresies documented in the history of the Church, most of which died out centuries ago. What about the currently rising wave of heretical moments on the Continent? England is far away enough from the centre of power of most of these that, historically speaking, they never made it over to any significant extent. That said, it is possible that a character who has done a lot of travelling or has the right contacts may have had contact with these movements, or other post-Bogomil groupings that spread across Europe at the time.
Some of these movements had already been suppressed to the point of disappearance by the time the Anarchy started, but recently enough that player characters could conceivably have been around when the movements in question were still active and been recruited.
Petrobrusians: Followers of Peter of Bruys, who began preaching in around 1117 and died in 1131. Peter’s ideas revolved around a near-total rejection of the authority of the Church. He considered that the Gospels, interpreted literally, was the only sound foundation of religion - the rest of the New Testament being worthless forgeries, the Old Testament being largely irrelevant - and the writings of the Church Fathers and the judgement of the Church were likewise rejected.
He considered infant baptism worthless because children were too young to consciously decide to accept it, thought prayers and religious donations in the name of the dead were also pointless, denied transubstantiaton, and was a zealous iconoclast, believing that even the depiction of crosses or the building of churches was base idolatry. In the service of this latter position, he was tossing crucifixes into a bonfire during one of his sermons in 1131 when the audience, enraged by his actions, tossed him on the fire in turn. However, he retains an enthusiastic following, especially in the south of France.
Henricans: Followers of the extremely charismatic Henry of Lausanne, who began his preaching in 1116. Henricans are often regarded as an especially large and active branch of the Petrobrusians, Henry having been one of Peter’s supporters himself, though Henry has added his own particular spin on things.
Like Peter, Henry more or less entirely rejects the authority of the Church either to set doctrine or to maintain religious discipline, and rejects infant baptism and prayers for the dead. He also regards the Gospel as the sole rule of faith, though unlike Peter he permits its free interpretation rather than a literal take on it. In other aspects, Henry goes even further than Peter. He does not recognise any form of formalised worship or liturgy, rejects the idea of the Eucharist and Mass, and does not believe in the communion of saints.
In 1134, Henry was brought before Pope Innocent II at the Council of Pisa, and was ordered to renounce his heretical beliefs and submit to imprisonment. Bernard of Clairvaux offered to take in Henry to mentor him in the right path, but Henry does not seem to have made it there; he is currently at large and continues to preach his heresy in the south of France.
Cathars: A couple of centuries ago way off in the East, where the Marcionites used to be strong, there was a movement called Paulicanism which seemed to draw on a lot of Marcionite ideas - dualism, anti-materialism, and rejection of the Old Testament and its God primarily. After many Paulicans were relocated to Bulgaria by the Byzantine Emperor, where their fate became intertwined with (and may have influenced) a rather similar dualist movement known as the Bogomils.
Paulicans and Bogomils still exist in the time of the Anarchy, but are primarily centred in Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire. Their ideas, though, have spread to Western Europe (thanks in part to the mass movement of people during the Crusade), and are taking root in - yet again - southern France. The very first mentions of the Cathars in occur in the 1140s, midway through the Anarchy, and it seems likely they were knocking about in the region for a while prior to that. Once again, their centre seems to have been in southern France, and it is possible that as well as being influenced by Bogomilism they were influenced by the Petrobrusians and Henricans, especially in terms of hostility to the established Church.
They espouse a range of Gnostic and Marcionite ideas, including an insistence that the God of the Old Testament is the evil creator of the material world whilst Christ’s true Father was the benign higher God, and they reject the authority of the Church entirely. Their priest are nown as “parfaits”, or Perfected, and tend to go in pairs, one man and one woman, swearing themselves to a highly ascetic lifestyle and offering the “consolamentum”, a heretical sacrament that is intended to help cleanse the believer of the corruption of the material world and its pleasures.
The inherent corruption of the material world is central to much of how the Cathars practice their worship. Those who have taken the consolamentum are expected to be vegetarian, celibate, and dedicate their lives solely to spreading the faith; Parfaits take it when they adopt that lifestyle whilst many others don’t bother with it until death is imminent. Those who see death coming often undertake a fast until it claims them, so that they can cease being polluted by matter. They even reject the idea of Mass entirely, because they believe that the material nature of the bread and wine intrinsically corrupts it.
A Recent Heretic In England - Roscellinus
Not all heresies gain a movement of adherents, of course - some are largely remembered as the eccentricity of a single individual. An example that has recently gained a limited degree of infamy England is that of Roscellinus, a philosopher whose rather abstract ideas about nominalism ended up having theological implications that got him in trouble.
His philosophy was based around a rejection of the Platonic and Aristotelian ideas of abstract properties like wisdom or beauty or colour having a real, objective existence independent of the things that express those properties - the idea being that those properties are just descriptive words we use for the things in question.
This causes some unanticipated problems in theology; for instance, many philosophical explanations of transubstantiation hinge on an Aristotelian distinction between the essence of the bread and wine, the part which is actually transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ by the priest, and the “accidents” - the features which make them look, smell, taste, feel, and sound like bread and wine, even though they’ve actually become flesh and blood. Though Roscellinus didn’t take his nominalism in that direction, he did end up advocating Tritheism, pushing the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must have been distinct Gods rather than a single God, otherwise the Father and Holy Spirit would have incarnated at the same time as the Son did.
He came to England in the mid-1090s after making himself unwelcome on the Continent due to these views - he had recanted, but only under threat of excommunication and stoning - but then left for Rome to be reconciled properly with the Church after an ill-advised attack on the theology of Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time (and perhaps the most theologically gifted man to hold that office in living memory). In fact, some of Anselm’s best-loved theological writings were motivated in part by a desire to comprehensively refute Roscellinus.
Due in part to the role he played in the Investiture Controversy as far as England went, Anselm is very highly regarded by the Church in England, and therefore whilst Roscellinus’ name would be unfamiliar to the vast majority of laypeople, keen theologians recognise his name from Anselm’s discussions and refutations of his beliefs.