Has the Catholic Church ever received compensation from the Church of England?

[phil19034]

In my city I have seen catholic parishes (which were incidentally well attended and thriving at the time!) closed with the buildings sold off and converted to evangelical churches but that that is a decision, rightly or wrongly, made by the bishop.

Parishes are rarely “closed” (properly called “suppressed”). They are most often MERGED with another parish. Parishes are usually only suppressed when there’s not a single parisherenor in the parish. This almost never happens. When the financially suffering parish has people, it is merged with another parish.

As far as selling the buildings, the diocese doesn’t make that decision. The new parish does. If the merged parish wants to keep multiple church buildings, they can.

And if the want to sell the extra buildings, then can (with the bishop’s approval). In other words, the bishop has a veto to block the sale. But the bishop CANNOT make the decision to sell the church. That belongs to the parish. Also, any/all money received from the sale is kept by the parish.

God Bless

 

[Krisdun]

In the specific case that I know of they shut the RC church with little warning and basically told parishioners to find themselves a neighbouring parish. No merging in this case it was closed and that was that. Everyone was perplexed and remain so to this day but can you argue or contest a bishop’s decision? No! I may add this was not a small parish and had 3/4 Sunday masses when it closed.

Just for clarification it was not seized by the CoE this time!

 

[phil19034]

In the specific case that I know of they shut the RC church with little warning and basically told parishioners to find themselves a neighbouring parish. No merging in this case it was closed and that was that. Everyone was perplexed and remain so to this day but can you argue or contest a bishop’s decision? No! I may add this was not a small parish and had 3/4 Sunday masses when it closed.

I would bet that the parish was merged. NOW, that doesn’t mean the communication was good. The bishop or priests may have done a terrible job of communicating what happened.

But according to canon law, a bishop can’t simply close a parish. It doesn’t work that way. If there are Catholics living in the geographic boundaries of the parish, the land they live on has be assigned to another parish.

The land & building (according to canon law) belong to the people of the parish. NOT to the bishop. When the old church building is sold, it’s sold by the new parish.

NOW - a good pastor is going to make sure that people from the older parish are part of his parish council so they can be part of the decision to sell. A weak pastor might fail to do this. Plus, Father usually takes all of the “fault” of selling the church building even if it was 100% the parish council’s recommendation.

But a parish is NOT simply closed.

However, again: that doesn’t mean that the clergy can’t do a terrible job of communicating what is happening, why it is happening, etc. Sometimes they do a terrible job of communicating. And sometimes the people do a terrible job of listening.

BTW - a monsignor told us at Bible study once that the AVERAGE lifespan of a parish is between 100 - 150 years. He said the vast majority of parishes around the world do not survive past 150 years. Yes, we all know of very old churches/parishes; but that’s not the majority of them.

God Bless

 

[db90]

There is recourse or remedy, super-parliament its been tried before

1. invasion by a foreign power Habsburgs (Spanish Armada) or Capetians (Austria or Royal France) or some other power of consequence to this debate or not (Nazi Getmany, Napoleon France) - the Dutch were successful at this (technically a French vassal). A capetian invasion refers to the Auld alliance and the stuart line who are separated. It was basically up to the scots there.
2. Coup/rebellion. Technically the American revolution was successful at this. Technically the Irish and many others did this overseas since the fall of the British empire. It was non anglican protestants and catholics and even anglican ones not represented against the gov which forced a split. This revolution was quasi-luther quasi-catholic. We use the dollar (Habsburgs) unsurprisingly. Could say this goes back to gunpowder plot and pilgrimmagr of grace or early sidings woth Catherine Trastamara. Limit of this is a republican replay of the passion of the christ eg outdated. Then back to Spain, France, or some other foreign power if not imperialized under Christ…
3. Conversion by means of spirit - stories of conversions/return by witness, prayer, rosary, scapular, mass. Even catholic education maybe which is very popular in the uk today. People are curious and cross check regardless.
4. Conversions by means of nature - pretty guy pretty girl or dowry or inheritance. Over time people forget and just let nature play out. Anglicanism erodes due to racism et al see #5. This is the Stuart line in essence. Franz duke of bavaria doesnt want to press and frankly this is how it goes.
5. Conversions by means of society - Ex Anglicans becoming catholic priests due to their view of poor policy by the CoE creating self harm. This is how my family returned by seeing this and referring to #4 in a mix. This is the current line (wettin) who Pope Leo X originally chose as the civil authority over Martin Luther. Their sister branch is belgium, current is queen of england. Many German families are split this way.

Technically neither 4 or 5 are English. Still relies on the CoE clergy cowing to the Pope. Last real English King not integrated was before viking invasions- so France-Germany-Danes are duking it out spiritually. Havr fun!

 

[Krisdun]

Times are worrying for the Catholic Church in Ireland. I have also heard of RC parishes closing whilst other churches such as Pentecostal and Orthodox are growing in popularity with huge new places of worship being constructed.

 

[tafan2]

If the clergy and people change allegiance then they are no longer part of the Catholic Church and must buy or build another building to start up in.

Well, this was not the case in 16th/17th century England. The buildings were likely titled by the law at that time in either the Bishop, under fealty to the King, or to the King himself (for Cathedrals and Parishes). Yes, England seized a lot of Church property. But the Catholic Church itself was not a legal person that owned land in a given country (its not now either).

 

[Maximian]

The situation in Spain was different because the mosques had no business being there in the first place.

I had hoped that the CofE might be more generous to the Anglican Ordinariate than it was.

 

[Dovekin]

Can. 515 §2. It is only for the diocesan bishop to erect, suppress, or alter parishes. He is neither to erect, suppress, nor alter notably parishes, unless he has heard the presbyteral council.

Bishops are known as the corporation sole on deeds in the US.

But if you read the Wiki article on corporation sole, it says churches in the UK used land trusts to hold property beginning at the time of the Reformation. So the issue here was probably already adjudicated or addressed 500 years ago.

the new Bishops the Crown appointed to Succeed these Bishops that were not in communion with the Pope did not own the property.

If you think you can get someone to rule that the Pope, and not the King, was the head of the Church of England in the 1500s, good luck.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

If you think you can get someone to rule that the Pope, and not the King, was the head of the Church of England in the 1500s, good luck.

The “Church of England” is the new Church that was created the moment Parliament decreed that the King is “Head of the Church in England”, that being “the church under the King” which is a different entity to the Catholic Church (the Church under the Pope). The King from that point therefore should have started building his own church buildings. The King was excommunicated and hence he was no longer a part of the Catholic Church, let alone its head. By continuing to use these buildings the King was effectively stealing, or at least acting like a communist dictator (who steals peoples property “legally”). Let’s hope that at least if that wasn’t recognized then, it will be recognized now in justice. Let us learn from the errors of communism

 

[db90]

Yes, the present royal family’s lineage which had civil authority over luther. They have the powerful civil means I would argue but need to connect with the Lord in thr Papal way/right.

Safety Edit- america did not fight this family for its revolution

Second edit- but like thr habsburgs theyll be stuck between becoming a republic (old rome) vs accepting a french monarch, currently king of spain (rome’s successor) because like all monarchs they will need a SUCCESSOR/legacy

Hail celibacy. Good day!

 

[Hume]

Since Anglicans don’t usually even dispute this, you may want to go re-read your history.

I’m fairly read on it. Please don’t skirt the question.

Who, for example held title to the Church in Canterbury? They are the ones that would be owed renumeration.

I doubt it was Rome.

I’m reminded of an event in California where there was some church land a star wanted to buy. All kinds of Catholic hierarchs weighed in, some with a heavy hand.

But the fact remained that a local Catholic convent held title. So if the land was sold, they were getting the money.

Point here is that whoever held title to the church in Canterbury is owed any possible renumeration for its seizure.
Not anyone else.

So who here has a deep understanding of 16th century English ecclesiastical property law?

 

[ltwin]

Interesting proposition. Let’s consider some things.

1. Most of the pre-Reformation church’s wealth was in land, not buildings. The church owned between one-fifth and one-third of all the land in England. There is no way you can return this land or compensate the modern Catholic Church for all of that lost economic wealth.
2. Because the church owned so much land, it was not unusual for the Crown to sieze it at various times. Monastic wealth was seized by Catholic monarchs in 1295, 1337, and 1369.
3. What Henry VIII did was not unusual. He needed money, the church had it in the form of vast estates, and he confiscated it. The only reason the church was unable to rebuild its landed wealth was because the Protestant Reformation intervened and made monasticism a dirty word for theological reasons.
4. The church buildings were not taken or stolen. They continued to be used by the same parishes and communities whose ancestors had worshiped in them for centuries. Yes, liturgy was spoken in English instead of Latin, they used a Book of Common Prayer rather than a missal, and there was some Protestant theological ideas that replaced Catholic theological ideas. All of that is true. But the church buildings continued to serve the same communities they were built by and for.
5. During the Marian Restoration, the Catholic authorities tried to get Parliament to return church lands, but ultimately the Church realized that was impossible and never going to happen. So, the Catholic Church allowed those who had bought confiscated church lands from the Crown to keep it when they absolved the entire realm of schism. It’s already a done deal. The Church accepted that in the 1500s.
6. If we were to imagine this actually happening, why do you think the contemporary Catholic Church should get compensated though? None of the Catholic monastic orders in England today existed then. They are all recreations. None of the Catholic dioceses in England today existed in England then. They are all new dioceses set up in the 1800s. If anyone should get compensation, it would be the legal successors to the ancient dioceses and their bishops who were forced to make unequal land exchanges with the Crown, like the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London. All of those are Anglican by the way.

 

[ltwin]

The monks and sisters often forced out to fend for themselves.

Monks and nuns received pensions, but they were small. It was easier for the monks because they had the option of becoming secular clergy. For the nuns, it was much harder. Even though they were no longer living in their religious orders they were still bound to their monastic vows, which meant they could not marry and gain a measure of financial security from having a husband.

 

[ltwin]

So who here has a deep understanding of 16th century English ecclesiastical property law?

Wouldn’t title to monastic lands be held by the abbot or abbess? They sat in the House of Lords as great property owners, just like diocesan bishops did.

I know the bishops had their own estates. Did they own the cathedrals or were the cathedral chapters their own corporations?

I know some parish benefices were controlled by the bishop, others were controlled by monastic houses and others were controlled by wealthy laymen. Control over the benefice gave the patrons the ability to choose the priest in charge. But does patronage imply ownership?

 

[Angannas]

But Harry didn’t see himself as starting a new church, just changing the constitution of the old one. He considered himself to be a Catholic until he died. Still today, if the CofE is asked for the date of its foundation it will give the date of Augustine of Canterbury’s mission. Also, don’t forget that Mary restored papal supramacy, the current break with Rome dates to Elizabeth I. People thought very differently in the 16th century

 

[Jbrady]

People thought very differently in the 16th century

Unfortunately, a lot of people on both sides thought that the best way to worship God was to persecute, torture and murder their fellow Christians by the thousands with reckless abandon in His Holy Name. Not our finest moment, nor theirs. Pray that it never happens again.

 

[PickyPicky]

I suspect the Vatican would be considerably distressed at the prospect of picking up the enormous annual costs involved in the ownership of historic English churches.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Also, there were mosques in Spain that were turned into Catholic Churches and was there ever compensation given for that?

Many of those mosques had previously been Catholic Churches.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The church buildings were not taken or stolen. They continued to be used by the same parishes and communities whose ancestors had worshiped in them for centuries.

I grew up in the town of Reading, where you can visit the ruins of the abbey there. In fact the parish church I attended for many years was built on abbey land and using abbey stones.

Many outbuildings and secular buildings that had belonged to the abbey at the time of the dissolution continued in use, including the school and various municipal buildings and even some chapels. Some still stand today whereas others survived for another couple of generations but were then destroyed in the Civil War. But the actual church part of the abbey was immediately deconsecrated, vandalized and robbed in the dissolution. Graves were opened and the bones scattered. Windows were smashed. The abbot, Hugh Farringdon, who tried to stop the vandalism, was executed just outside the great doors. The roof of the church was stripped for lead and the building allowed to fall into ruins immediately. Various buildings across the town were repaired with stone taken from the abbey and some of this is still visible today if you know where to look.

Many other great abbeys suffered a similar fate.

At the same time, much of the Abbey’s extensive land was auctioned off to the highest bidder, often far below value. A lot of people got very rich on Abbey land.

 

[GKMotley]

It will actually give a date, not definitively known, but even earlier. The actual origin of the Faith in the British Isles is fuzzy. There are a couple of vague references in classical sources, such as Tertullian and Origen, which are suggestive, but not proof, for a date in the 200s. St. Alban, who, if really an historical figure, could put the Church in the islands around 300 or so. No one really knows.

What is known, from a little later on, is that by around 300 or so, the Church in England was sufficiently established as to be organized into sees. Three British bishops attended the Council of Arles, in 314 (London, York and Caerleon). Three British bishops attended the Council of Rimini in 359, though they were too poor to pay their own way. It is debated whether there were British bishops at Nicea in 325 and Sardica in 347, but it is reported that the British Church agreed with those Councils.

And from there, there is a lot of history that runs up to when Augustine reluctantly did what Gregory told him to do. It is a complicated story of the various small kingdoms in the islands, which converted, which didn’t, who fought whom, how the Church grew and receded and how the Celtic branch of the Church played into it. Lots of history before 597. Ethelbert’s wife, Bertha, was a Christian, for example.

People did, back then, yes. And still do.