G
GKMotley
Guest
Times are lax.
Has the Catholic Church ever received compensation from the Church of England?
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
Lol…thank you,
G
GKMotley
Guest
Never smoked a cigarette in my (long) life. Probably why it’s been a long life.
Occasional small cigar, yes.
Occasional small cigar, yes.
L
LilyM
Guest
Didn’t quite work that way. The Crown in theory owns ALL land in the UK, and so it either donated or.sold to the Church all the land that the Church ended up.controlling.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.
That may very well be the case, but the Pope gets to decide who the Bishops are, hence the new Bishops the Crown appointed to Succeed these Bishops that were not in communion with the Pope did not own the property.
This is called infiltration and take over. There is two ways of leaving a building, leaving by choice and leaving without a choice. From history it seems that the latter is what happened to Catholics. If a person was even found out to be Catholic they could be put to death let alone for merely being in the Churches which were rightly there’s.
Monasteries and abbeys etc were largely dissolved under Henry VIII. He essentially expelled the clerics and religious and resumed.the property on grounds of corruption or possibly treason (as many did not support his religious reforms or second marriage, either of which was considered treason).
As has been pointed out, the Church in theory had the chance to reverse this under the Catholic Mary I, I don’t know.whether they even asked for their property back but Mary certainly decided against it.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
And when this power is abused it’s called dictatorship. In many communist countries people’s properties have been taken from them, in theory all the land belongs to the dictator, however we can agree now in 2020 that peoples homes should never have been taken from them and they should be given back or compensation, and we can also say the same in justice for the Catholic Church and the Monasteries.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
And then they can recompense the descendants of people who were forced to pay tithes to the Church and rents if they were their landlords.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Pole brought the concept of not trying to recover the monastic holdings from those who had acquired them with him from Rome, as Legate. it was part of the idea of smoothing the restoration peacefully.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Oddly, neither is she mine. Nice lady, IMO.
G
GKMotley
Guest
My sister got to curtsy before her, many years ago.
D
dochawk
Guest
I suspect that the deductions for damage (such as taking the land upon which the mosque was built, rent for time held, etc.) would exceed the compensation . . . in a reconquest, the property is not “taken from” but “taken back” or “recovered”.
that’s kind of basic feudal law with property held by tenure. All property in England is held of the king, even to this day, and can revert there.
In the US, all property is held of the state government. This actually came up (and mattered) about 40 or 50 years ago in California. Someone died with now heirs, and the property went to the state. The feds claimed the state was inheriting (and thus estate tax due), while the state claimed it was simply reverting. Being a question of state law on property, it was decided by the state Supreme Court (rather than federal), which held that the tenure of land had never been abolished.
as far as the basic question, the split was more a schism, with the breakaway part taking some of its lands, and losing others to the crown (from which they were granted).
Given that English law recognizes the Anglicans as “the” church in England, which (in their view) was liberated from Rome, it would make no legal sense to talk about paying the “oppressors” for no longer being oppressed.
Should the American states compensate England for the land they “took” when we broke away? It[s kind of the same question . . .
And if, for some reason, enough English law was ignored to find compensation due for the king taking his lands back from monasteries, the compensation would go to the Church of England, not Rome.
T
Theo520
Guest
The same parishioners kept going to the same churches, with likely the same priests giving the service.
L
ltwin
Guest
Yes. For the parish churches it was business as usual, minus the various reforms and counter-reforms that took place between the reign of Edward VI and Elizabeth I.
The only groups who “lost” anything were the monasteries, who lost their land and the buildings on those lands. However, those monastic orders were all abolished and the monks and nuns all dead now. There is no one to compensate, unless you want to compensate the international orders (if the English orders were indeed part of any international structures).
But any compensation would only be financial. The Church of England or British government is not going to turn over Westminster Abbey to the Catholic Church so it can become a Benedictine monastery again. And most of the other monasteries and abbeys are demolished.
But none of that is ever going to happen anyway. The English never saw themselves as “stealing” a church or starting a new church. They understood themselves to be liberating and reforming their own particular church from Roman domination and error.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I’m the wrong gender for curtsying, which is just as well because I would certainly make a hash of it. But I would happily bow to the head of my country, and the fact that this rôle is currently held with such distinction would just be an added pleasure.
P
Petergee
Guest
“Never” is a very strong word. Stranger things have happened. In fact there have been a few examples recently of governments officially apologising for crimes committed by their predecessors centuries ago, and attempting some kind of reparation.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
If the government were to apologise for all the evil committed in the past against English people for reasons of religion, it would need to be a very long apology indeed.
T
TomH1
Guest
I can assure you this will never happen. The Church of England does not easily part with its money. It is not going to part with it for this reason.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
That is perhaps a little too dismissive of the CofE’s very substantial charitable and educational work.
P
Padres1969
Guest
I think the term “what’s past is past” is best applied here. If the RCC were to start demanding recompense for what happened 500 years ago in the British Isles, it would open a can of worms for recompense for the same in Spain from Muslims, the Orthodox in Turkey, and so on and so on. Redressing what some would see as harms from half a millennia ago is just not feasible. None of the individuals, nor in most cases the local entities (ie the parishes, monestaries, etc…), that were allegedly harmed (because again that would have to be proven I’d think) even exist anymore.
To say the matter is stale is putting it mildly.
To say the matter is stale is putting it mildly.
K
Krisdun
Guest
We cannot dispute the fact that both Protestants and Catholic were less than friendly to each other during those times. However it is quite clear to see that the CoE has benefited far more than the Catholic Church from the time of the reformation. Yes Protestantism may have arrived in the UK afterwards anyway but it is possible that if things were done differently (i.e. less forcibly) then Catholicism in the UK may still have been able to retain a sizeable proportion of Christian followers (as well as those from other faith groups which now exist) even until the present day instead of the much lower proportion it currently has. What happened centuries back then still has implications for Catholics living in the UK in the present day.
Last edited:
K
Krisdun
Guest
Yes parishioners may have kept going to the same churches taken over by the CoE but was that their chosen will? Perhaps they had no other choice depending on where they lived.
- Status