Why doesn't the catholic church demand back all its stolen lands

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By not demanding them back she lives the Gospel which says that if one demands your coat, give them your cloak also…

Not demanding back lands stolen 500 years ago, promotes peace and reconciliation.

It is the loving thing to do.

Peace
James
 
The Church needs to be more concerned with winning back the people of the UK and Germany than in getting back any real estate.
 
The whole earth belongs to our King, Jesus Christ, and to His Father who made it.

What does it matter who’s name is on a piece of paper or who claims a bit of land as theirs?

Peace
James
 
Simple reason: because it wouldn’t get them.

I also suspect a lot of these confiscations were in fact legal.

I’m not a scholar of the details of these confiscations, nor of the law of the time. However, it would not surprise me to find that much like in the present-day US, the title holder to Church property is not the pope, but in most cases the bishop or diocese.

Much like property involved in drug trafficking currently can be seized by the government, similar laws may have been enacted mandating forfeiture of property related to treason or defiance of the king or his state church, or property may have automatically reverted to the king upon suppression of the legal entity of the diocese.🤓
 
The Church of England is facing financial ruin due to the requirements to keep land and ancient churches in repair. I doubt very much the Catholic Church would want all the baggage back!

The land in the UK was crown property (even prior to the Reformation) so no land was stolen anyway.
 
The Church shouldn’t have had those lands in the first place, and certainly wouldn’t know what to do with them now. I wonder where the world would be now if the Church hasn’t spent hundreds of years concerned with, and distracted by, secular governance.
 
Why doesn’t the Catholic Church demand back all its stolen lands?

First, let me answer your question with a question. Could you be a bit more precise as to what the desired outcome would be? What would the new set of circumstances look like, ownership-wise?

Second, it’s a little difficult to say with much precision in the absence of a more detailed plan for an outcome, but I am reasonably confident in asserting that if the CC attempted to take legal action toward reclaiming its “stolen lands,” there would be no actual legal grounds for doing so. There is no case, and the CC would not be able to demonstrate that it is the rightful owner of any large number of lands that it currently holds no title to.

Alternatively, the CC could hypothetically raise an army and take some things by force. But that would defeat the entire purpose of having a legal system, wouldn’t it? The purpose of having a legal system is to peacefully and fairly determine who has an actual right to own something. The CC has not always done the right thing where this type of situation is concerned, but right now it is doing the right thing by being peaceful, not taking things by force when they have no legal claim to them, and declining to explore legal action in pursuit of an indefensible proposition.

What is that indefensible proposition, you ask? Well, basically, the claim that others possess a bunch of land that should be possessed by the Catholic Church, and that the Catholic Church can demonstrate an actual legal argument to that effect.

Now, if the Catholic Church did have such a claim and a sound legal argument, I would of course have absolutely no problem with the CC claiming what is rightfully theirs. But that is simply an assessment of a counterfactual; as is, there is no such thing. And as far as I know, the CC is not currently attempting to assert such a thing.
 
The situation now is perfect! The Vatican is its own country, on a manageable piece of land, and most important; it is not tied to any country, monarch or government! The independence of the Vatican is its most important asset!
 
CalCatholic said:
The situation now is perfect! The Vatican is its own country, on a manageable piece of land, and most important; it is not tied to any country, monarch or government! The independence of the Vatican is its most important asset!
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Vatican is not tied to any government…Vatican city would be pretty much untenable without the good will and cooperation of Rome and Italy.

Peace
James
 
Adamski said:
Mainly from England and Germany
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the monastic lands sold off by King Henry and the church buildings now occupied by the Church of England and the Evangelical Church in Germany?

When it comes to the church buildings, it’s hard to say that they were stolen. There was a continuity between what came before and after the Reformation. The English episcopal and diocesan structures remained intact. The only thing that changed was the removal of that ancient ecclesiastical structure outside of papal jurisdictions.

The monastic orders were dissolved and their property liquidated. Who would these “stolen” lands be returned to? Roman or Anglican recreations of these orders?

You assume that the receiver of restored monastic lands would be the Roman Catholic Church, but an argument could be made that there is more legal and structural continuity between the pre-Reformation English Church and the CofE than with the contemporary Roman Catholic Church in England (which was entirely recreated in the 1800s).

Just to illustrate, the Catholic Church did not even try to recreate a Roman Catholic Archbishopric of Canterbury or any of the other pre-Reformation dioceses. This is an implicit admission that the modern Catholic Church in England is something different from that which existed prior to Reformation.
 
The stealer rarely wants to return to the person or entity that they stole it from. If that were the case, just about all of us would have to leave the new world. I don’t see the United States in any rush to return lands that they legally stole.
 
ltwin said:
When it comes to the church buildings, it’s hard to say that they were stolen. There was a continuity between what came before and after the Reformation. The English episcopal and diocesan structures remained intact. The only thing that changed was the removal of that ancient ecclesiastical structure outside of papal jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
It was illegal for Catholics to worship post-Reformation as they did pre-Reformation. This is continuity? Using that argument, a king or queen can be assassinated, a new line put on the throne, his heirs still living but their birthright usurped, and everything is okay because of continuity.:rolleyes:
The monastic orders were dissolved and their property liquidated. Who would these “stolen” lands be returned to? Roman or Anglican recreations of these orders?
Click to expand...
You assume that the receiver of restored monastic lands would be the Roman Catholic Church, but an argument could be made that there is more legal and structural continuity between the pre-Reformation English Church and the CofE than with the contemporary Roman Catholic Church in England (which was entirely recreated in the 1800s).
Click to expand...
That argument is akin to this. Person A steals from me. We are both atheists at the time. Along the way I become Catholic, and person A remains a thief and an atheist. Forty years later the courts decide person A should legally keep what he stole, because I am not even remotely the man I used to be, and person A is still that same thief and atheist. By the way, why did the Church have to be recreated in the 1800’s? It’s amazing that though you say she was recreated, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman had no problem seeing the continuity in Her to what she was before, but could not find it in the Anglican church to which he belonged, though he tried.
Just to illustrate, the Catholic Church did not even try to recreate a Roman Catholic Archbishopric of Canterbury or any of the other pre-Reformation dioceses. This is an implicit admission that the modern Catholic Church in England is something different from that which existed prior to Reformation.
Click to expand...
Centuries have gone by, is Her claim less legitimate because she has grown and developed? Time moves on, there is no way that mustard seed could grow and still be a seed, Jesus explicitly tells us this
 
Duane1966 said:
It was illegal for Catholics to worship post-Reformation as they did pre-Reformation. This is continuity? Using that argument, a king or queen can be assassinated, a new line put on the throne, his heirs still living but their birthright usurped, and everything is okay because of continuity.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Organizations change their beliefs all the time, but that does not cause them to cease to be. The simple fact is that the hierarchy of the Church of England has direct continuity with the hierarchy of the pre-Reformation church.

The Roman Catholic clergy submitted to King Henry at the Convocation of Canterbury in 1532. Thomas Cranmer’s appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury was obtained through the normal channels. Nothing was “stolen.”

The fact is that legally and organizationally the CofE is a clear successor to the pre-Reformation Church. Roman Catholics became dissenters, and ultimately, had to create a new hierarchy and diocesan structures.

Why stop at England and Germany? Why not wonder about all the Greek-speaking lands that were “stolen” by the Eastern Orthodox . . . :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top