Following the end of the consultation period on the draft Reorganisation Scheme for the dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield, the Dioceses Commission has met to consider over 100 submissions made to it. It also heard oral evidence from representatives of the diocesan synods of the three dioceses. It is grateful to all those who took the trouble to write in, and to meet with it.
The Commission has had an initial discussion about these submissions and will be giving further consideration to them over the summer.
The Commission has decided to proceed with a scheme which will be published later this year, as planned. The details of that scheme will be worked out over the next few months.
What will this new diocese be called ie what will be its title, its see city?
From what I’ve heard in Sheffield in the last month, Leeds looks likely to be the see city, but as to what it will be called . . .
When this plan goes into effect the still-to-be-named diocese will have three cathedrals, not one of which is in Leeds!
Bradford’s future is shaky at best. According to Canon Sam Randall in his sermon this past Sunday (17th June, 2012), Bradford will be minority-majority by mid-century. Methinks ’tis time for the White Lady of Bolling Hall to reappear and plead for city.
I thank the respondents above.
What concerned me was that there already is a diocese of Leeds. Its incumbent is a Roman Catholic bishop. I have already bored the pants off readers of this site by complaining about duplication of diocesan names by the C of E. It had failed to establish see cities in some big industrial towns, preferring smaller, prettier cathedral towns (eg Chelmsford, Southwell, Ripon). Then bothered by the fact that RCs had scooped up those names they then tacked them on to their own dioceses.
#4 Fr Tee
That did not seem to concern the Roman Catholic Church overly when in 1850 they established a Catholic diocese of Liverpool in the long extant Church of England diocese of Liverpool.
But there is no property in see names and as far as the Church of England officially is concerned Article XXXVII “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England”
That said common sense would suggest avoiding confusion where possible, much as is done with the RC diocese of Arundel and Brighton and the Anglican diocese of Chichester. In the case of Leeds, there is a case for the Anglican diocese taking the City name because it is a principal city and most of us will get a reasonably good idea of what it covers geographically from the name, which might not be the case for say Wakefield or Bradford to us Southerners although the names would be familiar but the geography more hazy.
Diocese of Wake-Leeds?
PM, rare for you to be wrong. Factually, at any rate. After the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy in 1850 parliament hastily passed legislation which made it illegal for the Catholic Church to establish dioceses with the same names as Anglican ones. The Liverpool diocese was established in 1880, long after the Anglican one. See: http://www.liverpooldiocesanregistry.co.uk/
I don’t see this as a question of jurisdiction, simply one of ecumenical courtesy.
Confucius says: he who would correct others should first get his own expression of facts straight.
Above should have read: the Anglican Liverpool diocese was established in 1880, long after the Catholic one.
Sigh. I even read it in preview without noticing my mistake. Talk about sowing confusion.
#8 Fr Tee
Confucius also says, he who would sow confusion will soon reap chaos. My apologies for my part in that, even though some interesting things I didn’t know have come out of it.
I see the Anglican Diocese was carved out of the diocese of Chester in 1880. Presumably before the industrial revolution Chester was the main city in the North West.
The pity is that the church remains divided, but there we are.