Three dioceses in Yorkshire ”” BradÂford, Ripon & Leeds, and Wakefield ”” should be abolished and replaced by a single, larger diocese, a report from the Dioceses Commission sugÂgests.
The Commission began a review of the dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds, Sheffield, and Wakefield, and their boundaries with the diocese of York, last year. Its report, published yesterday, concludes “that the existÂing configuration of the dioceses in West Yorkshire is no longer approÂpriate for the Church’s mission and not sustainable into the future”.
It recommends, however, that the “distinct community” of South YorkÂshire continue to have its own dioÂcese of Sheffield.
Ripon was erected in 1836 and Wakefield in 1888. Sheffield and Bradford are twentieth century creations, being formed in 1914 and 1920 respectively.
You can trace the process of diocesan formation [url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com/search/label/Maps]here[/url].
What would they call the new diocese? I ask this because Anglicans have not observed the same courtesy as Catholics, who refrained from giving their sees the same names as Church of England dioceses. For example, the Anglican dioceses of Southwark and Portsmouth were created after the Catholic dioceses. This relates to the reunification proposal. It seems that some people in Church of England were irritated that there was a Catholic diocese of Leeds (the biggest city in West Riding of Yorkshire) and not an Anglican diocese, so in recent years it renamed the diocese of Ripon by making it Ripon and Leeds.
Similarly, the Catholics had a diocese of Nottingham (the largest city in the East Midlands) while the Church of England had a diocese of Southwell. So latterly they renamed their diocese the diocese of Southwell and Nottingham. But when Catholics created a diocese for Sheffield they did not use the name, there already being a diocese of Sheffield in the Church of England. Instead, they named their diocese Hallam.
As I understand it the English civil law forbids the Italian Mission to the Irish (IMTI) from using the names of any Church of England dioceses. The report has a good history of the development of Church of England dioceses.
The Episcopal Church would do well to emulate the Church of England study of dioceses and diocesan boundaries. I have thought for some time that the Episcopal Church needs to rework its structure for efficiencies of mission. Most Episcopal dioceses are too small and poor to be effective.
A suggestion: Begin with clusters of 10 to 20 congregations including both large and small in a driveable area and consecrate one of the parish or retired clergy to confirm and lead for 6 to 9 years. Organize dioceses of 10 to 20 such clusters (100 to 400 congregations depending on size and geography) big enough to support a bishop, staff and conference center). Organize a dozen or so archdioceses and assign to these bishops most of the present responsibilities of General Convention and Executive Council.
Tom,
Proposals of the sort you suggest were voiced in many General Conventions during the twentieth century. They never got anywhere because it was conceded that the General Convention (and, by extension, the national church) could not adjust diocesan boundaries without the consent of the affected dioceses, and when it comes to dissolving a diocese (just as with dissolving a parish) few of those those in leadership positions are interested.
The modest suggestion at the 2009 Pittsburgh TEC diocesan convention to reunite that diocese with Northwestern Pennsylvania got short shrift, even though the economic arguments are all in its favor.
Tom, I am afraid that you are 140 years out of date. It is true that an act was passed which at the time prevented Catholics from using not only the titles of Anglican sees, but any territorial title: The Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 60) which was passed in 1851. It was never enforced, and was probably unenforceable, and was repealed 20 years later by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1871. I was referring in my earlier posting to matters of courtesy, and my observation still stands.