Minns gets reassurance from Okoh

A news report that Archbishop of Nigeria said CANA was no longer a missionary diocese of his province caused an exchange emails/phone calls between CANA and the Church of Nigeria.


Bishop Martyn Minns’ Archdeacon, The Ven Julian Dobbs, writes:

CANA’s Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns (who is currently in Singapore en route to Nigeria for the Church of Nigeria’s House of Bishops’ meeting, which is to be followed by a meeting of the Church of Nigeria’s Standing Committee) has asked me to pass along this information to you:

Earlier this morning Bishop Minns heard from both Archbishop Nicholas Okoh and Registrar Abraham Yisa who were surprised to see a recent statement in the media that suggests that CANA is no longer part of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).

Both Archbishop Okoh as well as Registrar Yisa told Bishop Minns that such reports are erroneous. They assured him that there has been no change in the status that exists between CANA and the Church of Nigeria, that Bishop Minns and CANA’s suffragan bishops continue to serve as members of the House of Bishops in the Church of Nigeria, and that the Church of Nigeria at the same time continues to promote the full recognition of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as a province in the Anglican Communion.

Information regarding the relationship that exists between CANA, the Church of Nigeria, and the ACNA can be found on the CANA website

Source

Okoh and Yisa were “surprised”, but Minns was not?

The points we raised Wednesday remain. CANA and the Church of Nigeria define themselves as they wish to suit the circumstances. CANA cannot be a part of the Anglican Communion. Provinces cannot cross boundaries, adopt churches as members and by doing so unilaterally make them Anglican. Moreover, unauthorized boundary crossing is subject to a sanction set by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Southern Cone has been subjected to this sanction, but Nigeria has not. And The Episcopal Church has been punished for consecrating gay bishops. Why is Nigeria exempt?

Posted by
Category : The Lead

Comment Policy
Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted. We also ask that you limit your comments to no more than four comments per story per day.

4 Comments
  1. Paul Powers

    Unless Nigeria has someone on the IASCUFO or participating in one or more of the various ecumenical dialogues between the AC and other Christian bodies, the restrictions don’t apply to them.

  2. John B. Chilton

    Paul – Last I checked they do.

  3. Paul Powers

    The restrictions that the ABC first announced in his Pentecost letter were limited to the IASCUFO and the various ecumenical dialogues. If Nigeria doesn’t have someone on the IASCUFO or participating in one of the ecumenical dialogues (and I have no idea whether they do or not), how do the restrictions apply to them?

  4. The member of the Episcopal Church and the member of the Southern Cone (who is now their primate) on that body were demoted to observer or consultant status. The members from Nigeria and Uganda were not. That list is here: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/12/8/ACNS4675

    The Kenyan involved in the dialog with the Orthodox was not removed, either. That list is here: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/9/23/ACNS4656

    The archbishop seems to have decided that the Southern Cone’s conduct in Brazil and North America crossed the line he had drawn, but that Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda hadn’t. I don’t think that is a sensible distinction.

Comments are closed.