It appears that the new Archbishop of Nigeria, His Grace Nicholas Oko, has proposed the introduction of the purported ordination of women to the Diaconate for the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). Heretofore, the Nigerian Church has been entirely orthodox in the maintenance of the male character of all three Sacred Orders of the Apostolic Ministry, on the basis of which the Anglican Province of America has enjoyed a 'covenant union' with the said Nigerian Church. One only need observe the history of the Church in the United States to know that the introduction of the purported female Diaconate from 1970 to 1973 astonishingly accelerated the 'slippery slope' of error which led to ultimate collapse of orthodoxy in The Episcopal Church. Let us pray that the Nigerian Church will not choose this domino effect, but will remain steadfast in Apostolic Order.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Female 'Deacons' for Nigeria?
It appears that the new Archbishop of Nigeria, His Grace Nicholas Oko, has proposed the introduction of the purported ordination of women to the Diaconate for the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). Heretofore, the Nigerian Church has been entirely orthodox in the maintenance of the male character of all three Sacred Orders of the Apostolic Ministry, on the basis of which the Anglican Province of America has enjoyed a 'covenant union' with the said Nigerian Church. One only need observe the history of the Church in the United States to know that the introduction of the purported female Diaconate from 1970 to 1973 astonishingly accelerated the 'slippery slope' of error which led to ultimate collapse of orthodoxy in The Episcopal Church. Let us pray that the Nigerian Church will not choose this domino effect, but will remain steadfast in Apostolic Order.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Following on the intriguing discussion at The Continuum , below is the carefully-researched essay by Father John Jay Hughes found in his 197... -
First this ... His Beatitude Jonah, the Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada of the Orthodox Church in America (...
-
Being a Tractarian, ressourcement, patristically-minded, first millennial, conciliarist, philorthodox kind of Anglo-Catholic, I have always ...
5 comments:
Here we go again. You Anglicans never learn anything from history. Without some authority with the power to enforce church doctrine , there is only chaos. What has happened in the mainline Anglican churches will eventually happen to all of those within or without the 'Communion' It's only a matter of time.
Matt-the-C,
It has more to do with when centralized power is initiated. It can't be after the horse has left the barn. Look at the disaster the ABC has now in his desperate attempt to reel-in the Anglican Communion. His Covenant which is still far from passing is almost 40 years too late. Even his tepid attempts to sanction Sorceress Kate and her Wiccan Band are being scoffed at. Regardless, Anglicanism does not need a Romish centrality to survive.
As JPII once wrote, the Church has no authority to ordain women. He of course was writing about the Roman Church, but I think applies to all of us.
I have always found what he wrote interesting, because the argument that is typically leveled against Anglicans is that our tradition and churches are deficient because we do not have a central authority in the form of a person, and that we should all become Roman because that is a Church with "authority."
Yet there are two interesting things going on:
1) Jefferts-Schori, Williams, and in this case the Abp. of Nigeria all exercise authority, and enforce Church teaching and doctrine. So it is not accurate to say there is "no authority" in Anglican churches. Rather it is more accurate to say that one "disagrees" with the authority in place. (e.g. "I disagree with the doctrine and theology of the Episcopal Church.") Every church has a magesterium and teaching office.
2) How can JPII write that the (Roman) Church has "no authority" to ordain women? The Roman pontiff, by virtue of his office, has the power of the keys over and above even an ecumenical council. He alone, the vicar of Christ, can define dogma in a way that is normative for the life of the (Roman) Church. I just do not understand he justifies or explains.
And the answer that is typically given when I have asked this: "The Roman Church is 'just never' going to ordain women," is not an argument but simply faith and hope that the pope, who appoints all of the bishops, is always going to remain faithful and true. Hence the old jab that in the Roman Church the Creed should be changed to "Credo in Papam."
From an outsider's perspective, the strength of the Roman system is the very thing that makes it weak. In the Anglican system a bishop or province may fall into heresy, yet we can call it that based on Scripture, tradition, and reason. In the Roman system, if the Church or the Pope propounds heresy he can raise it to the level of dogma if he so wishes. In the end it is hard to see how there can be heresy in the Roman tradition.
I am not saying this spitefully, because I love the Roman Church and the current pontiff; and I am certainly aware of the weaknesses and limitations inherent in our system. But the point is that there ultimately is no "heresy proof" system of Church polity/authority structure so far as I can see.
The office of deaconess has always been a "set aside" and not an ordination. If one ordains a women as a deacon, she will rightly expect the opportunity to be "promoted." The act of ordaining any woman to any office of the sacred priesthood removes said Church from the communion of the Holy Catholic Church.
While it is not of mere men to be prophetic, & thus to conclude that every Anglican province or jurisdiction will one day fall, it is fair to say that history has spoken loudly & clearly, & that the future of Anglicanism is far from promising. The plain fact is that the cause if this mayhem is the very structure that we all participate in is faulty. There is not only a missing mechanism to keep innovative error out of anglicnaism, but there is not even a method that all agree upon to identify error.
What I am referring to is the protestant essence of Anglicanism. Protestantism essentially turned the right to determine truth over to the individual (even Archbishops), & granted the individual a freedom to disregard what has gone before. In fact, Protestantism can be said to be a revolt against the past. There is a constant call from with in the protestant psyche that draws its participant’s into innovation. The justification for these innovations comes from a lack of understanding the apostolic truth has already been fully given, 7 has existed in a body much larger than their own.
The truth exists in the cannon of scripture as it was interpreted by the fathers, articulated in the ecumenical creeds, defended in the ecumenical councils & their historic canons, & practiced in the historical liturgies & piety. The truth is not ours to create or innovate; instead it has been passed down. Our task is to guard that truth and employ it without defacing it. Now the tough question, can Anglicanism do that, or better yet, is it likely that Anglicanism will do that?
Post a Comment