Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. While I'm sure some equate orthodoxy and nazism, but I believe it is "Nazir-Ali" on the see of Rochester.
Someone please explain to me the method and limits of excommunication within the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches.
As I have read this Anglican thread over the past year, it's clear that in America, there is a powerful organization (the ECUSA?) which is dominant within America in that most of the bishops are apparently aligned with it, and "liberal", in the sense of supporting a pro-homosexual agenda.
It's clear that these bishops have the power to remove "orthodox priests" and, critically, to sieze church properties and accounts, thereby amassing their warchest and their power.
Who, then, is above these bishops? This is the part of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism I am not clear about. If a cabal of bishops chooses to walk disorderly, who can excommunicate them, remove them from office, and take the church properties and accounts out of THEIR hands just as they did the "orthodox" priests.
I get the unsettling feeling that the answer to that question is "nobody".
But I've got to have that wrong.
It can't be that a cabal of bishops can walk disorderly and steal the Church's property, and that a bishop CAN'T be removed, no matter what atrocious thing he does.
So, could someone give me the picture of the higher structure of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church?
Who can remove a bishop, or excommunicate radicals who defy Church authority? Who can take the Church property and accounts from evil bishops? Can the Archbishop of Canterbury do that himself (I think not, given my reading of these articles). It sounds like even the worldwide Anglican Communion getting together can expel the evil bishops, but can't remove them from office and seize their assets for the Church. So who can? And how? And is it being done?