Not necessarily. A multitude of disciplinary canons changed what +Paul had to say and The Church never changed those canons. The question therefore is, by what right did the Anglicans change those disciplinary canons. If Anglicanism is in fact a particular English church, it is arguable that it could have the right to make such a change, but I suspect that if in fact that is the argument, the other particular churches would react by pointing out that the mind of The Church wasn’t there and that such innovation by one part of The Church was inappropriate, +Paul to the contrary notwithstanding. The same considerations of course apply to remarriage, open communion, women’s ordinations, etc.
“But if you wish to write off Anglicanism because a minority of bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore historic church policy regarding bishops, then I could easily write off Roman Catholicism because a minority of its bishops (most of them American) choose to ignore divine policy regarding young boys.”
But you know, to the extent that the Latin Church ignores and ignored what those priests and hierarchs did, it deserves condemnation, which it has received from Orthodoxy. This isn’t to say that Orthodox hierarchs aren’t liable to heresy. Heresy almost invariably comes from hierarchs, at least in the East and there have been cover ups of the actions of the “pink rasos” crowd in Orthodoxy too. But it isn;t widespread and in Russia where some priest celebrated a gay marriage, he was defrocked and the temple torn down so that not a stone lay on a stone. That reaction and the reaction (or non reaction) of the Latins, however, is of an entirely different order from that of, apparently, most of Anglicanism which either sits by saying nothing or actually applauds the notion that sodomy is no sin and the HS is doing a new thing. That’s what lead some Orthodox hierarchs and theologians to question whether or not Anglicanism is a valid part of The Church.
“I do not do that because I can plainly see that what Cardinal Law and his ilk did in no way represents Catholic doctrine and discipline. Likewise you should be able to see that what Gene Robinson and his ilk have been doing in no way represents Anglican doctrine and discipline.”
That’s not the point. One hopes they don’t. The point is that if substantial segments of a church publicly support sinful depravity on the one hand or cover it up on the other, without any consequences then those hierarchs who are “orthodox” must cut the heretics off. If the “orthodox” can’t or won’t do that, then they are equally responsible with the heretics for the destruction done to the Faithful and liable to the charge that the heretics do indeed represent the doctrine of the church or group.
You are correct that a substantial majority of the Episcopal Church’s members either wholeheartedly support the revisionists or simply don’t take their faith seriously enough to take action against them. That is why it is the orthodox who are walking out to meet in high schools (as my parish did) instead of the liberals. Some things are simply more important than stained glass windows. However, the Episcopal Church itself is a small minority in the Anglican Communion. Combined with Canada and England, they still constitute a shrinking minority in the Communion. Most of the Anglican hierarchs (especially the ones who do not ordain women) are certainly not sitting idly by while ECUSA carries on. Rather they are making a stand for the Truth, and if that means tossing the Church of England out of the Anglican Communion, then so be it. Remember, it was long before Gene Robinson that several overseas primates took the extraordinary step of sending their own bishops into the USA.
In 2003, it looked to some in other denominations that Anglicanism was finished and that there would be an influx of ex-Anglicans into their denominations. Now the unthinkable may happen- Anglicanism will survive and will be much stronger for it.