Ecclesiastical Discrepancy?

From allAfrica.com we read:

Bishop John Obokech has been dismissed from the Charismatic Episcopal Church Uganda for allegedly being disobedient and dishonest.

The dismissal from the Church means that Obokech, who has been the church's Parish Priest/Dean, can no longer perform any religious functions in its name.

"He [Obokech] has placed himself outside the spiritual coverage of apostolic authority as conferred by the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC)," reads a letter dated August 23.

It was written by the Head of CEC, The Most Rev. Austin Randolph Adler.

The letter says Obokech's dismissal was a result from his "refusal to submit to Godly admonition and discipline from those in apostolic authority over him. Thus he has been found in violation of his sacred vows." . . .

Obokech was given up to September 10, 2006 to repent to the patriarch (the head of the church) or be deposed after that date.

(link to whole article)

What are the implications when this is compared to the excommunication, by Pope Pius XII, of Bishop Duarte Costa, who then founded the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, the communion from which the ICCEC procured its apostolic succession? I contend they are legion.

Our anti-Catholic controversialists, while admitting that the church of the parish or of the diocese needs its priest or bishop, its visible father, the human organ of the divine fatherhood, will hear nothing of a common father for the whole universal Church. The only head of the Church, they say, is Jesus Christ. And yet they see no reason why a parish or a diocese should not be governed by a visible minister; every Orthodox is ready to see in each bishop or priest a vicar of Jesus Christ, though he cries “Blasphemy!” when Catholics give this title to the first of the patriarchs, the successor of Peter. But do these Orthodox schismatics in fact recognize Jesus Christ as head of the Church? If he were really for them the sovereign head, they would obey his words. Is it obedience to the Master that drives them into rebellion against the steward that he has himself appointed? They are ready to allow Christ to act through this minister in any given part of his visible kingdom, but they appear to think that he exceeded the limits of his power and abused his rights in give to Peter the keys of the whole kingdom.
—Vladimir Soloviev, The Russian Church and the Papacy

One it is granted that such a center is necessary to the normal life of the Church, it cannot be supposed that the divine head and founder of the Church did not foresee this necessity, or that he left the indispensable basis of his work to chance circumstances or human caprice.
—Vladimir Soloviev, The Russian Church and the Papacy

I cast my eye over the history of mankind, and found that every association, from the most widely-spread kingdoms to the narrowest circle of friendship, was blessed with a head; that the very instincts of our nature seemed to lead to this everywhere as necessary to secure unity of purpose and action. I contemplated the Church of God; a society, not only make up of persons brought together out of all societies, but under the solemn necessity of being and remaining so perfectly joined together, as to “speak the same things, and to be of the same mind and same judgment;” thus “keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” And I asked myself, “If it be reasonable, that a society, whose unity is to be the closest in the world, should be composed of creatures of the world, and called to act in the world, and upon the world, and still be the only body in the world without a distinct, governing head?” The thing appeared to me inconsistent with the uniform wisdom and love of God, expressed in the order of His providence, and hence not to be admitted as a reality!
—L. Silliman Ives, LL. D., The Trials of a Mind In Its Progress to Catholicism