All fair observations and requests. Tell though, and I ask this sincerely, why did the "orthodox" in ECUSA allow all this to happen. I understand that it was incremental, but even I, from the outside, saw what was happening. Is, or was, the mindset of the average ECUSA parishioner or priest 30, 40, or 50 years ago such that dissent from unorthodox teachings was frowned upon?
Another Orthodox fellow on another thread remarked some days ago in a discussion on the Novus Ordo Mass of the Romans that if a hierarch showed up in an Orthodox parish and said well, in 10 months we will be ordaining women to the priesthood and your Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostomos will be replaced by the Litrugy of the Here and Now Relevancy, he'd be run out of town on a rail and toppled from his episcopal throne. What's so different. My turn, sionnsar, to be confused.
Hi, Koloko,
What happened was that many changes were simply implemented, without prior approval. It was action followed by definition and thus another Latrocinium (which is how we view the 1976 General Convention, which retroactively approved the already-conducted female ordinations).
That's why we issued the Affirmation of Saint Louis and rejected the results of the 1976 GC. We have since been unable to retain communion among ourselves, not a little problem all to itself. But then, all that infects ECUSA but which ECUSA embraces we also suffer from despite our beliefs and intents.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
I will have to defer to Beleg's reply here, because I have long since offered the best answers I have.