My comment was not intended to whitewash the Orthodox. You may add Spiro Agnew to your list...besides Paul Tsongas and Michael Dukkakis. WE believe that the path to hell is paved with the heads of the bishops.
American Orthodoxy, especially Greek, Antiochan and to some extent OCA Churches have been heavily "westernized" in some of their practices due to a large number of Protestant converts who make up their congregations.
One will notice "mass Communion" in these Churches, where everyone in the congregation every Sunday received it, even though it is impossible for one priest to confess all these people the night before, and the Church requires Confession, 12-hours fasting and prayer before Communion (as the Catholic Church used to).
Most of these churches will, for example, allow Ethiopian Orthodox to receive Communion, but I have personally seen priests turn down people at the chalice. During the Pope's visit to Turkey, the Ecumenical Patriarch is seen refusing someone.
My point is that once you introduce major changes in the worship, you introduce relativism. And that's precisely what the Vatican II created. No parallel changes were made in the Orthodox Churches.
Our Divine Liturgy remains practically unchanged from the 4th century. The extant changes include the location of the pre-sanctified Gifts, the full iconostasis, certain petitions were added, including the one "It is Meet..." concerning the Theotokos (not found in the 3rd century St. Basil's Divine Liturgy, but only in the 4th century St. John Chrysostom's shorter version).
The practice of administering both Body and Blood mixed in the chalice was a 6th century addition. In some typikons certain prayers by the priest are made versus populi (i.e. the Ambo prayer), some are read silently, other aloud, some use a curtain during the Consecration symbolizing the Mystery, etc. But the Divine Liturgy (what used to be called the Holy Mass in the Catholic Church) remain essentially unchanged.
If someone approaches the chalice to receive Communion and believes things contrary to the Church the burden is on his soul. If he openly calls Church teachings a lie and receives Communion, it's to the condemnation fo the priest who administer the Communion .
All in all, the Church has to do her part and the believers theirs. If the Chursh fails to do her part, it is on her conscience.