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.
Well, there you have it, for both of us! As you have observed for a while, and commented on in your previous post, the Catholic Church can be seen going out of its way to be accommodating and not "intolerant" of other groups, even groups that hate the Church. To some extent, so have the Orthodox. I think a lot of this over-accomodation stems from the Sacramental nature of our two Church structures, our basic take on grace and the Sacraments, and, by derivation, our "apparently" exclusivist outlook on salvation. We do not believe in salvation via altar calls, nor do we subscribe to "sola Scriptura" schemes, or, going the other way any form of universalism, for that matter. This makes us appear very rigid and exclusivist to the majority of American Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. This can be wearing on all concerned in an atmosphere where, in the secular sense, we all generally do not have trouble "getting along." So, over time, there is a strong temptation to trying to go the extra mile to find whatever lowest common denominator might be out there, in order to get our religious and secular lives more in sync with those of our Protestant neighbors. That, it seems to me, is the root of accommodationism.
The same principal applies in Europe, only there it is more along the lines of accommodationism in relation to pure secularists. And it shows! The Church there is even more inclined to syncretistic nonsense than even we are!
As Americans, we are disinclined to come-across as deliberately insulting to our Protestant neighbors, the ones we work with, hang out at the golf/sports/civic club with, and generally socialize with amicably. Yet our theology seems mighty off-putting to them when we start talking about sanctifying grace being necessary for salvation, and that grace being found, primarily, in the Sacraments that Protestants do not have. On a purely human view, we can understand how this can be insulting and "uncomfortable." Therefore, there is a tendency, wherever possible, to minimize (or even "broom" altogether) the differences Catholics have with Protestants over salvation issues and other points of difference. I suspect that the Orthodox are becoming more susceptible to this pressure, too. Perhaps they are just not as far down the line yet, being a smaller proportion of the population and therefore less inclined to chuck their "distinctiveness."
But, I also think that Catholics, at least, are beginning to see that the benefits of overly-cozy ecumenism with Protestants are really almost non-existent. Very little has been gained, while much stands in danger of being permanently lost (here in the West, anyway). Even our bishops are, I think, beginning to see the point! This Pelosi business (although dealing with a putative "Catholic") illustrates my contention. The Church is afraid of alienating some of its Leftist membership, and also afraid of bad PR within the non-Catholic population. The verbal smackdown of Pelosi by several bishops signals that they are less afraid of "what people will say" than perhaps they were in the recent past. They fear alienating the Catholic extreme-Left somewhat less than before. They also seem to be less concerned with general public opinion, among the whole crowd of Catholics and non-Catholics. The alliance of convenience with mainstream Protestants is coming to an end, as the Catholic bishops see they've been made suckers and fools for years with extreme Leftists. It's gotten them nothing over the years, and, what little they think they got, they now realize they might be mere months away from having it all stripped away from them by their very own "allies." Once the Dems gain total control of all three branches, watch the scales suddenly fall off the eyes of Catholic bishops everywhere in this country! We may not go back to the early 1900s mentality entirely, but we will stop trying to be "all things to all men," and will teach the Faith with full vigor again, seeking to make converts, and not mere alliances of convenience. You'll see in a few years... I imagine you folks will stop going down the same road, too. Earlier, probably, since you are not as far down that road to begin with.