[quote="andrewstx, post:14, topic:304002"]
I think the Episcopal story is a bit more complicated than that. I left the E church for Latin Catolicism and then the Antiochian Orthodox church shortly after the "new prayer book came out, but before womens ordination. In the US except for a couple of schismatic and small churches (the southern Episcopal church) for example to be Anglican was to be Episcopal.
But now there are self-styled "Anglican" churches in the US,and they are many, none of whom are in the Anglican Communion.
This to me at least seems related to the rightward trend in American Politics, and connected to womensd ordination and homosexaulity.
Formerly in TEC "orthodox" meant accepting the Holy Trinity as fact, the virgin birth, and the ressurection. Now it seems that orthodox has changed meanings to the rejection of homosexuals and womens rights.
That I surmise from reading The Living Church, and the Anglican digest for years. TLC seems to be the cheer squad for the breakers away.
Notice where I said that other meanings were possible, up there in my post. Other meanings include Anglicans who are not in the official Anglican Communion. The subject is a complicated one; I gave an answer scaled to the level of the inquiry, IMO. I'm the one constantly proclaiming the motley-ness of Anglicanism, remember.
The question of who constitutes a valid subject for Holy Orders might be related to the idea of women's rights, by those who think the Church is a political structure, and dogma/doctrine is governed by votes, or some concept of political rights, or fairness. A common view in TEC, since roughly the 70s. More might be said on that (orthodox now meaning invalid orders, or a innovative concept of human nature/sexuality, perhaps), but it would not be strictly germane to the OP, as far as I can see.
I read The Anglican Digest for years, myself.
Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus