The Spirit has descended! Never said as much. However Protestant clergy have been accepted and ordained immediatly as clergy, which is what this dialogue has been about.
No Anglican/episcopalian cleric has ever been received into Orthodoxy as having orders.
^ Right. So it would be a formality. I'm not implying that formalities have no meaning, but it's not as if his time in the laity would be substantial (or much over 24hrs). In most juristictions anyway, I suppose I'd expect him to be ordained to the priesthood shortly after. Although my former bishop, IIRC, was an Anglican priest who converted, and had to reattend seminary before he was ordained Orthodox.
Not the start:
...but if Abp. Rowan was received into Orthodoxy, it would be as a layman.
Why would this be, if others are allowed to make guided transitions into the clergy? Would it be a formality?
Which was answering this:
I know that according to the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, he is not, but he is a bishop of Rome, if we are going to use that title for all ecclesiastical communities. Like we call the Episcopalian bishop of Chicago "a bishop of Chicago." Just not a bishop of Chicago like the 3(?) Orthodox bishops of Chicago (we have more, but the others have their titular sees elsewhere).
According to your Ecumenical Patriarch, His All-Holiness Bartholomew, Benedict XVI is "His Beatitude, the Bishop of Rome." Not "layman of the Vatican", as you would prefer to call him. If you have a problem with that, take it up with His All-Holiness, not with me.
Many Protestant clergy, even Baptist, have been ordained nearly immediately after being received. But they have to be ordained: no Orthodox Church has ever recognized Protestant "orders." It is not, for instance, like Protestants' marriages being received when they are. (In fact, the Antiochian archdiocese requires converts to be remarried with the Orthodox service before ordination).