What you cite are abuses. There is no Orthodox Gestapo (thank God!) to stop people from doing as they please, but the official teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church is quite clear on the matter.
Well, the church is quite clear on the situation you use as an analogy too. The thing is, though, that if you stole, you'ld still be Orthodox. You'ld have another big sin to confess, but your church membership would be unchanged. So the analogy is worthless.
But recieving communion in an Anglican Parish is accepting the Anglican faith - thus rejecting Orthodoxy, thus one would need to be healed through confession. Of course people will flaut this, but that doesn't negate its legitimacy.
Receiving communion at an Anglican parish is not necessarily accepting the Anglican faith; it cannot be made to signify that by fiat. This seems to be one of most pernicious errors of traditionalist Christianity. In reality, those who speak or act determine what they mean by their words and deeds. It is reasonable to deduce that someone who takes communion in a church is likely to ascribe some sort of legitimacy to that church, but even this principle is treacherous. If an atheist takes communion, does it imply a conversion? I think not.
Healing through confession would normally be the "treatment" for a sin. And I would accept that a sin of disobedience was committed. But given the way you've ended up arguing this, I do wonder whether there is an Orthodox consensus on this. The arguments you've given don't add up to ratification of the claim that you've made, and the one argument you make that does point in the right direction is, unfortunately, defective.
Then you are being intentionally disengenious.
One generally is not unintentionally
disingenious, any more than one is unintentionally malicious. And it is no lie to observe that the Orthodox creation myth of the church, as it were, isn't accepted by the historical community. It's abundantly clear in the historical record that the organization of the church develops a lot from, say, Acts 25 to Chalcedon. And nearly everyone in the historical community would agree that the conversion of Constantine and the Council of Nicea mark two pivotal changes in that organization. This has nothing to do with the continuity of the communion; change need not imply a break.
Likewise, one can pin Anglicanism as a separate body on the bishops of that place and time; yet they were before that bishops, and they were (in their own eyes at least) after that also bishops, so that it can be said that in some ways there was a break, and that in other ways there was no break.
What of the Fathers that emphatically spoke of the exclusiveness of the OHCAC from early on? Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus? Such fathers as St. Cyprian either were wrong from the start - in essence admitting there never was an OHCAC - or that the OHCAC of the patristic ere is gone - in essence admitting Christ is liar. Which do you believe, Keble?
The problem, sir, besides your hostility, is that the syllogism lacks a term. I'm unwilling to believe in the principle anyway, mostly because I think it is a hazard both to clear thought and to the soul. The wind blows where it pleases, and I am exceptionally afraid of a theory which is readily made to mean "we can doel out and withhold grace as we see fit."
But the missing term is more crucial. Even if the principle is true, it is also necessary to identify one's own denomination/communion as
the OHCAC, or at least the only visible part thereof. Historically, there have been four answers to that: universalists, who thus void EENS; ecumenists, who deny that the OHCAC can be identified with any specific denomination/communion; agnostic parochialists, who assert that their own church is in the OHCAC but disavow opinions as to anyone else; and full parochialists, who identify it with their own denomination/communion alone. Note especially that there is nobody who is identifying the OHCAC as excluding
his current church.
In this taxonomy, I am an ecumenist, and you are a full parochialist. (I think that technically the Catholic Church is agnostic parochialist, though this seems to be observed mostly in the breach.) Which is actually true? I'm notsure how the question can truly be answered, because holding to any of the positions cripples one's arguments to some degree or another. Circularity is hard to avoid because the positions themselves bend the argument to fit them. And then there's what I would call serial parochialism, in which one moves from church to church, always from one OHCAC to another. Here the full extent of the distortion is obvious, because the operating principle is, 'Whever I
am, there is the church."