Out of curiosity I know the Roman's official ruling on our holy orders on the ground how do they treat them?
The thing is, that's a far from certainty anymore. Maybe in the 90s you could expect a semblance of decency, but these days more and more it's becoming Clown Mass central. There is a well-known statistic that around 10% or less of RC parishes celebrate the novus ordo reverently. I ticked off RC in the poll, and despite that I wouldn't go to 90% of the masses in my city. They're almost all atrociously irreverent. Like I said a Methodist pastor with a faithful (caveat) theology would be a passable fit. But as others have said, I would most likely not do any of them since they're all equally far from Anglican orthodoxy. I would livestream, or do Matins with my family. And if I were in that geographical location for a while, I would just start an ACNA church plant of my own. Boom, problem solved. A traditional reverent 1662 liturgy. We'd call in a priest, they'd be happy to find a new calling. The bishop would be super glad. I've seen lots of church plants, and participated in some myself, it's the way to go for the future.
In my experience very few clergy are able to sermonize competently any more, Protestant or Catholic. You find the same decline in rhetoric in the secular world. I chalk a lot of this up to a precipitous decline in both reading and writing skills on the part of the citizenry, and on the pervasive influence of the Internet. In the old days you had to go to a book to look things up, do exegesis, research background material, etc. It was a laborious, time-consuming, but skilled task. You had to know what you were doing to be productive at this sort of thing. You had to have discernment, and be able to make choices among competing sources. (And you'd often fall down the footnote-chasing rabbit hole, trying to get to the taproot of an argument, only to find that the authors are often just quoting each other. That's the state of academia in the 20th and 21st centuries in a nutshell.) But then along came the Internet with Wikipedia and search engines and online books, and all of a sudden all anyone had to do was type a few words into Google and presto! Thousands of pieces of information at the ready. Sure, much of it is junk, but who cares? You just take the first five or six hits, mash them together in kind of structured order (and, if you're conscientious, taking care to recast the stuff into your own words to avoid outright plagiarism), and then spew the stuff back out. No actual thought or study necessary! Bible software has had the same ill effect on clergy, in my view (and I'm speaking somewhat hypocritically here, because I'm a heavy user of Accordance myself). Being able to dash about the Bible in various translations in seconds, having thousands of reference works immediately at ones fingertips -- it is both a great benefit and a great harm. In the same way a muscle will atrophy if one does not exercise it, the mind will atrophy if one does not actively use it. Younger pastors especially are at a grave disadvantage here -- their writing skills tend to be awful, and their thinking skills are often pretty awful as well. They usually mean well, and are trying to transmit good doctrine to their congregation, but they simply lack the skillset to do it well. And given the rather parlous state of the clergy these days, there isn't a very deep bench for churches to choose from when selecting a pastor. In many cases, you have to take what you can get and be thankful. That being said: there are still many good preachers out there. Some of them put their stuff on YouTube these days, but in many cases they simply labor in obscurity to their own congregations. Perhaps this is what God intends. Great preachers like Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and Martyn Lloyd Jones only come along rarely.
A lot of the clergy prefer a 'don't ask, don't tell' approach. Some are happy as a lark to work with us in community service and even to have coffee or go down to the pub with us. A few are hardline and only grudgingly acknowledge Orthodox orders and no 'Protestant' orders whatsoever.
I voted for the last option. It does not clearly state on what day you would go to church. Even if it said Sunday it would not change my vote. As an Anglican no obligation is placed on me to go to church on a Sunday. I would not choose a non-Anglican church. I may go to a service such as a wedding or funeral in a different Christian denomination and even a non-Christian faith. However, I would not attend a non-Anglican church for my own personal worship. I know an Anglican option was given but as it is clearly heterodox with a priestess I would not attend there. If it were Sunday I would either make my own prayers, read the Bible or say Morning or Evening Prayer. I was surprised to learn that, so far, the RC option has received the most votes.