I think if we were a bit more flexible with a little bit less bluster, we could find ways forward that would honor all as best as possible. If that meant having extraordinary dioceses or some other arrangement, I don’t think that’s terrible.

It’s the consistency or lack thereof that I find troubling, and it shows up all through the discussion from several sides depending on who wants what and who has the power to determine how we’ll read a document inconsistently. That’s why I warn about calls for rule enforcing, because it usually turns around to bite those who made the call.

In fact, I think it’s very valuable for our clergy *and* laity to see the discipline of days gone by to get a sense of how the church does and has changed. Too–some of them can reinvigorate discussions of what we should or shouldn’t do–like some of my favorites from the 7th Ecumenical Council:

Ancient Epitome of Canon II: Whoever is to be a bishop must know the Psalter by heart: he must thoroughly understand what he reads, and not merely superficially, but with diligent care, that is to say the Sacred Canons, the Holy Gospel, the book of the Apostle, and the whole of the Divine Scripture. And should he not have such knowledge, he is not to be ordained.

prohibition of usury among the clergy (Nicaea)

All we Western Christians are heretics:

prohibition of kneeling during the liturgy, on Sundays and in the fifty days of Eastertide (”the pentecost”). (Nicaea)

Sadly, even our beloved Luke Timothy Johnson is a heretic by this regard:

monks and nuns are forbidden to marry on pain of excommunication (Chalcedon)

And beware the many devious and plotting:

conspiring forbidden (Chalcedon)

And all of those who covered over for child molestation in the episcopate should be thought above reproach:

says an accuser of a bishop shall be suspect before the bishop (Chalecedon)

Cranmer and Henry are out, so our whole Anglican project is rightly suspect:

monasteries are permanent (Chalcedon)

That’s the problem if we don’t make some core distinctions IMHO.

Not to mention it has come to be seen that Theodore’s condemnation at II Constantinople was likely wrong in what Theodore taught (versus what others made of his teaching). And I might add the traditional Roman version of the acceptance of Leo’s Tome is legendary. Many days were spent debating its orthodoxy as the Greeks sought to translate the Tome into terminology coherent with Cyril.

I can disagree within limits about the “how” of Christ’s Presence; even the Father’s had different ways of expressing this and that latitude of Patristics is something to savour rather than crash down as the late Medieval capped off by the Reformation finally did hardening where there had been more latitude before. But I am not likely to be able to agree to disagree about Christ being God Incarnate or the substance of the Father, Son, and Spirit being one.

I’m all for bounds on vital matters like Incarnation and Trinity but I get worried when its sounds like a rule-slam. Sometimes rules and the traditional pov have done harm, and hugging the other harmed and saying there there isn’t good enough. The kind of compassion I often not in this tendency to rules.