Have never felt particularly compelled to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy at all.
But since pressed . . .
I think the indiosyncracies of individuals and social groups are more than sufficient to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy.
When simple plain Scriptures can have so many wildly different interpretations by so many seemingly balanced and sane people . . . such differences as you allude to are common place examples of such diversity.
Last evening you posted this:
"Have never felt particularly compelled to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy at all.
But since pressed . . .
I think the indiosyncracies of individuals and social groups are more than sufficient to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy."
What exactly do you see as the "vagaries" of Orthodoxy? The theology and praxis, liturgical and otherwise, haven't changed in any material respect in about 2000 years, so I am assuming you don't mean that. Orthodoxy spans a rather broad range of cultures and social groups, who all believe the exact same thing and while there are very small differences in praxis, differences that it is likely only an Orthodox would notice, nothing of any consequence. Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the term "vagaries"?
My question had to do with your apparent agreement with FK's assertion that the medieval Latin practice of keeping the scriptures out of the hands of the laity somehow affected the theology and praxis of the Latin Church. Since Orthodoxy never did that, how does one explain virtually the same theology and liturgical practice in Orthodoxy as one sees in the Roman Church. Is it possible that the old Latin practice, as lamentable as it may seem today and indeed may well have been then, really had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the theology or liturgical praxis of that church?