I will admit that this is easier to understand in terms of unity of teaching with variety in application, but we are a sacramental church, so unity of practice should be doable. I'm not sure I am up to it, but maybe somebody is.
Take the Eucharist. For 1500+ years it was explained in terms of pre-Christian religious ritual, like sacrifice and altars. The final stage in a sacrifice is the sharing of the victim to enable a distribution of the numinous among the believers.
The same ritual can be reinterpreted from a different perspective. Instead of the sacrifice as explanatory key, the meal can be understood as Christ's purpose. Christ died so that we can share in his life. The concluding communal meal is a more effective key today than the rarely experienced ritual sacrifice, in a Church based on communion.
One event, understood in two ways, can easily become two different ways of experiencing a common practice. I guess i could have just said Extraordinary and ordinary forms coexist.

Labels: moderation: safe