Let me be perfectly straight-forward about this. I am not playing a devil's advocate role.
That was me who first said that this might be a possibility. Now that you've addressed it, I will apologize for suggesting such a thing. I suppose an explanation for my admittedly cynical assumption won't do much good, but here goes.......
Much of what you've said, is extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible for some of us (Ok I'll only speak for myself) for me to comprehend. I get the idea of forgiveness, but for me it's also an issue of trust. And I simply cannot trust someone who has done what Bishop Dimitri admitted to doing. Again, it doesn't mean I don't forgive him. It doesn't mean I don't think he's perfectly capable to a 100 other things in the Church, even in some sort of clerical role, but not in a position of trust. To me, it's like the Orthodox view of divorce. Divorce in cases of adultery only. (though "adultery" is now interpreted with economia, and IMO rightly so, but the concept is still the same)
True, there are marriages where adultery happens, and yet, the marriage, in time is healed and restored. However, adultery is the one reason and one reason alone, where divorce is allowed, because it's the sexual union that binds the marriage, and it's the sexual union that can destroy it. And if the act of adultery leads to divorce, then it's completely understandable and not out of line at all.
Well, a Bishop who does something to this extent has committed spiritual adultery in MY eyes and in my view, and so that trust that was once there, is gone. Maybe over time it would return, slowly, but surely, but like in a marriage it must happen in all honestly, out in the open, without some outside force rushing things along. Without back door meetings, and the like. This is why I continued to say throughout the thread that he shouldn't be restored "at this time"....I never said, "NEVER" because never is a long time. But the healing process has never happened here, at least not for the laity of the Church, and that is what troubles me.
I simply found it very difficult to understand how you can take the position you seem to take on this particular issue, and so, I assumed (obviously wrongly) that something else was going on.
I apologize for that assumption, and I admit that my cynical nature is at times a weakness and causes sin. (though it has also prevented an equal amount of betrayal and spiritual struggle, again my personal experience and I've yet to balance it out)
Furthermore, I've addressed ALL specific issues (i.e. objections) "raised by various posters" to MY satisfaction.
But not to mine. (again only speaking for myself) When someone asks a question about how to bake a cake, and the chef says, "well you just mix these ingredients together and bake it"....what good is that to someone who has never baked a cake? What about the order? When to cream, how long to cream? even what "creaming" is for those who don't know. It might be to the chef's satisfaction but not to the person who has never baked a cake.
Since I cannot comprehend WHY you think bishop Dimitri should be restored to his ministry, and since you didn't explain it, at least in a way that someone from my perspective can understand, then these types of debates end up where they are.....into a "battle" of sorts pitting Christian against Christian. Yes you gave bible verses supporting your opinion, but as far as I could tell, you gave nothing more, and you never addressed the issue of trust, which is at the heart of the matter here. In the end, after reading your post, I don't think it's necessary. we both want what's best for the Church, and I'm willing to agree to disagree on this issue.
After reading your post, I see now I was mistaken, that there wasn't an ulterior motive going on, and for that assumption, I deeply apologize. (in all honesty I thought the "devil's advocate" thing was you trying to make a point to US (those with the opposite opinion) in a positive way, not that you were trying to mislead or deceive anyone,