"Yet, individual Fathers can always say things that are not doctrinal or dogmatic, but are presenting hypotheses (theologoumenna), religious opinions, instead. It is important to state that this is so, lest it be misconstrued as the teaching of the Church."
Let me add that theologoumenna are generally the sort of speculations which may be held so far as the Church is concerned. But there are speculations which cannot be held, like the universalism of Origen which +Gregory of Nyssa picked up to an extent or the speculations of +John Chrysostomos that Panagia sinned in her lifetime. The best example of a theologoumennon which is acceptable is likely the belief in the bodily assumption of the Theotokos after her death. This is not a dogmatic belief among the Orthodox as it is among the Latins, but there is no proscription of the belief and indeed the overwhelming number of Orthodox ascribe to it and the Synaxaria for the Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos on Aug. 15 speak of it.
Kolo: Let me add that theologoumenna are generally the sort of speculations which may be held so far as the Church is concerned. ...... The best example of a theologoumennon which is acceptable is likely the belief in the bodily assumption of the Theotokos after her death. This is not a dogmatic belief among the Orthodox as it is among the Latins ...
OK, so they are speculations that may be held by the laity without being prohibited by the Church. I.e., the "holding" is not by the Church, but by members of the laity. So, when I see the word "theologoumenna" the first thing I should do is not assume anything as to whether it is a widely held belief among the Orthodox. It may be, or not, (and that is all well and good :). For Orthodox, I can understand why Mary's assumption would not be dogmatic, because it was not in one of the seven councils. I'm not sure if the consensus patrum has ruled on doctrine since those times, or if they continue to make rulings today.
If all doctrine came from those seven councils, then my question is answered. If not, then knowing that the RCC had made a big deal of the Assumption, then why did the Orthodox not follow suit? It seems to me to be an idea that pretty much stands alone, unprovable in either direction.