Yes, that's the distinction I wanted to understand. My original thinking was that, for example, (a) there was a Council that promulgated dogma. At this point there is a consensus patrum, and then this consensus must be either ratified or rejected by the laity. However, it looks like you might be saying that it is (b) there is no consensus patrum UNTIL a dogma has been ratified by the laity. Could you confirm?
The Church always allowed what the Greeks call theologoumenna (theological opinions), with the understanding that they must not include heterodox beliefs but rather remain within the confines of orthodox foundations of the faith as recognized by the whole Church (i.e. consensus patrum), not local councils.
We do the same thing, but since we do not have one overarching authority of men, every time someone does this we are slapped with having a "new denomination". :) If I'm understanding you correctly, your above is what allows me to be simultaneously a Reformer and a Southern Baptist.
***If I’m understanding you correctly, your above is what allows me to be simultaneously a Reformer and a Southern Baptist.***
Or even a Reformed Conservative Evangelical Universalist Southern Presbyterian Baptist Methodist Lutheran (Northern Rite) :>)
“My original thinking was that, for example, (a) there was a Council that promulgated dogma. At this point there is a consensus patrum, and then this consensus must be either ratified or rejected by the laity. However, it looks like you might be saying that it is (b) there is no consensus patrum UNTIL a dogma has been ratified by the laity.”
Dogma and matters within the consensus partrum are not necessarily the same thing. For example, it is within the consensus patrum that Panagia was always a virgin. All Orthodox Christians believe that but it is not proclaimed dogma of an Ecumenical Council. It is within the consensus patrum that Panagia was bodily assumed into heaven after death. All or virtually all Orthodox believe this. It is not dogma; it is a theologoumennon. In the Latin Church it is dogma. It is dogmatic in Orthodoxy that at the Divine Liturgy the bread and wine on the altar table are by the power of the Holy Spirit transformed into the very Body and Blood of Christ. That is within the consensus patrum but was never proclaimed dogma by an Ecumenical Council. The list goes on and on, FK.
Dogmas, however they arise, are only “real” if the laity accepts and approves them by living them. Beliefs within the consensus patrum are not part of the consensus patrum, however, because everyone accepts them. Theologoumenna are not required to be accepted by everyone but they might well be part of the consensus patrum nevertheless.
Its hard for someone trained, however subtly, to think in “canon law”, Latin ways, to think patristicly, especially when it comes to who beliefs become active and/or mandatory within Orthodoxy.