Your sect is not Catholic or Orthodox (or a pretender of those wings of the Church).
Your sect, therefore, is de facto democratic.
Your sect chooses its leaders by popularity.
Who eventually tailor their doctrine so as to remain popular.
Otherwise they won’t have a congregation.
Your sect’s doctrine is subject to the veto of the membership.
And if you are a sect of one where you determine doctrines, then of course that is a most sinister and sad situation wherein your doctrine is always subject to your veto.
So.. what you're saying is you don't know my denomination. You shouldn't be ashamed to admit it.
Your sect, therefore, is de facto democratic.
My "sect" is de facto nothing of the sort; you cannot make that pronouncement without knowing my denomination. FAIL.
Let's take this next one all at once:
Your sect chooses its leaders by popularity. Who eventually tailor their doctrine so as to remain popular. Otherwise they won’t have a congregation. Your sect’s doctrine is subject to the veto of the membership.
Hmmm. Your cult chooses its leader by vote -- popularity -- you know, all that white smoke and stuff? Voted in by the College of Cardinals? Hmmm. Seems very "democratic" to me. Projecting again?
Doctrine in my denomination is based on Scripture. Not popularity. Check out 2 Tim. 3:16 for a clue. And doctrine is not made up as you go along as is the Roman Catholic Cult's "tradition."
Congregations of my denomination cannot (and do not) "veto" Scripture... we are lead by it.... so I don't know where that pipe dream came from, but be disabused of it.
As for your last remark, that is so, well, unintelligible that I can only hope to guess what you mean since you seem to say that my "sect"'s congregation can veto doctrine, but that I as an individual can also -- that's contradictory. Sorry but you're really ballistic off the rails here -- no lock-on, and not tracking.
So... feel free to try again. I suspect you'll do no better.
Hoss