[Kolokotronis]

"You have repeatedly made a rather serious error in stating that the Latin faithful have rejected Humane Vitae. Those who have rejected it are not faithful. They are dissenters."

I used the word "faithful" as being synonymous with "laity". "Furthermore, K., rule by majority action and opinion of the laity is a category never employed in Orthodoxy as you have outlined it. The faithful respond in the affirmative to the wisdom of their spiritual fathers. The faithless go their own way. It is the same for Rome as it is for the Orthodox world." That's not what I described. In Orthodoxy, unless the hierarchy, clergy and laity together agree, a declaration cannot be dogmatic. It isn't a matter of democracy; its a matter of synergy. As for wisdom, well some is necessary for salvation and some isn't. Unlike in the Latin Church, Orthodoxy doesn't ascribe all wisdom to the hierarchs. It belongs to The Church.

[Maeve]

Unlike in the Latin Church, Orthodoxy doesn't ascribe all wisdom to the hierarchs. It belongs to The Church.

With respect, that is wrong in multiple ways. All wisdom is ascribed to the Word Incarnate in both the Latin Church and in the Byzantine diaspora. The participatory model you describe does not exist juridically throughout Orthodoxy. Nor does it exist de facto. The laity of God are faithful to the guidance of their spiritual fathers. The approbation of the laity is not a factor determining the veracity of any doctrine, dogma, teaching, or instruction in Orthodoxy. That is simply an elegant sounding myth of the sort that Anglicans tell. The Ecumenical Councils are dependent upon the Holy Spirit guiding the conciliar fathers, and the laity of God are in turn dependent upon the conciliar fathers. They have no independent action or veto as your post implies. Either they are faithful or they are faithless to the teachings (inclusive of dogma, doctrine etc.) of the Church.