So, the voice of the People of God in the West is only reliable if they agree with the laity in the East? Either the voice of the laity of the entire church is a reliable rule or it is not. You cannot claim that role for just one portion of the church. Since the laity in the Western church have always supported the Catholic teachings in these disputed areas your claim of the church's laity as the final judgment condemning them is without foundation.
“Since the laity in the Western church have always supported the Catholic teachings in these disputed areas your claim of the church’s laity as the final judgment condemning them is without foundation.”
That’s simply not true, P. What’s the artificial contraception rate among Roman Catholics, P? Do you really think there is a consensus among Roman Catholics (let alone among the members of the particular churches in communion with Rome) that the Pope is really ever infallible? However, to the extent that the Roman Catholic laity truly support and have supported the liturgical depredations of the clergy and hierarchy since Vatican II, believing them to be authentic expressions of The Faith, I suggest that reunion will be impossible and that Roman Catholicism is far more similar to low church liturgical Protestantism than to anything properly called Catholic.
The foregoing aside, it certainly appears that the Roman Catholic laity have accepted the IC, the Assumption and the filioque. The Assumption is accepted in the East, though not dogmatically. the IC of course is a result of the Augustinian concept of “original sin”. As you know, “original sin” posses a problem for the East and its extension into the IC, at least as usually presented, posses Christological problems. The filioque we all know about. It is deeply flawed as written. It is completely untrue as written. It should not be used ever to explain what little we know about the Trinity and this is agreed to by your theologians. But the laity believe it, the same way the Dominicans in the Middle Ages condemned the East as heretics for “removing the filioque”. The laity, however, also think the IC has to do with the conception of Christ. Supporting anything out of ignorance, or fear of hell, is meaningless.
BTW, I think all of the foregoing can be dealt with without too much trouble at a Great Council, which is why the theologians of Rome and the East are dealing with the toughest problem which is the role of the Pope first.