text: (Part 2)
  
  In the East the controversy is understood as profoundly theologically significant for an additional reason. At one point, the majority of bishops of both the East and West were on what, from the perspective of history, is the wrong side, the No side, as expressed by a formal ecumenical synod. The people did not agree. Within this history, an undeniable part of our Tradition no matter how overlooked it might be in the West, we have the foundation for the concept of the magisterium of the holy people of God, alongside our episcopal magisterium. For back then, although the majority of the bishops were wrong, the Church (in the V2 sense of clergy +   theologians + people), were correct. In the West, this concept is present in the theology to the effect that the episcopal magisterium requires confirmation in its reception by the people (for instance, arguably Humanae Vitae has never been "received," and thus is technically open for further discussion).
  
  (cont)