Mishne Berura: Status & Nature

I received the following letter - as a response to my recent posting of the Chazon Ish's letter - with permission to publish it.

I had written:   Chazon Ish: The paradox of majority rule & Daas Torah

So far have found this is the view of Get Poshut,Sheilas Dovid, Shach, Maharetz Chajes, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Minchas Chinuch. It is probable that the Mishna Berura disagrees. This is rather odd since it seems the majority view is that they need to meet and discuss it so how could the Mishna Berura disagree? It also seems that the Chazon Ish didn't hold by Daas Torah ie the view of the Gedolim or even majority of Gedolim - but rather that of the local rav.

Chazon Ish [i](Beginning of Kelayim): [[It is well known that the requirement to follow the majority applies only to a beis din which is in session, but regarding scholars holding different views who lived at different times or in different places, the question of majority or minority is not relevant. In a particular area where most of the Torah derives from a particular rabbi and his disciples, and the disciples' disciples, it is correct to follow their rabbi even in a matter in which the majority (of authorities) holds a different opinion.[...]

================
The respondent - who wishes to remain anonymous wrote the following:

I have b'Mesorah from 3 different sources that the Mishne Berura's approach was a departure from normative:

1) My Zaideh - a contemporary of Rav Yaakov and Rav Aharon (actually even though the same age he arrived in Slabodka 3 years before they did) who was a Rov in Europe and in Chicago told my father who told me that the Mishne Berura was NOT accepted in Europe at all. The Aruch HaShulchon was considered the Posek (Sefer) to consult

2) Rav Schwab told me that when he visited R. Chaim Ozer and he shared that he had just been by the Chofez Chaim. Rav Chaim Ozer responded to him, "Un vos zogt de Ba'al Habo'os!"

3) When I was a young Yeshiva Bochur in Washington Heights and we would come with the Mishne Berura's conclusion as an objection to the accustomed Hanhogo of the Kehila, Rav Breuer would give us a knowing benevolent smile and say, "The Minhogim of the Kehilla predate the Mishne Berura by a couple of hundred years"
 
The popularization in our day that the Mishne Berura is "Posek Acharon" is the result Of Rav Aharon and Rav Yaakov's strong support but others were vigorously opposed to the whole approach. See also Chazon Ish (Igros 1:32) on the use of newly uncovered manuscripts to modify standard Halocho
 
The position of the Chazon Ish below is a gemoro in Horoyos 2b. ie that someone who is Higiah l'Horoyo is responsible for his own Halachic decisions and cannot just "cave in" to Daas Rabim of Talmidei Chachomim. If he does he is considered To'eh b'Mitzvo Lishmoeh Divrei Chachomim.. This is paskened Halocho l'Maaseh in Rambam Shgogos. and brought by Ramban in his Hasogos to Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh 1 on Lo Sosur (pg 14 of old editions).. only if the Sanhedrin convenes and votes down his position must he capitulate. otherwise he is obligated to follow his own understanding and conclusion even if runs contrary to the majority. The Ramban cites Rabi Yehoshua & Rabon Gamliel concerning Yom Kipur