Dear Father Ambrose,
And here is an interesting take on this Melkite Catholic site in the US. It goes so far as to
1) label Pius IX' s declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception "imprudent"
2) declare that the Immaculate Concdeption makes no sense to Eastern Catholics
3) deny that the Pope can declare any infallible dogma. Only an Ecumenical Council has that authority.
It seems to me that Melkites sometimes understand a defined dogma in a very different way than the typical Latin Catholic understands it.
For example, here's the way I see number 2: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary had no "stain of original sin". Melkites, however, believe that no one has a "stain of original sin" (i.e. that original sin isn't a "stain") -- so for them, what's the point of defining that
Mary didn't have one? (If I'm oversimplifying this, I hope that Irish Melkite or another Melkite poster will correct me.)
With regard to number 3 and the "Melkite denial of Papal infallibility" (which has mentioned in a number of posts on this thread) ... well, I haven't actually seen any explanatory statements by Archbishop Zoghby or any other Melkite representative; but please permit me to share a few thoughts of my own.
In his
Letter to the Duke of Norfolk Cardinal Newman said (among other things -- he was very prolific on the subject of papal infallibility):
I will not pass from this question of History without a word about Pope Honorius, whose condemnation by anathema in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, is certainly a strong primâ facie argument against the Pope's doctrinal infallibility.
...
Now I observe that, whereas the Vatican Council has determined that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedrâ , and that, in order to speak ex cathedrâ , he must at least speak "as exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, defining, by virtue of his Apostolical authority, a doctrine whether of faith or of morals for the acceptance of the universal Church" {316} (though Mr. Gladstone strangely says, p. 34, "There is no established or accepted definition of the phrase ex cathedrâ "), from this Pontifical and dogmatic explanation of the phrase it follows, that, whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, and whatever he held, his words were not ex cathedrâ , and therefore did not proceed from his infallibility.
I say so first, because he could not fulfil the above conditions of an ex cathedrâ utterance, if he did not actually mean to fulfil them. The question is unlike the question about the Sacraments; external and positive acts, whether material actions or formal words, speak for themselves. Teaching on the other hand has no sacramental visible signs; it is an opus operantis , and mainly a question of intention.
Whatever else Catholics are required to agree with, we can be sure that they are
not required to agree with Cardinal Newman's understanding of infallibility.
I agree (of course) with Newman's statement that Pope Honorius was not speaking
ex cathedra. But I am not at all convinced by Newman's claim that, in general, a pope cannot act in "the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians" without intending to do so, and that it is "mainly a question of intention". Hence, I think it possible that a pope could make an
ex cathedra statement without realizing he was doing so.
Conversely, I see no reason why a pope couldn't
think he was "exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians" when he in fact was not, and thus think he was making an infallible statement when he in fact was not.
I hope this helps,
Peter.
P.S. Going back to number 1 (Melkites labeling Pius IX' s declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception "imprudent") it is worth noting that even Cardinal Newman, although he believed in papal infallibility prior to Vatican I, nevertheless opposed its being defined as a dogma. In one letter, in fact, he said "A heavy retribution still may await the perpetrators of this act.”
