This will be a short answer, b/c I'm going out the door shortly.
So no law of non-contradiction?
It is dead in the water. But its acceptance by so many Melkite bishops shows that there is a serious problem in the Melkite's understanding of the faith. From what I can tell, their actions make it clear that they don't really accept the the teachings of Vatican I. That being said, the Melkites have never made this statement explicitliy, so it's difficult to pin down exactly where they stand on the matter.
The Zohgby (spelling?) initiative is evidence of serious problems in the Melkite church.
I agree that there such a thing as automatic excommunication; but the term dissent has multiple meanings. For example, Melkites are often called dissenters. (I could come up with other examples, but I choose the Melkite Church because it is especially dear to me, having gone to Melkite liturgies weekly since 2002.)
Interesting, i've never heard this one.
Who says this? Have they ever taken an introductory graduate theology course at a decent Catholic university? (some dude who's picked up a Catechism - or worse gotten their theology from the internet- doesn't count). How would they account Patriarch Gregorios' statments (which are fairly average among Melkites IMO) and the fact that he concelebrated to the right of Pope Benedict at the latter's enthronement Mass?
Can you elaborate on that? I thought (incorrectly?) the Zoghby (sp?) initiative was dead in the water.
I didn't really mean to start a new branch of this thread to talk about Melkites and/or the Zoghby Initiative; but now that we are talking about them ... My understanding of the Zoghby Initiative is that they don't consider Rome heretical for believing Papal Supremacy, nor do they consider the Orthodox heretical for not believing it. Hence they would have no problem being in communion with both.
If you mean law of non-contradiction in the literal sense (i.e. A and B can't both be right if they contradict each other) then I think that goes without saying.
If by law of non-contradiction you mean something more like "I can't be in communion with both A and B if they disagree on something that at least one of them considers non-negotiable", then I would say: No, the Melkites don't follow any such policy, as far as I can tell.
Okay. This is where you (and the Melkites) always lose me. Papal Supremacy would seem to be an example of your first sentence. Either the Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church (the Roman position) or does he not (the Orthodox--and everyone else's--position). A and B can't both be right.
And the Roman Church has dogmatized that A (Papal Supremacy) is right. So it's not merely that some Roman Catholics hold it as a private opinion, but everyone in communion with Rome is required to believe it in order to be in communion with Rome.
So how can the Melkites be in communion with Rome if they don't accept it? And if they do accept it then a) how could they be in communion with a group that rejects A as false, and b) why would they want to be in communion with a group that rejects one of their dogmas as false?
Accepting X as true doesn't always entail condemning as heretics those who deny X.
I realize this is a short answer but it doesn't even being to answer my question.
I (and Orthodoxy in general) completely agree with your statement. Numerous times on this forum I have pointed out that
a) One can believe the Earth is flat, and be Orthodox.
b) One can believe that St. Constantine was not a saint but an opportunistic tyrant whose
glorification was completely political, and be Orthodox
c) One can believe that the body of the Mother of God was not taken up into heave, and still be Orthodox
In all 3 case I, and an overwhelming majority of Orthodox, believe the person is wrong and denying a truth--but it does not rise to the level of heresy.
But that's because all the above are *not* dogma. Isn't the whole point of dogma that these are the beliefs which it is *not* okay to be wrong about?