As for the monophysites, you must remember that at the time of the Council of Nicea, Monophysitism had not been condemned so it probably wasn't that much of an issue.
As for intercommunion, the fact is that because Orthodoxy looks to the Eucharist as the central element of the unity of The Church, as +Ignatius defined it for us, to participate in intercommunion without an identity of faith is wrong; it sends the wrong signal. This, by the way, says nothing whatever about the validity of the Latin Rite Eucharist. Some might complain that we allow intercommunion with monophysites as a matter of economia. This is true, but the fact is that our theologians have determined that the monophysite controversy was about words not dogma and so the truth is that your average monophysite, say a Copt or an Armenian, is probably closer on points of Faith than Roman Catholics are. In any event, Orthodoxy has discussed intercommunion with the Roman Church by economia and not finding consensus, decided not to do it for now. The arguments were solidly theological, in my opinion, on both sides. You will be interested to know that it was the representatives of the Russian Church who were the great proponents of intercommunion and those of the EP who were most firmly against it.
First, my comment on heresies following Nicea. Do the Orthodox consider them Catholic in the sense of the word found in the Creed? The problem here is there are several meanings of the word "catholic". What was the intent of the Nicean Fathers? Universal, or totality of the whole. For them, I say both. There was no major separation yet where heretics had "valid" eucharist. But with the Monophysites, that changes. So are they catholic? I wonder where the good Metropolitan stands on this question?
I am not following the Orthodox's reasonings on the intercommunion issue. Please forgive me.
You say the Monophysites, though called a heretical church by Councils, are closer to the Orthodox than Rome, which you say is a Church NOT in heresy? How is giving communion to heretics approved within the Church, while refusing it to others who are not heretics? What is the reasoning for this seeming contradiction?
Secondly, you say the Monophysites are not considered heretics because of "words" rather than beliefs? Perhaps that is true. But do the Monophysites believe that Christ has one will or two? Isn't such matters the very reason why the Church in the East was called "Orthodox", because they followed the ancient traditions later defined by Councils? Was it all just a misunderstanding? If so, why are the Monophysites not united with the Orthodox or us?
I am not sure I fully understand the East's stance on this. Perhaps it is more political. I don't know. But if the Orthodox heirarchy does not see Rome as a heretical Church, then it seems strange that there is no intercommunion from the Orthodox (it does exist to the Orthodox). Just curious.
Brother in Christ