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
" Do the Orthodox consider them Catholic in the sense of the word found in the Creed?"
Who, ancient heretics? I don't understand your question.
"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?"
My suspicion is that Met. John would say that the Monophysites are in The Church and thus "Catholics". I say this because I know he had a hand in the decisions regarding intercommunion by economia with the monophysites.
"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?"
Here's a link to an interesting website on the subject:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state05.html
Did I say the Roman Church was not in heresy? I don't remember saying that. It is distinctly possible that the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican I are in fact heretical, same goes for the Immaculate Conception dogma which arguably denies the human nature of Christ. But heretical or not, using the term towards each other, today, is not helpful at all and we have been instructed not to use it with each other.
"I am not sure I fully understand the East's stance on this. Perhaps it is more political."
Well, as to the monophysites, that cited website might help. As for our position on intercommunion with Rome, I guess I haven't much more to say than I already have. I can tell you that its not political. If it were political I think there would be intercommunion.