" 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.
As you know, Catholic doesn't only mean "universal", but is the combination of two words that means "the totality of the whole". In other words, Cafeteria Catholic are diametrically opposed to each other. Thus, the question "are monophysites Catholic"? ignores the definition of the full meaning of Catholic, since they don't believe the "whole" faith. Now, if it is a matter of a misunderstanding of words, such as the Coptics, then we drop the term "heretic". But calling the Monophysites catholic - if they still hold to doctrine that is in opposition to the "catholic" stance - would be a contradiction. Earlier, you said that the Monophysites are not considered heretic. Are there other communities that are considered heretical but celebrate a valid Eucharist? If so, are they considered Catholic?
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.
I've been reading a lot about Pope Leo the Great lately, a highly venerated saint in Orthodoxy. I find that his actions are in line with the pronouncements made at Vatican 1. He seemed to believe he was the human head of the Church, and his fellow bishops of the East felt the same way. I believe he disproves the idea of some Orthodox who believe in ONLY primacy of honor for the Pope, and this is 600 years before the Schism. As to the Immaculate Conception, the dogma protects the divinity of Jesus, but I don't see how it endangers His humanity. He was born of flesh, even if it was purified by God, He still was/is like us in all ways except sin - the only thing that Mary didn't have, as well. If Augustine thought Mary was sinless (knowing him), I would say the rest of the Church would have agreed with the idea. I think the reason why the Immaculate Conception took so long to promulgate was the Church had other issues to deal with. Now, looking at the 'when', it turned out to be a very good answer to Darwin, who said man was a smart piece of meat, while the Church responded with Our Blessed Lady's purity and our original purpose of creation. Quite a difference between the two stands. If we believe the Church is led by the Spirit, I would say it was an opportune time.
Brother in Christ