"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."
+Leo the Great is indeed a saint of the Orthodox Church, and a great one. That does not mean at all that he was infallible. Did the other bishops of the time see him as the primus? Absolutely. Did they see him as a sort of guarantor of Orthodoxy? Absolutely. Did they see him as a sort of human symbol of unity? Absolutely. Did they believe that he had a specific universal jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs and bishops? Absolutely not. Did they see him as being infallible in sese? Absolutely not. You may well be right that the dogmas proclaimed by Vatican I are in accord with what +Leo thought of himself. But they are not in accord with what the bishops of Leo's times believed or what Orthodoxy believes at this time. In fact, Vatican I doesn't even express the belief of all the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. It didn't then and it doesn't now. I think it is a given that Orthodoxy will not subscribe to Vatican I as presently worded or interpreted. If the Roman Church were intent on pressing the point, there would be no reason to continue any discussion of unity. But it is equally apparent that our hierarchs and theologians are intent on pursuing these discussions which indicates to me that they believe that a reformulated understanding of the Petrine Office, by means of a Great Council, is possible within the context of the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican I. I don't know what that would be, nor I suspect, do they but they seem confident that it can be found at least to the point of calling such a council.
As for the Immaculate Conception, the argument is that if Panagia was "conceived without the stain of Original Sin", then it follows that she was ontologically different from all rest of humanity from conception. In one sense this is true. The Fathers are unanimous in their understanding that she was chosen by God before time to be the Theotokos. In the more specific sense of being "preserved" from Original Sin, however, she becomes something other than human and the Fathers are quite clear that she was fully human. If she did not share the "distortions" of the Sin of Adam, then two problems arise. First, she had no need of the theosis made available to us through the Incarnation, yet the Fathers are quite clear that she was saved by the Incarnation and second, Christ was born of something other than a human being. That's the problem with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
My personal opinion is that the dogma was made necessary by the error of +Augustine about the Sin of Adam in the first place. Take away that doctrine, and the need for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception evaporates.
Finally, as for the Monophysites, I probably shouldn't even have used the word. The "Non Chalcedonian" Christians have pretty much always said that was an incorrect and divisive term which does violence to their theology. So far as I can tell, Orthodoxy is coming around to accepting the truth and justice of that position. Clearly, if there are true Monophysites out there, they are indeed heretics and are not part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Have you read Blessed Pius IX's dogmatic declaration on the Immaculate Conception? From what I have gathered, the Immaculata had the graces of the Incarnation, Passion, and Death of Our Lord applied to her at her conception, since the fruits of His Redemptive work are for all eternity. The dogma also affirms that she is indeed a creature.
In the more specific sense of being "preserved" from Original Sin, however, she becomes something other than human and the Fathers are quite clear that she was fully human. If she did not share the "distortions" of the Sin of Adam, then two problems arise. First, she had no need of the theosis made available to us through the Incarnation, yet the Fathers are quite clear that she was saved by the Incarnation and second, Christ was born of something other than a human being. That's the problem with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
These issues were raised by Thomas Aquinas, but solved after his death by Scotus. First, Mary was prevented from inheriting original sin with the idea that the Incarnation and Redemption of Our Lord would retroactively save Mary - just as the OT saints were. Just as Elijah was saved by the Incarnation, so was Mary. And secondly, if Mary was no longer human BECAUSE of being pure, then you are saying Christ, also, is no longer human. THAT is heresy. Christ, the perfect man, proves that sin is not part of our original nature. Thus, Mary cannot be called "other than human" BECAUSE she was created in man's original nature, just as the Word became Flesh did not have this stain. If Christ was the Second Adam, born without sin, then Mary, too, was the Second Eve, also born without sin. This goes back to Justin the Martyr and Ireneaus, both of the second century AD.
My personal opinion is that the dogma was made necessary by the error of +Augustine about the Sin of Adam in the first place.
I glanced at this teaching but I don't recall the defense of it entirely. I do remember that Augustine was quoting from many of his predecessors, Tertullian, Clement, and Ireneaus, for example, when he was defending the concept of original sin vs. the Pelagians, who didn't believe in it. The only thing I believe you reject is that man has acquired a guilt as a result. If memory serves me, I believe Augustine then asked, "why do you baptize infants, then, for the forgiveness of sins?" Again, lex orendi, lex credendi. I would have to look up some more on this if you wanted to continue this conversation. But right now, I am not convinced that Augustine was in error on this, or that he was the only one who believed in the transferance of guilt (which is not the same as that of actual sin). More work by me will be needed.
Brother in Christ