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
"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.