Nektarios,
The tricky part is exactly what is the relationship with the Antiochians with the monophysites. They are not in communion in the normal sense of the word for certain. From what I can tell there are concelebrations on the grassroot levels in Syria. Frustratingly enough the patriarch has turned a blind eye even encouraging this, but that still isn't communion. If an agreement announcing "full communion" or something of that nature were to come out I'd agree that the Antiochian Patriachate would have fallen into heresy.
I would recommend reading the Chambesy agreements. To see where things have actually progressed to at this point, we need to keep in mind that the first "clergy exchange" has taken place between the Antiochians and Monophysites - in the U.K. an Antiochian priest was given a "canonical release" to go and join the Monophysites. You must know by now that the official posture of the Antiochians is that the Monophysites are in fact Orthodox (despite problems with this assessment) and that the "anathemas should be lifted" (which would be unnecessary if they really were Orthodox...papist mindset at work I suppose, regarding the efficacy of anathemas); it's not a question of "if" but "when/how", the first task (as outlined by the Chambersy agreement of '90 I believe) being to convince all of the laity on both sides of this, and slowly begin to bring about actual concelebratory activities (like joint celebrations of marriages, shared use of temples, unambiguous mutual recognition of sacraments, etc.)
This is not simply an engagement awaiting a marriage...indeed, in a way it's even gone beyond a simple marriage ceremony awaiting the consumation...rather it's somewhere between those two points. Admittedly, this is not a type of activity which has precedence in the past, so it may make it at first difficult to judge (at least for some people) - such ideas of "half communion", etc. are so foreign to the Orthodox mentality, that it can make talk of such hard to process.
The truth is, there is either communion (and more importantly, the substance behind such a formal, consumated activity) or there is not. Either they envision themselves as members of the same Church, or they do not. This is what gets lost very often, when people of what I would call "traditionalist sympathies" (yet unwilling to break from heretical bishops) trie to excuse their current loyalties. "Well, it isn't full communion yet" (in the sense of the kind of relationship say, the Antiochians have with the EP or the MP.) Well, this is true, but is that really a meaningful distinction? Canonically, patristically, I do not think it is.
Seraphim
