Fr. Paul Kramer posted this on his Facebook today:

When I celebrated the traditional Roman Rite at 5:00 AM on the summit of Mt. Sinai (July 2001), there was a Coptic Egyptian, who adored the substantial-sacramental presence of the Divine Savior -- more reverent than the traditional Roman Catholics there (who also displayed due reverence). The Coptics are not Monotholytists as Western scholars believe. They are orthodox in their Christology as critical analysis proves. They were wrongfully judged and driven out. I have gone through the effort to read their docuмents. The true scandal in the post-conciliar Roman "Catholic" church is that the Coptic, Armenian, Ukrainian Orthodox churches are more truly ORTHODOX than the sect of conciliar Rome -- the Roman Reformed Church. I am a Roman Catholic: my faith is that of the Apostles Peter & Paul. Neither Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla or Ratzinger will ever persuade me to accept their liberal-protestant masonic inspired ecuмenism. True ecuмenism can only exist where there is ORTHODOXY -- as St. Paul teaches: "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism".

Could you please share a link to Fr. Paul Kramers facebook? I can't seem to find it no matter how hard I look.

This exact question was argued, pre-Vatican II, by several Catholic scholars with different sides taking different positions on the schimatic Copts. These had at one time broken off from the Catholic Church after the Fourth Ecuмenical Council, 451 A.D, at Chalcedon. Today, some of them call themselves "miaphysites" in Christology proposing a "composite nature" and there are some who believe their position has in fact changed since that time, but not that they were correct to condemn Chalcedon and the tome of Pope St.Leo the great. Also, in recent times, their Patriarch did have a talk and an agreement with Rome, but that was post-Vatican II, and the language used there is imprecise at best. I agree with the view of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia,

Were the Monophysites really heretics or were they only schismatics? This question was answered in the affirmative by Assemani, more recently by the Oriental scholar Nau, and last of all by Lebon, who has devoted an important work, full of evidence from unpublished sources, to the establishment of this thesis. It is urged that the Monophysites taught that there is but one Nature of Christ, mia physis, because they identify the words physis and hypostasis. But in just the same way the Nestorians have lately been justified. A simple scheme will make the matter plain:

Nestorians: One person, two hypostases, two natures.
Catholics: One person, one hypostasis, two natures.
Monophysites: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.

It is urged by Bethune-Baker that Nestorius and his friends took the word hypostasis in the sense of nature, and by Lebon that the Monophysites took nature in the sense of hypostasis, so that both parties really intended the Catholic doctrine. There is a prima facie argument against both these pleas. Granted that for centuries controversialists full of odium theologicuм might misunderstand one another and fight about words while agreeing as to the underlying doctrines, yet it remains that the words person, hypostasis, nature (prosopon, hypostasis, physis) had received in the second half of the fourth century a perfectly definite meaning, as to which the whole Church was at one.

All agreed that in the Holy Trinity there is one Nature (physia or physis) having three Hypostases of Persons. If in Christology the Nestorians used hypostasis and the Monophysites physis in a new sense, not only does it follow that their use of words was singularly inconsistent and inexcusable, but (what is far more important) that they can have had no difficulty in seeing what was the true meaning of Catholic councils, popes, and theologians, who consistently used the words in one and the same sense with regard both to the Trinity and the Incarnation.

There would be every excuse for Catholics if they misunderstood such a strange "derangement of epitaphs" on the part of the schismatics, but the schismatics must have easily grasped the Catholic position. As a fact the Antiochene party had no difficulty in coming to terms with St. Leo; they understood him well enough, and declared that they had always meant what he meant. How far this was a fact must be discussed under NESTORIANISM. But the Monophysites always withstood the Catholic doctrine, declaring it to be Nestorian, or half Nestorian, and that it divided Christ into two.

As I understand it many Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox are coming to  the conclusion that the differences leading to separation were more terminology than substance and that they don't really disagree.

True. Both the Syrians and the Greeks have held no Ecuмenical Council of their own since they separated from Rome long ago, the schism of the one lasting over 1500 years and dating from the Fourth, that of the other close to a 1000 years and upto the Seventh. It is a curious fact, but both appear to concede tacitly, then, that the Bishop of Rome's consent at least is necessary for a Council to be Ecuмenical.

So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the dogmas established in Chalcedon are not negotiable. It is no more permitted to claim there is only one nature in Christ than it is to claim there is only one person in the Holy Trinity. For since it is clear that Our Lord took to Himself and retained a true human nature, along with its integral faculties such as intellect and will (as is plain in the Gospel and Our Lord's prayer in Gethsemane) into His Person in a Hypostatic union, the distinction must be necessarily made, without the division of His person nor the fusion of the natures, the terms used properly and consistently, and the doctrine formulated with precision.

Now, the Church has always been ready and willing to explain and defend her doctrines and to make it easy for those unhappily separated from her in times past to be quickly reconciled, as she did in both Lyons II and Florence. So by all means, let the Church work toward that, but make sure and see to it that they genuinely come to a true and orthodox understanding of the Incarnation and of Christology. There is a minimalist tendency today to pretend that dogma and doctrine and its exact formulation don't really matter anymore which must be avoided here.