I don't for a moment believe that any even "marginally" Orthodox believer would for a moment think -- based on the teaching of the Church -- that Theotokos is anything even close to God, but rather a model human being.
But the extent of veneration that sometimes borders on worship, at least in the language if not in the intent, and the whole Marian devotion -- even her assumption -- is not something that can be easily glazed over and not detect that Mary's sainthood and veneration were neither part of the primitive Church's phronema, nor internal or external teaching.
Saints in the early Church were only martyrs. To the best of my knowledge none of the 2nd and 3rd century Fathers called her a Saint, nor did any one of them mention her assumption. Jesus Himself never called her His "Mother" but simply a "woman." One can speculate as to the cultural and social makeup of the male-dominated patriarchal Jewish society, but shouldn't we -- in the fashion of our Lord -- call our mothers "woman?" Rather this custom, revealed in the Scriptures, is ignored in our society, thus one begins to wonder which custom was selectively retained and which selectively discarded.
Customs in themselves do not have a significant effect on the faith, but customs that actually morph into faith are in themselves dangerous corruptions. Unfortunately, human memory is short so we do not have a clear idea as to when and where each custom developed.
To the contrary, we call ourselves 'ancient' and 'unchanging.' But the fact is we have changed -- anywhere from our Liturgy (5th century) to Palamite organization of the Church (13th century). We have gone through numerous heresies as well.
The Symbol of Faith calls Mary Theotokos. The words chosen are not accidental, because -- although the implication of motherhood is there -- the Fathers wisely realized that eternal God does not have a mother, but that the pristine vessel of Mary's womb served to Incarnate God as man. So, she was wisely named the "Bearer of God" -- and not the Mother of God, as the Latins translate.
I am curious as to who was the first to call her a saint and who and when was the first to say that she was assumed into heaven body and soul. Surely, the Epistles of the NT -- most if not all written after her death (some estimates are 48 AD) -- do not, and there seems to be no clear consensus of the Church on this issue at all for a few hundred years.
Don't get me wrong: I would like to be able to see that what the early Church professed and confessed was the same with regard to Mary as we do today, but our memories are short and simply because something is "ancient" in our eyes (don't you know -- grandparents were always old!) does not mean it was there from the beginning and was not invented or added as the memories faded and legends survived.
St. John was not a martyr.
To the best of my knowledge none of the 2nd and 3rd century Fathers called her a Saint, nor did any one of them mention her assumption.
As I noted in #50, "At the end of [the third] century, Patriarch Theonas of Alexandria built the first real church for local Christians (who prior to that time were accustomed to assemble in homes and cemeteries) and called it the Church of St Mary Virgin and Mother of God".
Jesus Himself never called her His "Mother" but simply a "woman."
"After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother." (St. John 19.27)
The Symbol of Faith calls Mary Theotokos. The words chosen are not accidental, because -- although the implication of motherhood is there -- the Fathers wisely realized that eternal God does not have a mother, but that the pristine vessel of Mary's womb served to Incarnate God as man. So, she was wisely named the "Bearer of God" -- and not the Mother of God, as the Latins translate.
The Slavs also so translate, saying "Mater Boha" for "Mother of God" and "Bohorodytsa" for "Theotokos". Aren't there also instances of the words "Mater Theou" in the Greek Liturgy? The Hymn to the Theotokos in the Liturgy reads: "It is truly meet to bless you, O Theotokos. Ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God." Its unclear what sort of point you are trying to draw out of this meaningless distinction except perhaps some sly Nestorianism.
In any case, we do have a functionally equivalent translation we also use - Deipara.
I tend to disagree when the focus is eastern orthodoxy.
"Ancient" is usually going to be more credible than anything in this century. Look at Kolokotronis - he's pretty darn credible.
Is that "simply"? "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel" (Gen. 3:15).