[Kolokotronis]

Here's your answer in anutshell:

"When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it."

In fact that isn't quite what the EP said, but it will do for this discussion. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is absolutely necessary if one accepts the +Augustian construct of Original Sin, at least as it has played out over the centuries as a "macula" of some sort. Orthodoxy of course does not accept that notion at all. The dogma thus does not become "necessary", nor is it necessary to dogmatically proclaim that Panagia was from the moment of her conception ontologically different from the rest of mankind (with the doubtless unintended problem that can create for Christology).

Orthodoxy has always believed that the Theotokos was all pure and sinless, though we all know that some Fathers did speculate that she may have sinned, +John Chrysostomos for example, but those ideas are clearly outside the consensus patrum. Our Orthodox beliefs, however, posit that she received sufficient grace from God, or put another way, so responded to God's grace which falls on all of us, that she maintained her sinless state in fulfillment of God's plan for the Incarnation even after reaching an age when the rest of us begin sinning. That's what makes her special, P. If Orthodoxy rejects the idea of Original Sin as traditionally preached in the West, calling the Theotokos pure, or immaculate or Panagia, simply doesn't mean that she was, from the moment of her conception, ontologically different from the rest of us.

One might say that given some relatively modern Latin theology concerning Original Sin, this all could be a matter of semantics, but I think that ignores the dangers inherent in dogmatically declaring that the Blessed Mother wasn't as real a human being, as much a daughter of Adam and Eve as the rest of us. As I said elsewhere, it is exactly this sort of notion which leads to popular understandings of terms like "Co-Redemptrix", which, to tell you the truth, is one of the most dangerous appellations I think of.

[Petrosius]

I must share your reservations about the title "Co-redemptrix". I know what those who are pushing this title mean but I find it problematic if we have to spend more time explaining what it does not mean rather than what it does. In this case I fear that such a title could be dangerous even if its underpinning theology is correct.

Similarly, would not the need for precision lead us to say "the majority of Orthodox theologians today do not accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception" rather than "Orthodoxy does not accept ..." ? This would indicate that the Immaculate Conception could still be an orthodox opinion within Orthodoxy. I fear that the simple statement "Orthodoxy rejects ..." can feed into an anti-Roman reaction that uncritically considers as heretical any opinions that Catholics hold that is seem to originate outside the Orthodox consensus.