[Agrarian]

I did not, as I pointed out in that post, believe that the fact that we Orthodox do not believe that the Theotokos is a co-Redeemer, think that this would make Orthodoxy suddenly palatable to you! :-)

At the risk of repeating things you doubtless know, the title of Theotokos (birthgiver of God) was confirmed by the 3rd Ecumenical Council. It is not a Mariological title, it is primarily a Christological doctrine. If Christ was fully God and fully man in one single person, not two (as Nestorius claimed), then Mary was and is the birthgiver of God.

She is also the "Mother of God" -- although we use this title infrequently in Orthodox prayers. To say otherwise is to deny either her genuine human motherhood of Christ, or to deny Christ's divine nature. This is all Christology -- St. Cyril and others detected in Nestorius' refusal to call Mary the Birthgiver of God (let alone Mother of God), an subtle but genuine underlying belief that somehow there were two persons in Christ -- a human person, and a divine person. The consequences for our salvation are obvious, since it would mean that God didn't *really* become man -- he just sort of cohabited a bodily space with a man.

You also have doubtless had explained to you the difference between veneration and worship. Even if you do not accept a difference, I can assure you that at least in Orthodoxy, that distinction is very acute, even in the most uneducated peasant.

Asking her to pray to God for the forgiveness of our sins is not a feature of Orthodox prayer that springs to mind, although it may be there. I'd have to check our liturgical texts. Our prayers to her are more of a supplicatory matter -- it's a rough world, and you ask as many people to pray for you as you can when you're getting through life.

Again, I don't expect any of this to make Orthodoxy palatable to you, but I write in the interest of clarification.

[monkfan]

At the risk of repeating things you doubtless know, the title of Theotokos (birthgiver of God) was confirmed by the 3rd Ecumenical Council. It is not a Mariological title, it is primarily a Christological doctrine. If Christ was fully God and fully man in one single person, not two (as Nestorius claimed), then Mary was and is the birthgiver of God.

Indeed! This was no small matter. Saint Nicholas (yeah, that St. Nicholas) actually went so far as to punch Nestorius for claiming that Mary was merely the Christotokos. These guys weren't kidding around.

[HarleyD]

At the risk of repeating things you doubtless know, the title of Theotokos (birthgiver of God) was confirmed by the 3rd Ecumenical Council.

If memory serves me correctly this occurred around 400AD. Some of the earlier councils, in their creeds, never referred to Mary in this aspect. While there is some truth to the term, it has taken on far more meaning than was ever intended, IMHO. I would neither deny Mary's genuine human motherhood nor would I deny Christ's divine nature. However, that being said, I would not say that Mary was sinless for this denies other parts of scriptures which plainly states that all have sinned. Would you say that Mary was a sinner as stated in Rom 3:23?

You also have doubtless had explained to you the difference between veneration and worship. Even if you do not accept a difference...

I have studied this doctrine. No, I don't believe there is a difference. It is hard to convince me people are not praying to icons when people are praying to paintings, mold on a subway tunnel or a gridled cheese sandwich. If the Church truly did not believe in praying to icons, they would stop such nonsense. Praying to mold on a NJ tunnel wall does not foster a focus on who one is praying to, IMHO.

Again, I don't expect any of this to make Orthodoxy palatable to you, but I write in the interest of clarification.

And I appreciate the clarification. I really do.