It's irrelevant. In the East, she is believed to have been cleansed of any and all sin at the Annunciation in order to become a "suitable vessel" to receive the eternal Word, and that, beinf full of grace, she never sinned since.
Since such a teaching denies the free response of man to God, the Orthodox Church believes that Mary was cleansed of all sin at the Annunciation after she had agreed to accept God's offer. It was at that point that the Holy Spirit came upon her to make her fit to receive the Word in her womb. At that moment she became “blessed” and “full of grace.” [ Anthony M. Coniaris, What we Believe about the Saints]
The Orthodox Church holds dogmatically only two things about Mary—being ever-virgin and the Theodokos. These dogmatic beliefs are not about her but about her Son, and who he is in the Church. You have to remember that the Councils were convened to sort out the heterodox beliefs that festered in the Church regarding God himself as well as Chirst himself.
Specifically, most of the Councils dealt with heresies that in one way or another denied that Jesus Christ is both divine and human, or that Jesus and Logos are one and the same person (so-called Christologcial heresies). In order to place Christ in his proper dual theological role, it was necessary to explain that the eternal Word does not have a mother, but that through Incarnation, Mary gave birth to God who took on human nature.
Part of the problem the Protestants have with this is that Mary is known in the West as the "Mother of God" which is, first of all a misleading incorrect translation of Greek (what else is new!), and second, an awkward if not confusing choice of words even though it is technically correct. The name Theotokos simply means the God-bearer. The child Mary gave birth to was not only a human Jewish meshiyah or christos in Greek, that is the anointed one, but rather to the Savior God Incarnate.
Other Marian beliefs, such as her spotlessness and assumption are ancient pious beliefs of the faithful , not dogmatically canonized in the East, nor doctrinally required to be recited at baptism as profession of faith.
I would think it's relevant because if she never sinned SINCE, then that would not seem to match what is said at the Memorial service: "for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin".
Since such a teaching denies the free response of man to God, the Orthodox Church believes that Mary was cleansed of all sin at the Annunciation after she had agreed to accept God's offer. It was at that point that the Holy Spirit came upon her to make her fit to receive the Word in her womb. At that moment she became “blessed” and “full of grace.” [ Anthony M. Coniaris, What we Believe about the Saints]
Well, IF we are going to analyze scripture with a careful emphasis on tense :) then we have to say that this completely contradicts the Gospel of Luke. To wit:
Looking at the tenses used, this appears to make it absolutely crystal clear that Mary was "full of grace" BEFORE she "agreed to accept God's offer."
Specifically, most of the Councils dealt with heresies that in one way or another denied that Jesus Christ is both divine and human, or that Jesus and Logos are one and the same person (so-called Christologcial heresies). In order to place Christ in his proper dual theological role, it was necessary to explain that the eternal Word does not have a mother, but that through Incarnation, Mary gave birth to God who took on human nature.
In those cases the Councils did mankind a great service.
Part of the problem the Protestants have with this is that Mary is known in the West as the "Mother of God" which is, first of all a misleading incorrect translation of Greek (what else is new!), and second, an awkward if not confusing choice of words even though it is technically correct. The name Theotokos simply means the God-bearer.
I could not agree more. Thanks for the real translation. Technically correct is OK, but it sure leaves a dangerous opportunity open to draw false inferences therefrom.
Other Marian beliefs, such as her spotlessness and assumption are ancient pious beliefs of the faithful , not dogmatically canonized in the East, nor doctrinally required to be recited at baptism as profession of faith.
Even if not dogma, is the assumption commonly accepted as true among the Orthodox? When you said that it's an ancient pious belief of the faithful it made me think that virtually all Orthodox accept it as a given even if it is not required.
“Part of the problem the Protestants have with this is that Mary is known in the West as the “Mother of God” which is, first of all a misleading incorrect translation of Greek (what else is new!), and second, an awkward if not confusing choice of words even though it is technically correct.”
And which has resulted in hundreds of posts here which fail to get to the deeper issues. My contention was not with its technicality so much as what it can infer Mary being ontologically the mother of God. And this title takes on a greater significance when coupled with the extreme (a $10 word “supererogation” comes to mind) adulation given Mary, which is not restrained but encouraged in R Catholicism.