>Where do you get the idea the EO don't go as far as the RCC? Orthodoxy holds to the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think any of the EO churches teach otherwise.

Talking to Orthobros, friend. 🤷 By "Orthodoxy doesn't go as far," I only leave room because--though every Catholic with whom I've talked about this says that Mary is sinless--some Orthodox (whether it may be according to their tradition or not--whether that's specifically Greek, Russian, or what-have-you) have said instead that Mary was not sinless. If they have stated what is counter to Orthodoxy (or their specific branch), then that bears on their point rather than mine.

>Ephesus 431
Have more care with what I am saying. I haven't claimed anyone *began* calling Mary 'Theotokos' at this council (nor did I limit the scope to one council, and I'll say the reason for that in a second--I understand why you have referred to this one, as it's during this one that there's discussion on specifically continuing or altering the used title for Mary).

What I said is that there was choosing what to call Mary based upon views (which isn't a criticism)--and that is true of both a) those at the council trying to call Mary something new and b) those at the council choosing to continue what they had been calling her.

My point was that there was discussion of Mary (her title and her role) that extended directly from discussion of Christ's nature. (The discussion of Christ's nature need not be *during* the council. Nestorius posited the new title for Mary because of discussions about Christ's nature.)
Some also discuss Mary's nature by extension. (I am not limiting the scope of this to councils. Not all claims about Mary were made in councils. Some are made within sects--even the largest ones.)

The reason I left the scope as wide as "councils" rather than naming Ephesus is because these conversations carry from one council to the next, by extensions--even questions not within a previous council, but arising after a previous council, often due to points from a previous council, leading to topics in the next. (Example: We could talk about how the view of Apollinaris addressed long before Ephesus affected the view (like a guard rail) of Nestorius and so affected the topic at Ephesus.) Both views--Apollinaris and Nestorius--were about Christ's nature--and it did lead to discussions about Mary.

All of that aside, remember that the larger (original) point of the post is that there is an overemphasis on asking Mary to intercede and addressing why that is the case--not whether she in the flesh bore Christ in the flesh (as everyone in this thread agrees she did), and not on whether she should be called Theotokos (as the title and the concept--as far as her having born Christ--isn't the concern).