Yes. The things that an Orthodox Christian is *obligated* to believe are limited to the definitions of the Councils--with only the title Theotokos and her Ever-Virginity falling into that category as regards Mary (and the latter was more 'incidential' in that a council never discussed it--they just used the title as assumed in speaking of her).
......the Church's approach is to establish a strict minimum of what *must* be believed.....
I am glad to have the opportunity to disagree with you since I have had this unnerving feeling in the past that we must be clones from the same source; I don't think I have seen anything with which I have not agreed.
But in this instance, I don't agree with a "minimalist" approach to the faith. I was taught that Orthodoxy has a "maximalist
" approach. There is no schema of the minimal doctrines to define a person as orthodox, but only the fullness of the Tradition. This includes such undefined beliefs as the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the death and assumption of the holy Mother of God, the Church itself ~ these things do not have a conciliar definition but denying them or making them optional is unthinkable.
To offer a quote from Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church
Orthodox are not willing to take part in a ‘minimal’ reunion scheme, which secures agreement on
a few points and leaves everything else to private opinion. There can be only one basis for union
— the fullness of the faith; for Orthodoxy looks on the faith as a united and organic whole.
Speaking of the Anglo-Russian Theological Conference at Moscow in 1956, the present Archbishop
of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, expressed the Orthodox viewpoint exactly: ‘The
Orthodox said in effect: ‘…The Tradition is a concrete fact. Here it is, in its totality. Do you Anglicans
accept it, or do you reject it?’ The Tradition is for the Orthodox one indivisible whole:
the entire, life of the Church in its fullness of belief and custom down the ages, including Mariology
and the veneration of icons.
Faced with this challenge, the typically Anglican reply is: ‘We
would not regard veneration of icons or Mariology as inadmissible, provided that in determining
what is necessary to salvation, we confine ourselves to Holy Scripture.’ But this reply only
throws into relief the contrast between the Anglican appeal to what is deemed necessary to salvation
and the Orthodox appeal to the one indivisible organism of Tradition, to tamper with any
part of which is to spoil the whole, in the sort of way that a single splodge on a picture can mar
its beauty (‘The Moscow Conference in Retrospect,’ in Sobornost, series 3, no. 23, 1958, pp. 562-563).
In the words of another Anglican writer: ‘It has been said that the Faith is like a network
rather than an assemblage of discrete dogmas; cut one strand and the whole pattern loses its
meaning’ (T. M. Parker, ‘Devotion to the Mother of God,’ in The Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall, p. 74).
Orthodox, then, ask of other Christians that they accept Tradition as a whole....