Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
I encourage everyone to read this article and compare the role and form of theological interpretation of the role of the Mother of God in Latin rite theology from between the 9th to 12th centuries. the sequences compared are the 9th c. "Aurea flore" to the 11th c. "Aurea virga prim(a)e matris" (which became the main sequence used in the Sarum use of England between 1100-1534 AD.)http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7g3003tt#page-4
It does note a clear evolution of different ideas of the Assumption and role of the Most Holy Mother of God. I would like to know if anyone finds this evolution as described in the article or the translations of these two sequences to be an "Orthodox" development.
Is the later 11th/12th c. role still perfectly acceptable within western rite Orthodoxy today?
One could even ask the same question concerning iconography...
by the 1180's there were a few select images showing an actual "assumption" and Mary crowned as queen of heaven by Our Lord or Angels. Though even in the 13th century the dominant image continued to be the transitus type or a combination of both above and below. But by the 16th century the her assumption into heaven in very humanistic style is most assuredly the dominant image.
I just finished working on a Lesson about the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and I am very interesting in contributing to this thread. However, not at the moment, so I am posting this to find it later