In the more specific sense of being "preserved" from Original Sin, however, she becomes something other than human and the Fathers are quite clear that she was fully human. If she did not share the "distortions" of the Sin of Adam, then two problems arise. First, she had no need of the theosis made available to us through the Incarnation, yet the Fathers are quite clear that she was saved by the Incarnation and second, Christ was born of something other than a human being. That's the problem with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
These issues were raised by Thomas Aquinas, but solved after his death by Scotus. First, Mary was prevented from inheriting original sin with the idea that the Incarnation and Redemption of Our Lord would retroactively save Mary - just as the OT saints were. Just as Elijah was saved by the Incarnation, so was Mary. And secondly, if Mary was no longer human BECAUSE of being pure, then you are saying Christ, also, is no longer human. THAT is heresy. Christ, the perfect man, proves that sin is not part of our original nature. Thus, Mary cannot be called "other than human" BECAUSE she was created in man's original nature, just as the Word became Flesh did not have this stain. If Christ was the Second Adam, born without sin, then Mary, too, was the Second Eve, also born without sin. This goes back to Justin the Martyr and Ireneaus, both of the second century AD.
My personal opinion is that the dogma was made necessary by the error of +Augustine about the Sin of Adam in the first place.
I glanced at this teaching but I don't recall the defense of it entirely. I do remember that Augustine was quoting from many of his predecessors, Tertullian, Clement, and Ireneaus, for example, when he was defending the concept of original sin vs. the Pelagians, who didn't believe in it. The only thing I believe you reject is that man has acquired a guilt as a result. If memory serves me, I believe Augustine then asked, "why do you baptize infants, then, for the forgiveness of sins?" Again, lex orendi, lex credendi. I would have to look up some more on this if you wanted to continue this conversation. But right now, I am not convinced that Augustine was in error on this, or that he was the only one who believed in the transferance of guilt (which is not the same as that of actual sin). More work by me will be needed.
Brother in Christ
From the OCA Q & A:
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
St. Augustine & Original Sin
Printer Friendly Format
QUESTION:
Is it true, as I have been told, that the Orthodox Church does not celebrate Augustine of Hippo as a Saint and has no doctrine of original sin.
Surely human sufficience is at the root of secularism.
ANSWER:
While the Orthodox Church does accord Augustine of Hippo the title "saint" and recognizes the vast number of theological works he produced, Augustine was not as well known in the Christian East. His works were not translated into Greek until the 14th century; as such, he had little or no influence on mainstream Orthodox thought until 17th century Ukraine and 18th century Russia, primarily through the influence of western clergy and the establishment of theological schools which relied on Latin models with respect to curricula, text books, etc.
With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:
In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."
In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.
In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
One might look at all of this in a completely different light. Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found guilty and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly. You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the consequences of his action - people may shy away from you or say, "Watch out for him - he comes from a family of mass murderers." Your name may be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally guilty of his or her sin.
There are some within Orthodoxy who approach a westernized view of sin, primarily after the 17th and 18th centuries due to a variety of westernizing influences particularly in Ukraine and Russia after the time of Peter Mohyla. These influences have from time to time colored explanations of the Orthodox Faith which are in many respects lacking.