Crucially, Orthodoxy does not teach that humanity inherits the guilt or a „stain‟ of Adam’s sin (as developed in Western theology, particularly by Augustine, leading to the concept of „original sin‟ as inherited guilt). Each person is responsible only for their personal sins. So, all humans are born into a world affected by sin, are subject to death, and have a weakened will that inclines them towards personal sin.

All Marian dogmas therefore are really affirmations of the existance of original sin: The Immaculate Conception (as neither Orthodox nor Catholics believe that Christ would be born into a sinful womb), the physical assumption into heaven (as death was the result of the fall), the miraculous birth of Christ not affecting Marys virginity (as the pains of birth are a result of the fall).

The problem of this comes with Luke 1:47:

And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Luke 1:47 DRA

The problem of the Orthodox is not to explain how Mary was saved, but when:

• If she was saved merely by cooperation with grace, this renders Christs sacrifice unnecessary. Why would anyone need Christ or any sacrifice, if the world can be saved by faith or grace alone? Catholics distinguish between sanctifying grace and actual (helping) grace. This would mean that Mary went to heaven by actual grace, not by sanctifying grace.
• If she was „continually being saved by cooperation‟, this sentence tense makes absolutely no sense.
• The continual-saving theory also means that we could earn heaven with a lot of „actual grace‟, which contradicts „all men have sinned‟ (past tense). Orthodox theology is not supported anywhere in the Bible nor in tradition or the Church Fathers.
• The theory that she was saved through her faith in Christs works in the future makes even less sense: because it would imply that she knows that she is sinful, therefore needing to be saved (but the work to save her had not yet been done), therefore the sinless Christ united himself for nine month with a sinful Mary.

Orthodox theology maintains that Mary was born with a fallen nature like all humans but remained sinless through her cooperation with divine grace.

This teaching, which seemingly highly exalted the Virgin Mary, but in reality denied all her virtues by removing her moral struggle and free will.

Now, Maximovitch here creates a false dichtonomy: Adam, for example, had free will to sin or not, but was originally created without sin. So, just because someone is created without sin does not mean that he has no free will. Mary could have said „non serviam‟ to the angel, however, God in his foreknowledge already knew from eternity that she wouldn’t do it.

Secondary, Catholics do teach that Mary struggled against sin, even while being without sin: Christ was without sin too, yet he struggled massively in his human nature and was tempted (to say otherwise would be to deny his efforts). The virtue is not in the struggle, but it is in being virtouus herself: therefore saying Mary was without sin does not imply that she never struggled, she just never fell.

• Babies can now go to heaven without needing Christ
• Marys words in Luke

However, Orthodox have admittedly no need for explaining this problem, as they don’t believe in original sin, merely that man has a tendency to sin. However, this means that man, through a lot of hard work could work

On thee, as on ground unplowed, fell the heavenly rain, Christ. Hail, thou who before thy marriage didst miraculously conceive the ear untouched by man. Hail, thou unspotted, undefiled and most pure Mother of God.

Also, St. Germanus of Constantinople can be cited:

As the pearl is formed undefiled in the injured oyster, so also is Christ formed in the undefiled Womb of His Mother without sin.

Aquinas explains that Mary’s preservation from sin was fitting for three reasons.

First, because of her unique relationship to Christ: as the Mother of God, she was to provide the physical substance from which Christ’s body would be formed, and it was fitting that this substance be completely pure.

Second, for her own dignity: as the new Eve, Mary needed the fullness of grace to overcome the power of sin that affected all humanity.

Third, for our salvation: God desired to prepare a worthy dwelling place for His Son.

The Orthodox concern about Mary’s moral struggle is addressed by clarifying that the Immaculate Conception did not deprive Mary of free will or the possibility of merit. Rather, she was preserved by a special application of Christ’s redemptive grace. Mary still needed Christ as her Savior, but she was saved in a more perfect way—by prevention rather than by healing after contracting sin. This unique preservation made her all the more grateful to God and engaged in a life of virtue.

As for the claim that Mary needed to share our fallen nature to transmit humanity to Christ, Aquinas would distinguish between fallen nature itself (which includes mortality and suffering) and the stain of original sin (which is the privation of original justice).

Mary could transmit human nature to Christ without transmitting the stain of sin.

The Eastern Fathers’ emphasis on Mary’s exceptional purity provides a foundation for this understanding, even if they did not articulate the doctrine with the precision of later theological development.