Saints Augustine and Fulgentius, in the interest of teaching correct Christology, reveal a straightforward Mariology which reaffirms an important confession found in creedal statements such as that of the Tome of Leo and the Great Euchologion. Both of these sources confess that Jesus Christ voluntarily assumed corruptible flesh from the fallen flesh of the Virgin Mary.
In stark terms, Augustine explicitly locates “her conception” as the origin of Mary’s “flesh of sin.” He also makes the interesting observation that Jesus’ flesh (i.e. humanity) willed to die, an important Christological assertion that predates the speculations of Saint Maximus the Confessor by centuries. Being sinless, implicitly He could not die. As follows is an exceedingly literal translation of the whole relevant section:
Accordingly, the body of Christ was truly assumed from the women’s flesh, which [is] from her flesh [of] sin propagated [from] her conception. Nevertheless, because [His body] does not follow her conception in this [same] way, [He] is not her flesh [of] sin, but [the] likeness [of the] flesh [of] sin. It is asserted [the Body of Jesus] has not received death from thence [i.e. sin] (which appears to be not aroused from the flesh’s will, as much His will overcame his spirit yearning against that [flesh, c.f. Gal 5:17]), because [His body does] not [have the] contagion [of] sin. But which [this body] discharges death [it is as a] debt not owed, and [it] exhibits [the] foundation [for the] promised resurrection–which one we do not fear the other [resurrection the] worthy hope for. (Augustine, Book of Genesis, Book 10 Chap 18/Par 32, Migne PL34: p. 422).
Proinde corpus Christi quamvis ex carne feminae assumptum est, quae de illa carnis peccati propagine concepta fuerat, tamen quia non sic in ea conceptum est, quomodo fuerat illa concepta, nec ipsa erat caro peccati, sed similitudo carnis peccati.
Accordingly, the body of Christ was truly assumed from the women’s flesh, which [is] from her flesh [of] sin propagated [from] her conception. Nevertheless, because [His body] does not follow her conception in this [same] way, [He] is not her flesh [of] sin, but [the] likeness [of the] flesh [of] sin.
Non enim accepit inde reatum moriendi, qui apparet in motu carnis non voluntario, quamvis voluntate superando, adversus quem spiritus concupiscit: sed accepit inde, non quod contagion praevaricationis
It is asserted [the Body of Jesus] has not received death from thence [i.e. sin] (which appears to be not aroused from the flesh’s will, as much His will overcame his spirit yearning against that [flesh, c.f. Gal 5:17]), because [the body is] not [from the] contagion [of] sin.
Sed quod exsolvendae indebitae morti, et ostendendae promissae resurrection sufficeret;
But which [this body] discharges death [it is as a] debt not owed, and [it] exhibits [the] foundation [for the] promised resurrection
Quorum unum nobis ad non timendum,
Which one we do not fear
Alterum ad sperandum valeret.
The other [resurrection the] worthy hope for.
Fulgentius likewise asserts that “Mary’s flesh” was “necessarily conceived” in “humanity’s iniquity” and that “truly she was undoubtedly sinful.” This is consistent with his assertion elsewhere: “The flesh of Mary, which was conceived in unrighteousness in a human way, was truly sinful flesh.” (Source) As follows is another exceedingly literal translation of the whole relevant section:
This is extent of grace [that] is God’s achievement [for] all: that He came to endure sin for in Him there is no sin; conceived man and also born in the likeness [of] flesh [of] sin from sinful flesh. Indeed, [from] Mary’s flesh (which humanity’s iniquity she was necessarily conceived [in], truly she was undoubtedly sinful) [was in] whom God’s Son [was] given birth in [the] likeness of flesh of sin. It is testified by the Apostle: “He sent His own Son in the likeness [of] flesh [of] sin.” To wit, “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God: But emptied Himself, taking a form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” For that reason, truly in [the] likeness [of] flesh [of] sin [was] God’s Son sent. And it is done similarly [for] mankind, because similar men [are] fashioned in revered flesh as far as [he is] actually created and we [are] not similar [to] God in that [He is] created without bearing sin, as far as our flesh does not work machinations, but only from our sin belonging [to one’s] imagination [does]. Consequently, in [the] likeness [of] flesh [of] sin God’s Son [has been] caused to appear, because of this [He has] true human flesh without mankind’s iniquity, but his [i.e. mankind’s] mortality. Truly, [the] likeness [of] flesh [of] sin [is] within God’s Son, or rather it is said God’s Son [is] in [the] likeness of sinful flesh, it is believed the only begotten God from [the] Virgin’s mortal flesh did not extract sin’s defilement. But, I accept [the] true nature [of God] completely, as Truth risen from [the] earth, standing out [in] that prophet David’s happy saying, [which] get’s [to] state: “Truth is risen from the Earth.” Truly, therefore Mary conceived God’s Word, because in flesh [of] sin she gave birth, in that way God accepted [the likeness of sinful flesh]. (Fulgentius of Ruspe, Epistle 17, Par 13, Migne PL 65, p. 458)
Haec est gratia qua factum es tut Deus, qui venit peceata tollere, quia peccatum in eo non est,
This is extent of grace is God’s achievement [for] all, that He came to endure sin for in Him there is no sin,
Homo conciperetur atque nasceretur in similitudine carnis peccatim de carne peccati.
Conceieved man and also born in the likeness [of] flesh [of] sin from sinful flesh.
Caro quippe Mariae, quae in iniquitatibus humana fuerat solemnitate concepta, caro fuit utique peccati, quae Filium Dei genuit in simìlitudinem carnis peccati.
Indeed, [from] Mary’s flesh (which humanity’s iniquity she was necessarily conceived [in], truly she was undoubtedly sinful) [was in] whom God’s Son [was] given birth in [the] likeness of flesh [of] sin.
Testatur enim Apostolus: Quia misit Deus Filius suum in similitudinem carnis peccati (Rom 8:3):
It is testified by the Apostle: “He sent His own Son in the likeness [of] flesh [of] sin.”
Illum scilicet, qui, cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitrates est esse se aequalem Deo, sed semetipsum exinamivit, formam servi accipens, in similitudine hominum factus (Phil 2:6-7)
To wit, “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God: But emptied Himself, taking a form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.”
Propterea vero in similitudine carnis peccati missus est Dei Filius,
For that reason, truly in [the] likeness [of] flesh [of] sin [was] God’s Son sent,
Idemque est in similitudinem hominum factus, ut et similis hominibus fieret in veritae carnis quam ipse creaverat,
And it is done similarly [to] mankind, because similar men [are] fashioned in revered flesh as far as [he is] actually created,
Et dissimilitudinem nostrum Deus in carne sine peccato creatus auferret,
And we [are] not similar [to] God in that [He is] created without bearing sin,
Quam nostrade carni non ex opera suo, sed ex nostro peccato inesse cernebat.
As far as our flesh does not work machinations, but only from our sin belonging [to one’s] imagination.
In similitudine igitur carnis peccati Dei Filius missus apparuit, quia in ejus vera humana carne non iniquitas hominis, sed mortalitas fuit.
Consequently, in [the] likeness [of] flesh [of] sin God’s Son [has been] caused to appear, because of this [He has] true human flesh without mankind’s iniquity, but his [i.e. mankind’s] mortality.
Similitudo vero carnis peccati cum in Dei Filio, vel potius Dei Filius in similitudine carnis peccati cum dicitur, credendum est Unigenitum Deum de Virginis carne mortali non traxisse peccati sordem.
Truly, [the] likeness [of] flesh [of] sin [is] within God’s Son, or rather it is said God’s Son [is] in [the] likeness of sinful flesh, it is believed the only begotten God from [the] Virgin’s mortal flesh was not extract sin’s defilement.
Sed accepisse naturae integram veritatem, ut Veritatis ortus de terra existeret quem prophetali semone beatus David insinuate dicens:
But, I accept [the] true nature [of God] completely, as Truth risen from [the] earth, standing out [in] that prophet David’s happy saying, [which] get’s [to] state:
Veritas de terra orta est (Ps 84:12).
Truth is risen from the Earth.
Vere igitur Deum Verbum Maria concepit, quod in carne peccati peperit, quam Deus accepit.
Truly, therefore Mary conceived God’s Word, because in flesh [of] sin she gave birth, in that way God accepted [the likeness of sinful flesh].
Conclusion. The preceding passages are important for those who study the Patristics. As we can see, authors who have high Mariologies to the extent one even explicitly affirmed that the Theotokos never sinned, nevertheless affirmed that she was conceived with original sin. Hence, the Orthodox assertion that Mary had original sin is not some sort of reflexive, anachronistic response to a potential Roman error. It is, in fact, the explicit patristic teaching of the Augustinian tradition.
Help Grow the Orthodox Church in Cambodia!
Has this article blessed you? Please bless the Moscow Patriarchate’s missionary efforts in Cambodia to bring the Gospel to a people who have not heard it!
$1.00
Orthodox Christian Theology 
My Orthodox parish priest has explained it to me this way. If the Immaculate Conception wa true than God would have had no need to send His Son because He could have made anyone born without sin. The Immaculate Conception renders the Incarnation a moot point and unnecessary. Therefore Mary could not have been born without sin.
? You mean God is not capable of doing this? What is exactly your point then?
Honestly, Eve had no original sin (an arguably uninterrupted access to God) and she sinned, so even an immaculately conceived Mary (or the rest of the humanity for that matter) is not under a definitive advantage. Being that Adam and Eve fell very quickly according to the fathers, it would seem that the rest of humanity can equally be deceived (and which is why Satan sincerely tried to make Jesus sin in the temptations, as sinless humanity was not something that intimidated him.)
God willed that Mary would not sin, and preserved her from any defilement of sin. This is what it adds up to.
Your point does not make a lot of sense because you would hold that it was at the annunciation that God made Mary sinless, and you would hold that she had not sinned from that point on. The point you make about Eve is equally valid under your contention about Mary’s sinlessness. It clearly fails.
Saints in the above state she was conceived in sin. We Orthodox affirm her sinlessness but not an exemption from original sin.
St Ambrose, Commentary on Psalm 118, (22,30)
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
St Andrew of Crete, On the Nativity of Mary.
“Now from Judah and David is descended a Virgin Maiden, rendering of Herself the royal and priestly worthiness of Him Who has taken on the priesthood of Aaron according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:15). Now the renewal of our nature is begun, and the world responding, assuming a God-seemly form, receives the principle of a second Divine creation.” …………..
“And how could all this be accomplished, if first there did not serve the mystery a Pure and Inviolate Virgin, Who contained the Uncontainable, in accord with the law, yet beyond the laws of nature? And could some other virgin have done this besides She alone, Who was chosen before all others by the Creator of nature?” ………
“ The Redeemer of the human race, as I said, willed to arrange a new birth and re-creation of mankind: just as the first creation, taking dust from the virginal and pure earth, where He formed the first Adam, so also now, having arranged His Incarnation upon the earth, and so to speak, in place of dust He chooses out of all the creation this Pure and Immaculate Virgin and, having re-created mankind in His Chosen One from among mankind, the Creator of Adam is made the New Adam, in order to save the old.” ……..
“ The unceasing power came quickly in help to those praying and beseeching God, and it made capable both the one and the other to produce and bear a child. In such manner, from sterile and barren parents, as it were from irrigated trees, was borne for us a most glorious fruition — the all-pure Virgin. “ ….. “Thus the IMMACULATE FRUITION issuing forth from the womb occurred from an infertile mother, and then the parents, in the first blossoming of Her growth brought Her to the temple and dedicated Her to God.” ……
NATIVITY OF MARY, RENEWAL OF CREATION
ODE 4.
“Therefore, let all creation sing and dance and unite to make worthy contribution to the celebration of this day. Let there be one common festival for saints in heaven and men on earth. Let everything, mundane things and those above, join in festive celebration. TODAY this created world is raised to the dignity of a holy place for him who made all things. THE CREATURE IS NEWLY PREPARED to be a divine dwelling place for the Creator.”
ODE 5.
“O Virgin Undefiled, Undefiled is your Birth.”
A pointer as to why Mary could not possibly have original sin is Rev 21:27: “27 Nothing unclean may come into it:” (heaven). Why? Because of God’s presence there. Which is the reason we all have to be purified of all our sins and sinful attachments, including original sin, before we can enter heaven. Jesus is God, not only man, and a mother’s (Mary’s) symbiotic relationship with Jesus in her womb is not only with Jesus as man, but also Jesus as God.
God created a perfect vessel for his son Jesus, not an imperfect one.
“A pointer as to why Mary could not possibly have original sin is Rev 21:27…Why? Because of God’s presence there.”
Question. Does the bread and wine transformed into flesh and blood of Christ come from fallen creation, or is it not subject to futility like all of creation in Rom 8?
Mr. Megery, I think your priest misunderstands the immaculate conception. It states that she was preserved by the merits of her Son. It was because of the Redemption that the immaculate conception was possible.
CCC 1374 states: ‘In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
“Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.”
What you fail to take into account is that bread and wine are inanimate things, whereas Mary is not only made in the image of God, but the mother of Jesus, who is God, and God recognises this dignity and honours it in a way which respects that dignity.
For me, the Immaculate Conception has more sense than saying that she indeed inherited the ancestral sin.
The proto-gospel of Genesis explains it very clear.
“ And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” If Jesus had enmity with Satan, and despite being tempted by him, He. never fell because his own merits, Mary also shared that enmity, not because of her own merits, but by God’s grace.
God purified her, so He could take flesh, and save us from our sins and bruise Satan’s head.
God had the possibility to say that the seed was the only one who would have the enmity, but he mentions the woman, and her children to have that enmity.
I suppose it is not a matter of what “makes sense,” but merely reiterating what the saints actually taught.