I have however a FB acquaintance who insists that the feast of Dec. 9th (in West too, date moved only later to 8th) was always called Conception of St Anne in the East, never Immaculate Conception. The fact that the feast was adopted as Immaculate Conception in Spain towards the end of the first millennium is waved off as ... well, they did no longer know Greek in Spain by then, so they misunderstood, they mistranslated.
I guess the fact that Kiev and Novgorod never had learned Greek at all is the reason why Russians up to Nikon believed in the Immaculate Conception. And Old Believers, very likely to take a cue from "only sprinkled Latins", retained it against the Skirzhal.
Wait ... one concept mistranslated into two languages, without contact, and yet mistranslated the same way? Wow, that is staggering.
It is also staggering, if so, that the ones who imported the feast to Sviataia Rus' and to Spain were not smart enough to know they knew no Greek. And ask for a good translation. But maybe Nea Romi (or Deftera Romi) had already lost the ability to translate from Greek to foreign languages, as much as Spain had lost the ability to read Greek?
By the way, when I think about St Isidor of Sevilla, I wonder, how come if this man never knew Greek, he could nevertheless give an accurate account of Demokritos' atomism bridging the gap from Demokritos to Niels Bohr?
And while St Kirill was at it in bigger Moravia, he of course would not translate correctly either?
I think it far more likely the Greek Church of the first millennium did believe we are born tainted and that St Mary the Theotokos was even conceived without any such taint.
Actually, apart from countering that absurd argument, I will refer to a better researcher than I and give you a link to his paper with a pertinent quote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/barton1.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/barton2.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/barton3.html
One can also find a well-written defense in the book Theotokos, written by Greek Melkite Catholic Archbishop Joseph Raya (Madonna House Publications, Ontario Canada). He quotes the book Byzantine Theology from the modern Orthodox theologian Fr John Meyendorff as saying, "Byzantine theology & hymnology do not cease praising Mary as fully prepared for the inhabitation of God in the womb. She was fully cleansed and sanctified" (question: "When was she fully cleansed?" - all bold type is my emphasizing). Meyendorff also quoted St Sophronius of Jerusalem (c 556-638, Patriarch of Jerusalem from 634-638): "Many Saints appeared before you, but none was filled with grace as you; no one has been purified in advance as you have been."
Meyendorff also quotes St Andrew of Crete (740): "When the Mother of Him who is beauty itself is born, [human] nature recovers in her person its ancient privileges, and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God." Also is quoted St Nicholas Cabasilas of the 14th century: "Earth she is because she is from earth. But she is a new earth, since she derives in no way from her ancestors and has not inherited the old leaven. She is a new dough and has originated a new race." Meyendorff: says, "the Mariological piety of the Byzantines would probably have led them to accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it was defined in 1854, if only they shared the Western doctrine (re: thoughts) of original sin."
Often, however, the Easterners did! One can find that beginning with St Peter Moghila (Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, 1596-1647) founder of the Orthodox school of theology - the Academy of Kiev, until Stephan Javorski (rector of same from 1727 to 1731), that the rectors & theologians of the Academy taught the privilege of Mary's exemption from original sin." (Malvy-Villier, La Confession Orthodoxe de Pierre Moghila, Orientale Christiana, Vol X, #30, p XV - quoted in the same Unitas Periodical mentioned above).
(Emphases in Original not copied correctly).
