The 4th century is recent? Although it's possibly true that one can't speak of Sts. John, Basil and Cyril 'challenging' a teaching that didn't yet exist in their time.
You keep bringing them up and yet you have yet to respond to my point that even by your own standard of when Mary became sinless (the Annunciation) they were wrong.
*I* have not proposed any specific time/event as the point at which the Theotokos became the 'all-pure' we celebrate, as in the absence of a clear Patristic consensus, I don't pretend to know. I quoted St. John of Damascus on how she was purified (by the action of the Holy Spirit). Since the Damascene never, to my knowledge, takes up the question of whether she ever sinned after that initial purification or needed any additional purification, I don't know whether he disagrees with the earlier saints on the specifics or not. I do know that he agrees with them that she needed purification.
And there's your falsification of church history and patristics again ("a teaching that didn't yet exist in their time").
This is the third time you have accused me of falsification, and yet you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that anything I have stated is factually incorrect much less deliberately falsified. You need to produce evidence or admit that in your zeal for your personal opinion, you have borne false witness against me. Certainly this will be my last response to you until you have raised your level of discourse above a second-grader's 'nuh-uh!!!'
So is the belief that Mary was a sinner a part of the organic tradition? Can you name a single father after antiquity who held that? Or is this just another example of digging up three idiosyncratic proof-texts and making theology out of them?
Given that you haven't produced a single Father *in* antiquity that who clearly held your position (vague hand-waving that Sts. Ambrose and Ephraim referred to the Theotokos as Immaculate--as does everyone, including myself, doesn't count) why should I? By definition, tradition is that which is handed down--if more modern Fathers didn't get it from antiquity, then it is their opinion, not tradition.
It is a whole other level of presumption to argue that they got something 'essential' wrong, and that you understand what is 'necessary' for Christian anthropology and free will better than such Pillars of the Church.
Almost as presumptuous as dismissing the church's tradition as Pelagian.
Your opinion != the church's tradition. But in any case I did not call the opinion Pelagian. I pointed out that the first person we have evidence of clearly teaching that opinion was Pelagius--what conclusions you draw from that are your own. Again, if you have any contrary evidence then produce it, though I'm obviously not holding my breath.