It was the West’s view of the stain of Original Sin that allowed, for the longest time, western Catholics, including Aquinas, to deny that Mary was conceived immaculately. The Roman Pope put an end to that debate in the 19th century.
I would point out that the West’s point of view is De Fide (of faith) and catholics both East and West are not at liberty to disagree with it 'If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death…But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. and again ‘**If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation…’
**
Both clearly set forth the Western View of Original Sin which is markedly different from the eastern view as De Fide and anathemetize those who believe otherwise.
The same is true with the Dormition of our Lady, her being taken up into Heaven, body and soul, and her coronation as the Queen of heaven and earth (Trentcath at one point denied the Orthodox East believes the final point and he is completely wrong on that score).
I believe we will find I retracted that statement
As for purgatory, the East uses the term “hades” as a place where souls not yet ready to be joined to the heavenly choirs are kept until prayers, especially the prayer of the Divine Liturgy (“Mass”), good works et alia are performed sufficient for them. And the Orthodox East prays most assiduously for the faithful reposed, daily, on Saturdays and on twelve separate liturgical occasions throughout the year. It is second to none in the department of prayer for the dead.
As I mentioned before ‘Cleansing pains’ and not just the existence of somewhere where sins are cleansed is declared De Fide by the Council of Florence
As for the curia acting with the authority of the pope, the primates of the
EC Churches who share their church government with the pope (Decree on the EC Churches) have a much stronger claim to that authority than Latin curialists. Any problems that could arise would be referred to the pope himself etc.
The point is that the pope being head of a church with 1.2 billion people needs to delegate and he has delegated to the curia, to dispute the various congregations etc… power is to dispute the powers of the pope
Again politics has no bearing on the actual institution of the curia
The eastern politicking of the Vatican with the ROC (in effect, “ostpolitik”) shows a grave problem that the Vatican has with respect to the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics where the Vatican is willing to set aside the legitimate growth and development of the EC Churches (i.e. the UGCC) for perceived “gains” in its ecumenical relationship with the ROC.
I agree wholeheartedly, but thats Vatican politics not Dogma
But what are those gains that it has achieved via ostpolitik? What has been achieved by the Vatican in this respect? The answer is . . . nothing. Yet the Vatican curia continues to try and placate the ROC, especially by continuing to refuse to acknowledge what is already occurring within the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the existence of a patriarchal form of church government such as exists in so many other Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.
So, please forgive me if I in particular am not sympathetic to your cries for loyalty to a Vatican curialism that has proven to be morally bankrupt in this respect.
Again Vatican politics I am defending the office of the Curia not the individuals that fill it nor am I asking for loyalty to the curia I am asking for loyalty to the pope who has seen fit to delegate to the curia
The UGCC has sufficient martyrs for Rome to not have to prove anything to western Roman Catholics. If anything, Roman Catholics who wish to triumph in their loyalty to Rome would do well to focus on their own fellow RC’s in North America to try and get them to “come back” to a similar sense of loyalty.
Ah, if only it was so easy 
Alex
