General Councils and Liturgies On Hell

Instances where Hell/Eternal damnation is mentioned or alluded to by the Ecumenical Councils, and other ecclesial and magisterial documents:

Constantinople II:

Since the Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle curses even the angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached, how is it possible even for the most presumptuous to assert that these condemnations apply only to those who are still alive? Are they unaware, or rather pretending to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.-- Constantinople II, Sentence against the "Three Chapters"

 (Note that Constantinople II is addressing post-humous anathematization, implying the council considered these people numbered among the damned, contrary to the common claim that the church does not 'canonize' or declare who are damned. Though, I might add. there is no reason to believe those who the Church declares damned or saved who died after the death of St John the Apostle are infallibly canonized.)

Prior to Nicea II:

"But Christ commands you not to offend any of His little ones, and declares that, even for a slight scandal, you stand in danger of eternal fire. And hast thou scandalized the whole world because thou hadst not courage to endure death, but hadst rather defend thyself by a sinful apology?--First Letter of Gregory the Second, Pope of Rome, to the Emperor Leo, in defence of Images  (before Nicea II)

Nicea II, the fathers recognized the anathema against universal reconciliation: 

"Cosmas, the deacon and chamberlain, reads from the Life of our holy Father Sabbas:-- 

  "At the fifth holy General Council, held at Constantinople, Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, together with the speculations of Evagrius and Didymus, concerning the pre-existence and restitution of all things, were all subjected to one common and Catholic anathema, all the four Patriarchs being present and consentient thereto...--Nicea II, Session I, p36

We reject along with them Severus Peter and their interconnected band with their many blasphemies, in whose company we anathematize the mythical speculations of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the fifth synod, that assembled at Constantinople.--Nicea II, Definition

 elsewhere uses terms of unending damnation: 

On account of the disaster which came about in the churches due to our sins certain venerable houses--episcopal buildings as well as monasteries--were seized by certain men and became public inns. Now if those who hold them choose to restore them, so that they are established once more as formerly they were, this is good and excellent. However if such is not the case, should they be inscribed in the list of priests, we order that they be suspended, and if they are monks or lay persons, that they be excommunicated, seeing that they are criminals condemned by the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, and let them be assigned there where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched, because they oppose the voice of the Lord declaring, You shall not make my Father's house a house of trade. --Nicea II, Canon XIII

"Moreover, I look for the resurrection of the dead, and for the eternal retribution of all things which have been done, whether they be good or evil...."--Confession of Faith by Patriarch Tarasius read by Stephen, Deacon and Notary of the Patriarchate, Nicea II, Session III

And with a fan they purged the floor. And the good wheat, that is to say tire word which nourisheth and which maketh strong the heart of man, they laid up in the granary of the Catholic Church; but throwing outside the chaff of heretical evil opinion they burned it with unquenchable fire.--SESSION IV

"For whereas, like one who fell from heaven, he though to lift up himself against religion and to prevail against her, he was bound in fetters from above, being utterly despoiled of his expectations, and he heard from the Church that which of the Egyptian tyrant heard from Moses when triumphing over him, 'The enemy said, Pursuing I will seize, I will divide the spoil, I will satiate my soul' (Exodus xv, 9): yea, and against him was denounced the same prophetic curse which was denounced against the devil himself, 'God shall destroy thee for ever: He will pluck thee out and drive thee from thy dwelling-place, and thy root from the land of the living' (Psalm lii. 5). --Nicea II, Session IV, Letter of Pope Gregory, Most Holy Pope of Rome, to Germanus, Most Holy Patriarch of Constantinople read by Cosmas

In addition, at the council, speakers spoke plainly of people going into eternal damnation, for instance the Islamic Caliph:

"After that the Caliph Jezid had done this he lived not more than two or three years: then he died and went into everlasting fire..."--John the Legate of the East, Second Council of Nicea, Session V.

Cosmas Deacon Notary and Chamberlain read the "Fifth Epistle of St. Symeon Stylites of the Wonderful Mount to the Emperor Justin the Younger": ....Nor let your most gracious Highness delay, lest, by any means, some should insinuate unseaonable words, as if they had the sanction of your imperial Highness, especially since it is to you that God, who has been so impiously insulted by them, has committed the power; that thus the rest of them many spend all the days of their accursed and schismatical existence in fear, whom also their cognate darkness will receive to the vengeance of that future unquenchable and dark fire which shall consume them forever! And the Holy Almighty Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, which proceedeth from the Father, shall accurse them to the lowest depths of the abyss, to destroy them with a never-ending destruction.--Nicea II, Session V, Cosmas Deacon Notary and Chamberlain read the "Fifth Epistle of St. Symeon Stylites of the Wonderful Mount to the Emperor Justin the Younger", page 262 

 Lateran II:

22. Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy church, namely, false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate and priests not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is agreed that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another. Thus it is written: Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point, has become guilty of all of it; this evidently pertains to eternal life. Therefore, just as a person who is entangled in all sins will not enter the gate of eternal life, so also if a person remains in one sin {12} . False penance also occurs when the penitent does not resign a position at a court or in business which cannot be carried on without sin, or if hate is harboured in his heart, or if the person does not make amends to whomever he offended, or if an injured party does not pardon the offender, or if anyone unjustly carries arms. --Canon XXII of Lateran II

Florence:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.--Council of Florence, Session VI

Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.--Council of Florence, Session VIII

Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. --Session VIII

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.--Session XI

 Lateran V:

For the soul not only truly exists of itself and essentially as the form of the human body, as is said in the canon of our predecessor of happy memory, pope Clement V, promulgated in the general council of Vienne, but it is also immortal; and further, for the enormous number of bodies into which it is infused individually, it can and ought to be and is multiplied. This is clearly established from the gospel when the Lord says, They cannot kill the soul; and in another place, Whoever hates his life in this world, will keep it for eternal life and when he promises eternal rewards and eternal punishments to those who will be judged according to the merits of their life; otherwise, the incarnation and other mysteries of Christ would be of no benefit to us, nor would resurrection be something to look forward to, and the saints and the just would be (as the Apostle says) the most miserable of all people.--Session VIII

Vatican II:

We strive therefore to please God in all things(253) and we put on the armor of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil and resist in the evil day.(254) Since however we know not the day nor the hour, on Our Lord's advice we must be constantly vigilant so that, having finished the course of our earthly life,(255) we may merit to enter into the marriage feast with Him and to be numbered among the blessed(256) and that we may not be ordered to go into eternal fire(257) like the wicked and slothful servant,(258) into the exterior darkness where "there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth".(259) For before we reign with Christ in glory, all of us will be made manifest "before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive what he has won through the body, according to his works, whether good or evil"(260) and at the end of the world "they who have done good shall come forth unto resurrection of life; but those who have done evil unto resurrection of judgment".(261) Reckoning therefore that "the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that will be revealed in us",(262) strong in faith we look for the "blessed hope and the glorious coming of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ"(263) "who will refashion the body of our lowliness, conforming it to the body of His glory(264). and who will come "to be glorified in His saints and to be marveled at in all those who have believed"(265).--Vatican II, LUMEN GENTIUM 48

Divine Office, Menaion, Mass, Catechism on who is damned:

Noteworthy, though not councils at all, are the Byzantine version of Divine Office where Arius and Macedonius are declared damned:

Before the ages before the morning star, Thou wast begotten of the womb of the Father without mother; yet Arius calleth Thee a creature, refusing to glorify Thee as God, with audacity mindlessly confusing Thee, the Creator, with a creature, laying up for himself fuel for the everlasting fire. But the Council in Nicæa proclaimed Thee to be the Son of God, Who art equally enthroned with the Father and the Spirit. --COMMEMORATION OF THE HOLY FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS At Great Vespers

The mindless Arius, showing himself to be a servant of a created being, and Macedonius, likewise revealed as abominable, are tormented together in the fire of Gehenna with the heathen.--COMMEMORATION OF THE HOLY FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS At Matins, Ode III

Also,

Irmos:I have heard, O Lord, the mystery of Thy dispensation; I have understood Thy works, and have glorified Thy divinity. 

With the torrent of thy tongue thou didst hurl the betrayer of Christ, like Judas, into a place of fœtor, O blessed Alexander.

Like a fruitful olive-tree standing in the house of God, O John, thou therein didst bring forth those who believe on Him, like ripe fruit.--Menaion, August, THE 30TH DAY OF THE MONTH OF AUGUST, Matins, Ode IV: Canon of the Holy Hierarchs

 In the same metins:

Irmos: The Lord Who was glorified on the holy mountain, and by the fire in the bush revealed to Moses the mystery of the Ever-virgin, hymn ye and exalt Him supremely for all ages! 

Slaying the wicked Arius by thine earnest supplications, O divinely wise Alexander, thou didst dispatch him to a vile place, like another Judas, since he had apostatized in like manner. 

The mindless Arius, the enemy of God, who as a traitor rent asunder the robe of Christ, fell headlong, and now, like another Judas, lieth in torment in hell, O thrice-blessed Alexander. 

Through abstinence and unsurpassed vigils thou wast shown to be as one of the incorporeal beings, and in thy constant teachings thou becamest a rich wellspring of paradise for all ages, O John.--Menaion, August, THE 30TH DAY OF THE MONTH OF AUGUST, Matins, Ode VIII: Canon of the Holy Hierarchs

 The Latin Mass alludes to Judas' damnation:

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession: grant unto us the full fruit of Thy clemency; that even as in His Passion, our Lord Jesus Christ gave to each a retribution according to his merits, so having taken away our old sins, He may bestow upon us the grace of His Resurrection.

Deus, a quo et Iudas reátus sui pœnam, et confessiónis suæ latro prǽmium sumpsit, concéde novis tuæ propitiatiónis efféctum: ut sicut in passióne sua Iesus Christus Dóminus noster divérsa utrísque íntulit stipéndia meritórum; ita nobis, abláto vetustátis erróre, resurrectiónis suæ grátiam largiátur:--Collect for Holy Thursday

Likewise, the Catechism of Trent in passing says Judas is damned:

Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honours; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction. --Catechism of Trent (aka Roman Catechism):THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS: Right Intention 

The Matins of the Divine Office for the now extinct Feast of the Garden of Gethsemane.

Then He saith: “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” (Matth. xxvi. 31.) He was sorrowful because He was leaving us orphans. But how resolutely He was giving Himself up to die is sufficiently clear by what followed, when He went to meet those that sought Him, when He calmed the agitated, when He nerved the timid, when He received the traitor himself with the condescension of a kiss. Neither is it other than the truth to say that He was sorrowful for their sakes who were hunting Him down, since He knew what a punishment they were to undergo for that unutterable crime. And because of all these things He said: "Let this cup pass from Me!” It was not that the Divine Son Of the Divine Being was afraid to die, but He would not that even wicked men should perish on His account.--Office in Memory of the Prayer of Our Lord JESUS Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, Matins, Ninth Lesson. page 239

 Around Constantinople I, Pope Damasus plainly spoke of the damnation of Apollinaris

If any one speaks of Christ as having had less of manhood or of Godhead, he is full of devils’ spirits, and proclaims himself a child of hell.

“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church.--Letter of Damasus bishop of Rome found in: The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, Book V, Chapter X

The Menaion says the iconoclast emperor Leo the Armenian is damned:

The wretched and most mindless Leo, infected with the heresy of Mamon, dashed himself against thee as against a hard stone, O God-pleasing Nicephorus, and hath quickly broken asunder in hell.--Menaion, June: June 2: St. Nicephorus the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople: Matin, Ode I 

On face value, these seem to contradict Pope John Paul II's assertion in his encyclical "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" where on the topic of the damned he states:

Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard.--Crossing the Threshold of Hope

However, I am unsure of what exactly he meant. Did he intent an exhaustive list? A few names that are infallibly damned? 

Forced conversion in Orthodox missions

This is still a draft, far from done. I have already presented much of this to Ubi Petrus in the comment section on youtube a month ago.

The Eastern Orthodox apologists Ubi Petrus insisted EO missions differ from RCC in that they never used forced conversions. Far from true! His video is primarily about the efforts of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church.

The large-scale conversion of the Slavs of Kievan Rus was mostly by Royal edict as alluded to in the Russian Primary Chronicles:

Thereafter Vladimir sent heralds throughout the whole city to proclaim that if any inhabitants, rich or poor, did not betake himself to the river, he would risk the Prince's displeasure. When the people heard these words, they wept for joy, and exclaimed in their enthusiasm, "If this were not good, the Prince and his boyars would not have accepted it." On the morrow, the Prince went forth to the Dnieper with the priests of the Princess and those from Kherson, and a countless multitude assembled.--Russian Primary Chronicles, page 116-117

Some note the missionaries were Ukrainians influenced by the Jesuits. Peter the Great ordered forced baptisms.

Taken from "Russia and the Small Peoples of the North Arctic Mirrors" by Yuri Slezkine

"...Force, however, was not to be used, and the first missionary expedition, unsupported by the secular authorities, was driven away by the Mansi. Greatly annoyed, Peter order Filofei to "find their seductive false-god idols and burn them with fire and ax them, and destroy their heathen temples, and build chapels instead of those temples, and put up the holy icons, and baptize these Ostiaks....And if some Ostiaks show themselves contrary to our great sovereign's decree, they will be punished by death."

"At the same time, Siberia was made a centralized gubernia, and its first governor, Prince M.P. Gagarin, arrived in Tobol'sk in 1711 with instructions to lend the missionaries a hand. A year later, the metropolitan [St Philotheus] had a ship, soldiers, interpreters, and gifts for the converts, and as he set out on his first large expedition, the future Christians were being rounded up, "so that these Ostiaks do not run away." In the course of the next decade Filofei Leshchinskii repeatedly "[tore] down the foundations of their idolatry, ruin[ed] their heathen temples, and demolish[ed] their idols." On reaching an Ugrian settlement a party of several monks and a dozen soldiers would go ashore, and "the teacher" would address the assembled villagers with a sermon on the advantaged of Christianity over paganism. An interpreter would translate his words, and the missionaries would proceed to burn "the idols and heathen temples." Having accomplished this, they would herd the villagers into the river for baptism, whereupon the "new Christians" would receive tin crosses, shirts, pants, bread, and other presents. Some Ugrians tried to flee, refused to leave their houses, or "covered their ears with their hands, like deaf vipers." Other attempted to bargain, anxious to keep their "many wives" and to place the images of their spirits "between the icons." A few attacked the missionaries "with a deadly hand." (According to Filofei's chronicler, the "teacher" himself was hit "in the belly" [chrevo] but escaped unhurt thanks to divine intervention.)  

In the long run, however, the threat of "punishment by death," the generous distribution of valuable gifts, and a number of special baptism benefits such as three years iasak waivers and pardons for minor criminals combined to ensure the apparent success of the enterprise, and in 1720 Peter congratulated Filofei on having baptized more than forth thousand pagans."--Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North, Yuri Slezkin. page 49-50. 2016.

Slezkine cites Monuments of Siberian History Pamiatniki sibirskoi istorii (PSI) Памятники Сибирской истории 1:413-414

"...книгахъ тое ихъ доимки вынести, чтобъ тѣмъ доимки не помянулись. А естли возиожно, то того ради исправленія, и самому тебѣ богомолцу нашему ѣхать въ вышеписанные мѣста и приводить тѣхъ идолопоклонниковъ во истинной ко христіянской вѣрѣ. А ко крещенію имъ кафтаны бѣлые и рубашки изъ нашей казны и хлѣбъ, по разсмотрѣнію, такожде давать увазали. А естли кто Остяки учинатъ противность сему нашему великого государя указу, и тѣмъ будетъ казнь смертная. А о споможеніи тебѣ въ томъ въ Тоболескъ къ воеводѣ Ивану Бибикову писано, что къ той посылкѣ, или къ вашему богомолца..."--Памятники Сибирской истории 1:413-414

Ostiak (ostyak) Остя́к is (actually was, as it's not a used word in modern Russian) an umbrella term for several indigenous peoples of Siberian that was common in this period.

Slezkine also has another book detailing Russian evangelization more

"At the same time, Siberia became a centralized guberniia, and its first governor, Prince M.P. Gagarin, arrived in Tobol'sk in 1711 with instructions to lend the missionaries a hand. In the ensuing campaign thousands of native Siberians received baptism along with pants, bread, knives, and temporary tribute exemptions, or else by being herded into the rivers at gunpoint. In 1750 archimandrite Ioasaf reported from Kachatka that "all the Kamchadal, expect for the Koriak who moved from one place to another farm away from Kamchatka, have been, by God's grace, baptized by holy baptism, taught, and brought into the faith according to Christ's grace and for that reason the cause of the preaching of the word of God has ended and there is no one left to be converted from paganism to the Christian Faith."-- Between Heaven and Hell: The Myth of Siberia in Russian Culture. page 17. Edited by G. Diment, Y. Slezkine.

Also, 

""Otherwise, the vigor of the routine enforcement of Christianity depended on the local priests. In 1747, for example, Father Pykov gave the following account of his activities:

In the last year of 1747, in the months of April and May, I beat the new Christian, Ostiak Fedor Senkin, with a whip, because he married his daughter off at the said time and celebrated the wedding feast during the first week of Lent. I also beat his...son-in-law with a whip, because he buried his deceased son himself, outside of the church and without the knowledge of the priest...Semen Kornilov Kortyshin was beaten with a whip because he never went to the holy church....I also beat the widow Marfa and her son Kozma with a whip...because....they kept in their tent a small stone idol, to whom they brought sacrifices,...and broke the said idol with an ax in front of an Ostiak gathering and threw the pieces in all directions.25"  

25. Ogryzko, Khristianizatsiia, p. 91

Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North By Yuri Slezkine. Page 51

Concerning claims the Russian Orthodox missionaries were different from the Spanish in not enslaving the indigenous, the book "Exile to Siberian" states:

"Despite the early guliashchie and a few other groups, European Russians dwelling patterns were for the most part replicated in Siberia. It is true that serfdom barely existed in Siberia, where almost all peasants were state peasants and therefore quite different from serfs, though it needs to be mentioned that monasteries such as the St Nikolai in Verkhotur'e, which obtained a land charter in 1622, and Tobol'sk's Sofiisk Monastery, chartered in 1628, did acquire serfs, in part by enserfing guliashchie liudi already living on what became their lands. Eventually, some 35 monasteries were established in Siberia (e.g. Dolmatov Uspenskii, Tobol'skii Znamneskii, Nev'ianskii Bogoiavlenskii), each of which obtained the right to enserf peasants on their lands, whether they were freemen or fugitive serfs. As of the early eighteenth century Siberian monasteries possessed 1,082 peasants households, and by 1762 owned more than 14,000 male serfs. Small numbers of privately owned serfs also existed in Siberia; but truly exceptional is an instruction dating from the mid-1640s in which Tsar Michael rules that the guliashscie Mishka Chashchin and Seluianko Nikonov be assigned to debt servitudes (kabala) in Verkhotur's uezd. All of which is to say that even if the typical Siberian peasant was more economically autonomous than his European Russian counterpart, he tended like him to live within a village commune that dictated both his existence and Weltanschauung."--Exile to Siberia: 1590-1822 by Andrew A. Gentes. Page 27

Nominal converts:

"In the 1720s, the missionary effort of the Russian state began to take on another dimension. Although the number of converts continued to grow on paper, reports from the field lamented the fact that the conversions were only nominal and that the converts remained ignorant of Christianity and did not observe any of its precepts. It was becoming more apparent that reliance on sheer force or legislative discrimination to effect conversions was not sufficient. --Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia

https://books.google.com/books?id=5pRlDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&q=beliefs+took+their+sacred&hl=en&source=newbks_fb#v=onepage&q&f=false

The above does not even address the issue of forced conversion under the Roman Emperor, especially the Eastern/Byzantine emperors, forced conversion of Jews in north Africa witnessed by St Maximus the Confessors in Carthage in AD 632 (then part of the Eastern Empire), the burning of the Bogomil 'pope' Basil the Physician in the early 12th century by Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, inquisitions against Judaizers and old believers in Russia following the synod of 1666 with Patriarch Nikon. Many of these activities mirrored the abuses of 'conversion' in the West but are seldom spoken of.

Addressing more objections to "mother of God"

The two most common huddles in my experience to people rejecting the Marian title "mother of God" is 1) poor education in logic, 2) poor education on Christology. The first is a fault of secular education, logic/philosophy is not generally taught in American education until college/university. The second is a general fault of Christian education, though Catholicism has a poorly educated laity, Protestant laity, with few exceptions like Lutheranism, have no real means of synthesizing doctrine. Consequently, Protestants will sometimes call Christ by terms high church Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox would generally object, but not necessarily out of heresy, but out of ignorance. For instance, I heard a radio Protestant preacher refer to Christ as a "human being," certainly he confessed Christ as fully God and fully man, but he likely lacked education behind the meaning of the term person. From experience, a more common issue is, many Protestants do not understand that Christ having two natures makes him both created and uncreated. As a man, Christ is a creature that was conceived of in time in the Virgin Mary. His flesh had a beginning in time and space. Colossians 1:15 recognizes Christ is a creature, the chapter also recognizes him as the Creator who always existed. Though, having a beginning, the created Flesh of Christ was divine itself by the Incarnation, John 1:14 says, "the Word became flesh." For this reason we can say "God died" since God experienced death in the person of the Son in His human nature. Luke 1:35 describes Mary not simply giving birth to the Messiah, but to the "son of God," which is a divine titles meaning He is born of God Himself (as God the Son, Christ is eternally born of the Father, hence the two births of Christ: temporal and eternal)

To deny the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, is to potentially imply a few things:

a) Christ is two persons, the Virgin birth the human one only, which was lately shared/replaced by the Divine person.

b) or that Christ sort of possesses a body in the sense a demon possess a body. Yet the Scriptures states, "the Word became Flesh." 

c) Christ is only "partly God" that is He is only the Son of God, but not God Himself, or that the three persons only collectively can be called "God"

Objection: Mary cannot be mother of God, since Christ is only one person of the Trinity, to be mother of God should have to birth the whole trinity, at most you can call her "mother of God the Son"

Reply: By this reasoning Jesus cannot be ever spoken of as "God" but only "God the Son" yet scripture at times simply calls him "God" as in John 1:1 and John 20:28. Likewise, this reasoning means the Father cannot be called God being only 1 of the 3 persons, same with the Spirit. Few Protestants will deny Christ is God, but they will redefine their terms for the sake of denying the term "mother of God."

To say Christ is only part of God or 1/3rd of God is partialism, which itself can be potentially tritheism.

Objection: God is eternal, Mary is not. She cannot give birth to an eternal being.

Reply: We recognize Mary is created and God is uncreated. We also recognize the Son to be eternally begotten of His Father, that is from before time began and without end into the future. In his humanity he made a birth in time of the Virgin. But since that flesh was the Word also according to John 1:14, and the flesh was brought forth from Mary, it can be said she bore God in a temporal manner, since in entering His creation the Divine joined himself to the created, he was born, suffered and died. 

By the same reasoning as the objection, Muslims say "God cannot die" "God cannot suffer" "God cannot poop" etc and conclude Jesus cannot be God. Yet in the incarnation the Word who is God became flesh, God experienced all these things including having a human mother.

Objection: Only "mother of Lord is biblical" since Luke 1:43 says "mother of my Lord." Again, a created being cannot birth the uncreated God!

Reply: Is the Lord uncreated? Why is it acceptable to say a created human woman is the mother of the uncreated Lord, but once you change the word Lord to God, it becomes objectionable? Lord and God are referring to the same thing, Deity. The terms are interchangeable in the Bible. Did the Spirit inspire Elizabeth to call Christ merely a human lord? The instances of Lord in Luke 1 are to the Lord God.

Objection: You built this doctrine around one single verse, Luke 1:43. Any doctrine should be established by more than one verse!

Reply: Read what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary:

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God"--Luke 1:35

The title "Son of God" when used in the New Testament for Christ is a term for his Deity, a son has the same nature as his father, likewise the Son of God shares the nature of the Father. 

The Angel said she will give birth to the Son of God, she is, therefore, "mother of the Son of God." Yet Mary is created and the Son of God is without beginning. The scripture did not object to terms like "mother of my Lord" yet those who object to "mother of God" pick at it accuse it of being imprecise, yet the Scriptures do not see the need to limit their words as some do. The scriptures could have said, "the flesh born to you will be called the son of man" which would be consistent with reasoning of some Baptists. 

Objection: The term mother of God is pagan.

Reply: This doesn't stop you from using pagan titles and terms for YHVH and Christ in the Bible. The Pagans also had people that were "sons of God." The pagans also has a god named "El." They also had a god they called "he who rides the clouds." The pagans also had people that were "the image of a god." There are many more examples. Pagan also had gods that could die, gods that were born of virgins, men that were divine,. This object is absurd and conveniently ignores the issue for titles found in the Bible.

Suggestionem anafora in Councils

An anonymous Orthodox apologist stated that the use of the word suggestionem in conciliar documents precludes any sense of a dogmatic statement. Suggestion in the councils are proposals. The Papal suggestions are forceful--the pope does give options. One is to obey the Pope's decision and the other is to be a heretic.

Constantinople II:

The "suggestion" of Pope Agatho at Constantinople III:

Moreover, most pious and God-instructed sons and lords, if the Archbishop of the Church of Constantinople shall choose to hold and to preach with us this most unblameable rule of Apostolic doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures, of the venerable synods, of the spiritual Fathers, according to their evangelical understanding, through which the form of the truth has been set forth by us through the assistance of the Spirit, there will ensue great peace to them that love the name of God, and there will remain no scandal of dissension, and that will come to pass which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, when through the grace of the Holy Spirit the people had come to the acknowledging of Christianity, all of us will be of one heart and of one mind. But if (which God forbid!) he shall prefer to embrace the novelty but lately introduced by others; and shall ensnare himself with doctrines which are alien to the rule of orthodox truth and of our Apostolic faith, to decline which as injurious to souls' these have put off, despite the exhortation and admonitions of our predecessors in the Apostolic See, down to this day, he himself should know what kind of an answer he will have to give for such contempt in the divine examination of Christ before the judge of all, who is in heaven, to whom when he cometh to judgment also we ourselves are about to give an account of the ministry of preaching the truth which has been committed to us, or for the toleration of things contrary to the Christian religion: and may we (as I humbly pray) preserve unconfusedly and freely, with simplicity and purity, whole and undefiled, the Apostolic and Evangelical rule of the right faith as we have received it from the beginning. And may your most august serenity, for the affection and reverence which you bear to the Catholic and Apostolic right faith, receive the perfect reward of your pious labours from our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the ruler with you of your Christian empire, whose true confession you desire to preserve undefiled, because nothing in any respect has been neglected or omitted by your God-crowned clemency, which could minister to the peace of the churches, provided always that the integrity of the true faith was maintained: since God, the Judge of all, who disposes the ending of all matters as he deems most expedient, seeks out the intent of the heart, and will accept a zeal for piety. Therefore I exhort you, O most pious and clement Emperor, and together with my littleness every Christian man exhorts you on bended knee with all humility, that to all the God-pleasing goodnesses and admirable imperial benefits which the heavenly condescension has vouchsafed to grant to the human race through your God-accepted care, this also you would order, for the redintegration of perfect piety, to offer an acceptable sacrifice to Christ the Lord your fellow-ruler, granting entire impunity, and free faculty of speech to each one wishing to speak, and to urge a word in defence of the faith which he believes and holds, so that it may most manifestly be recognized by all that by no terror, by no force, by no threat or aversion any one wishing to speak for the truth of the Catholic and Apostolic faith, has been prohibited or repulsed, and that all unanimously may glorify your imperial (divinam) majesty, throughout the whole since of their lives for so great and so inestimable a good, and may pour forth unceasing prayers to Christ the Lord that your most strong empire may be preserved untouched and exalted. The Subscription. May the grace from above keep your empire, most pious lords, and place beneath its feet the neck of all the nations. --Pope Agatho Letter to Emperor Constantine IV on the Third Council of Constantinople

Notice the Pope formed his own dogmatic letter, then there was a separate letter, less forceful done by the synod with the Pope. So certainly the Pope's letter was not that of the synod! The text is very forceful, it appears to give the Greeks an option, either obey or disobey and be out of the Church.

The definition of suggestio:

suggestĭo(subg- ), ōnis, f. suggero. * 

I. Lit., an adding to, addition: “potus suggestione auctus,” Cael. Aur. Tard. 2, 13, 182.— 

II. Trop. * A. A rhet. fig., where the orator puts a question and answers it himself, a suggestion: “quod schema quidam per suggestionem vocant, i. e. per subjectionem,” Quint. 9, 2, 15.—B. A hint, intimation, suggestion (late Lat.), Vop. Aur. 14; 19; Symm. Ep. 9, 20; Inscr. Orell. 2. 

A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879

What does anafora ἀναφορά mean?

The following is taken from Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

άναφορ-ά , ἡ, (ἀναφέρομαι)

A.coming up, rising, “ἀ. ποιεῖσθαι” rise, Arist.HA622b7; of vapours or exhalations, Placit.3.7.4, Theol.Ar. 31, cf. Orib.9.16.3, etc.

2. Astron., ascent of a sign measured in degrees of the equator, Ptol.Tetr.134.

b. Astrol., = ἐπαναφορά, τόπος next to a κέντρον, Vett.Val.19.18.

c. ascendant, Cat.Cod.Astr.8(3).100; opp. ἀπόκλιμα, Serapion in Cat.Cod.Astr. 1.99, S.E.M.5.20, etc.

d. rising of a sign, Ach.Tat.Intr.Arat. 39.

II. (ἀναφέρω) carrying back, reference of a thing to a standard, “διὰ τὸ γίνεσθαι ἐπαίνους δι᾽ ἀναφορᾶς” Arist.EN1101b20; in Law, recourse, “ἐκείνοις εἶναι εἰς τοὺς ἔχοντας ἀναφοράν” D.24.13: abs., Thphr. Char.8.5 (pl.), IG5(1).1390.111 (Andania, i B.C.); “ἡ ἀ. ἐστι πρός τι” Arist.Cat.5b20, al.; ἀ. ἔχειν πρός or ἐπί τι to be referable to . ., Epicur. Fr.409, Plb.4.28.3, Plu.2.290e, al.; ἀ. τινος γίγνεται πρός or ἐπί τι, Plb.1.3.4, Plu.2.1071a; “ἐπ᾽ ἀναφορᾷ τῇ πρὸς τὸν δῆμον” BCH46.312 (Teos); ἀ. ἔχειν ἐπί τι, of writings, refer to, Alex.Aphr.in Mete.4.1; τούτων εἰς Κυναίγειρον ποιήσασθαι τὴν ἀναφοράν assign to, give credit for . ., Polem.Call.23.

2. way of retreat, “ὑπέλιπε ἑαυτῷ ἀναφοράν” D.18.219; “νῦν δὲ αὑτοῖς μὲν κατέλιπον τὴν εἰς τὸ ἀφανὲς ἀναφοράν” Aeschin. 2.104, cf. Plb.15.8.13, etc.

3. means of repairing a fault, defeat, etc., “ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἀ. τῆς ξυμφορᾶς” E.Or.414; “ἀ. ἁμαρτήματος ἔχειν” way to atone for . ., Plu.Phoc.2; “ἀ. ἔχειν” means of recovery, Id.Fab. 14.

4. offering, LXX Ps.50(51).21; “ἡ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ λεκτικοῦ” PMag.Par.2.281.

5. report, PLond.1.17.34 (ii B.C.), etc.

6. petition, PRyl.119.28(i A.D.).

7. payment on account, instalment, OGI225 (Milet.), PEleph.14.26 (iii B.C.), PRev.Laws16.10 (iii B.C.), etc.

8. Rhet., repetition of a word, Longin.20.1, Demetr.Eloc, 141.

9. office of ἀναφορεύς, LXX Nu.4.6,10.

10. Medic., = ἀνάδοσις, opp. πέψις, Aret.SD2.7.

III. ceiling of a wine-press, Gp.6.1.3.

For better context, this dissertation explains the terms: 

"The term ἀναφορά is often a translation for suggestio, or relatio  an official report or petition to the imperial chancery.  Its use in these canons is somewhat looser." --The Nature of Law and Legality in the Byzantine Canonical Collections 381-883

Also, 

The Byzantine usage builds on this classical and Hellenistic terminology: by the late antique period, επιστολη is firmly established as generic name, while γραμματα continues to be used as a synonym, although it had a broader semantic field and its meaning could therefore be ambivalent. (The plural does not help either: the modern reader in particular, lacking context, often has to guess whether a writer refers to one or several pieces of correspondence.) With the exception of the vernacular χαρτι(ν) or χαρτιτσι (from χαρτηψ: "piece of papyrus", see above, or later "paper", hence "document"), ancient terms derived from the writing support were gradually abandoned, while new names emerged either as synonyms for επιστολη/  γραμματα or to designate specific epistolary types or subgenres. For example, συλλαβη / συλλαβι (literally "syllable(s)") and πιτταχι(ον) fall into the first category. The latter originally designated a writing tablet and in the middle Byzantine period especially imperial and patriarchal documents, and would become a standard term for letter in vernacular Greek. In the second category of terms signifying particular epistolary types belong, for instance, αντιγραμμα or αντιγραφον for a letter-response; ἀναφορά ("report") for a petition to an emperor; and σάχρα--derived from Latin sacra -- for an official letter issued by the emperor or an ecclesiaσtical authority, which from the Greek found its way also into Syria, as did τομοσ(originally "papyrus roll", "book") for a synodical letter and εγχυχλιοσfor an encyclical.--A Companion to Byzantine Epistolography, Introduction, p. 7

This fits the definition of anafora/ἀναφορά, since Pope Agatho's letter was addressed to the Emperor, not the council directly:

Agatho a bishop and servant of the servants of God to the most devout and serene victors and conquerors, our most beloved sons and lovers of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor Constantine the Great, and to Heraclius and Tiberius, Augustuses.--Pope Agatho's letter to the Emperor concerning Constantinople III.

This is more useful than the dictionary definitions of the term. though ἀναφορά does have petition as one of its wide range of meanings.  

The suggestion of the synod of Rome presented the faith as presented by Pope Martin and his council stating this is the Faith and those who reject it error.

 [ The Emperor said] 

Let George, the most holy archbishop of this our God-preserved city, and let Macarius, the venerable archbishop of Antioch, and let the synod subject to them [i.e., their suffragans] say, if they submit to the force ( ei stoikousi dunamei ) of the suggestions sent by the most holy Agatho Pope of Old (1) Rome and by his Synod.

[The answer of George, with which all his bishops, many of them, speaking one by one, agreed except Theodore of Metilene (who handed in his assent at the end of the Tenth Session).] 

I have diligently examined the whole force of the suggestions sent to your most pious Fortitude, as well by Agatho, the most holy Pope of Old(1) Rome, as by his synod, and I have scrutinized the works of the holy and approved Fathers, which are laid up in my venerable patriarchate, and I have found that all the testimonies of the holy and accepted Fathers, which are contained in those suggestions agree with, and in no particular differ from, the holy and accepted Fathers. Therefore I give my submission to them and thus I profess and believe. 

[The answer of all the rest of the Bishops subject to the See of Constantinople. (Col. 735.)]

And we, most pious Lord, accepting the teaching of the suggestion sent to your most gentle Fortitude by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, and of that other suggestion which was adopted by the council subject to him, and following the sense therein contained, so we are minded, so we profess, and so we believe that in our one Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, undividedly, and two natural wills and two natural operations; and all who have taught, and who now say, that there is but one will and one operation in the two natures of our one Lord Jesus Christ our true God, we anathematize. 

Notice the suggestions are spoken of as having to be "submitted to" and as having "force" or "power"

Nicea II:

We see the mention of suggestion/anafora again at the 7th ecumenical council of Nicea II:

And when the most blessed Pope heard it, he said: Since this has come to pass in the days of their reign, God has magnified their pious rule above all former reigns. And this suggestion ( anaforan ) which has been read he sent to our most pious kings together with a letter to your holiness and with his vicars who are here present and presiding. --Nicea II, Session II 

The suggestionem to the Emperor was, in part, the following:

 If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all...--Pope Hadrian's Letter to the Emperor at the Second Council of Nicea (Greek reading of the text)

We see that anafora/suggsetionem is both forceful and a choice. If the Emperor follows through with restoring orthodoxy in his realm God will bless him.

As a side note, according to the Vita of Pope Zachary, after his election he sent a letter to Constantinople and sent a suggestionem to the emperor of his time requesting he cease iconoclasm.

"simulque et aliam suggestionem dirigens serenissimo Constantino principi."--Vita Zacharias 901

In Pope Hadrian's anafora to the Emperor at Nicea II, some have suggested alludes to Zachary's anafora as a plea from the Pope Zachary to the Emperor's ancestor to restore iconography. 

"After this Gregory and Gregory, most blessed Pontiffs of our Apostolic Throne, were greatly grieved, and did oftentimes most earnestly beseech this ancestor of your religious Serenity that venerable images might be restored to their wonted station; but never would be any ear to their salutary request. And after this, Zachary, Stephen, Paul, and another Stephen, our predecessors in the Pontifical Chair, did no less earnestly beseech the Grandfather and Father of your pious Royalty on the same subject of this restoration of holy images...."--Pope Adrian to the Emperor as read at Nicea II, Mansi Concilia 12:1061 as translated here 

Council of Carthage AD 419 

In the council of Carthage AD 419 we see suggestionem used in a different sense, not referring necessarily to Imperial letters, its translated as "edict," "story" and "suggestion":

Aurelius, the bishop, said: The cupidity of avarice (which, let no one doubt, is the mother of all evil things), is to be henceforth prohibited, lest anyone should usurp another's limits, or for gain should pass beyond the limits fixed by the fathers, nor shall it be at all lawful for any of the clergy to receive usury of any kind. And those new edicts (suggestiones) which are obscure and generally ambiguous, after they have been examined by us, will have their value fixed (formam accipiunt); but with regard to those upon which the Divine Scripture has already most plainly given judgment, it is unnecessary that further sentence should be pronounced, but what is already laid down is to be carried out. And what is reprehensible in laymen is worthy of still more severe censure in the clergy. The whole synod said: No one has gone contrary to what is said in the Prophets and in the Gospels with impunity.--Council of Carthage AD 419, Canon 5 Latin

Aurelius the bishop said: Your worthiness has heard the suggestion (suggestionem) of our brother and fellow bishop Fortunatus; What answer will you give?--Council of Carthage AD 419, Canon 6 Latin

and therefore, brethren, receive our story with alacrity of mind (atque, ideo, frates, suggestionem nostram libenter admitteite)--Council of Carthage AD 419, Canon 47. (Greek li.)  Latin text

 All which things, if they please your sanctity, pray set forth, that I may be assured that my suggestion (suggestionem) has been ratified by you and that their sincerity may freely accept our unanimous action.--Council of Carthage AD 419, Canon 64. (Greek lxvii.)

Concerning the word anaphora's usage in ecclesiastical documents there is the Ἀναφορὰ πρὸς Ἰωάννην πατριάρχην , which in 518 was signed.

Conclusion: 

The ἀναφορά of the Pope and the synod under him were petitionary letters or reports to the emperor, instructing him what the orthodox position is on the matter, and any deviation is to fall outside the Church. Had the letter's doctrinal statements been rejected, Constantinople III would have been a failed ecumenical council or a robber council that taught heresy.

Original guilt

 This is an incomplete article with citations for references to the "guilt of original sin"

Orthodox claim the Catholic Church abandoned the doctrine of original guilt.

"Guilt of original sin" is mentioned a few times. either as "reatum originalis peccati" or "originalis culpae"

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 268. Was any one ever preserved from original sin? 

A. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her Divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of original sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.

 30 day catechism:

7. Has all of mankind contracted the guilt and stain of original sin?
All except the Blessed Virgin who was conceived without the least guilt or stain of original sin (the Immaculate Conception). 

Day 9:

5. What is original sin?  The guilt and stain of sin which we inherit from Adam, the origin of all mankind. 

7. Has all of mankind contracted the guilt and stain of original sin?
All except the Blessed Virgin who was conceived without the least guilt or stain of original sin (the Immaculate Conception). 

The Catechism of Trent (Roman Catechism), on Article II, uses another phrase:

When Adam had departed from the obedience due to God and had violated the prohibition, of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death, he fell into the extreme misery of losing the sanctity and righteousness in which he had been placed, and of becoming subject to all those other evils which have been explained more fully by the holy Council of Trent.

Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin (peccatum et peccati poenam) were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity. The human race, having fallen from its elevated dignity, no power of men or Angels could raise it from its fallen condition and replace it in its primitive state. To remedy the evil and repair the loss it became necessary that the Son of God, whose power is infinite, clothed in the weakness of our flesh, should remove the infinite weight of sin and reconcile us to God in His blood.

The Council of Trent itself states:

5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin (reatum originalis peccati) 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; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. 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. 

 The council of Trent is most authoritative document using the phrase here translated "guilt of original sin"--"reatum originalis peccati". Another translation says, "liability of original sin." This is a response to Luther's total depravity claim that even after regeneration a person cannot perform any good works before God because of the taint of original sin. 

The language is used by St Thomas Aquinas:

Reply to Objection 1. The energumens are so-called from "laboring inwardly" under the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that approach Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least on account of the guilt of original sin (saltem propter reatum originalis peccati).--Summa Theologiae, part 3, section 71, Article 2

Elsewhere,

Reply to Objection 2. The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from the penalty of actual sins [reatu poenae actualium peccatorum], but not from the penalty of original sin [reatu poenae originalis peccati], whereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of man's redemption was not yet paid: just as the faithful are now delivered by baptism from the penalty of actual sins, and from the penalty of original sin [reatu originalis] as to exclusion from glory, yet still remain bound by the penalty of original sin [reatu originalis peccati] as to the necessity of dying in the body because they are renewed in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh, according to Romans 8:10: "The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification." --Summa Theologiae, Part 3, Question 52,  Article 5

 Again, St Thomas:

On the contrary, Augustine says (Retract. i, 15): "Concupiscence is the guilt of original sin." (concupiscentia est reatus originalis peccati)--Summa Theologiae, First part of the second part, Question 82, Article III

St Augustine uses "originalis peccati reatum"

"The grace of Christ takes away the guilt of original sin [Tollit gratia Christi originalis peccati reatum], but it takes away something invisible in an invisible way. It also forgives all sins which human beings have added on to it by living bad lives. Judgement, of course, comes after the one sin and leads to condemnation because that one in which is contracted by those who are born draws them to eternal condemnation if it is not forgiven."--St Augustine, Second Book again Julian, 97

Catechism of Pope Pius IX lacks the language of guilt:

41 Q. Is this sin proper to Adam alone?
A. This sin is not Adam's sin alone, but it is also our sin, though in a different sense. It is Adam's sin because he committed it by an act of his will, and hence in him it was a personal sin. It is our sin also because Adam, having committed it in his capacity as the head and source of the human race, it was transmitted by natural generation to all his descendants: and hence in us it is original sin.

42 Q. How is it possible for original sin to be transmitted to all men?
A. Original sin is transmitted to all men because God, having conferred sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts on the human race in Adam, on the condition that Adam should not disobey Him; and Adam having disobeyed, as head and father of the human race, rendered human nature rebellious against God. And hence, human nature is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam in a state of rebellion against God, and deprived of divine grace and other gifts.

43 Q. Do all men contract original sin?

A. Yes, all men contract original sin, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, who was preserved from it by a singular privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour. 

2 Q. What is original sin?
A. Original sin is the sin in which we are all born, and which we contracted by the disobedience of our first parent, Adam.

3 Q. What evil effects has the sin of Adam brought upon us?
A. The evil effects of the sin of Adam are: The privation of grace, the loss of Paradise, together with ignorance, inclination to evil, death, and all our other miseries.

4 Q. How is original sin cancelled?

A. Original sin is cancelled by holy Baptism. 

"originalis culpae" is used in Vatican II:

But since it has pleased God not to manifest solemnly the mystery cf the salvation of the human race before He would pour forth the Spirit promised by Christ, we see the apostles before the day of Pentecost “persevering with one mind in prayer with the women and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with His brethren”,(Act 1,14), and Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation. Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin [ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservata immunis],^(12*) on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory--Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 59

Which is referring to the ex-cathedra defining the immaculate conception:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin [originalis culpae labe], is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." --Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus

In my opinion, concerning the church teaching on original sin alone being sufficient for damnation shows that it separates us from God, but the church likewise teaches us the punishment in Hell in not equal to those who deliberately sinned. In fact, the theologians generally taught that the punishment is Hell is nothing other than being in Hell, St Thomas said the souls in limbo in Hell are actually experiencing natural happiness, this was taught also by Dante too.  

Muslim objections to the Gospels, Who are their fathers?

Modern Islamic apologetics requires Muslims to profess what presently constitutes the gospel accounts as being fraudulent, this of course being a necessity since the doctrines within them plainly contradict Islam (eg they teach Christ actually died, Christ calls God His Father, they call Christ God). 

A recreation of a Muslim polemicist is reproduced below:

Muslim: Who wrote the Gospels? We don't even know the names of their fathers!

Response: We know the names of the fathers of two of the 4 gospels.

The Gospel according to John was written by the Apostle John. 

The Apostle John was the son of Zebedee, and his brother was James: 

And James and John the sons of Zebedee, come to him, saying...--Mark 10:35 

James and John the sons of Zebedee, who were Simon's partners. --Luke 5:10

James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father--Matthew 4:21 

We also know his occupation was a fisherman based these passages. St John the Apostle when writing his Gospel account never mentions himself by name when referring to himself, a sign of humility. He was the last Apostle to die and only to survive martyrdom. He compiled his last seeing information lacking in the other 3 accounts, and to refute errors.

The Gospel according to Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew.

The Apostle Matthew was also named Levi and his father was called Alphaeus.

As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. --Matthew 9:9

And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.--Mark 2:14

 From these passages we also learn his occupation was a tax collector.

The other two Gospel accounts were not written by apostles proper but rather by members of the 70 disciples Jesus sent out: Mark and Luke. From ancient tradition we are told St Mark got his account from the Apostle Peter son of John. Mark was a disciple of the Apostle Peter being called his "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. The account of St Luke according to its own account seems to suggest he consulted people like the Virgin Mary. Their father's names are not provided in scripture being less important. We are told that Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14) 

In response to the Islamic objection, it should be asked if they hold their sacred text to the same level of scrutiny. What was Muhammed's father?