[MarkBsnr]

“Which central beliefs has the EO promulgated better than the RCC? (And does Ratzinger know about this?)”

The Orthodox have much better held onto the order of the Mass; the orientation of the priest and the demeanour of the celebration of Mass; we Latins have made it more casual, bringing more laity into what should be the desmaine of the ordained, for example.

And yes, Pope Benedict XVI knows about all this; it is one of the reasons for returning to the Tridentine Mass, Eckleburg.

Our beliefs in original sin and hell are aligned.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Our beliefs in original sin and hell are aligned.

Then it must be the beliefs of you and Kosta that aren't aligned, since Kosta said (please correct me if I'm wrong, Kosta) that he does not believe in the Scriptural definition of hell nor original sin.

Maybe Kosta could define for us again his understanding of hell and original sin so we can see if it lines up with the RCC.

[HarleyD]

Our beliefs in original sin and hell are aligned.

Wow, that's interesting...

ORIGINAL SIN What does all of this mean? Since Adam alone committed the "original sin" (or, more properly, the "ancestral sin"), he alone bears the guilt for that sin. However, the consequences of that first sin -- e.g., sickness, pain, death -- and most especially the allpowerful propensity to sin, is inherited by all of his descendants. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, believe that we are all born sinners, guilty of Adam's sin from our very conception in the womb.- Orthodox Church of North America

HELL When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward. The Orthodox Response to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory

I would refer you to the Orthodox websites contrasting the Orthodox and Roman Catholic views on original sin and hell. The Roman Catholics are simply moving away from their doctrine to a more Orthodox position on original sin. The Orthodox does not see people as tainted whereas the Catholics do. You can't be both.

I would also call kosta attention to the Orthodox position. I believe Dr. Eckleburg stated that the Orthodox do not believe in hell. For all practical purposes, she is correct. The Orthodox look at hell as simply a place people go to be refined for heaven. Hence, presumably no one really stays in hell. This is somewhat similar to the Catholic view of purgatory but in the Catholic view, unlike the Orthodox view, there are some who never leave.