Question: Is the point of all this to deny that a sin second nature exists
in us? Simply because Photios called it a heresy? That some heretical
elements exists in the fellow cited, such as that all the procedure
of reproduction is part of the evil new post fall nature, does not make
everything he says wrong.
There is a canon or an anathema, I forget which, that explicitly affirms
the presence of a sin inclination that needs cleansing in infants, as
the reason they are baptized.
That doesn't mean that the baptized infant doesn't repeat the fall
later, and proceed to all the evils of fallenness if raised wrong. But the
flight from RC originally was about only a few points, and has been
corrupted into a total rejection of things that you will find in ancient
pre schism writing in the East.