These quotes, one of whoch is from the epistle reading, all say something about baptism as it relates to the fall. Sin and death came about as a result of the fall. Sin and death are only overcome through Christ's death and resurrection. We are joined to Christ's death and resurrection through baptism.
The fall did something to our nature. Christ undid this something. We are joined to Christ through baptism. Baptism udoes something that was done by the fall. The question isn't whether or not baptism undoes something done in the fall, but rather what does baptism undo and how does it affect us in this life.
Orthodoxy teaches that we are born into corruption because of the fall and through our baptism receive a "garment of incorruption" (we receive this garment according to the service referenced above).
Catholicism teaches that we are born deprived of "sanctifying grace" because of the fall, which we receive at baptism (CCC Par 1266).
I'm not saying whether they teach the same thing or not, only that this is how they teach baptism in relation to the effects of the fall.
Baptism gives us more than what Adam and Eve had in the garden and gives us more than just what they lost. Where they were created "in the image and likeness of God", through baptism we are united to God through Jesus Christ who shares the fullness of both divine and human nature fully united together. Baptism unites us to Him and in so doing unites us directly to God through Christ, who was God in the flesh, and gives us a greater gift than what humanity had in the garden.
So while I admit baptism does more than simply reverse the fall, its effects still include repairing and restoring what was lost in the fall.
This seems like an accurate interpretation of the Orthodox baptismal liturgy, at least I this Westerner reads the text.
Now compare this interpretation with the modern Catholic rite of Holy Baptism
One immediately notes the absence in the liturgy of the term "sanctifying grace." This is not surprising, as the term belongs not to the primary language of liturgy but to second order theological reflection. The liturgy itself prefers to employ the language of Holy Scripture and Tradition. The one difference between the Eastern and Latin rites that jumped at me is the petition in the Latin rite "set him (her) free from original sin." Note that it is a petition to "set free," rather than to forgive; moreover, the petition is included (and I think this is significant) in the prayer that introduces the exorcism:
Almighty and ever-living God, you sent your only Son into the world to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, to rescue man from the kingdom of darkness, and bring him into the splendor of your kingdom of light. We pray for this child: set him (her) free from original sin, make him (her) a temple of your glory, and send your Holy Spirit to dwell with him (her). We ask this through Christ our Lord.
In other words, original sin betokens that condition of enslavement and alienation into which we have been born and from which we are delivered by the Holy Trinity through the baptismal sacrament. It might be noted that the term "original sin" is not included in the traditional Latin baptismal rite.
A cursory comparison of the two rites does not reveal, at least as far as I can see, any significant differences in substantive theological understanding.