There is no such "need". It is simply a fact. Arguments from necessity for the I.C. are weak; the more persuasive argument is one from fittingness.
Obviously, the good father believes contemporary Catholicism is not the past Catholicism.
No, he's talking about development of doctrine, but moreso simply about recovering a more balanced view based on a more balanced reading of the patristic tradition.
This doesn't mean that the Church "changed her doctrines" anymore than your subsequent statement about Palamitism being "the official theology of the Orthodox church since the 14th Century" means that Orthodoxy changed her doctrines.
(Incidentally, by what authority does the Orthodox church promulgate any "official theology" in the 14th Century? There were -- according to you -- no ecumenical councils in the 14th Century.)
Y'all seem to hold Catholic clerics and Catholic doctrines to a different set of standards than you hold your own.
“Arguments from necessity for the I.C. are weak; the more persuasive argument is one from fittingness.”
Really? I thought that the vessel of the in Incarnate Word of dogmatic necessity had to be absolutely perfect, without”taint” or “stain”, not “infected with Original Sin” as +Pius IX wrote. Did he mean mean something else when he used those words? Is the “fittingness” of the innovation why the penalty for non acceptance necessarily excommunication?
Just how unbalanced does Fr. Kimel think the Roman Church was, as unbalanced as the Eastern Patriarchs did and do? Are you suggesting that what Fr. Kimel is doing is “nuancing” Rome’s innovations to avoid an honest and outright rejection of them?
“This doesn’t mean that the Church “changed her doctrines” anymore than your subsequent statement about Palamitism being “the official theology of the Orthodox church since the 14th Century” means that Orthodoxy changed her doctrines.”
The Eastern Church never engraved its theology of grace in stone the way Rome seems compelled to do. Palamism was never a “change” in official theology.
“(Incidentally, by what authority does the Orthodox church promulgate any “official theology” in the 14th Century? There were — according to you — no ecumenical councils in the 14th Century.)”
By right of being The Church, but the Palamite councils didn’t purport to proclaim anything for the Western schismatics. This doesn’t change the fact that Orthodoxy’s concept of grace is completely irreconcilable with the “created grace/Treasury of Merit the Pope can hand out” notions of the West.
“Y’all seem to hold Catholic clerics and Catholic doctrines to a different set of standards than you hold your own.”
Of course we do, the Latins claim more authority for their clerics and hierarchs and insist of far more precise definitions for their doctrines than we do for ours.
First, there is such a need based on the Augustinian Original Sin doctrine, and second, how do you KNOW it is a fact? Just because you BELIEVE it doen't make it a fact.
No, he's talking about development of doctrine.
If a doctrine has to be "developed" than it wasn't known "everywhere and always" and is not catholic. Besides, IC is not a 'doctrine,' it's a dogma.
This doesn't mean that the Church "changed her doctrines" anymore than your subsequent statement about Palamitism being "the official theology of the Orthodox church since the 14th Century" means that Orthodoxy changed her doctrines
Palamitism was the affirmatio as the earliest belief of the Eastern Church, from the ealriest days of the Desert Fathers, and Cappadocian Fathers (I even mentioned that and it went over your ead like a lead balloon!), onward and not as some novel knowledge reached through "development."
If the Catholic Church believed in the IC how come it wasn't a dogma back then? The recognition of Palamite thoelogy as the backbone of Orthodoxy was made in response to the novelty of Scholasticism by the Latins and their erronoeus idea of created grace (something that is apparently still "developing").
The curch simply stated that this is not what the Church belieevd form the beginning, and affirmed that what she believed was the same as the woroks of hesichasts.
The Church simply affirmed what she believed in all along, and made it clear that it is not compatible with the novel Latin idea of pagan Aristotelian philosophy being introduced in the form of Scholasticism, as an alternative way to approach God.
Incidentally, by what authority does the Orthodox church promulgate any "official theology" in the 14th Century? There were -- according to you -- no ecumenical councils in the 14th Century
By what was believed "everywhere and always" authority, aka catholic faith (literally), and by the lex orandi lex credendi.
Y'all seem to hold Catholic clerics and Catholic doctrines to a different set of standards than you hold your own.
True. The Orthodox are much, much more critical of and even cruel tio thier bishops.