Can You Baptize Without Baptism? Review: The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II

Heterodoxt and Orthodoxy ^ | 12-04-2018 | Fr. John Cox

[NRx]

Is it possible to receive an unbaptized person into the Orthodox Church without baptizing him? What would it mean to do such a thing? You might not expect a book about the Second Vatican Council to elicit such questions from Orthodox sacramental theology but Fr. Peter Heers’s 2015 doctoral thesis, published with the title The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II (ERV2), does just that. The book examines the theology and practice of baptism in the Latin West as it was articulated at the Second Vatican Council (V2), tracing its development from the time of St. Augustine, and contrasts this narrative, unfavorably, with what is presented as the theology and practice of the Orthodox East.

The main thesis of ERV2 is that the Latin West has departed by degrees from the patristic theology and practice of baptism, culminating in an entirely novel understanding of baptism articulated at V2. This new conception of baptism becomes the theological foundation for a new ecclesiology that enables the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to enter the arena of ecumenical engagement, from which it had previously been excluded by its own theological commitments.

In the more than three years since its publication the book has received little sustained attention in terms of its structure, thesis, and argument. Such attention is needed, because ERV2 asserts a particular understanding of our own canonical and ecclesiological tradition that bears further scrutiny. Additionally, the way in which that tradition is deployed against the West raises methodological questions about the structure of the argument as a whole. This essay will highlight the structural flaws in ERV2 and devote sustained attention to the canonical and historical dimensions of its claims concerning the Christian East, with the intention of demonstrating that it presents a distorted understanding of the Orthodox tradition and fails to offer a sound defense of its thesis.

[NRx]

For the record, I think the review is somewhat flawed and my thinking is more in line with that of Fr. Peter Heers. The Cypriatic position on the subject of sacraments outside the Church (there are none) has historically been the dominant position within Orthodoxy though there are minority views to the contrary. I have read the book and found it extremely cogent and better referenced than most academic papers I have come across. But even setting aside the question of the Orthodox approach to the reception of converts, the book is quite simply the best examination of the evolution of Roman Catholic ecclesiology as seen through its baptismal theology that I have ever read, period.

The comment thread at the linked website is also well worth perusing.

[NRx]

Oops. I forgot to check the excerpt box. This is in fact an excerpt. Please read the whole thing at the linked page.

[Hieronymus]

Thanks for your post. I should put this on my to read list.

[trebb]

Can you admit your sins directly to God and repent of them w/o a priest? If all the priests/cleric in the world were to disappear, we could still be saved...Christ saw to that.

Might be better to ask if a priest who is more of a sinner than most of the laity can perform the blessing of the Host/serve communion/take confession/perform baptism etc...

[The Cuban]

Nice red herring argument there

[fishtank]

If you accept Vatican 2,

you think your church is alive.

If you reject Vatican 2,

you admit your church is dead.

[trebb]

How are they "red herring arguments? They are questions - if you had good answers, you wouldn't dismiss them with such smug aplomb....Christ gave us a direct line to God the Father and so many still think they need other flawed mortals to be able to save their eternal souls......even when faced with the absolute proof that those 'doing the saving" are every bit as flawed as those they supposedly save. What happened to the concept of men of the cloth being teachers instead of purveyors of "miracles"? I was baptized into the Catholic Church, had First Communion and was Confirmed.....when I started reading the Bible, I felt compelled to be baptized as a sign that I, as an aware adult, wished to publicly give myself to Christ, as the initial rite had nothing to do with my salvation.

I find it ironic that, after discovering that there are many homosexual/pedophile priests (guilty of two of the sins that so many Catholics howl are the worst of the worst), deciding that others can or can't receive communion, and supposedly transforming the wafers and wine into the body and blood, that folks don't wonder if somehow the rite wasn't tainted....while again howling how that which cannot be desecrated or defiled is somehow desecrated if someone defaces a statue of the Virgin Mary. No human can desecrate or defile The Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

I'm reminded of Peter's dream when he declared he woildn't eat what was unclean and was told that what the Lord had declared as clean, was clean......Peter's reticence was because his religion told him other than what God had proclaimed.....most religions have many areas where they do the same - all to keep the pharisees in a position of power via false mystique.

So, either ignore the questions or answer them, don't call them red herrings because you don't like them but cannot answer them.

[knarf]

WHY IS THE QUESTION EVEN ASKED ?

[FourtySeven]

The link isn’t working for me.

Is it just me?

[NRx]

It’s working for me.

[FourtySeven]

I’ll try at home then thanks.

[The Cuban]

Calm down there Martin Luther

[trebb]

Too funny...never a rebuttal from you guys...always smug dismissals ...

[The Cuban]

Umm do some reading. Your heresy is far from new or clever.

[Campion]

Christ gave us a direct line to God the Father

Christ, through his apostles, also set up a hierarchical church with a real, visible organization. If you don't believe that, I suggest you read the later Pauline epistles (what do you think "appointed overseers in every city" means?) and then read the writings of the very earliest church fathers, many of whom knew the Apostles personally.

Your "direct line to God the Father" doesn't excuse you from following the way that Christ actually prescribed, which leads directly to the organization that Christ himself set up. "If you love me, keep my commandments" comes into play here.

[Campion]

Too funny...never a rebuttal from you guys...always smug dismissals ...

That's because your position requires us to simply ignore big chunks of the Bible, and ALL of church history after the composition of the NT. Are you willing to ask the hard questions of your own position, or just stick to your smug sloganeering?

[The Cuban]

I love how this guy pretends to have invented protestant heresy on hos own lol

[The Cuban]

Or how he believes the formulation “I used to be a Catholic but was dumb enough to fall into heresy” somehow makes his argument stronger. Ummkay. It just shows he is thicker than a brick.

[trebb]

Still being cryptic - how about suggesting some areas to read...you are talking Bible and not church canon crap...right?

[trebb]

Too funny - how about when He said that if we loved God with all our might (which he knew was flawed and is backed up by Paul, specially chosen by God to carry the lion's share of the Word, lamenting he found himself doing things he knew he shouldn't and not doing things he should) and loved our neighbor as ourselves, we were in fact satisfying the dictates of the Law because where there is love, there is o harm and that in and of itself satisfied the intent of the Law?

Jesus walked the earth as 100% Man and 100% God ...took the Man form so He could establish a personal relationship with Him....also, don't forget that while He still lived as a Man, He was under the constraints of the Old Covenant and had to be true to it....He is the only "Man" to have walked the earth and not broken a Commandment.

So, what was your point? When mortals get their hands on things, they necessarily tint it...if you don't believe that, then take a hard look at all the "fallen" Priests and a lot of their superiors...not to mention that the Catholic Religion considers the Pope to be "infallible" yet so many here also bad mouth him instead of just accepting their own religious teaching.

Men are needed to carry the Word, not to personally save souls - that's a personal choice between the sinner and his Savior.