Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Donato on November 09, 2018, 01:16:38 AM

Title: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Donato on November 09, 2018, 01:16:38 AM
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/contra-crawford-baptism-of-desire-blood/

I am going to order this and I look forward to reading it 
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 09, 2018, 07:58:03 AM
Two straw man arguments immediately discredit them on their introductory page.

Quote
the first major figure to hold that those who die with the baptism of desire or blood will nevertheless go to hell was the Jesuit Fr. Leonard Feeney

Father Feeney never said that those who die in a state of justification through BoD go to hell.

Quote
Another error promoted by the Rev. Crawford (one that is likewise shared by some other sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists) is the idea that periodic continence (aka the rhythm method) among married couples is intrinsically evil and therefore never permitted.

Nobody says it's "intrinsically evil" ... but it's evil due to formal motive.  Also a false link between having to be intrinsically evil in order to be "never permitted".  Murder, for instance, is never permitted, even though taking a human life is not intrinsically evil.  It's based on the formal motive.

So, in a word, this is just more garbage from the usual suspects (the sedevacantists) a couple of ignoramuses who think they're theologians (lots of sedevantists think that their armchair theology suffices to depose popes).
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 09, 2018, 08:04:48 AM
And this below exposes why the sedes are so dogmatic about BoD and NFP ... their false exaggerated view of infallibility.  They consider a long-winded speech about various "theories" delivered by Pacelli to a group of midwives to have the same force as a solemn dogmatic definition.  They consider the speculations of some modern theologians to be tantamount to a solemn anathema issued by an Ecumenical Council.

Quote
What makes Contra Crawford particularly powerful is that at the outset it provides an overview of how the Church teaches the faithful, what Catholics have an obligation to accept, and what infallibility is and when it enters into the picture. This is crucial to understand because the Feeneyite error begins as an error in method, one that tragically distorts how the Church was commissioned by Christ to teach her children.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 09, 2018, 08:05:28 AM
Ironically, these sedes have the same ecclesiology and soteriology as the Vatican II modernists they denounce as heretics for teaching the exact same things that they themselves hold.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 09, 2018, 08:07:28 AM
Quote
The authors also make clear that the licit practice of periodic continence is not the same thing as the common Novus Ordo practice of “Natural Family Planning”, which they point out “is in violent contradiction to Pope Pius XII’s guidelines”

:laugh1:  :facepalm:

... they're absolutely the same thing, in principle.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Last Tradhican on November 09, 2018, 08:10:33 AM
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/contra-crawford-baptism-of-desire-blood/

I am going to order this and I look forward to reading it
If you buy it, you'll be the first sale outside of the writer/publishers friends. You'll learn more on one page on CI than you'll learn in reading that whole book
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 09, 2018, 08:13:40 AM
If you buy it, you'll be the first sale outside of the writer/publishers friends. You'll learn more on one page on CI than you'll learn in reading that whole book

Agreed.  You'll find nothing new in that book which hasn't been rehashed here on CI a hundred times over.  You'll find the same out-of-context quotes and same faulty arguments that have been debunked a thousand times.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Last Tradhican on November 09, 2018, 08:14:42 AM
Two straw man arguments immediately discredit them on their introductory page.

Father Feeney never said that those who die in a state of justification through BoD go to hell.

So, in a word, this is just more garbage from the usual suspects (the sedevacantists) a couple of ignoramuses who think they're theologians (lots of sedevantists think that their armchair theology suffices to depose popes).
That's likely why we do not see Lover of Truth here on CI, he was writing that book.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Stubborn on November 09, 2018, 08:18:19 AM
Ironically, these sedes have the same ecclesiology and soteriology as the Vatican II modernists they denounce as heretics for teaching the exact same things that they themselves hold.
This is exactly true.

I recently had an in depth discussion with an SSPX priest about this very thing and about how obviously true this is.

As for the BOD book, it would be best to buy as many as you can and burn them so no one else is scandalized by it. 

Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 09, 2018, 08:22:13 AM
These guys are clearly CMRI-associated laymen.  Who else would care about the letters of a CMRI seminarian and the responses of +Pivarunas?  CMRI are the most hostile out there towards the EENS dogma, and I would be surprised if the authors of this book aren't active members of CI here, the rabid anti-EENS posters in the BoD subforum.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Last Tradhican on November 09, 2018, 08:51:17 AM
These guys are clearly CMRI-associated laymen.  Who else would care about the letters of a CMRI seminarian and the responses of +Pivarunas?  CMRI are the most hostile out there towards the EENS dogma, and I would be surprised if the authors of this book aren't active members of CI here, the rabid anti-EENS posters in the BoD subforum.
It is likely Lover of Truth or his "mentor".
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 09, 2018, 08:59:10 AM
It is likely Lover of Truth or his "mentor".

Yeah, perhaps that Bosco guy who stood in for him when he left for a while.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Donato on November 09, 2018, 11:28:07 PM
Wow. I'm sorry I even brought this up
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 10, 2018, 01:33:18 AM
Wow. I'm sorry I even brought this up
.
Why be sorry? If you don't ask you won't get the answer. Or, are you afraid of the answer?
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: ContraCrawfordBook on November 10, 2018, 09:30:27 PM
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/contra-crawford-baptism-of-desire-blood/

I am going to order this and I look forward to reading it

We hope you find it a useful and enjoyable read!  And please note that the entire work is also available for free in digital version (.pdf and web browser): https://archive.org/details/ContraCrawfordBoD


Two straw man arguments immediately discredit them on their introductory page.
The "introductory page?"  Obviously you didn't even open the first page.  Don't confuse the review for the book.

Father Feeney never said that those who die in a state of justification through BoD go to hell.

Well that's just untrue:

"Q[uestion]. Could [baptism of desire] possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification? A[nswer]. It could. Q[uestion]. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of "Baptism of Desire," and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved? A[nswer]. Never" (Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life, 1974, p. 50, emphasis added).  

But more importantly, it's irrelevant.  Crawford doesn't make that argument so we don't really address it.


Nobody says it's "intrinsically evil" ... but it's evil due to formal motive.  Also a false link between having to be intrinsically evil in order to be "never permitted".  Murder, for instance, is never permitted, even though taking a human life is not intrinsically evil.  It's based on the formal motive.

Crawford argues that it is contraception and therefore condemned by Casti Connubii.  If it's contraception then its use is intrinsically evil, permitted under no conditions.  Talk about strawmen!


So, in a word, this is just more garbage from the usual suspects (the sedevacantists) a couple of ignoramuses who think they're theologians (lots of sedevantists think that their armchair theology suffices to depose popes).

A quick perusal of your posts suggests you can't make it far without bringing up your failed doctorate attempt.  That must qualify you to post about baptism of desire more than four thousand times (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=statistics;u=706).  If we go drop out of CUA will we be worthy of your attention?  Rhetorical question, we're just ignoramuses!


And this below exposes why the sedes are so dogmatic about BoD and NFP ... their false exaggerated view of infallibility.  They consider a long-winded speech about various "theories" delivered by Pacelli to a group of midwives to have the same force as a solemn dogmatic definition.  They consider the speculations of some modern theologians to be tantamount to a solemn anathema issued by an Ecumenical Council.

We would suggest blushing, but anyone who reads the book will do it on your behalf for this ignorant comment.  Again, at least open the book before you use it as a springboard to vent about your pet issues, burning the authors in effigy because you haven't had any fresh meat lately.


Ironically, these sedes have the same ecclesiology and soteriology as the Vatican II modernists they denounce as heretics for teaching the exact same things that they themselves hold.

Here we go again... Let us know if you need a podiatrist recommendation for when your foot is surgically removed from your mouth.


Agreed.  You'll find nothing new in that book which hasn't been rehashed here on CI a hundred times over.  You'll find the same out-of-context quotes and same faulty arguments that have been debunked a thousand times.

You might need to make that appointment sooner rather than later.

That's likely why we do not see Lover of Truth here on CI, he was writing that book.

Ah, yes, because his name is John Gregory (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sv-mass-in-front-royal-va/) and the authors who wrote the book are named John Gregory and John Gregory.  Did you even read the review?  The posts in this thread get dumber and dumber!

As for the BOD book, it would be best to buy as many as you can and burn them so no one else is scandalized by it.  

Yes, buying hundreds and hundreds of copies from a print-on-demand service where the supply is infinite would be a great discouragement to us!  You'll need to find a way to burn down the archive.org servers too, though, since that's how most people are reading it.

These guys are clearly CMRI-associated laymen.  Who else would care about the letters of a CMRI seminarian and the responses of +Pivarunas?  CMRI are the most hostile out there towards the EENS dogma, and I would be surprised if the authors of this book aren't active members of CI here, the rabid anti-EENS posters in the BoD subforum.

1) Crawford went off and tried to get himself ordained, is operating as a priest (and has been since he left the CMRI), and has been responsible for many people leaving many chapels-- some who left while he was still a seminarian after he sowed doubt in their minds. 2) You should actually look and see what the book has to say about EENS, and then email us at contracrawfordbook@gmail.com so we can correct any mistakes we made.

It is likely Lover of Truth or his "mentor".

Oh that's right, Griff Ruby was another author.  You're a piece of work!  :laugh1:

Yeah, perhaps that Bosco guy who stood in for him when he left for a while.

You guys are really rich!

Wow. I'm sorry I even brought this up

Well, we would imagine there's a reason this subforum is called the "Feeneyite Ghetto."  Because these Judaic losers need to be herded behind a tall wall with a good sound barrier so they don't disturb the peace with their pet theories and fake doctrines.  These losers could barely read the review, never mind even bother to open the book (which again, no one has to pay for).  They're just regurgitating all of their pre-determined and well-rehearsed condemnations.

Why be sorry? If you don't ask you won't get the answer. Or, are you afraid of the answer?

Neil, you're going to read the book, right?  Or is it too radioactive (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/bp-pivarunas-excommunicates-new-priest/msg613818/#msg613818) for you?

For friends and foes alike, we really do value feedback.  contracrawfordbook@gmail.com

Tell us very specifically which arguments of ours do not work.  Pax Christi!
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: trad123 on November 10, 2018, 10:22:03 PM
https://archive.org/details/ContraCrawfordBoD/page/n1

page 109:


Quote
Crawford quoted St. Augustine as saying…

Of what use would repentance be, if Baptism did not follow?

The quote is actually from…

No one knows.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm

On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I)

Chapter 38 [XXXIII.]— To Baptism Must Be Referred All Remission of Sins, and the Complete Healing of the Resurrection. Daily Cleansing.

(. . .)


Blessed, therefore, is the olive tree "whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;" blessed is it "to which the Lord has not imputed sin." But this, which has received the remission, the covering, and the acquittal, even up to the complete change into an eternal immortality, still retains a secret force which furnishes seed for a wild and bitter olive tree, unless the same tillage of God prunes it also, by remission, covering, and acquittal. There will, however, be left no corruption at all in even carnal seed, when the same regeneration, which is now effected through the sacred laver, purges and heals all man's evil to the very end. By its means the very same flesh, through which the carnal mind was formed, shall become spiritual, — no longer having that carnal lust which resists the law of the mind, no longer emitting carnal seed.

For in this sense must be understood that which the apostle whom we have so often quoted says elsewhere:

"Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word; that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Ephesians 5:25

It must, I say, be understood as implying, that by this laver of regeneration and word of sanctification all the evils of regenerate men of whatever kind are cleansed and healed — not the sins only which are all now remitted in baptism, but those also which after baptism are committed by human ignorance and frailty; not, indeed, that baptism is to be repeated as often as sin is repeated, but that by its one only ministration it comes to pass that pardon is secured to the faithful of all their sins both before and after their regeneration.

For of what use would repentance be, either before baptism, if baptism did not follow; or after it, if it did not precede?

Nay, in the Lord's Prayer itself, which is our daily cleansing, of what avail or advantage would it be for that petition to be uttered, "Forgive us our debts," Matthew 6:12 unless it be by such as have been baptized? And in like manner, how great soever be the liberality and kindness of a man's alms, what, I ask, would they profit him towards the remission of his sins if he had not been baptized? In short, on whom but on the baptized shall be bestowed the very felicities of the kingdom of heaven; where the Church shall have no spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; where there shall be nothing blameworthy, nothing unreal; where there shall be not only no guilt for sin, but no concupiscence to excite it?
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: trad123 on November 10, 2018, 11:03:52 PM
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/genuinely-curious-rejection-of-baptism-and-the-council-of-trent/msg612240/#msg612240
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 11, 2018, 08:46:29 AM
We hope you find it a useful and enjoyable read!

So, which one are you, Fellows or Conlon?  I see that you created an account just to plug your book.  I'm sure that your immediate family members will find it enjoyable.  It's a shame that you would spend so much time and effort writing AGAINST Catholic dogma.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 11, 2018, 08:54:42 AM
Well that's just untrue:

"Q[uestion]. Could [baptism of desire] possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification? A[nswer]. It could. Q[uestion]. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of "Baptism of Desire," and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved? A[nswer]. Never" (Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life, 1974, p. 50, emphasis added).  

This ignorance of Father Feeney's positon discredits the book right out of the gate.  Nice attempt to take this quote out of context.  I'm sure that we can expect a lot of that in your book.

Father was then asked whether those who persevered in a state of justification until death would be damned if they did not receive the Sacrament, and he responded in the negative.

For, you see, this is begging the question on your part.  Father denies the possibility (following St. Augustine) that God would allow anyone to persevere in a state of justification without providing the Sacrament to that soul before death.  This is the clear teaching of St. Augustine.  So the hypothetical which you posit as an argument against the anti-BoD position is not granted by our side, and you are begging the question with it.  You assume that it's possible in the first place and then, based on this unproven premise, use this as an argument in favor of BoD.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 11, 2018, 08:57:32 AM
Here we go again... Let us know if you need a podiatrist recommendation for when your foot is surgically removed from your mouth.

Ah, yes, this puts on display the level of intellect that one will no doubt find throughout this tome.  This above was the answer to the contention, which has been amply proven over years here on CathInfo, that the BoDer ecclesiology is identical to that of the Vatican II establishment, and that all the Vatican II errors derive from this non-Catholic ecclesiology.  We have presented the arguments, and these have never been refuted.  In fact, no refutation has ever been attempted.  Instead, you get "rebuttals" such as the one quoted above.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 11, 2018, 09:00:58 AM
A quick perusal of your posts suggests you can't make it far without bringing up your failed doctorate attempt.  That must qualify you to post about baptism of desire more than four thousand times (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=statistics;u=706).  If we go drop out of CUA will we be worthy of your attention?  Rhetorical question, we're just ignoramuses!

Again, another high-quality argument.  An actual perusal of my 15,000+ posts on CathInfo will find this degree of mine mentioned perhaps 2 or 3 times, and only when it's relevant to the discussion being made.  So this absurd ad hominem is also calumny.  I guess that 2 or 3 posts among 15,000 backs your assertion that I can't make it far without bringing it up.

Yes, not only are you idiots, but you are of bad will, spending lots of energy attacking Catholic dogma.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 11, 2018, 09:02:51 AM
1) Crawford went off and tried to get himself ordained, is operating as a priest (and has been since he left the CMRI), and has been responsible for many people leaving many chapels-- some who left while he was still a seminarian after he sowed doubt in their minds. 2) You should actually look and see what the book has to say about EENS, and then email us at contracrawfordbook@gmail.com so we can correct any mistakes we made.

If he was responsible for people leaving CMRI chapels in pursuit of Catholic truth, then good for him.  Yet I can already imagine his current chapel of perhaps a dozen families.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 11, 2018, 09:06:44 AM
Crawford argues that it is contraception and therefore condemned by Casti Connubii.  If it's contraception then its use is intrinsically evil, permitted under no conditions.  Talk about strawmen!

Something can be contraception intrinsically (by virtue of the act itself) or extrinsically (by virtue of the formal motive) ... and it's under the second aspect that it's condemned by Casti Conubii.  But you untrained bad-willed morons wouldn't understand such a distinction if it hit you in the face.  Has either author ever even taken a class in formal logic?  In scholastic philosophy/theology?
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 11, 2018, 09:16:02 AM
Page 3 sets forth the false theological premise:

"The ordinary magisterium is just as infallible as the extraordinary magisterium."

bzzzt.  It's the Ordinary UNIVERSAL Magisterium that is just as infallible, when teaching that a matter has been "divinely revealed" (cf. Vatican I).  So, as I said, this entire thing rests on the distorted sedevacantist position on infallibility.  I was correct in my initial speculation.  We've had sedevacantist clowns here on CI believe that any book that has ever received an imprimatur from a legitimate bishop was protected by infallibility.  Now, that's an extreme, but there are sedevacantists all along that continuum because they fail to add the word "universal" (and the term "divinely revealed") into the equation when discussing the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 11, 2018, 09:23:12 AM
Then the ignorami argue that Trent teaches that the supernatural virtues begin before Baptism, speaking of the faith, hope, and charity which lead to justification.  False.  All theologians who treat of this subject teach that Trent here refers to incipient faith, hope, and charity, the natural analogues to the supernatural virtues of the same name, what they call fides initialis, etc.  The actual SUPERNATURAL virtues arrive in the soul at the exact same time as justification, not before ... and they all arrive together at the initial justification, not first one, and then the other.  This is all universally taught by theologians.

But then the authors claim to be refuting the position of Father Feeney, and Father Feeney himself felt that these supernatural virtues (and justification itself) could arrive before Sacramental Baptism.  Evidently Crawford changed his position away from that of Father Feeney to the more Dimondist view.  Nevertheless, the book's authors equivocate between attempting to refute Crawford and Father Feeney ... even though their positions are not identical.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Cantarella on November 11, 2018, 10:32:10 AM

For, you see, this is begging the question on your part.  Father denies the possibility (following St. Augustine) that God would allow anyone to persevere in a state of justification without providing the Sacrament to that soul before death.  This is the clear teaching of St. Augustine.

He also believed that the catechumen is not justified before the reception of sacramental Baptism. From his Commentary of St. John, tractate 13:

Quote
7. But some one will say, It were enough, then, that John baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) only the Lord; what need was there for others to be baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) by John? Now we have said this too, that if John had baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) only the Lord, men would not be without this thought, that John had a better baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) than the Lord had. They would say, in fact, So great was the baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) of John, that Christ alone was worthy to be baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) therewith. Therefore, to show that the baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) which the Lord was to give was better than that of John, — that the one might be understood as that of a servant, the other as that of the Lord, — the Lord was baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) to give an example of humility; but He was not the only one baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) by John, lest John's baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) should appear to be better than the baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) of the Lord. To this end, however, our Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) showed the way, as you have heard, brethren, lest any man, arrogating to himself that he has abundance of some particular grace (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm), should disdain to be baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) with the baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) of the Lord. For whatever the catechumen's proficiency, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he shall have come to baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm). Just as the people Israel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm) were not rid of the Egyptians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05329b.htm) until they had come to the Red Sea (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12688a.htm), so no man is rid of the pressure of sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) until he has come to the font of baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701013.htm

The remission of sins is only possible to the baptized, not the catechumens, he argues. From his Sermon to the Catechumens on the Creed:

Quote
16. In three ways then are sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) remitted in the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm); by Baptism, by prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm), by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) but to the baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm). The very sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm). When? When they are baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm). The sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) which are after remitted upon prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm), upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) that He remits. For how can they say, Our Father, who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm)? But to heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) we do not change their baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm). Why? Because they have baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1307.htm

Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Cantarella on November 11, 2018, 10:43:25 AM
The authors of this book validly argue that if you concede the possibility of a justified catechumen somewhere, this soul is already within the Church because Justification simply does not occur outside the Catholic Church. OK. However, I strongly suspect that the authors do not limit the possibility of salvific BOD strictly to pious catechumens. Or do they?

Do they believe that a Moslem, Jew, pagan, Hindu, etc. can be saved because somehow he became an invisible justified "catechumen" in the microseconds preceding death? I don't have a problem if you want to believe in thomistic BOD (remote possibility for a sincere catechumen who dies before the water), if it is properly taught applying solely for catechumens and no one else. Evidently, someone belonging to a false religion is most certainly not a catechumen of the Catholic Church. The authors argue correctly that the teaching of Baptism of Desire never interfered with the EENS dogma in the past centuries. If properly taught and understood, it should not be.

Catechumen definition:

Quote
A learner, a person being instructed preparatory to receiving baptism and being admitted into the Church. The length of the catechumenate varies.

"Catechumen," in the early Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), was the name applied to one who had not yet been initiated into the sacred mysteries (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm), but was undergoing a course of preparation for that purpose.

This person ^^^^ has already expressed a desire ("vow") to actually join the Catholic Church. He has the right disposition. That is why he is receiving instruction.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 11, 2018, 05:28:13 PM
Yes, Cantarella, there are lots of dishonest arguments on the BoD site, including the citation of sources that support the possibility of salvation for catechumens who die without the Sacrament as if these somehow back their thesis that infidels can be saved.

Another is the repeated false allegation that the Church Fathers unanimously approved of BoD.  Quite to the contrary, more Church Fathers rejected BoD than accepted it.  But BoDers conflate BoB quotes as if they somehow favored the BoD hypothesis.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Hermenegild on November 11, 2018, 06:28:35 PM
It seems BOD/BOB is hardly mentioned in the first millennium.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: trad123 on November 11, 2018, 06:42:26 PM
https://archive.org/details/ContraCrawfordBoD/page/n121

Pg. 107:


Quote
The second and third sentences can be found in various places, probably most notably in Jurgens’ patrology set, The Faith of the Early Fathers. Jurgens says that the material came from a combination of Migne’s Patrologies (which are a reprint of the Maurist) and also Lambot, although he doesn’t specify which material came from which source, and in either event Migne and Lambot are in Greek and Latin so they’d hardly be of much use for our purposes—besides, we doubt Reverend Crawford dove that deep just to fake a quote.


Pg. 108:


Quote
Jurgens, who cites Migne and Lambot, although without distinguishing from where each segment came.


On page 24 of Jurgen's third volume:

Quote
In volume 41 (1961) of the Corpus Christianorum is the start of a new critical edition, Cyril Lambot's texts for the first fifty sermons of the Vulgate numbering, all and only the sermons on Old Testament texts, along with nine others more recently discovered.

(. . .)

In our translations below we will depend on Lambot's texts where available; otherwise, upon the Migne reprint of the Maurist edition. We will, however, cite no sermon that is now commonly regarded as unathentic or of questionable authenticity.


These sermons are apparently from the Old Testament, so I searched for those sermons, specifically for sermon 27.


https://books.google.com/books?id=Z3XYAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sermons II (20-50) on the Old Testament

pgs. 107-108

Sermon 27

6.

(. . .)

So then, in this life let us hold on tight to the deformed Christ. What do I mean, the deformed Christ? Far be it from me to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Gal 6:14). That's the deformity of Christ. Did I ever say I knew anything among you, except the road? This is the road, to believe in the crucified. We carry the sign of this deformity on our foreheads. Let us not be ashamed of this deformity of Christ. Let us hold to the way, and we shall arrive at the sight. When we arrive at the sight, we shall see the equal-handedness of God. And no longer will there be any occasion to say there,

"Why did he come to the help of this one and not that one? Why was this one steered by God's guiding hand to get baptized, while that other one who had lived a good life as a catechumen suddenly collapsed and died, without ever reaching baptism? That other one again, who lived such a vicious life, as a lecher, as an adulterer, as a play-actor, as a bullfighter, fell ill, was baptized, departed this life, and in him sin was overcome, in him sin was eliminated-why?"

Look for desserts, and all you will find is punishment. Look for grace-Oh the depth of the riches! Peter denies, the thief believes-Oh the depth of the riches! (Rom 11:33).
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: trad123 on November 11, 2018, 06:53:13 PM
https://archive.org/details/ContraCrawfordBoD/page/n121


pg. 108


Quote
Crawford quoted St. Augustine as saying…

“How many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever.

The quote is actually from…

No one knows, possibly a 1961 book called Augustine The Bishop by a Fr. Van Der Meer. May or may not actually be the words of Augustine.


I'm looking for the original source of the quote. I'll have the book within a week or two.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: trad123 on November 11, 2018, 07:05:06 PM
Ah, yes, this puts on display the level of intellect that one will no doubt find throughout this tome.  This above was the answer to the contention, which has been amply proven over years here on CathInfo, that the BoDer ecclesiology is identical to that of the Vatican II establishment, and that all the Vatican II errors derive from this non-Catholic ecclesiology.  We have presented the arguments, and these have never been refuted.  In fact, no refutation has ever been attempted.  Instead, you get "rebuttals" such as the one quoted above.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/genuinely-curious-rejection-of-baptism-and-the-council-of-trent/msg611628/#msg611628


Quote
99% of the people who promote BOD do not even believe that a desire to be baptized is necessary for salvation, nor a desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. They believe that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews etc., can be saved without "a desire to be baptized, nor a desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity".

If you are sincere as you say, ponder on that, for that is the REAL SUBJECT to be debated with the promoters of BOD, and not some catechumen who got run over by a bus on his way to be baptized.


https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/genuinely-curious-rejection-of-baptism-and-the-council-of-trent/msg612040/#msg612040
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Merry on November 11, 2018, 11:28:37 PM
On the Novus Ordo Watch site, they advertise/promote the Contra book - but don't give you the whole story, offer Fr. Crawford's booklet or "his side of the story," or allow comments at the bottom.  This Contra book is theological junk, written by amateurs.  Yes, another CMRI-related hit piece.  These lay people, Contra authors make a point to not mention the hit done unto Fr. Crawford by the CMRI, in saying he did not answer their theological questionnaire to him at about the time he left them - when he actually did three times, and had the post office mailing receipts, etc., and proof they did receive his mailed answers. And his were good answers on NFP and EENS.  There does seem to be a vendetta against Fr. Crawford here.

It is too bad Fr. Crawford is a sede as this affects some of his other positions regarding the approaches to be taken in living the trad life. However he seems a master on the subject of No Salvation and BOB/BOD-Council of Trent.

  



   
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 12, 2018, 12:15:31 AM
So, which one are you, Fellows or Conlon?  I see that you created an account just to plug your book.  I'm sure that your immediate family members will find it enjoyable.  It's a shame that you would spend so much time and effort writing AGAINST Catholic dogma.
.
The same can be said of many CMRI types. Why would a whole congregation spend so much time and effort opposing Catholic dogma?
.
Ultimately their conspicuous animosity toward defined dogma shows their real object of scorn is the principle of defined dogma.
.
It seems they don't really know what it means for a dogma to be infallibly defined by Holy Mother Church. Nor do they want to learn.
.
Quote from: Last Tradhican on November 09, 2018, 06:14:42 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/will-be-interested-to-hear-thoughts-on-this-new-bodbob-book/msg633772/#msg633772)
Quote
Quote
That's likely why we do not see Lover of Truth here on CI, he was writing that book.


Ah, yes, because his name is John Gregory (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sv-mass-in-front-royal-va/) and the authors who wrote the book are named John Gregory and John Gregory.  Did you even read the review?  The posts in this thread get dumber and dumber!
.
It would seem "his name" is ContraCrawfordBook as far as is relevant among CI members. 
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 12, 2018, 12:17:24 AM
Wow. I'm sorry I even brought this up
.
Are you still sorry?
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Stubborn on November 12, 2018, 06:07:00 AM
Yes, buying hundreds and hundreds of copies from a print-on-demand service where the supply is infinite would be a great discouragement to us!  You'll need to find a way to burn down the archive.org servers too, though, since that's how most people are reading it.
I pay very little attention to this subject any more, mainly because it most certainly displeases God when anyone goes about  preaching that God Himself is just as taken by surprise as the infidel, by his unforeseen death - let alone prior to receiving a baptism which he is presumed to have desired. What - was God just too preoccupied doing something else to provide the time, the water and the minister for the infidels? What is it that God was so busy doing that the infidels had to save themselves anyway? 

Your above reply, by missing the point of my post, demonstrates the real reason and the main purpose you are publishing such a book as this, namely, you are out to make whatever money you can off of the evil thing.

The book is iniquitous, it is a scandal and Catholics faithful to the Church's teachings on the Sacrament of Baptism have cause to condemn and avoid reading it, the book serves no other purpose than to falsely attribute it to be a teaching of the Church that there is hope for salvation and that salvation is attainable outside of the Church, without the Sacrament of Baptism.  Same o same o.

Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on November 12, 2018, 12:14:14 PM
... the book serves no other purpose than to falsely attribute it to be a teaching of the Church that there is hope for salvation and that salvation is attainable outside of the Church, without the Sacrament of Baptism.  ...

This ^^^.  And one could say the same thing about BoD in general.  What purposes does it serve except as something that can be exploited to undermine Catholic dogma?
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 12, 2018, 12:30:16 PM
.
Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 10:14:14 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/will-be-interested-to-hear-thoughts-on-this-new-bodbob-book/msg633963/#msg633963)
Quote
.
Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 04:07:00 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/will-be-interested-to-hear-thoughts-on-this-new-bodbob-book/msg634051/#msg634051)
Quote
.
... the book serves no other purpose than to falsely attribute it to be a teaching of the Church that there is hope for salvation and that salvation is attainable outside of the Church, without the Sacrament of Baptism.  ...
This ^^^.  And one could say the same thing about BoD in general.  
What purposes does it serve except as something that can be exploited to undermine Catholic dogma?
.
All true, sadly. The bottom line is perhaps there is money to be made by pretending that you're Catholic and sell books that demean Catholic dogma and the very principle of the infallibility of dogma.
.
That has always been the work of the devil, since day one: deny the truth of God and sell it to vulnerable men by whose fall you might profit...
     That is, you might profit for a while, after which comes the inevitable Judgment and the inexorable direct consequence.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 12, 2018, 12:38:26 PM
.
FWIW the brother priests Radecki (CMRI) are on their second year of excuses for not having their latest book finished yet.
They are making excuses as we approach Advent saying it should be done after Christmas. But they said that last November, too.
Perhaps they've had to re-write it after reading threads like this on CathInfo!  ::)
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 12, 2018, 12:46:56 PM
.
Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 06:57:32 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/will-be-interested-to-hear-thoughts-on-this-new-bodbob-book/msg633965/#msg633965)
Quote

Ah, yes, this puts on display the level of intellect that one will no doubt find throughout this tome.  This above was the answer to the contention, which has been amply proven over years here on CathInfo, that the BoDer ecclesiology is identical to that of the Vatican II establishment, and that all the Vatican II errors derive from this non-Catholic ecclesiology.  We have presented the arguments, and these have never been refuted.  In fact, no refutation has ever been attempted.  
.
Instead, you get "rebuttals" such as the one quoted above.

That, sir, is a very sorry excuse for a "rebuttal."
.
It was highly fortuitous for ContraCrawfordBook to register his one-post-wonder username only to come in here and expose himself for all to see.
.
By their works you shall know them ----------- how prophetic those words are.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: trad123 on November 20, 2018, 09:38:28 PM
Quote
https://archive.org/details/ContraCrawfordBoD/page/n121


pg. 108



I'm looking for the original source of the quote. I'll have the book within a week or two.


Augustine the Bishop by F. Van der Meer

pgs. 149 - 150

7. Day-to-Day Pastoral Work

(. . .)

The Indifferent

(. . .)

Augustine never sought to make easy excuses for those who kept putting off baptism. Some did this from indifference and through the lack of any serious element in their dispositions, some from that peculiar laziness which Augustine had himself had occasion to observe in his own father Patricius, for Patricius, after being a catechumen for many years, was only baptized in 371, when he was actually on his death-bed and Augustine himself was already seventeen years of age.(94) There were others who pointed to some baptized blockhead, who was a scoundrel in the bargain, and haughtily demanded whether they were not better men than he. Augustine's comment on these occasions was that Christ himself had been baptized "for the sake of the proud men who were still to come".

"It often happens that a catechumen knows more of his religion and leads a better life than many others who have been baptized. He sees how badly instructed a baptized person can often be and that his way of life is often much less recollected and much less chaste than his own. He himself never thinks of women, yet he sees Christians, who, while remaining innocent of actual adultery, practice little self control toward their wives. Even so, no man has a right to puff himself up and say, 'Why should I be baptized? Why should I desire desire to partake of something that happens to be possessed by another who is my inferior both in the matter of conduct and knowledge? The Lord will answer him, 'How much is he thy inferior? As much as those art mine? Or is perhaps the servant greater than the master?' ".(95)

In most cases the motive for avoiding baptism lay in the desire of such men not to be bound. They wanted to be free to sin and then get rid of their sins cheaply and all at once when the appropriate moment came. Augustine did not mince matters in this connection. They think, he said, that as catechumens they can make light of their adulteries, and then have the effrontery to compare themselves with the woman in the Temple who "also was not condemned".(96)

This whole evil was one with which Augustine never wearied in doing battle. Even the anniversary of his consecration found him in fighting mood. I care naught, he cried out on this occasion, that today of all the days you expect to hear something pleasant from me. I must warn you in the words of Holy Scripture: "Defer it not from day to day, for his wrath shall come on a sudden." God knows that I tremble in my cathedra myself when I hear those words. I must not, I cannot be silent. I am compelled to preach to you on this matter and "to make you fearful, being myself full of fear".(97)

How dangerous, he says, is is every delay! How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their death on their death-beds? And how many earnest catechumens die unbaptized?--which, for Augustine, is equivalent to saying that they are lost for ever.(98 ) He compares the carefree condition of mind that such people often display with the dread sleeping-sickness of an old man, who keeps on saying "Let me sleep", although the doctor keeps warning those around him that sleep is the one thing he must not do. And do not make it a reproach to me, he continues, that I disturb your peace of mind. How can I comfort you when the threat comes from God himself? For I am but the steward, not the father of the house.(99) "You say, 'I will do it later, I will do it tomorrow. Why do you frighten us? Have we not been promised forgiveness?' Yes, forgiveness is promised you, but it has been promised to you that you shall see tomorrow."


Notes from pg. 613

95. IP, 90, 2, 6.
96. DSI, 20, 6.
97. FSA, 2, 7 and 8; see Ecclus. v.8-9
98. SE, 27, 6.
99. FSA, 2, 8b-9

Abbrevations can be found starting on page XI, in the front of the book.

IP = Enarrationes in Psalmos
DSI = Denis, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Sermones Inediti
FSA = Frangipane, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi Sermones X
SE = Sermones



Note 95, Exposition on Psalm 90:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801090.htm


Note 96 text, Jesuit, Michael Denis:

https://books.google.com/books?id=oGg7WvZhAckC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false


Note 97 and 99 text, Dom Frangipane:

https://books.google.com/books?id=gdZLAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP7&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false


Note 98 refers to Sermon 27 which I already posted:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/will-be-interested-to-hear-thoughts-on-this-new-bodbob-book/msg634012/#msg634012
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: trad123 on November 20, 2018, 09:51:05 PM
The words are Fr. Meer's, a paraphrase of St. Augustine's Sermon 27.

Fr. Meer:

Quote
How dangerous, he says, is is every delay! How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their death on their death-beds? And how many earnest catechumens die unbaptized?

St. Augustine:


Quote
"Why did he come to the help of this one and not that one? Why was this one steered by God's guiding hand to get baptized, while that other one who had lived a good life as a catechumen suddenly collapsed and died, without ever reaching baptism? That other one again, who lived such a vicious life, as a lecher, as an adulterer, as a play-actor, as a bullfighter, fell ill, was baptized, departed this life, and in him sin was overcome, in him sin was eliminated-why?"

Look for desserts, and all you will find is punishment. Look for grace-Oh the depth of the riches! Peter denies, the thief believes-Oh the depth of the riches! (Rom 11:33).

Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: trad123 on November 20, 2018, 09:56:57 PM
The words of St. Augustine are more forceful, the entirety of Sermon 27 deals with justice and unfairness. The word delay is not mentioned, there is no exposition about deferring Baptism.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z3XYAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's from pages 104 to 110, including the notes.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: ContraCrawfordBook on December 04, 2018, 03:08:25 PM
[many good posts sourcing quotes from Augustine & Others]

Thank you very much!  Clearly you understand and appreciate the need to carefully document one's material when arguing about such important matters.  Hopefully Crawford will see this thread and, with a little luck, your work will rub off on him!


This ignorance of Father Feeney's positon discredits the book right out of the gate.  Nice attempt to take this quote out of context.  I'm sure that we can expect a lot of that in your book.

Not that you would know, as you have demonstrated!  Since, after all, the book isn't about Feeney.


Quote
Father was then asked whether those who persevered in a state of justification until death would be damned if they did not receive the Sacrament, and he responded in the negative.

That must have been what he meant when he said, in context, and in his own words, "in case you would like to brush up on what I have been saying" (Bread of Life, p. 56; which it sounds like you, Ladislaus, might need to do!), that:

"Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water? A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water. Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water? A. No. They are not saved. Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water? A. I do not know. Q. Do they go to Hell? A. No. Q. Do they go to Heaven? A. No" (Ibid., pp. 56-7, emphases added).


Quote
For, you see, this is begging the question on your part.  Father denies the possibility (following St. Augustine) that God would allow anyone to persevere in a state of justification without providing the Sacrament to that soul before death.  This is the clear teaching of St. Augustine.  So the hypothetical which you posit as an argument against the anti-BoD position is not granted by our side, and you are begging the question with it.  You assume that it's possible in the first place and then, based on this unproven premise, use this as an argument in favor of BoD.
Well you seem to have forgotten that the book isn't about Feeney, nor is it about Bread of Life, so there is no question begging.  Go ahead and open the .pdf and see how many times you can find his name in it.  Crawford doesn't even agree with Feeney (which you would know if you'd been forthright in your argumentation and bothered to actually look and see what you were supposed to be arguing against).  So our work leaves him pretty well alone.  We've spent more time here discussing it than we did in the whole hundred and thirty pages of our response to Crawford.

Ah, yes, this puts on display the level of intellect that one will no doubt find throughout this tome.  This above was the answer to the contention, which has been amply proven over years here on CathInfo, that the BoDer ecclesiology is identical to that of the Vatican II establishment, and that all the Vatican II errors derive from this non-Catholic ecclesiology.  We have presented the arguments, and these have never been refuted.  In fact, no refutation has ever been attempted.  Instead, you get "rebuttals" such as the one quoted above.

Great point; CathInfo was not one of the sources we consulted when writing the book.  Now that we've had time to review it, we see that the whole book was a mistake and Crawford was right all along!  In your hubris you cannot seem to escape the misconception that this book is about you.  No wonder you are disappointed!  Collect your thoughts and arguments and compose a reply to what we have written.  If it's as bad as you say, we can't imagine it would take long for you to expose our errors and set the record straight.

Again, another high-quality argument.  An actual perusal of my 15,000+ posts on CathInfo will find this degree of mine mentioned perhaps 2 or 3 times, and only when it's relevant to the discussion being made.  So this absurd ad hominem is also calumny.  I guess that 2 or 3 posts among 15,000 backs your assertion that I can't make it far without bringing it up.

Yes, not only are you idiots, but you are of bad will, spending lots of energy attacking Catholic dogma.

What a delicate little drama queen you are!  At least to the credit of the other clowns in this thread, they stay in clownish character.  You, on the other hand, come out swinging with your chest puffed out so far you can't even see your opponent, and then retreat to moral thin ice when your horse manure gets tossed back at you. 

Page 3 sets forth the false theological premise:

"The ordinary magisterium is just as infallible as the extraordinary magisterium."

bzzzt.  It's the Ordinary UNIVERSAL Magisterium that is just as infallible, when teaching that a matter has been "divinely revealed" (cf. Vatican I).  So, as I said, this entire thing rests on the distorted sedevacantist position on infallibility.  I was correct in my initial speculation.  We've had sedevacantist clowns here on CI believe that any book that has ever received an imprimatur from a legitimate bishop was protected by infallibility.  Now, that's an extreme, but there are sedevacantists all along that continuum because they fail to add the word "universal" (and the term "divinely revealed") into the equation when discussing the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

Goodness, do you ever struggle to compose your thoughts and present them in an ordered way!  Try replying all at once.  Anyways, talk about strawmen.  Most of what you say here has nothing to do with what is argued in the book; you've been terminologically triggered into a tangent about virtual phantoms in the cyberspace.  Try again.

Then the ignorami argue that Trent teaches that the supernatural virtues begin before Baptism, speaking of the faith, hope, and charity which lead to justification.  False.  All theologians who treat of this subject teach that Trent here refers to incipient faith, hope, and charity, the natural analogues to the supernatural virtues of the same name, what they call fides initialis, etc.  The actual SUPERNATURAL virtues arrive in the soul at the exact same time as justification, not before ... and they all arrive together at the initial justification, not first one, and then the other.  This is all universally taught by theologians.

Phenomenal insight!  Since all of them teach that this is what Trent means, we look forward to you quoting them!  You know, when you simmer down and compose a proper reply instead of this:

Quote
But then the authors claim to be refuting the position of Father Feeney, and Father Feeney himself felt that these supernatural virtues (and justification itself) could arrive before Sacramental Baptism.  Evidently Crawford changed his position away from that of Father Feeney to the more Dimondist view.  Nevertheless, the book's authors equivocate between attempting to refute Crawford and Father Feeney ... even though their positions are not identical.

... Which, again, we never do.  Do try to make it seem like you care about responding to the actual argument, yes?

The authors of this book validly argue that if you concede the possibility of a justified catechumen somewhere, this soul is already within the Church because Justification simply does not occur outside the Catholic Church. OK. However, I strongly suspect that the authors do not limit the possibility of salvific BOD strictly to pious catechumens. Or do they?

Do they believe that a Moslem, Jew, pagan, Hindu, etc. can be saved because somehow he became an invisible justified "catechumen" in the microseconds preceding death? I don't have a problem if you want to believe in thomistic BOD (remote possibility for a sincere catechumen who dies before the water), if it is properly taught applying solely for catechumens and no one else. Evidently, someone belonging to a false religion is most certainly not a catechumen of the Catholic Church. The authors argue correctly that the teaching of Baptism of Desire never interfered with the EENS dogma in the past centuries. If properly taught and understood, it should not be.


Amazing!  Someone's actually read it.  Try it out, Ladislaus.  If your temper lets you.

On the Novus Ordo Watch site, they advertise/promote the Contra book - but don't give you the whole story, offer Fr. Crawford's booklet or "his side of the story," or allow comments at the bottom.  This Contra book is theological junk, written by amateurs.  Yes, another CMRI-related hit piece.  These lay people, Contra authors make a point to not mention the hit done unto Fr. Crawford by the CMRI, in saying he did not answer their theological questionnaire to him at about the time he left them - when he actually did three times, and had the post office mailing receipts, etc., and proof they did receive his mailed answers. And his were good answers on NFP and EENS.  There does seem to be a vendetta against Fr. Crawford here.

What a phenomenally strange thing to say given that we include a hundred pages worth of appendices of Crawford's work which include his precious receipts and hurt feelings.  We also provide, on the very first page, a very brief history of Crawford which includes the fact that he has written multiple replies to Pivarunas.  Nothing is hidden; on the contrary, we're distributing his book for him now.  It's at the end of ours!

I pay very little attention to this subject any more, mainly because it most certainly displeases God when anyone goes about  preaching that God Himself is just as taken by surprise as the infidel, by his unforeseen death - let alone prior to receiving a baptism which he is presumed to have desired. What - was God just too preoccupied doing something else to provide the time, the water and the minister for the infidels? What is it that God was so busy doing that the infidels had to save themselves anyway? 

Your above reply, by missing the point of my post, demonstrates the real reason and the main purpose you are publishing such a book as this, namely, you are out to make whatever money you can off of the evil thing.

The book is iniquitous, it is a scandal and Catholics faithful to the Church's teachings on the Sacrament of Baptism have cause to condemn and avoid reading it, the book serves no other purpose than to falsely attribute it to be a teaching of the Church that there is hope for salvation and that salvation is attainable outside of the Church, without the Sacrament of Baptism.  Same o same o.

A regular ol' Robert Johnson tale, ours is.  Who would have ever anticipated the diabolical fame and fortune that awaits those who give their books away for free!
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2018, 04:06:51 PM
That must have been what he meant when he said, in context, and in his own words, "in case you would like to brush up on what I have been saying" (Bread of Life, p. 56; which it sounds like you, Ladislaus, might need to do!), that:

"Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water? A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water. Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water? A. No. They are not saved. Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water? A. I do not know. Q. Do they go to Hell? A. No. Q. Do they go to Heaven? A. No" (Ibid., pp. 56-7, emphases added).
Selective quoting is always such a very necessary thing with BODers, let's not cut the good Fr. Feeney short......

Q.  Are there any such souls?  A. I do not know! Neither do you!


While you're at it, also remember the good priest, Fr. James Wathen:

"Whether it is because he is such a good person, or such a young person, or such a Liberal-minded person is not for this writer to say: but Father (Laisney) has yet to realize that such is the perversity of fallen men that, if given the hope of being able to gain the advantages of being in the Church without actually entering it, they will surely try it. It is because this is inadmissible that the Church found it necessary to pronounce ever more explicitly and pointedly that one must enter the Church.

If one is going to do it, almighty God will give one the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. [Just as He has done for every human creature who has ever been - and ever will be baptized. This, fyi, is Divine Providence, which is an infallible doctrine of the Church, which a BOD inherently rejects. - Me]

The notion of "baptism of desire"- and it is only a notion, there is no doctrine to it - falls into the same category as the Protestant form of confession, the confession of one's sins "directly to Christ." As it is stated, it sounds pious and adequate. But God says it is insufficient, because He forgives sins through the Church only, and one must submit oneself to the Church to receive this forgiveness.

What the Protestant is saying is: I refuse to make this submission, and I require that God forgive me on my terms, because I find the Sacrament of Penance very repugnant and humiliating; and my minister has taught me that I do not have to humiliate myself in this way to obtain God's forgiveness. And I won't do it." - From; Who Shall Ascend?, Fr. Wathen


Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2018, 05:17:09 PM
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water? Q. Do they go to Hell? A. No.

You must have missed this part, which is the very point of my first post.

So this discredits the book right out of the gate:
Quote
the first major figure to hold that those who die with the baptism of desire or blood will nevertheless go to hell was the Jesuit Fr. Leonard Feeney
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2018, 05:19:40 PM
Amazing!  Someone's actually read it.  Try it out, Ladislaus.  If your temper lets you.

All of my points were made from a reading of this "book" ... as much of the garbage as I could stomach at any rate.  You will notice that I quoted from the book in my posts.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Ladislaus on December 04, 2018, 05:22:06 PM
Phenomenal insight!  Since all of them teach that this is what Trent means, we look forward to you quoting them!  You know, when you simmer down and compose a proper reply instead of this:

Nice bait and switch.  I was not talking about BoD but about the meaning of the pre-justification analogues to the theological virtues.

You're just a low-grade imbecile not worthy to engage in rational debate on the subject.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Joe Cupertino on December 06, 2018, 08:26:59 AM
Quote from: ContraCrawfordBook on December 04, 2018, 03:08:25 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/will-be-interested-to-hear-thoughts-on-this-new-bodbob-book/msg635681/#msg635681)
Quote
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water? Q. Do they go to Hell? A. No. 

You must have missed this part, which is the very point of my first post.

So this discredits the book right out of the gate:

Quote
Quote
the first major figure to hold that those who die with the baptism of desire or blood will nevertheless go to hell was the Jesuit Fr. Leonard Feeney

I looked for this quote in the book, but couldn't find it.  What page is it on?
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Last Tradhican on December 06, 2018, 02:07:51 PM
All of my points were made from a reading of this "book" ... as much of the garbage as I could stomach at any rate.  You will notice that I quoted from the book in my posts.
Amazing, he sold one book.  That was very charitable of you, you have some stomach! Save it for starting your next bonfire, the paper is too stiff for my first choice recommendation.
Title: Re: Will be interested to hear thoughts on this new BOD/BOB book
Post by: Joe Cupertino on December 17, 2018, 09:09:09 AM
Quote from: ContraCrawfordBook on December 04, 2018, 03:08:25 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/will-be-interested-to-hear-thoughts-on-this-new-bodbob-book/msg635681/#msg635681)
Quote
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water? Q. Do they go to Hell? A. No.


You must have missed this part, which is the very point of my first post.

So this discredits the book right out of the gate:
Quote
the first major figure to hold that those who die with the baptism of desire or blood will nevertheless go to hell was the Jesuit Fr. Leonard Feeney

Ladislaus, I looked for this quote in the book, but couldn't find it.  What page is it on?