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?
" (Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life
, 1974, p. 50, emphasis
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
. 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
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 email@example.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!
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
For friends and foes alike, we really do value feedback. firstname.lastname@example.org
Tell us very specifically
which arguments of ours do not work. Pax Christi!