https://archive.org/details/ContraCrawfordBoD/page/n1

page 109:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

7. But some one will say, It were enough, then, that John baptized only the Lord; what need was there for others to be baptized by John? Now we have said this too, that if John had baptized only the Lord, men would not be without this thought, that John had a better baptism than the Lord had. They would say, in fact, So great was the baptism of John, that Christ alone was worthy to be baptized therewith. Therefore, to show that the baptism 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 to give an example of humility; but He was not the only one baptized by John, lest John's baptism should appear to be better than the baptism of the Lord. To this end, however, our Lord Jesus Christ showed the way, as you have heard, brethren, lest any man, arrogating to himself that he has abundance of some particular grace, should disdain to be baptized with the baptism 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. Just as the people Israel were not rid of the Egyptians until they had come to the Red Sea, so no man is rid of the pressure of sins until he has come to the font of baptism.

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:

16. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized 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. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism 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

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.

https://archive.org/details/ContraCrawfordBoD/page/n121

Pg. 107:

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:

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

On page 24 of Jurgen's third volume:

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).