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
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.
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.
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”
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/contra-crawford-baptism-of-desire-blood/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
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
Two straw man arguments immediately discredit them on their introductory page.That's likely why we do not see Lover of Truth here on CI, he was writing that book.
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).
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.
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".
It is likely Lover of Truth or his "mentor".
Wow. I'm sorry I even brought this up.
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/contra-crawford-baptism-of-desire-blood/
I am going to order this and I look forward to reading it
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.
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).
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 Ecuмenical Council.
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.
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.
That's likely why we do not see Lover of Truth here on CI, he was writing that book.
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.
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".
Yeah, perhaps that Bosco guy who stood in for him when he left for a while.
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?
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.
We hope you find it a useful and enjoyable read!
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).
Here we go again... Let us know if you need a podiatrist recommendation for when your foot is surgically removed from your mouth.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Jurgens, who cites Migne and Lambot, although without distinguishing from where each segment came.
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.
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.
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.
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, Jєωs 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.
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..
.QuoteThat'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!
Wow. I'm sorry I even brought this up.
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?
... 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. ...
..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)QuoteThis ^^^. And one could say the same thing about BoD in general..... 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. ...
What purposes does it serve except as something that can be exploited to undermine Catholic dogma?
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://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.
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?
"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).
[many good posts sourcing quotes from Augustine & Others]
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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, Jєω, 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.
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.
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.
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:Selective quoting is always such a very necessary thing with BODers, let's not cut the good Fr. Feeney short......
"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).
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.
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
Amazing! Someone's actually read it. Try it out, Ladislaus. If your temper lets you.
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 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)QuoteQ. 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:
QuoteQuotethe 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
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.
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)QuoteQ. 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:Quotethe 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