Can anybody talk to the bold point particularity?

Here is a quote from the 1941 version of the Baltimore Catechism.

321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

https://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson24.html


This was being taught, and you are saying that the Baltimore Catechism was teaching error to all people in 1941?

This causes a great scandal.

Most catechisms, when taken in their entirety, are most certainly not infallible.  Men often interject their opinions into their catechisms, and their opinions are oftentimes most certainly fallacious. It is so ridiculous when Catholics mumble so much gibberish and then say, "Well, the catechism says."  Very often it is the case that the more recent (redacted) catechisms will state what the original catechism did not state.  The modernists do these tricks all the time.  

Most catechisms, when taken in their entirety, are most certainly not infallible.  Men often interject their opinions into their catechisms, and their opinions are oftentimes most certainly fallacious. It is so ridiculous when Catholics mumble so much gibberish and then say, "Well, the catechism says."  Very often it is the case that the more recent (redacted) catechisms will state what the original catechism did not state.  The modernists do these tricks all the time. 

It is true that catechisms are not infallible.  It is also true that catechisms approved by the Church contain the Imprimatur and Nihil obstat, the latter meaning that the Church declares the work to be free of doctrinal and moral error.  When opinions about doctrine or private interpretations of what an official Church docuмent "really means" are expressed here they are likewise NOT infallible, they lack the Imprimatur and Nihil obstat, and most likely are given by persons who do not have a Licentiate in Sacred Theology (STL) issued by the Church.  I have no problem in determining what I should give the greater weight to.

Below are catechisms I have in my library:
The Faith of Our Fathers, Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ
James Cardinal Gibbons, 1876
P.J, Kennedy and Sons New York, Printers to the Holy See
Has been translated into French, German, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian, and Swedish
 
A Catechism of the Catholic Religion
Rev. Joseph Deharbe, S.J. 1878
Schwartz, Kirwin & Fauss New York
Translated from German
 
The Question Box, Replies to Questions Received on Missions to Non-Catholics
Rev. Bertrand L. Conway, C.S.P, 1929
The Paulist Press, New York
 
The Spirit of Catholicism
Fr. Karl Adam, translated from German 1929
Sheed and Ward London
 
The Faith of Millions, The Credentials of the Catholic Religion
Rev. John A. O’Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., 1938
Our Sunday Visitor Huntington, Indiana
 
Father Smith Instructs Jackson
Archbishop John Francis Knoll, D.D., L.L.D., and Fr. Lester J. Fallon, C.M., S.T.D.
1945

Baltimore Catechism No. 3, 1949
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine
Benziger Brothers

These are mostly first editions or reprints of the original editions except the Baltimore.  The original Baltimore Catechism #2, issued in 1885 by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, is available online and I've compared the two.  They both are in agreement about the point I'm going to make.

ALL of these approved catechisms teach BOD / BOB.

But doesn't the Catechism have an Imprimatur.  This Catechism goes back to 1885. 

Please show me errors in other Catechisms, again I need to see precedents of error be put forth by those claiming to be Catholic.  If the Church is not protected, then why are we all here?  How do we know for certain that Martin Luther was not right in his 95 theses?

Also questions 644, 650, 651, 652, 653, and 654 are on this topic from Baltimore Catechism #3, the Imprimatur given by John Cardinal McCloskey (NY) and James Cardinal Gibbons (Baltimore).

And would this not create generations of people who do not understand the Catholic Faith.

Maybe we have not had a unified Catholic Church, since King Henry VIII decided he wanted a male heir?

Maybe everything after the Council of Trent is debatable? 

Maybe Pius the V was that last true Pope and every Pope after that was an anti-Pope?

An Imprimatur simply says that the cardinal or bishop who put their signature to the book gives it his approval - which *should* mean the approval of the Church, but remember, there are tons of NO books out there with an imprimatur, there are also books on the "forbidden book index" with imprimaturs.

Because the BC and other catechisms teach a BOD only serves as proof that they are not infallible, and also that an imprimatur does not make it infallible. It does *not* mean the whole catechism is bad, it means there are some points of doctrine within the catechisms that are in need of correction, that's what it means.

From Trent's catechism:

Doctor John Hogan, the present Rector of the Irish College in Rome, writes thus: "The Roman Catechism is a
work of exceptional authority. At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical, -- it is an
authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church
and her supreme head on earth. The compilation of it was the work of various individuals; but the result of their
combined labors was accepted by the Church as a precious abridgment of dogmatic and moral theology.
Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to
individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole
body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a
place between approved catechisms and what is de fide."

Here is another example re: Q. 282 in the BC #3 (pdf attached)- the catechism teaches that you cannot commit a mortal sin unless you have full knowledge and willingness, full consent. I use this example because there is a question as to who is guilty, is it the false prophet or is it those who listen?

If it is only the false prophet who is guilty, why is there any need to “beware”? Which is to say if God is not going to blame those who listen, those who are taken in and led astray by the false doctrines, then what reason would He have to warn us at all? 

Is this not contrary to Our Lord's warning to "beware of false prophets?"  It is at least worthy to consider being corrected - IMO.