CathInfo.com

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.       

Gray,

Merry and Stubborn have already posted a sound reply to your questions, please read these replies carefully on the links below which I fully endorse. Those are all dogmas:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/possible-strict-eens-chapel/msg1014704/#msg1014704

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/possible-strict-eens-chapel/msg1015080/#msg1015080

You are dancing around my main question.  Did the Church defect from itself over 100 years ago?  The Baltimore Catechism is clear on the points of BoB and BoD.  The Church cannot teach error. If the Catechism that has been distributed all over the world teaches this error, then basically what we know of the protections of the Church is all lies. It is really no longer about Father Feeney.

The Church cannot defect! You already got excellent replies on catechisms not being infallible. I have nothing to add to them.

So ... as usual, it's never about logic for the promoters of BoD.  They've made up their mind beforehand what they want to believe for various ulterior motives.

... as if the Baltimore Catechism were infallible and is the equivalent of the "Church teaching".

Msgr. Fenton takes apart the Baltimore Catechism on the subject of salvation.

We have here someone who's bought into the sedevacantist narrative where they make this statement that "[t]he Church cannot teach error" into some absolute, which renders nonsensical any definition of papal infallibility, making it so that an allocution given by a Pope might as well have been a solemn dogmatic definition, such as that of the Immaculate Conception.

This individual goes so far as to claim this of the Baltimore Catechism, rendering the mindset more and more ridiculouser as she progresses, and I've even encountered a sedevacantists who claimed that any book with an imprimatur on it must be regarded as error free, and protected from error.

Now, this attitude leads to bizarre psychological problems and neuroses.