CathInfo.com

Wow, this is getting hot.  I don't understand why this topic always gets so emotionally wild?

It seems we should be able to debate it openly, keep and rank the solid evidence and throw-out unproven anecdotes.

We have proven the case that the Trent Catechism, a defining docuмent, was tampered with at the publisher's level as far back as the late 19th Century.

Do you have specifics?  Thanks for the link to the 1829 edition (https://archive.org/details/thecatechismofth00donouoft) (note that there is no publishing date, just the date of the Preface so actually the publication date could be later than that).  I checked a little bit of the section on the Sacrament of Baptism but I didn't see anything that seemed out of line with what people have been quoting here.  So could you be more specific about how the book was tampered with?  Thanks!

What do the initials EENS represent?

I cannot keep up with all the initials.

Is there a thread where all the initials are listed and explained? Has Matthew created one?

This is what I can't stand. They (the BODers) sit there and swear up and down that the Sacrament is necessary for Salvation, then offer exceptions to the actual reception of it for Salvation, clearly making it unnecessary.
The contradiction of heretics is exhausting.

I think it is unfair to call them heretics.  They base their teaching on imprimatured catechisms and theology manuals printed prior to V2.  I'm not saying they are correct but it is not the same thing as V2 folks who knowingly reject the Church's approved doctrines.  A logical mistake or a faulty understanding of the doctrine doesn't make you a formal heretic.  No traditionalist has the intention of rejecting a Church teaching.  But they do sometimes get it wrong.  And they sometimes go so far as to call the guy who has the correct understanding a heretic or a schismatic.  Very annoying.  But not necessarily evidence of a bad will.  I also happen to think it is wrong to call the strict EENS guys heretics.  I've read the definitive BOD resource (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/) and I don't see where the OUM has given a definition of BOD and of course the pope has never given a definition of it either.  Most of the material there concerns BOB for catechumens.  BOD doesn't really come into play until St Robert Bellarmine (16th c) but it is not clear from his writings that he is talking about anyone other than catechumens.  The first definition which appears to have opened it up to non-catechumens was St Alphonsus (18th c).  Even if a large majority of the clergy agreed with St Alphonsus (that's not clear either given the Penny Catechism) I still don't see how that amounts to the OUM giving us a definitive decision on the matter.  Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the Conciliar Church to affirm that the decision is made in a definitive manner in favor of BOD?  Yet they (the CDF under Ratzinger) ruled that strict EENS is an allowable position.  In other words, they couldn't find any definitive evidence that strict EENS is an error.  I'm a sede so I don't believe the CDF is to be trusted but given they have a vested interest in condemning strict EENS, you would think they would find a way to do it.  And yet they couldn't.  They even had the use of Suprema Haec Sacra.  But still no success.  They reconciled Fr. Feeney (epikeia anyone? supplied jurisdiction?) with the Catholic Church and he was not required to renounce any error.  So apparently it is true that he was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy.  Don't get me wrong, I think these debates a great.  I just don't think it is a good thing to be throwing anathema-bombs all over the place.  Of course, I also realize that you don't have to be a heretic to go to hell.  Errors have consequences.  So it is good to point out errors.
By the way, I am interested in knowing more about the tampering with the Roman Catechism.  Does anyone think that maybe St Alphonsus' moral theology was also tampered with?