I have heard and read from a number of sources that all the catechisms in the last 2 centuries teach BOD, BOB, etc. and I myself took it on the word of others that this has been the case.


Until now.



I endeavored to start working backwards and acquiring either through ebay or other antique book resources original copies of catechisms and put it to the test. I did not want reprints to remove the issue of tampering. Interestingly, as I worked backwards from Vatican II, the definitions got narrower. I definitely found it mentioned in a 1904 catechism called "The Beautiful Teachings of the Holy Catholic Church", but the verbiage is not as loose as what you get from the modern day supporters.

I then acquired a rather common catechism from 1884 (copyright) called the TEACHINGS of The CATHOLIC CHURCH & Her DIVINE FOUNDER (1886) S.B. Smith

https://www.ebay.com/itm/TEACHINGS-of-The-CATHOLIC-CHURCH-Her-DIVINE-FOUNDER-1886-S-B-Smith-1st-Ed/264622220266?hash=item3d9cb6a3ea:g:t7wAAOSw~5ReOF3L

This is a pretty common catechism and you can see, there are several copies on ebay and I found many of them online.

Lo and behold, not a mention anywhere, and in fact it's pretty emphatic about the need and in it's treatment of St. John 3:5 mentions the canons of Trent about it's necessity. Not a peep about following up on that in regards to BOD, Invincible Ignorance or BOB like the 1904 catechism. This 1884 catechism is in depth and quite substantial as you can see in the link. So after scouring the entire copy cover to cover, not one mention of this teaching anywhere.

I have a catechism from 1876 on the way to me and I will share my findings at that point. I am going to continue to move further back chronologically until I can't find any older English language catechisms.


So at least in this case, no, NOT ALL catechisms taught these things. To be continued.....

Whether one or several 19th century catechisms do or do not teach BOD proves nothing. What matters is the teaching of the Church(as explained by the Popes) Here is a catechism by Fr. Michael Muller( 19th century) which teaches a form of BOD( following St. Thomas) I take this position 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjop-O34MrnAhUblHIEHTqeDtYQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcatholicism.org%2Fquestions-answers-salvation-muller.html&usg=AOvVaw1--0vqt6ZCiVFsJoEnsP_K

Thank you. I have that. And Fr. Muller was persecuted for teaching it just as Fr Feeney was, so it shows the downward spiral took place long before Fr Feeney.
I agree about the popes. And not one of them as far as I can see taught BOD ex cathedra.

Fr. Müller DID teach a form of BOD( albeit rigorous) He would not have agreed with Fr. Feeney 

I did not say otherwise. Nevertheless, he was chastised by his superiors when they caved under pressure. It demonstrates the step by step decline. A perfect example. Look at what Bishop Sanborn says about Fr. Muller with a book that has nothing to do with BOD. He doesn't even agree with you about this.
https://www.truerestoration.org/press/the-sinners-return-to-god/
Disclaimer
Father Muller, in another work, denied Baptism of Desire. To deny Baptism of Desire, however, is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius XII, as well as to the teaching of Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Robert Bellarmine, all of them canonized Doctors of the Church, as well as to the teaching of all Catholic theologians, and to the common teaching of the Catholic Church as expressed in its catechisms. Nonetheless, there is no trace of this error in this work of Father Muller. Consequently I approve of this book, but at the same time I caution the reader against Father Muller’s error in another work. – Bishop Sanborn

Yes I’ve seen that. I wonder which work of Fr. Muller’s Bp. Sanborn is referring to  

Here's a 1752 Catechism:

https://books.google.com/books?id=1-4CAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

It supports knowledge of the "rewarder God" as sufficient for salvation in some cases since it indicates knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation only necessary "where ever the Gospel is sufficiently published according to the more probable opinion of Divines" (see attached).

It speaks of baptism of desire, on page 87, though it seems to limit it to catechumens.  

Your screen shot says something that makes no sense to me.
A non Catholic can make a confession to God (act of contrition?)but then when he knows what he must do, he has to make it over again (I assume it means to a priest after entering the Church?)? So did his first act count or not?

Was not the Jesuits (Molinists?) the ones that really pushed this "Rewarder God" concept?

Here's a 1752 Catechism:

https://books.google.com/books?id=1-4CAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

It supports knowledge of the "rewarder God" as sufficient for salvation in some cases since it indicates knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation only necessary "where ever the Gospel is sufficiently published according to the more probable opinion of Divines" (see attached).

It speaks of baptism of desire, on page 87, though it seems to limit it to catechumens.  

Here is the Douay Catechism (1649):

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/The_Douay_Catechism/index.html

Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
   A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.

It is sometimes included, other times not.  I don't think any conclusions can be made from those that do not.  It would be another thing if every catechism did not mention it.

Feeneyism is a heresy. I will remind  people of this on every single BOD thread posted in this forum

Feeneyism is a heresy. I will remind  people of this on every single BOD thread posted in this forum

Baptism of Desire which is De fide according to St. Alphonsus