CathInfo.com

To die for the Faith remits guilt and punishment for since and presupposes justice and divine charity.  BoB has been referred to as a quasi-sacramant precisely because of this effect.

Well, infants cannot have the dispositions that are the necessary antecedents to justification, i.e. "justice and divine charity".  In terms of the subjective dispositions of the martyred infants, since they have not reached the age of reason, they are in no way different than that of an infant who's, say, murdered by her mother in an abortion.  So you're saying that BoB IS a Sacrament, i.e. that it works ex opere operato--which is very seriously problematic.

In other words, the liturgy of the Church is utterly worthless as a source of theology.  If the question revolves around the loose usage of the term 'catechumen' then I suppose the next step would be for you to actually provide evidence of this fact.

No, the burden of proof rests upon you.  I will dig up later today some texts which refer to post-baptismal neophytes in need of further instruction as "catechumens".  QED, the reference to martyred catechumens in the martyrologies does not prove BoB.  To assert that this PROVES BoB means that the burden of proof is on you.  I need only demonstrate that it does NOT prove BoB, not that it proves NOT BoB.

And, no the martyrologies are not infallible either.

Then you explain why there was a Limbo of the Fathers in the first place, eh?  Those people in the Limbo of the Fathers had the antecedent dispositions necessary but not the "justification itself" which Trent defines as coming AFTER those dispositions which BoD advocates claim justify.

Why is there a purgatory for souls who die in a state of grace?  You must posit some other notion, i.e. something other than grace, in order to radically divorce in the proper sense justification from sanctification.  To dispose something towards something else presupposes that there is no possession yet.  Are you prepared to assert that all of the just Fathers of the old testament were actually in a state of mortal sin, in enmity against God, their "dispositions to receive grace" notwithstanding?  Or should we not rather assert that God suspended, by divine positive law, the full fruition of sanctifying grace, i.e. the beatific vision, until after the work of Redemption?  The latter preserves doctrine, whereas the former posits absurdity.      

THAT is the very meaning and significance of the dogma that Christ descended into "hell" (i.e. the nether regions).  Those souls were suspended in a pre-justified state until Christ applied the fruits of His Passion to them.  They were not in a state of sanctifying grace or justification when they died.  You're confusing the new dispensation with how this worked for the "just" in the old dispensation.

Christ descended into hell in order to "liberate the captives" who were awaiting Redemption to enter heaven.  To infer your theory is unwarranted.  Justification must happen in the wayfaring state, lest you fall into Balthasar's error.  You concede the Blessed Virgin as an "exception" and arbitrarily dismiss Moses, Abraham, et. al. because you have adopted an opinion at variance with catholic doctrine.  Thus you are forced into absurdity.