CathInfo.com

Yet another reason I can't really abide BoD theory is in its minimizing the role / function of the Sacramental character, having reduced it to the point of triviality, to the point where it's just a badge of honor that some in Heaven have and some do not, and something that serves as a non-repeatability marker or indicator.  Other Sacramental characters effect an ontological change in the recipient ... and that change consists of communicating various divine potencies to human beings who lack these potencies (aka faculties) by nature.  We do not have a natural faculty or capability or potency to see God as He is, but the Sacramental character is what communicates that faculty to human beings, just as Holy Orders communicates the faculty to human beings to act in the power of Christ Himself, where they can forgive sins, offer the Holy Sacrifice, as if they were Christ, receiving a divine power.  What "divine power" do we get from this trivialized and borderline-meaningless character from Baptism?  According to most, practically nothing, since centuries of BoD theory have gutted the significance of the Baptismal character.

Canon law canon law canon law canon law canon law canon law canon law canon law

The practice of the Church used to be to refuse Christian burial to unbaptized Catechumens...1917 Code says it is to be permitted. Was the Church incorrect before? Correct now? Correct before, and incorrect now?

The 1917 Code is the ecclesiastical law of the Latin Church, it is not intended to teach faith and morals to the universal Church. It's not even binding on the universal Church. One of the very first canons makes clear that the Code in its entirety does not bind the Oriental Churches

Point is, Canon Law is not infallible

Why do you condemn with is in canon law of 1917, Stubborn?