https://youtu.be/wEQWkfjA2cA?si=w-PhFOHjlcJoozzm

Alright so MHFM uploaded this 44 minute video a few hours ago, I haven't had a chance to watch it, but considering the title and the length I think it will contain useful information against BoD.

Looking forward to watching it later today.

I only listened to about half before falling asleep.  They do make a good point about how the Church's discipline was reversed on a particular subject, the notion of "delayed" vs. "immediate" ensoulment.  But I don't agree with their claim that the Canon Law of the Roman Rite is not protected by infallibility because it only addresses the Roman Rite.  Father Cekada explained that well.  Really, the question is what does "infallibility" mean where it comes to discipline?  Discipline is not the same as doctrine, where the Magisterium proposes truths / propositions for our belief.  Doctrine directs belief, whereas discipline directs action.

IMO, discipline is infallible in the sense that it cannot harm the faith or morals of the faithful but doesn't mean that every single principle or premise in the law is protected by infallibility, as in the reversal on ensoulment.

People regularly misread the comment in the 1917 Code on so-called "Baptism of Desire", as if the Code were teaching Baptism of Desire, but it's not.

Here's how it reads.

1) Only baptized Catholics can receive Christian burial.
2) Catechumens are to be treated as baptized Catholics.

#2 is not some general statement, since otherwise Catechumens should be admitted to Holy Communion for example.  This is just legal language meaning that "for the purposes or this law, Catechumens are to be treated like Baptized Catholics".  In other words, the 2 legal precepts above mean only that Catechumens may receive Christian burial, i.e.  only baptized Catholics or Catechumens can receive Christian burial.  This does represent a reversal of prior Church discipline, where before Catechumens were not given Christian burial, whereas in 1917 Christian burial was permitted for Catechumens.

#1 above is stating the general principles, and #2 is stating an exception to the rule.  But this is in no way any kind of doctrinal statement.  There has always been a bit of ambiguity in the Church's attitude about Catechumens.  In the early Church, when someone became a Catechumen, he was received partially into the Church by a ceremony where a sign of the cross was made on their foreheads and they were permitted to be called Christian, even if they weren't "the faithful" yet.  As St. Robert Bellarmine described Catechumens, they were "in the vestibule of the Church," so kindof half in and half out.  So prior law emphasized the half out, whereas the 1917 law emphasized the half in ... at least in terms of permitting Christian burial for Catechumens.

That's all this is, a permission for Catechumens to receive Christian burial, and not some broader statement that Catechumens generally or broadly-speaking have the same status as the baptized, nor is it any kind of doctrinal statement.

These cases are called "legal fictions", where something exists as true under law but is not true in reality.

This happens all the time in the Church where vicars general and vicars forane have the delegated juridical authority of diocesan bishops, that is, they function as bishops ordinary except in the conferring of Holy Orders (unless they themselves are auxiliary or suffragan bishops).