Yes, canon law reflects the teaching of the magisterium, and is also protected by infallibility.

Based on your typical SV misunderstanding of infallibility?  How is disciplinary law infallible since it's not doctrinal?  It's that it cannot promote anything positively harmful to faith or morals.  Church doesn't consider it harmful to faith or morals to allow for the possibility that Catechumens who die without Baptism might be saved.  And that's nothing more than being consistent in that the Church has always tolerated the opinion of St. Thomas, St. Robert, et al. regarding BoD.  Which is why the Dimonds are dead wrong in condemning BoD as heresy.  That does not mean that the 1917 C does or even can "define" BoD.  It just means that it extends the Church's TOLERATION of the opinion, of the possibility that a Catechumen MIGHT be saved, to a pastoral context.  You need to remember that just because someone receives a Catholic funeral, this does NOT mean there's any presumption of salvation on their part, just a presumption of the possibility of salvation.  Similarly, because ѕυιcιdєs are denied funerals there's simply a presumption that they couldn't be saved, though it's theoretically possible that any given one could be.  And previous Church discipline disallowed burial for Catechumens.  So, how is it that the previous Church discipline was not infallible whereas this one was?  Because you misunderstand how disciplinary law is infallible and what discipline does and what it does not do (namely, define doctrine).

And, Nado, you keep ignoring the elephant in the room, namely that this Canon Law applies ONLY TO A FORMAL CATECHUMEN.

You DELIBERATELY dodge every solid argument made against your position but keep throwing the same excrement out there over and over again.  But you won't look at and consider points that would militate against your position.  You refuse to look at the contrary evidence.  Thus my characterization of you being in bad will.  Just admit it.  Father Cekada actually did exactly that.  You find EENS completely unpalatable and don't want to believe in it so you are compelled to undermine it any way you can.

Quote from: APS

Quote from: Stubborn

True.
Trent's catechism does not teach a BOD any way.

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness

This is not a BOD. There is no mention of death or salvation, nor is there any guarantee of grace and righteousness - and for all you know, the unforeseen accident was the cause of a huge traffic jam that kept the priest from making to the Church to administer the baptism that day and they had to postpone the ceremony till the next week.

In order to make this into a BOD, you have to add all your personal exceptions in order to make this teach something it is not teaching.

Had you quoted the rest of the teaching, you would learn *why* the delay is not attended to with the same danger as in infants - allow me:

Quote from: Trent's Catechism

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

This is not a BOD. There is no mention of death or salvation, nor is there any guarantee of grace and righteousness - and for all you know, the unforeseen accident was the cause of a huge traffic jam that kept the priest from making to the Church to administer the baptism that day and they had to postpone the ceremony till the next week.


Of course to interpret it that was would have to change the context.  Pray tell what do you know about 16th century traffic jams?

Quote from: APS

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: APS

Quote from: Stubborn

True.
Trent's catechism does not teach a BOD any way.

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness

This is not a BOD. There is no mention of death or salvation, nor is there any guarantee of grace and righteousness - and for all you know, the unforeseen accident was the cause of a huge traffic jam that kept the priest from making to the Church to administer the baptism that day and they had to postpone the ceremony till the next week.

In order to make this into a BOD, you have to add all your personal exceptions in order to make this teach something it is not teaching.

Had you quoted the rest of the teaching, you would learn *why* the delay is not attended to with the same danger as in infants - allow me:

Quote from: Trent's Catechism

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

This is not a BOD. There is no mention of death or salvation, nor is there any guarantee of grace and righteousness - and for all you know, the unforeseen accident was the cause of a huge traffic jam that kept the priest from making to the Church to administer the baptism that day and they had to postpone the ceremony till the next week.


Of course to interpret it that was would have to change the context.  Pray tell what do you know about 16th century traffic jams?

Ok, so replace traffic jam with a fallen oak tree blocking the path to the Church, or with any other non-fatal accident of your choosing, either way, the reason for the delay is NOT ONLY that the danger of death in adults is not the same as infants, there are also other advantages - please list the advantages as the catechism teaches them for me so I know you actually read it.

Whoever doesn't admit that the danger of death for infants is not the same as adults to be a fact of life, fools only themselves and whatever other dupes they can get to agree with them.

It explicitly states what the actual reasons for the delay are, and teaches why  those reasons are advantageous.

The only way to make that teaching out to teach a BOD is to completely ignore what it does teach while entirely replacing what it teaches with your own idea. There is simply no other way to say that teaching is teaching that salvation is attainable via NSAA.  

Well Stubborn we can keep going at this until you admit the obvious.  How long would it take a pedestrian to walk around a tree?  Do you really think it is difficult to schedule a baptism in the sixteenth century.  The only way this make sense if an accident causes death because adults can desire baptism and children cannot.  The same terminology is used in Florence because they are using St Thomas' construction in his summa.  But since you brought it up how difficult would it be to go around a fallen tree and it reschedule a baptism in the sixteenth century?

I have read the Latin, and the original Latin could just as easily be read as,

their proper dispositions would avail them to justification were any sudden obstacle to arise that might [otherwise] prevent them from receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.

It's a nuanced "subjunctive" mood (a grammatical construct) that indicates hypothetical, something which we do not have in English.  In other words, their dispositions would get them past anything that might otherwise prevent them from receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.  It's along the lines of the St. Ambrose oration to Valentinian.

St. Fulgenius used the exact same phrase.  He said that a catechumen's "confession" (embracing the faith) would avail him to righteousness.  But if you look about a sentence later he says that it's because God would make sure that such a one would receive the waters of Baptism.  St. Fulgentius' texts regarding EENS were well known and were paraphrased and quoted by some of the dogmatic definitions.