Seems a bit iffy. Dogma is what it says on the tin. Sure the context is helpful for understanding what exactly they meant, but you can't use context to make it say something it doesn't either. For example, just because I said "2+2=4" in opposition to people asserting it equalled 3, that doesn't mean you can turn around and say I just said it to condemn the 2+2=3'ers and not necessarily the 2+2=5'ers who came about centuries after my statement. Now, I get that the examples you cited aren't as clear cut as my absurd scenario, of course, but the funny business in the example I gave is exactly the kind of stuff you see modernists try to do with dogma. And it's a slippery slope starting from where you're standing and ending with full-on Vatican 2 "dogma evolves" nonsense.

When Trent says the ceremonies of the Church can't incentivise impiety, it means exactly that. It doesn't refer to any explicit kind of impiety, or to a teaching that all ceremonies are impious, etc. It means what it says: anyone who teaches that the ceremonies of the Church incentivise impiety is condemned. Just because they were making the statement in response to a very specific teaching doesn't mean the dogma refers to only that narrow slice; if the dogma speaks broadly, it teaches broadly.

Yes, it does appear that this is true although I still think BOD leaves people not knowing whether a person was saved.  It's like what I got from other trads when my father died, "Well, there is BOD....".  I am fairly certain that the Church didn't teach that we could fall back on it with such hope for non-Catholics.  
I'd like to hear Ladislaus' response to your post though.

On the other hand, not a single theologian, post Trent, holds Father Feeney’s position. Subsequently, Father Cekada was right, since, according to you, he said ‘you must accept it under gave sin’ and not heresy. Now, you must admit that the unanimous opinion, post Trent, is that the Church, at the very least, teaches it and since the Church teaches it, we are bound to believe it by our duty of obedience to the Church. Please show me if you think this is incorrect.

Thank you. Here is the way I see it: Anyone who dies outside the visible unity of the Church, with the exception of a catechumen, is considered lost. This is reflected by the Church’s canon law (reflected in the Canon Law of 1917, but before that, for 1917 years, catechumens could not be given Catholic burials) . Only God knows the ultimate fate of those who die. We don’t know who was secretly baptized and we can’t read men’s hearts and who made an act of perfect contrition before he expired. This is why we can’t make an absolute judgment, but we can presume that they are lost. (secretly baptized AND made a perfect act of contrition, all true and a proper Catholic  response, that even I would make, and I do not believe in BOD)

In the case of the Protestant, who was validly baptized, we can hold out the remote hope that they repented and made an act of perfect contrition before they died (Catholic  response, that even I would make) . In the case of the unbaptised person who is dying (not a catechumen), is it possible that they asked a nurse to baptize them? (Catholic  response, that even I would make) Of course. (Did this ever had happen? Possibly. Does it happen often? Obviously no. (This is quite common, and history tells us so, many real examples )

How about the case of a Jєω who was secretly learning the catechism? Wouldn’t he be considered a catechumen? (Yes, but you believe he would receive BOD, I would say he may been unknowingly baptized a t birth, or he could have been baptized by anyone before death)   How extremely rare would this be? How about the Protestant who was studying Catholicism and was convinced of it’s truth? You could say that God doesn’t work that way, but ultimately we don’t know since God’s ways are not our ways (but he has infallible taught us exactly what we need to do to be saved, be a baptized Catholic with no mortal sin on your soul at death and you will be saved). Also, it seems to me that one important reason the Church does not allow ecclesiastical burials for those who die outside the Church (with the exception of catechumen who dies before they are baptized) is to demonstrate that it is of the utmost importance for all to join the visible Church. (True)

Nothing wrong with you explanation, I just make a few points in red.( and black for some reason)

How do you address the two examples I gave ...

1) where a teaching was held unanimously for 700 years but then overturned by the Church?
2) where Fr. Cekada himself rejects something that was taught universally (and Magisterially) for 1500 years?

No, pointing out that theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens is not a strawman.  I'm drawing implications from that.  They don't have any Magisterial authority to require assent, so where does it come from?

You suggest that it's due to "tacit approval" by the Church.  Tacit approval is not a Magisterial act by any stretch.  Church history is replete with examples of opinions of theologians that were held for some time and then only much later rejected by the Church.  Letting theologians teach something is not tantamount to actually teaching it.  Historically the Church has allowed a significant amount of freedom on matters that have not been defined Magisterially ... until such a time as she considers it prudent.

Nor is your explanation for what happened at Vatican II satisfactory.  It really doesn't matter WHY all these theologians caved.  Fact is that they caved.  I can and have gone into great detail to explain WHY these theologians are mistaken about BoD.  This has nothing to do with fortitude or the lack thereof.  Either they're capable of being wrong or they're not ... regardless of the reason.

You'll notice that there's a broad range of opinion regarding the theological NOTE of BoD.  Well, I hold ... and can prove ... that the note of BoD is nothing more than a piece of speculative theology that has been tolerated by the Church.  It has not been revealed, nor has it been demonstrated to flow necessarily from other revealed truths.  I heard even an EWTN Novus Ordite, who speculated that people can be saved without membership in the Church, admit that this is speculation and not revealed.

All those people were dead by the 500s.  Add 700 yrs and you have the 1200s, with St Thomas.
.
BOB is not BOD.  2 totally separate theological things.  If a doctor supported B.O.Blood, that is not an automatic support of BOD.