The doctrines set forth by the universal and ordinary magisterium are definitions of faith:

You misrepresent what belongs to said universal magisterium.

Secondly, then you are heretical / schismatic for rejecting Vatican II.

It is patent that in spite of his protestations of Catholicity, Mr. Drew is no Catholic, but a heretic -- his distorted inversion of the dogmas of Trent construes not only Fr. Kramer, but all the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors to be heretics. Drew says Trent condemned BOD, and that the post Tridentine Doctors and popes are in heresy! Drew draws an illegitimate parallel with St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom he falsely attributes erroneous teaching against the faith on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It was not a dogma in the Thirteenth Century, but an OPEN QUESTION. It was not considered an error against faith until after someone would have taught against the doctrine after it had been set forth by the authority of the magisterium. According to Drew's inverted understanding of dogma, Trent condemned BOB/BOD. If that were true, then ALL the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors who taught BOB/BOD would be HERETICS! What a lunatic!
    God did not entrust the divine revelation to David Drew to interpret; but to the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium, "to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted." (Dei Filius)The post-Tridentine magisterium has universally and constantly taught BOD in the post-Tridentine Church as a point of Catholic doctrine, starting with the Roman Catechism, up until the Twentieth Century in the catechisms of St. Pius X, Cardinal Gasparri, and all the catechisms of the particular churches of the world. The magisterium has officially judged in favour of BOD --Feeney, and his followers have privately judged against BOD, and on their private authority they judge against the divinely instituted authority of the Church.
    In his latest screed, attempting to critique Fr. Kramer's explanation on the development of dogma; Drew has again resorted to his preferred device: misrepresrntation by inversion. He maliciously construes Fr. Kramer's exposition to be an expression of condemned Modernist doctrines -- but in reality, Fr. Kramer was simply explicating the doctrine of the Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, according to the erudutite elabouration of that doctrine by the eminent Dominican theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP. It was Dei Filius that declared, "[L]et the understanding, the knowledge and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding. (St. Vincent of Lèrins)" (D.S. 3020) David Drew would have you believe that such development of dogma as dogmatically set forth by Vatican I is Modernism! David Drew is a heretic who cares nothing whatever about the purity of Catholic dogma. Rather he demonstrates himself to be  nothing but a sociopathic narcissist who tramples on dogmas, and on the reputations of the most eminent pontiffs and theologians who elaorated the teaching of the Church.

   January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.

   April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.

 All of the ancient Fathers who teach on Baptism of Blood affirm it. None oppose it. That is what is understood by the Church to constitute unanimity. Since the Council of Trent declared that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers on a point is without doubt a sure indication that a doctrine is de fide; it is more than adequately evident that BOB was already a de fide doctrine of the magisterium in the Patristic period (as St. Cyprian attests). You can gratuitously assert all you like to the contrary, but the teaching of the Fathers in favour of BOB is indisputable.

The necessity of the grace of the sacraments, i.e., of Justification, is absolutely necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent decrees and canons define that the justification brought about by the sacraments can obtained not only by the reception of the sacraments, but also by the resolve to receive them. Thus, the necessity for justification brought about by the sacraments is absolute; while the necessity to receive those sacraments is a necessity of precept (as the Roman Catechism explains); and is conditional, depending on the the possibility or impossibility to receive them. St. Pius V teaches in his Roman Catechism that the resolve to receive baptism combined with repentance suffices for salvation if the reception of the sacrament is rendered impossible by some unforseen event. The voluntary omission of the sacrament is not an option. One who has been justified by charity and repentance before baptism is bound by divine precept to receive the sacrament sub gravi, and therefore must have the resolve to receive it. Without that resolve to receive the sacrament there is neither justification nor salvation. The constant post-Tridentine magisterium is unanimous on this point that there must be the firm resolve, at least implicit (as in the case of the Gentile converts in Acts. 10:46-48), for one to be sanctified by Baptism of Desire. This is how the magisterium of the Church has constantly understood and interpreted the decrees and canons of Trent. The Feeneyite interpretation of them is manifestly heretical.

edited / double post

Correct, Cantarella.  There are actually some canons out there from the times of persecution commanding that catechumens be baptized prior to the completion of their formation but then continue on in the state of catechumen and not be admitted to the Mass of the Faithful and to the other Sacraments until their formation be completed.

"Church Teaching, specifically on Baptism of Blood:

St. Cyprian (Ep. Ixxiii) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Blood"Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tr. lxxiv in Joan.): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins"1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of BloodQ. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.Baltimore CatechismOther Saints in history of the Church who have openly written about Baptism of Blood: Cyprian Epistle LXXII (third century), Church Father Cyprian (Treatise I and Epistle I to Donatus) (third century), Church Father Tertullian (Enchiridion Patristicuм under "de baptisme" (third century), St Cyril writes of Baptism of Blood (fourth century), St. Gregory nαzιanzen writes of Baptism of Blood (fourth century), St. John Chrystostome writes of Baptism of Blood (fourth century), St. Catherine of Sienna openly writes about Baptism of Blood (fourteenth century)"
 
There is not a single Father against BOB: That constitutes UNANIMITY. Since the Council of Trent defined that there can be no justification without at least the resolve to receive the sacrament, that necessity would apply equally to BOB as it would to BOD. Thus, they do not differ in essence at least in this respect.