CathInfo.com

The Church has condemned her own teaching is what you are saying.

Benedictus Deus condemns your interpretation, which you keep trying to pass off as the Church's Teaching:

 " Furthermore, in order to avoid the perversion and confusion which might arise, if each one were permitted, as he might think fit, to publish his own commentaries and interpretations on the decrees of the council; We, by apostolic authority, forbid all persons, as well ecclesiastics, of what order, condition, and rank soever they may be, as laymen, with what honour and power soever invested; prelates to wit, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, and all others, whosoever they be, under pain of excommunication incurred by the fact,^[3] that they presume, without our authority, to publish, in any form, any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation soever touching the decrees of the said council; or to settle anything in regard thereof, under any plea soever, even under pretext of greater corroboration of the decrees, or the execution thereof, or under any other colourable pretext soever. But if anything therein shall seem to any one to have been expressed and ordained obscurely, and it shall, on that account, appear to stand in need of an interpretation or decision, let him go up to the place which the Lord hath chosen;^[4] to wit, to the Apostolic See, the mistress of all the faithful, whose authority the holy synod also has so reverently acknowledged." 

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Second_Part/Bull_of_our_most_Holy_Lord_Pius_Fourth

This is what all Catholics are authorized to safely repeat, as Cardinal St. Robert and Bishop St. Alphonsus were authorized to teach this by the Popes: 

St. Alphonsus: Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here. Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).


St. Robert: De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

"

Benedictus Deus condemns your interpretation, which you keep trying to pass off as the Church's Teaching:

Only in your imagination.  St. Alphonsus and St. Robert are not the Church.

There is NO Magisterial definition whatsoever of what BoD actually is, with as many flavors of it as there are proponents.  St. Alphonsus contradicts Pope Innocent II.  If something must be believed of faith, it's imperative that it be defined WHAT must be believed about it.  What is it and what must be believed about it?  Various (often contradictory) opinions do not suffice to render something "of faith".  Even IF I were to grant, which I do not, that Trent was referring to Baptism of Desire, there's no indication that it was proposed for belief.  Otherwise, there certainly would have been an anathema attached to it.  Even if it mentioned it as a POSSIBILITY, it means nothing more that the Church kept open the POSSIBILITY, i.e allowed the opinion.

Desire for Baptism is mentioned in passing, in an expository section of Trent, and the only thing Trent says about it is that justification cannot happen without it.

St. Alphonsus: Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here. Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).


St. Robert: De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

"

Interestingly, St. Alphonsus cites the dubious (its attribution to the Pope is disputed) de presbytero non baptizato as having solemn Magisterial force, but then contradicts the same docuмent, which states that this priest went straight to heaven "without delay" ... in his own speculation that temporal punishment remains in the case of BoD.  In a very similar letter (non-Magisterial), Pope Innocent III teaches the error that transubstantiation occurs even if the priest merely thinks the words of consecration ... an error for which he was rightly excoriated by St. Thomas.

St. Robert injects the term "in re" into Trent, which phrase appears nowhere.  He doesn't take time to consider the language of "cannot happen without", which speaks to necessary cause but not sufficient cause.

They're both mistaken.  And they are not God and they are not the Magisterium.

St. Robert, BTW, limits BoD to catechumens ... because he strongly (some argue to a fault) argue in favor of the Church as VISIBLE SOCIETY, along the same lines as Rahner indicated regarding the Fathers, that they considered catechumens to be joined to the Visible Church.  Do you?