No, it doesn't, Ladislaus. You're arguing with Catholics here. Every Catholic Bible with annotations of the passage, every saint or doctor who has a commentary on the passage, every saint or doctor that has discussed the issue of BOD . . . they all to a man disagree with you.
For everyone else here who's of good will, behold. Here's the "logical" refutation of the arguments present. "No it doesn't ..."
Oh, it most certainly does, for the reasons stated, and the reasons stand unrefuted. Nobody's denying that later theologians mostly accepted BoD, but that's really ALL that you guys have because you can't refute the actual arguments made. None of these sources went into any in-depth analyzing this text of Trent but at best mentioned it in a footnote. Of "all" these theologians, Father Cekada found about 2 dozen in the 500+ years in Trent that even mentioned BoD, the majority of which merely mentioned BoD in passing, as in, "Yep. BoD." And the rest merely referred to it in a footnote.
Of course, you ignore St. Peter Canisius again in claiming "to a man", since St. Peter (a theologian who spoke at Trent) cites a footnote to Trent for his statement that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for adults, followed by 2 citations from Church Fathers explicitly excluding even devout Catechumens. Why would St. Peter juxtapose this passage from Trent with 2 citations from Church Fathers denying BoD for Catechumens if he interpreted this passage as teaching BoD? Eh?
Be that as it may, the arguments stand unrefuted as we see more distracting chaff from the BoDers.