From “A Manual of Catholic Theology” 1906
“The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.”
Again, we are called upon to adhere to the unanimous consensus of theologians in regard to their theological notes.
We don’t have the right to be rash in denying what the theologians say is certain. It’s a mortal sin. You have to work around this positively to be without mortal sin.
Indeed, when Vatican I defined the OUM, it referred to teaching something "as divinely revealed" ... so there's an separate note of infallibility involved. See the passages I bolded in your quotation above. BoD falls into the category of the final bolded passage.
Again, Bellarmine believed the same thing regarding the Augustinian position on infants who die unbaptized ... and yet rash theologians like Abelard and eventually St. Thomas corrected the problem. So I plead guilty to "rashness" here, the rashness of a St. Thomas.