The main point is that it doesn't prove there can't be Bishops. While we're on the subject, what is your interpretation? Do you have one or do you just not like mine?
My take is that we need Bishops as an essential part of the Church's indefectibility. I interpret this docuмent as agreeing with that. I think my perspective is best defended by Etsi Multa, in which Pope Pius IX states,
"[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]
They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head."[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]
Among all of the heresies listed, including rejecting the Church's magisterium, comes "blasphemously" declaring that the visible Head and Bishops have erred. So, I believe that neither of these two things have happened or can happen.[/color]
A friend told me that there's a Bishop who rejects BoD anyways, so the point is moot, really. His first name is Neil or Neal, I think, but I don't remember his last name. He's much less dogmatic about it than the Dimonds, though.