Ridiculous. Arguably the greatest of all the councils in the Church purposely did not teach clearly? Are we to believe that Trent taught infallible ambiguity? Balderdash.

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - First Vatican Council

The quote says: that meaning of the dogma must be maintained which has once been declared. Can you tell me where the meaning of the dogma has been declared? It cannot be in the dogma itself.

Your accusations against me in your first paragraph are also baseless. Pope Sixtus established a congregation for the interpretation and execution of the Council of Trent. You can read that here: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13136a.htm

If interpretation was not necessary, this congregation would have been useless.

The entire field of theology would also be useless. Because if we simply need all the dogmas, we could just make a list of them and give that to every catholic. Instead we have theology manuals, explaining the meaning of articles of faith etc. All of that would be useless if the dogmas needed no interpretation.

Well, if the meaning of that which is declared is to be maintained as declared, but can be understood in any other way at all, then it seems obvious that it's meaning will not be maintained. Heck, that's pretty much the same formula that V2 went with, ie say one thing but can mean some thing(s) else.

Clear teachings get misunderstood due to people misunderstanding what is being taught, not because what is being taught is not clear - preconceived notions might be the biggest culprit. By that I mean people take their mindset to these teachings and they see in these various teachings what they already believe. And what they do not believe, they do not see, or refuse to see, not sure which.

.
Vatican I does not say that the meaning of that which is declared must be maintained 'as declared'. It says that the declared meaning must be maintained.  'As declared' is your addition.  'As it reads', that passage from Vatican I does not give us any particular rule for interpreting dogma except to maintain whatever meaning the Church declared. This is a simple point, Stubborn. 
.

I have heard these and similar things from the Dimonds as well.
But considering that after the Council of Trent the Pope established a seperate congregation specifically tasked with interpreting the council's decrees, the idea that interpreting a dogma is not allowed must be wrong.
In actuality, language works in a way so that it must always be interpreted. And everyone interprets to a degree whenever he hears words or sentences. Only through interpretation they convey any meaning to him.
So the question is not whether intepretation is allowed or not but rather to whom is given authority to interpret.
And I think that authority belongs to those theologians who were tasked with it; not the Dimonds.

You are abusing the word "interpretation".  We don't interpret dictionaries.  We read the definitions and then we simply accept (or possibly reject) them.  To say that we are interpreting dictionaries is to admit that language has no objective meaning.  That's false.  Likewise, defined dogmas are like definitions.  They are clear statements of what every Catholic is required to believe.  We are bound by the literal meaning.  Those who are not sufficiently educated might need to have the terms explained to them.  But the intention of defining a dogma is that any bishop or priest with sufficient seminary training should be able to immediately understand the terms and the intended meaning of the statement.

Let me rephrase: Vatican I does not say that the plain/literal meaning of a given conciliar decree is in fact the correct or complete meaning of a given conciliar decree.
.
It simply says that whatever meaning the Church declares is the meaning to be retained.

It would be ridiculous to define something in such a way that it needed to be interpreted.  The pope can rewrite the statement in such a way that the literal meaning of the statement would be the correct meaning BEFORE promulgation.  What would be the purpose of defining a dogma that would need to be explained by theologians and not simply understood by the target audience (bishops and priests).

It would not mean that the Church could not revisit defined dogmas, after all, the dogma EENS was declared 3 times. Each time the meaning was the same as it was "once declared," i.e. declared the first time.

The meaning was not the exact same with each declaration.  HOWEVER, the later declarations NEVER contradicted the original declaration.  They later declarations simply added more specific explanation of the meaning.  But in the case of EENS, we are told by some theologians that the true intended meaning is the contradiction of the literal meaning of the original declarations.  That cannot be.

The quote says: that meaning of the dogma must be maintained which has once been declared. Can you tell me where the meaning of the dogma has been declared? It cannot be in the dogma itself.

Your accusations against me in your first paragraph are also baseless. Pope Sixtus established a congregation for the interpretation and execution of the Council of Trent. You can read that here: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13136a.htm

If interpretation was not necessary, this congregation would have been useless.

The entire field of theology would also be useless. Because if we simply need all the dogmas, we could just make a list of them and give that to every catholic. Instead we have theology manuals, explaining the meaning of articles of faith etc. All of that would be useless if the dogmas needed no interpretation.

I admit I made a mistake in believing there was no such a separate congregation or no interpretation done by them, but I was not mistaken in saying Trent did not teach clearly, it did. The separate congregation that the pope established was charged with promulgating and interpreting the council yes, but any doubt or difficulty was to be referred directly to the pope, so it's not as though they had free reign to interpret it however they saw fit.

As such, their interpretations maintain the same meanings as those once declared. Which is to say what the dogmas say today, mean the same thing they meant in 1564, and have no other meanings other than what they say. IOW, all interpretations have been completed, Roma locuta; causa finita est.

I apologize because the way I read your post was that dogmas can be, or are to be interpreted, or interpreted so as to have different meanings depending upon who and how one interprets them.

What so many refuse to believe is that many (not all) of the theology manuals of the previous few centuries do in fact *blatantly* abandon the meaning of defined dogma, presumably "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

No need to be rude. I was just happy that Mr. Derksen hadn't fallen into this heresy.

Yeah, and that's a separate discussion whether "Rewarder God" theory (the other position that rejects the necessity of explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity) is heresy.  I hold that it clearly is heretical, objectively speaking, but, alas, the Church has not explicitly condemned it, so that even St. Alphponsus made the error of calling it "less probable" (out of deference to DeLugo, whom he revered excessively IMO).  No, "Rewarder God" theory is heresy.  It's contrary to the unanimous dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers and the constant teaching of the entire Church for the first 1500 years.  If this is not an infallible teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing as an infallible teaching of the OUM.

.
Vatican I does not say that the meaning of that which is declared must be maintained 'as declared'. It says that the declared meaning must be maintained.  'As declared' is your addition.  'As it reads', that passage from Vatican I does not give us any particular rule for interpreting dogma except to maintain whatever meaning the Church declared. This is a simple point, Stubborn.
.

Splitting hairs for nothing.

There can be no meaning maintained unless something is first declared. "As declared" or "once declared" both have the same meaning.

Example:
The pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals ex cathedra, this is the dogma on papal infallibility (I did not quote the whole dogma). That is what V1 declared, but not exactly as declared. But the meaning between the two is maintained.

Here is the dogma exactly "as declared" or "once declared:"
"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.  Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."

No matter how one puts it, as long as they say that the dogma on papal infallibility states that the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals ex cathedra, one maintains the meaning of what was once declared.

Now whoever adds to or subtract anything at all from this dogma, is guilty of no longer maintaining it's meaning, presumably - "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

A fine example of not maintaining the meaning of the dogma of papal infallibility by adding to what was once declared, is Fr. Fenton, who adds to the dogma by granting the pope another kind of infallibility not taught at V1 which is "distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience."

^^This does not maintain the meaning of what was once declared.