CathInfo.com

Intuition doesn't seem like the right rule by which to judge.
.
A better question is: if the Church intends conciliar decrees to only ever have a strict literal sense ('the way the words read once and for all', as it is often affectionately put), why then, when given the opportunity to explain how she must be understood (the Vatican I passage you quoted), does she not say so?

If we are not bound by the literal meaning of dogmas, traditionalists don't have a leg to stand on.  John XXIII approved of the theologians who reinterpreted tradition and if we are permitted to interpret dogmas, then what problem do we have with J23 to begin with?  Also, interpreting tradition (dogma), falsifies Paul's admonition ("if we or an angel...").  The Catholic faith would be reduced to whatever the pope approves of.  And Vatican I's statements concerning interpretation are themselves superfluous.  Which is exactly what you have in the Novus Ordo sect.
.

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.