CathInfo.com

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.