Only because it was addressed hypothetically.  

And I'm not pitting the two against each other.  As each decree can be understood in light of tradition, and everything Benedict says can be understood in light of tradition, we have an obligation as Catholics to do so.

You hypocritically pick and choose which decrees are to be understood 'as a child', and  for others you explain away as a theologian would.  

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

How would a 'child' understand this quote?

Do you believe that the word perpetual somehow means that there should ALWAYS be a pope at every moment of time?  If that's what you believe, then I can't help you.

Why not?  Because of interregnums.  To state the following is not heretical:

Pope St. John I was elected on 13 August, 523, after an interregnum of seven days.  For that week, the Church was without a pope, but did not cease to exist.

Pope Innocent XI was elected after an interregnum of two months.

Pope Boniface III was elected on 19 February, 607, after an interregnum of 3 days less than a full year.

Pope Innocent IV ascended the papal throne on 25 June, 1243, after an interregnum of 1 year, 7 months, and 15 days.  For nearly two years, the Church had no earthly head, but it did not cease to exist.

In 29 Novemeber 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and there was no successor to the papal throne until September 1, 1271, when Pope Gregory was finally elected.  That means that there was no pope for almost three years.  But there was a Church.

Nicholas IV died in 4 April 1292, and his successor, Celestine V was not elected until July 7, 1294, another period of over two years, where the Holy Catholic Church had no pope, but still existed.

Benedict XV revealed himself as a public heretic, innovator of Tradition and enemy of Faith and Church unity in 1914, and the Church has been in a long and bitter interregnum since that time.

There is still an active, visible and valid body to function in the popes stead.  Under your belief, none exists.

Please explain your choice of words, particularly the ones in bold.

Let me just ask you this:  Is it at least possible, in your opinion, that at some point in time the hierarchy could become almost entirely corrupted, that there could be no person who is united to the Divinely instituted papal authority, and that the only Catholics are laypeople and a few scattered clergy?

Why or why not?

Now, you see, sedevacantists have simply taken this one step further.  They believe it is happening now, and there are just reasons for such a belief, dogmatic reasons.

As for the duty of the visible clergy, which you call 'church' (all the faithful are the Church) many people, believing themselves to be the last remaining Catholics have done this, which is why there is a 'pope' in practically every state, or so it would seem.

I believe that true Catholics need to pray for the man of sin to be revealed.  I suspect that it will be Ratzinger, or a successor in the antipapacy of the Vatican II 'church'.

if I say something heretical, let me know

I always do. :wink:  But you just don't listen.

CM, do you believe that we can look at the writings of the Saints, Doctors, and certain Theologians to understand what the original sense of the dogma would have been?

Actually, no.  I believe that we read the writings of saints, theologians, etc, and reject them if they contradict the declarations of Holy Mother Church, as they have done on occasion.