Rather, such ignorance of the obvious immediate and larger context of Scripture and analogous usage (which can be seen here) in order to force the text to fit your pretext is typical of cultic interpretation, but but really is built upon implicit trust in a self proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium.
And which is the party who really takes up space (just the "Bulls" of the popes from 540 to 1857 are said to fill forty-one volumes), not in careful exegesis as i demonstrated here , but who instead exhibits much presumption and self assertion.
This passage is in perfect context and stands on its own.
Your refusal to acknowledge same is out of fear of losing the “protest”, which is why you go to such great lengths to obfuscate the subject.
Name calling and citing “obvious larger context” dribble is pure smoke.