I repeat that for reason of the bracketed preface, that being [errors condemned] can be mistaken for meaning the opposite, in that a casual reader could mistake that pope for being against the "burning of heretics". He wasn't. Or at least he said that "the Spirit" was not against the expressed meaning, to be bit more precise.
Invoking both Peter, and the Apostle Paul, that papal bull Exsurge Domine must be one of those classified as being "without error", "infallibly led by the Spirit...in matters of faith and morals" etc., would it not?
How do "they" (the infamous they) wiggle out of this one?
If it were not for men such as Martin Luther (which bull was written for purpose and reason for condemnation of) and if instead the papists still retained secular powers as they once widely held in much of Europe, I have little to no doubt they would be using the same sort of fires in effort to burn out opposition to themselves today -- if they could get away with it. The more zealously "papist" the more likely, somewhat similar to the head-choppers of Islam --- meaning not all would run to commit such acts, but among them some would, with the overall sociopolitical/religious setting and climate being potentially hazardous to the health of any too vocally "moderate".
You know...sort-of like the religion forum section of FR. [just a bit of humor, folks. *try the veal!* be sure to tip those waiters & waitresses]
As you said;
It means "we" according which century those in the never-changing chameleon church are in. In one century we have papal sanctioned killing (murder) of theological dissidents, but which could not be wrong then because Rome defines what it right, and RCs here have defended as being what was best for the souls of those slain, as well as the unity secular force enabled being set forth a model for the superiority of her sola ecclesia.Well put, indeed. Thanks. Yet they wonder why we object, going to great lengths to pretend such as "apostasy??? what "apostasy there's never been any of that sort of thing in our [ahem] "infallibly led in faith and morals" dept."
I hate the song and dance routine, all the little special pleadings, all the 'you have to look at it just right' and only *think* about it like "we" (the royal "we") tell you to.
Eastern Orthodox author Laurent Cleenewerck asserts[53] that Pope Leo X's condemnations technically satisfy the requirements of an infallible (ex cathedra) definition in accordance with the criteria laid down by Vatican I. The declaration of Pope Leo X that members of the Catholic faithful must "condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors" on pain of an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication is claimed to constitute an authoritative papal definition on doctrinal matters concerning faith and morals which must be held by the whole Catholic Church. He then notes that the practice of burning heretics poses a "serious ethical problem"[54] and thus he finds in Exsurge Domine support for his conclusion that "the idea that Papal Infallibility can be presented as independent of any conciliar consent and as 'the constant belief of the universal Church' is rejected."[55]
All one happy family.
Then you have
Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, an authority on papal bulls and decrees” on Unam Sanctam: “This bull, then, was beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra... Whatever definition, therefore, is to be found in this bull is to be received as of faith." — Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1875. pg 57
More .
And thus you have the RC sedevacantists on the other side. And on here you have different interpretations of this and Lumen Gentium.