I offered you proofs, not least of all Pope Benedict XVI. He directly denied that his papal OPINIONS are to be confused with dogma. He even specifically said "everyone is free, then, to contradict me." That is a direct refutation of your entire error right there. You know, it's like a law of the universe - frauds always go too far. It's inevitable.
Proof?
Really?
A direct refutation?
Really?
Then let me ask you this - when (according to you) Pope Benedict said "everyone is free, then, to contradict me," was he speaking as DOGMA, or Papal OPINION?
Because per YOU, if that statement of his was his OPINION, then it could be WRONG.
Right?
But if that statment of his was DOGMA, then it had to be RIGHT - which means it is the dogma of the Church that the Laity can contradict its teachings. Which is, of course, not only internally contradictory, but also removes the very purpose of the existence of the Church.
So we're left with Benedict's OPINION that he can be contradicted. Which, being a mere opinion, could be wrong. Which would mean he cannot be contradicted, which would make his statement wrong - but only if it is right.
Maybe you're a Jesuit. That WOULD pass for a jesuitical "proof."
So can he be contradicted, then? According to whom? YOU? What if you're wrong in contradicting him? But how would you know if you were wrong, since NO Clergy has any inherently more truthful opinion than yours, regarding Church dogma?
LOL, give it up. You're a farce. Your "logic" is anything but, your "proofs" are internally self-defeating, your "argument" negates the need for the Church but, but, but - somehow, in some way, you're still Catholic.
Understand, I truly do not care whether you are Catholic or not. But I find your blazing hypocrisy so incredibly offensive I had to call you on it. Obviously, a very large part of whatever it is you think you're doing involves using openly hypocritical "defenses" for your openly hypocritical positions. No doubt some sort of effort to help bring about the collapse of rational thinking altogether, at least among American Catholics, through cognitive dissonance or some other psycho-rape some (Jesuit) shrink got a government grant to develop. Not that the idea is new - normalizing hypocrisy is a long played liberal tactic. I've just never seen it so brazenly played concerning Catholic doctrine.
But hey, if the Clerics won't step forward to shut you up, why not go for it, right? After all, those apostate priests and bishops you apparently know so well are precisely the prople who will NOT step forward to silence or correct you. But really, how could they? Anything they might say to you would only be their opinion, right?
LOL, you're just so clever. No one will EVER figure out what you're doing. Like Khan, "yours, is the superior, intellect."
(Except, of course, that Spock noted "your pattern indicates two dimensional thinking." And you know where that deficiency led in 3D battlespace... LOL...)
Then let me ask you this - when (according to you) Pope Benedict said "everyone is free, then, to contradict me," was he speaking as DOGMA, or Papal OPINION? Because per YOU, if that statement of his was his OPINION, then it could be WRONG.
Well, you are missing the fatal implications, but at least you are thinking, and so I will address it. Yes, actually, it could absolutely be wrong, on its own authority. If it were just an opinion. But, the Church and the popes do teach definitively too, and so we must have a way to tell if something is just an opinion or if it is something we are required to either accept and obey or even believe with faith (those aren't the same things btw). And, how do we know this? Simple. By how it is promulgated. Was the book "Jesus of Nazareth" an official, authoritative papal proclamation? Or was it a personal book intended to share the perspectives of the author? Of course, if you are paying attention you will know that it is the latter, and therefore the entire thing is almost certainly not binding on the faithful. It also doesn't use any language which the pope could invoke which would make it clear that he is teaching from his office, i.e. ex cathedra, rather than presenting his thoughts as a believer. In this case, then, we are free to accept the contents of this book or not, as we are inclined. Of course, only a fool would ignore the perspective of a pope in writing on such a topic, but that doesn't mean that it is a matter of faith in any way, or even requiring obedience of some kind. As he said, we are free to contradict it if we like.
And there are other examples we could consider to show this same concept. When Pope John Paul II shared his thoughts on the Rosary, as I have mentioned before, he still did so in an official capacity and therefore used the appropriate formats and documents, in this case an apostolic letter. However, when, in that same document, he proceeded to discuss new mysteries which he thought would perhaps be helpful to the faithful but which were not binding in any way, he used language which ensured we knew that this portion was not meant to require obedience. And, needless to say, comments made on airplanes or in interviews to newspapers are not binding at all. See? Very clear and simple really. We Catholics are used to it and have no problem in knowing the differences at all. Your confusion about it all is, really, quite confusing.
But, and here is the fun part, as far as proving your position wrong, it doesn't matter. The mere assertion, being a papal statement, is therefore definitive per your view. And it denies that same view, which means that no matter whether it is a binding proclamation or a mere opinion, from where you are arguing, it is fatal.
You know, it is all really quite amusing. You have argued that all clerical opinions are Church teaching, and then when confronted with a pope denying that, you pretend that somehow this opinion means nothing. You also ignore the fact that clerics regularly disagree with each other publicly (you should watch some videos of bishops meetings or read some clerical blogs, there are many). After all, I can think of a cardinal who believes no abortion supporting politician should be given communion, and another who feels the opposite. But none of this bothers you, even though, by your reasoning, the Church must teach these many contradictory things at the same time, since the opinions of these arguing clerics are all Church teachings. It is so self-defeating it is laughable. And, of course, you never produce a single Church document, or even an opinion from a churchman for that matter (which is somewhat ironic actually) that all clerical opinions are in fact Church teachings which bind the faithful. It really is funny. But, I suppose it is like the lies you told about what you claimed I said in earlier posts, which you couldn't produce quotes to support either. You have said it, and that is enough. Maybe you think you are like clergy and your opinions are infallible also?