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?
I have not argued that all clerical opinions are Church teaching. I have argued that the laity is not authorized by the Catholic Church to decide the meanings of the Church teachings on their own, without Clerical approval.
In addition, YOU are denying the authority of clerical statements as mere "opinion," not me. In fact, you do it quite directly, and then directly reverse yourself, post after post, and accuse me of what you just said. You're either insane, or the most contemptuously inept debater I have ever come across. And it certainly isn't amusing - it is hypocrisy. Sane people don't find hypocrisy amusing. Did you know that? Or is it news to you?
In addition, you're still arguing that the laity can decide for itself what the "promulgated" teachings of the Church are, and need not follow the interpretation of these "promulgations" by any particular Cleric of any rank, and therefore can decide for themselves what these "promulgations" mean, how they should be applied, and every other intepretive application of them.
And of course, that's not Catholicism. Canon law denies such interpretive powers to the laity. The MOST the laity can do is confront an erreant cleric with a discontinuity in their teachings and seek clarification, and if that is not forthcoming, appeal to a higher level cleric. But that's it.
"...at least you are thinking, and so I will address it."
And you, Sir, are an ass, and I am done with you.