That does not follow, as he was not responding to a claim of infallible teaching, but "Nobody thinks that the saints in heaven act as independent agents, dispensing favors by their own power or piety, apart from Christ Our Lord."
iscool responded with "false rcc teachings on Mary," the like of which also has popes as sources, and which, even if not "official," is uncensored teaching by RCs.
Now since you responded with distinguishing infallible teaching from what Iscool listed, then we can dispense with the majority of what RCs profess and practice, and parts of encyclicals and the CCC that do not infallible dogma. But which makes an infallible list of all infallible teachings needful, as well as an infallible interpreter to avoid or reduce interpretive variants, such as we see.
However, even if you uphold every teachings of the Ordinary Mag. also, and win the debate with the SSPX and SSPV over modern RC teaching, then we must still deal with the vast collection of accolades given to Mary, as well as the vast collection of unofficial RC apologetics. Which does testify to what many/most RCs believe, and for you to dismiss that simply because it is not infallible or official promulgation itself is hardly reasonable.
I agree that it would not be reasonable to dismiss every belief and practice which has not been officially defined or declared by the authority of the Magisterium.
However, the views presented about Marian devotion in this forum have resulted in a distorted picture of the Church, much like the elephant as perceived by the six blind men, who thought an elephant was very like a rope, a tree trunk, a palm leaf fan, a branch, a spear, or a wall.
It's like seeing in a Fun House mirror an unrecognizable image of yourself, composed of a huge nose, tiny eyes fluctuating between 2 and 4 in number, one cheek flexing in an out, and the other almost invisible, lips that shake like Krakatoa and a brow that looks like Kansas.
An analogy: I once read with great interest a short book called "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll, which was put in my hands by my late father-in-law as a true account of Baptist belief. I am sorry to say that Carroll claimed the spiritual descent of Baptists from much earlier groups like the Waldensians, the Cathari, the Paulicians, and the Donatists. Not to go into great detail, let me just say that if I were to analyze this naive little booklet line by line, I could go on for volumes about the absurdity of Baptist beliefs.
But I would be wrong. Why?
Because the booklet, though widespread in distribution and considered reliable by many, simply does not represent core Baptist doctrine, or even the folk-beliefs of Baptists taken as a whole.
The lesson I am trying to convey by use of this "Trail of Blood" analogy is this: when comparing doctrines, the first thing you want to determine is whether the proposition or text you are discussing is actually a doctrine.
Latching onto dubious non-doctrinal statements seems to show polemicism rather than the patient discernment of the truth. Lobbing one dubious specimen after another into the discussion is a disorienting rhetorical ploy, not a way to advance understanding.
If it's hard to distinguish doctrine from courtly poetry, arcane mystery or theological speculation --- and I can see how it's sometimes difficult ---my advice would be to stick with authoritative summaries of doctrine, e.g. the Catechism. Or to ask a knowledgeable Catholic, "What do you mean by this?" with the expectation of a good-faith explanation.