In CONTEXT this was demonstrated to be false (prots won't admit it due to low reading comprehension, but it is still false). If you read from I believe it is paragraph 80 -94 (or 98 I don't have my CCC here in front of me)You will see that it is referring to defining dogma.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Demonstrated? No, it was not. All you did was accuse others of low reading comprehension.
Meanwhile, from claims of being the only ones whom can (properly) interpret Scripture (which HAS BEEN established the RCC claims for it's own ecclesiastical community, alone), moving on from there to defining dogma in no way could logically invalidate that they (RCC "Magesterium") claim that they also are the only ones whom can proclaim "dogma".
Defining dogma ---
That comes later, as an end result of having declared themselves in no uncertain words as being the only ones which (they claim) are able to interpret Scripture.
Here again your own words condemn what you yourself have been saying and doing, on this forum, except that your own rants are not really all that "good", even if but for entertainment value...
If it were just an occasional thing, and there was something else to counter-balance and overcoming those slip-ups, like through displays of honesty and integrity, then I would not bother all that much with pointing these things out.
As it is, I only touch on some of the repeated times when such conditions arise, by your own hand.