Understand that not everything the Pope does is the the supreme exercise of his office. Not only is there precedent for disagreeing with him when he is not doing so, there are procedutes and bounds.
Peter was wrong in his social actions, which in some sense do teach, but are not an exercise of his teaching office. When the Pope is acting primarily as priest or as ruler, he is not primarily exercising his teaching office, so there is much more room for intellectual agreement. When he is acting as someone who needs to process stuff outlaid in an unofficial conversation, the same holds.
And whose job is it to determine these lines ("primarily as," "not an exercise of his teaching office"), and indeed what source assuredly tell us what magisterial level each and every papal teaching falls under, full or in part, so that the proper level of assent may be given, and have assurance what is of God and eliminated the divisions RCs tell us we need to the pope to solve?
We just finished(?) a 1600 post thread relative to this.
Do you think basically all papal teaching on faith and morals, or even the pope's latest social encyclical requires ordinary, religious assent? Or just parts of it? If so or not, do you think that allows for public dissent?