My understanding of your point is that theologians are the authoritative interpreters of Church docuмents and that neither they nor the pope are bound by any other rule of faith than whatever the pope approves.  But St Paul, Vatican I, Pope Paul IV, and many others say that there is a rule of faith that transcends the decisions of the man who claims to be pope.  And it was that rule of faith by which sedes judged the Novus Ordo "popes" to be imposters.  If there isn't a rule of faith that both the pope and the theologians are bound by, then Vatican 2 is an acceptable development of Church doctrine.  If there is a rule of faith that both popes and theologians are bound by then so-called Feeneyites can't be faulted for comparing the teaching of theologians to the literal meaning of Church dogmas and objecting when they find contradictions.

Well I know you are not trying to say that the teaching Church is not part of the believing Church, right?  So if the pope and the theologians are also part of the believing Church then they are likewise bound by the rule of faith.  That's how we can reject a papal claimant.  He isn't part of the teaching Church because he isn't part of the believing Church.  A non-believer is not protected by infallibility even if he falsely claims to be part of the teaching Church.  We can compare what papal claimants and theologians are teaching to the rule of faith which has been clearly taught by true popes and we can see if it contradicts anything we already know to be part of the deposit of the faith.  If it does, and the claimant makes it clear that he is rejecting what he knows to be the Church's doctrine, then we must conclude that he is not part of the believing Church and therefore neither is he part of the teaching Church.

  But even if it is not clear that someone is knowingly rejecting Church doctrine, there is no obligation to accept obvious contradictions of the rule of faith.  Infallibility doesn't extend to every statement issued by a member of the hierarchy/clergy.  If something appears to contradict a dogma, the onus is on the person making the statement to explain how it doesn't contradict dogma.  This isn't a case of competing interpretations.  It's a matter of accepting dogmas at face value.  In every controversial case, the interpretations always contradict the literal meaning of the dogma.  If they didn't, there would be no controversy.

From Stubborn:
Clear teachings get misunderstood due to people misunderstanding what is being taught, not because what is being taught is not clear - preconceived notions might be the biggest culprit. By that I mean people take their mindset to these teachings and they see in these various teachings what they already believe. And what they do not believe, they do not see, or refuse to see, not sure which.

This is exactly like the alien/evolution question. As Fr. Ripperger said in his talk, formation is key. The formation given to people impacts their ability to judge the validity of other controversies. People develop intellectual habits which affect their judgments and reasoning process. If you introduce something dissonant to these habits, people can judge it as false. 
As time passes and people are formed by evolved doctrine, they become less able to detect falsities. That’s why so many people believe in religious liberty, evolution, aliens and BOD in my opinion.