Probably not.  Nothing he's issued meets the notes of infallibility.  But that's a different question altogether from the overall indefectibility of the Magisterium.

Thanks, Ladislaus. 

I have found something which is in communion with Rome and acknowledges the Primacy of Peter and his valid successors.  They are valid and in communion with Rome but considered by Rome to be 'irregular.' 

They are in partial communion with Rome based on shared valid succession - apostolic succession, acknowledgement of the Petrine office (though at this time, not complete submission to it) and the fact that each time a bishop is consecrated docuмents of registration are sent to Rome and receive congratulation and acknowledgement.

I found them recently by focusing inside Florida using resources readily available online.  Traditio appears to be not one of them but it has been the basis heretofore of my searching from Honolulu.

Read the canonization decrees of JPII and JXIII. They definitely fit the bill.

Yes, there is that.  Of course I can't prove that either of these men is not actually in heaven.  Anyone can repent on his deathbed.  Reportedly John XXIII was imploring "Stop the Council" on his deathbed.  So it's a little bit slippery.  But Francis most certainly used the traditional formula with all the solemn language that clearly invokes papal infallibility.  If something pronounced by a pope with that language can be wrong, then nothing is infallible.

For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed
John XXIII
and John Paul II
be Saints and we enroll them among the Saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church.

https://en-denzingerbergoglio.com/who-are-we/ Vatican II priests found each other and are doing the same work now together.

From an upbeat point of view, it seems to me things are being addressed from myriad different directions.  If no pope has spoken ex cathedra since Pope Pius XII, then it means, to my simple mind, that on some level, all since respect the office because in spite of themselves they simply do not have the spiritual chutzpah for ex cathedra.  

It is actually laughable to consider that even if they completely disagree with the concept, they cannot actually address it.   They are not allowed to. 

Very interesting to my uneducated mind about the original Roman Catholic Church.  It seems that the odd ball groups who had the good fortune to exist legitimately before 1958 have carried on.  More or less.  But the ones developed since standing on sedevacantism are now seeming to me to be less favored... not that I would reject certain of them for myself.  And through no fault of their own, for, if one was not already in an odd-ball group, what hope to create one in the new order?  Something like that.

In fact the group I found is identical with the SSPV except for being in a canyon-wide arm's length relationship with Rome.

I may and desire to post about what I have found.  But not until I have read enough to determine I can go with it and put it up for scrutiny by the experts.

Most popes do not speak ex cathedra. It's hardly the litmus test of "spiritual chutzpah."

Didn't Pope John Paul II define and declare that women cannot be priests? I recall reading an analysis
of this and it was clearly ex cathedra as it had all the conditions.

HOWEVER, this one is being ignored because some in the Church hope they will be some day. Having lived through the last 75 years I have seen the Catholic Church go from one of laws to one of a la carte Catholicism. We live in dangerous times, For example I will never accept john XXIII or JP" as saints. Does this constitute a sin on my behalf?

This teaching was already part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

Yes, he did.  But this thread was about Francis.

But, as 2Vermont stated, this was already held/taught by the OUM.

Yes, and I am wondering why a Catholic would downthumb that fact.