He never said it wasn't infallible, he said, "given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the hallmark of infallibility."

He said, "they avoided using that mechanism of extraordinary pronouncements of dogmas."

He did not say, that it was not infallible in any sense.

He literally follows with, "This ordinary and so manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful."

This shows his intent was to bind the consciences of he faithful because he is COMMANDING that it "MUST BE ACCEPTED" with docility and sincerity.

Catholics are never free to disregard Dogmatic Constitutions of a true General Council.

If Paul VI was Pope, Catholics are not free to impugn his supreme ordinary magisterial teaching. You decide that he "misused his supreme authority" to teach error. That is calling "judging the Pope".

You have decided he is wrong, therefore you think you are free to dissent. That is the classic Old Catholic position in a nutshell.

You cannot relegate the "Pope Question" to the dust bin as if we could somehow all get along if it wasn't for that pesky "sedeism".

How you think of the papacy and who you think is the Pope during this time, is actually of vital importance to one's salvation. 

1) On the one hand, if you want to call the papal claimant a "heretic," then you must accept that he either was never "the Pope" or that he lost his office ipso facto for manifest heresy. Those are the only two avenues left open to you in Catholic theology.

2) On the other hand, if you want to say that the papal claimant is not a "heretic" but that he was deceived or confused or in error on lesser matters or that his pen was used without his consent, etc., and, because of these factual/historical anomalies, he remained "the Pope" while the Crisis raged around him, that would be a different matter altogether. The criteria to determine the truth of that claim are factual/historical in nature not propositional/doctrinal.

You say you don't care to decide the status of the Popes. But that is not true. You are constantly calling various papal claimants "heretics." And you then call those "heretics" the "Pope." That is untenable according to Catholic dogma.

On the one hand, if you want to call the papal claimant a "heretic," then you must accept that he either was never "the Pope" or that he lost his office ipso facto for manifest heresy. Those are the only two avenues left open to you in Catholic theology.

On the other hand, if you want to say that the papal claimant is not a "heretic" but that he was deceived or confused or in error on lesser matters or that his pen was used without his consent, etc., and, because of these factual/historical anomalies, he remained "the Pope" while the Crisis raged around him, that would be a different matter altogether. The criteria to determine the truth of that claim are factual/historical in nature not propositional/doctrinal.

I already , made this distinction to him (between 1&2 above) here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/una-cuм-question-an-ai-bug-or-catholic-teaching/15/

He would rather spout off and say "yes they are heretics"., but then he maintains that they must still be true Popes (contradiction)

He either;

1) Thinks they are indeed manifest, public, heretics, but this in no way affects their claim to the papacy (heretical)

or,

2) He lacks the moral certainty that they are indeed manifest, public heretics and thinks of them as "erring bad-dad Popes". (honest mistake).

I think when Stubborn says they are heretics, he really doesn't believe that they are in the strict legal sense, it is just more a figure of speech with him i.e, "I have been a trade my whole life, of course they are heretics!"

1) I don't think they would do anything different - it would just be a validation of what they were already morally (or absolutely) certain of (depending on the level of their convictions).

2) By such an omission he would be proving himself no "true Pope" at all, because such errors would need to be officially condemned to bring the conflict to a resolution. In fact, most everyone who holds the sede position agrees that the only true sign of a true Pope back in Rome would be a repudiation of Vatican II. Well, an official condemnation of Vatican II would be an official condemnation of the "concilar popes." Error does not live in the clouds, it lives in men's minds and spreads through their false teachings. Condemning Vatican II would be to condemn them all. So, in this case, again, they would do nothing differently. They would not accept such a one as a true Pope and they would carry on.

Do you not see the folly here? You are dictating to a "true pope" what popes must and must not do, or what they can and cannot do.

The version of R&R that claims that the true Popes can be "heretics" while continuing to be true Popes is formally inconsistent with Catholic dogma.