Hello everyone, I've been a member of Cathinfo for closer to a year but this is my first time starting a thread, please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong! I'm a young Traditional Catholic, and I haven't found ample time to do serious research into this specific topic, so forgive me for any possible ignorance.

I was simply wondering what the SSPX Resistance and other non-Sedevacantist Catholics on Cathinfo would believe if Pope Francis were to infallibly declare and define a dogma that wasn't contrary to pre-Vatican II, Church teaching. Such as a Marian dogma. I am not personally a Sedevacantist, however, I am in no way against the position, and the only other Traditional Catholics I know are Sedevacantists. Of course, for Sedevacantists, this specific issue can be brushed off because Francis isn't the Pope and so even if the statement was true it wouldn't be defined dogma. But if Francis is the Pope, does he still possess the power to infallibly define teachings of the Church, or would these dogmas need to later be redefined by a a good Catholic Pope? Thank you for your patience and God bless you all.

"...If these two Doctrines [Infallibility and Indefectibility] be true, then whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church's attribute of infallibility. And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try..." - Fr. Wathen from his book: Who Shall Ascend? 

Per the dogma of papal infallibility as defined at V1, no. The pope's infallibility is strictly limited to when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e. defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

Per the Church's Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, yes.

Are NO canonizations infallible? No. 

What authority? The Church's Magisterium.

NO = Novus Ordo = not Catholic = NO canonizations are not infallible.

The dogma of papal infallibility defined at V1 is quite clear in strictly limiting the pope's infallibility to when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. So for a pope to canonize saints in the NO church = not infallible, even if some of those saints like Padre Pio truly are saints.

But the belief that canonizations are infallible is what Catholics have always and everywhere believed, like St. John the Baptist born (not conceived) without Original Sin was never defined or even taught officially in any encyclical far as I know, but being part of the Church's Magisterium it is a belief Catholics have held always and everywhere, it's  what Catholic believe.
 

Of course it's not the Catholic Church, I've only said the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church about 100 times over the years here on CI.

So, in your mind and for the record, is Bergoglio the head of the Catholic Church or the conciliar church?

That didn’t answer the question here it is again:

 In your mind and for the record, is Bergoglio the head of the Catholic Church or the conciliar church?

Remember you stated absolutely that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.