So much on the doctrinal infallibility of the Church and of the Pope. Is the Pope, it may be further asked, infallible in framing and enacting disciplinary laws, decisions, decrees, etc.? There is of course, question here only of universal laws and decrees, binding the whole Church, in matters of discipline. Such are, for instance, laws regarding divine worship and the liturgy of the Church, fasts and feasts to be kept, the celebration of Christian marriaget the celibacy of the clergy, the obligation of hearing Mass, yearly confession and communion, etc. It is here not a question of doctrine but of practice, although the Church's practice is, to some extent, based upon her doctrine. The point at issue is whether the Church or the Pope can in disciplinary matters prescribe anything to the whole Church which is evil in itself, unjust or contrary to revelation. Put in this form the question must be answered in the negative; and in this sense we say that the Church and the Pope are infallible in disciplinary laws and decisions.

The reason is patent. The discipline of the Church, though not directly revealed in its details, is closely connected with revelation, inasmuch as it must be in accordance with the fundamental laws contained in revelation, and inasmuch as any error (i.e., anything immoral or contrary to revelation) in the universal disciplinary laws of the Church would practically imply or lead to a doctrinal error. A universal law, for instance, absolutely refusing reconciliation to a certain class of sinners, though penitent, or imposing the obligation of actual poverty on all Christians, or forbidding the baptism of infants, would naturally suppose or lead to the doctrinal errors that the Church had not the power to forgive all sins; that private property was unlawful, and that baptism was either not necessary for salvation, or that the baptism of infants was invalid.

Moreover, Christ promised His assistance to His Apostles and their successors, not only in their teaching ministry, but also in the government of the Church; not only while teaching the faithful to believe all things, but also while teaching them to "observe all things " which He commanded them.1 And therefore, " he that will not hear the Church [in matters of discipline as well as in matters of faith], let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican."1 And " he that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me."3 And again: "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."4 From all thesetexts. it follows that the Church's supreme authority, whether vested in all the bishops together or in the Pope alone, cannot enjoin anything on the whole Church in matters of discipline which is contrary to the law of God, whether expressed positively in His commandments, or merely by the natural law. Else God would contradict Himself by ratifying in advance what would be contrary to His own law.

We do not, of course, maintain that the Church or the Pope cannot err in particular precepts regarding individuals, classes, or communities. Neither do we deny that individual bishops, or the Pope, when he does not act as the supreme pastor of all the faithful, and in virtue of his supreme power, may err. We speak only of the universal teaching and ruling body of the Church, or the Pope when speaking ex cathedra. Neither do we defend that the universal teaching and ruling Church, or the Pope ex cathedra, will always enact what is absolutely the best for the Church, for God Himself, the Supreme Ruler and Lawgiver of the universe, though He has done all things well and disposes all things wisely, neither Himself ordains, nor requires of His creatures what is absolutely the best.

The question arises whether the Church—that is, the Pope—is infallible in the canonization of the Saints, viz., whether it is infallibly true that those who are solemnly declared saints, and whose veneration is prescribed for the whole Church, are really in the enjoyment of eternal glory. There is question of the canonization, strictly so-called, not of the beatification, of the servants of God, nor of the toleration of the local cultus of certain persons who departed this life in the reputation of exalted sanctity, but of their solemn proposition by the Pope for universal veneration. Thus formulated, the query is generally answered by theologians in the affirmative; and the contrary opinion may be said to be obsolete

in truly Catholic schools. Pope Benedict XIV.1 says that to deny the infallibility of the Pope in the canonization of the servants of God would be, "if not heretical, at least rash, and an occasion of scandal to the entire Church."

The reason is obvious. In the canonization of the saints the Pope declares a truth to be believed by the whole Church ; namely, that such servants of God are actually in the enjoyment of everlasting glory. But the Pope cannot err in such a declaration, because he cannot impose a truth to be believed upon the whole Church on other grounds than his infallible authority; else he might invincibly lead the faithful into error. That the Pope, in the canonization of the saints, wishes to use his supreme authority and to impose the obligation of assent on the faithful is manifest from the form of words used in tl e bulls of canonization, and certainly it would be rash, to say the least, to assert that the Church, or the Pope, could be deceived or could mislead the faithful in a matter of such vital importance for the glory of God and the salvation of men. If the possibility of error were admitted in this case, there would be absolutely no guarantee for the purity of the Church's worship; the Church or the Pope could prescribe a false form of worship, which is contrary to the universal belief of the Church.

It is manifest that the infallibility of the Church in the canonization of the saints is not confined to those cases in which the strict canonical process prescribed by modern usage has been instituted. It extends also to those that have been universally venerated as saints in the Church before this process was introduced. For the universal Church, in its uniform teaching and practice, has the same prerogative of infallibility as the Pope or a General Council. If, therefore, a saint is found to have been venerated in the whole Church unanimously, before the end of the tenth century, when the present procedure of canonization was introduced, such must be regarded as saints no less than those canonized by this special process.

American Catholic Quarterly Review, Volume 18, 1893, pg. 688. found HERE

It's going to be a real problem for the R&R position.  The usual approach is to try to find some flaw in the promulgation of the law.  But the more these laws are promulgated the harder it is to make this case because if nearly all the laws are flawed, the position starts to lose its credibility.  How is it possible for nearly all the laws of an infallible pope to be flawed?  Francis and this upcoming "canonization" are going to be the cause of a lot of converts to the SV position.