Only when infallibly speaking according to Rome's infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria. And RCs are enjoined to provide implicit assent of faith to infallible teachings, religious assent of mind and will to even non-infallible teachings, which seem to be the majority.
But even then RCs cannot be sure how many infallible papal pronouncements in all there are, as well as those by the bishops in union with the pope (who does not need their sanction). And both what magisterial level a teaching fall under as well as the meanings of each can be subject to some degree of interpretation.
This all is based upon the unScriptural premise that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are held as being in rebellion to God, even though under this model the NT would be invalidated, which did not begin under this premise of perpetual assured magisterial veracity, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. To the glory of God.
All of which is probably more than you wanted to know.
It's sometimes more than I can digest but the truth sets us free.God bless you dear brother and as always thankyou for the pings!