A correction needs to be made, in case people get the wrong impression. CM is right in saying saints are not infallible, only the pope is given infallibility as an individual when speaking ex cathedra, in virtue of his office.

I'm merely posting St. Bellarmine to refute his second proposition:

Canonizations are not infallible (infallibility was bestowed upon St. Peter to guard the deposit of Faith- Divine revelation- canonizations are not part of this).

That is true.  If canonizations were not infallable why would we bother praying to anyone?  Why even go through the canonization process?  Why celebrate their feast days and make it so no one prays for them?

Once more for the record, I am not saying that a person can go around denouncing saints as heretics, but they MUST point out the errors and heresies ATTRIBUTED to the saint, and refuse assent to them.

No point in quoting St. Robert to CM, he considers him a heretic.

About Bellarmine, it doesn't even matter if he was not a heretic.  No saint is infallible, and their opinions are simply human speculation.

Now it is a dogma that unbaptized catechumens MAY be saved.  Not will, but may -- that is why they are buried in consecrated ground.  And the Feeneyites are denying this dogma.

No it is not, but I would be interested in seeing why you make such an assertion.  Which dogmatic teaching did you reference to come up with this new dogma?

There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.

A catechumen is not "of the faithful".  In fact the tradition of the Church has been to have the Mass of the Catechumens, and then the Mass of the Faithful, which catechumens were not to partake in.

It appears after some research that we are not obligated to believe that the canonizations of saints are infallible.  

I do believe it, but we are not obligated to.

Some people say, and CM appears to be one of them, that Popes are only infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals from the Magisterium and that canonizations do not fall into that heading.  Since revelation was completed at the time of the Apostles, and the apostles leave no clues about the canonization of saints, that leads us to the conclusion that Popes can err in canonizing saints.

Where does it say that the Pope is infallible in the Apostolic revelation, though?  "You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church."  Fair enough.  How about the fact that the apostles infallibly recognized EACH OTHER as apostles, and therefore, as saints?  Would not this suggest that a Pope and Successor of St. Peter infallibly recognizes saints as saints?  

Okay, it's not a dogma yet.  But I think there might be proof in apostolic revelation that the Pope is infallible when canonizing saints.  I believe this will be revealed one day.

Certainly God allows the devil to perpetrate fraudulent 'miracles', and if these are investigated they are certainly easily discovered as being so.  I would not doubt that the devil uses such 'miracles' for the purpose of leading souls astray.

We are skeptical about miracles and stigmata because our time is so full of hoaxes, as Christ predicted it would be.  But someone like St. Francis didn't just bear stigmata, he went out and risked his life to convert Muslims, he did all kinds of great works.  The modern Catholic is besieged with false prophecy and false miracles but don't let that make you think that the miracles of the canonized saints are just debased pieces of cheap theater like most of the "miracles" of our own time.

***

But you are right that the saints can err.  I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but St. Thomas was skeptical about the Immaculate Conception, as were St. Bonaventure and St. Bernard.  They were wrong, but forgivably so, because the Immaculate Conception was not yet a dogma.  

And guess what?  It was never a dogma that all the unbaptized go to hell, despite how you try to make it sound.  Some people felt they did; others kept their own counsel and left it to God to judge.  

After several more centuries, it is now dogma that the unbaptized may -- MAY -- indeed be saved.  You know the arguments, so I will spare you the Catechism of your proposed anti-Pope from 1917 and our side's interpretation of the Council of Trent.  

Where does it say that the Pope is infallible in the Apostolic revelation, though?  "You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church."  Fair enough.

You should know this:

Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

How about the fact that the apostles infallibly recognized EACH OTHER as apostles, and therefore, as saints?  Would not this suggest that a Pope and Successor of St. Peter infallibly recognizes saints as saints?

Okay, it's not a dogma yet.  But I think there might be proof in apostolic revelation that the Pope is infallible when canonizing saints.  I believe this will be revealed one day.

But that contradicts the decree from the Vatican Council.

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,

Your argument is illogical.  You are saying that MAYBE it is part of the Apostolic revelation, or Deposit of Faith, that the Popes and successors of St. Peter may be able to infallibly recognize who is a saint.

But your argument fails because the sanctity of St. Bernard is not contained in the Apostolic revelation.  The sanctity of St. Thomas Aquinas is not contained in the Deposit of Faith.  You would have to argue that they were.

but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

We are skeptical about miracles and stigmata because our time is so full of hoaxes, as Christ predicted it would be.  But someone like St. Francis didn't just bear stigmata, he went out and risked his life to convert Muslims, he did all kinds of great works.

Very good.  You judge the miracles by the life of the individual.

After several more centuries, it is now dogma that the unbaptized may -- MAY -- indeed be saved.  You know the arguments, so I will spare you the Catechism of your proposed anti-Pope from 1917 and our side's interpretation of the Council of Trent.  

First of all, Pope Pius X was not an antipope, not did he live in 1917.

Second of all, a Catechism that was written by various bishops and compiled by the Cardinal Vicar and finally approved in forma communi by a pope does not gain the note of infallibility.

You were probably referring to 'Canon Law' anyway.  Well even then, if you wanted to believe that it was infallible and that antipope Benedict XV was not an antipope, then your reasoning would still be wrong.

Infallibility can only be cited when a pope intends to bind ALL the faithful to obedience, according to the decree of Pope Pius IX,

...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Canon 1: Although in the Code of Canon Law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental."