A little off-topic, but I decided to find out more about Lamont, and found this article

https://www.hprweb.com/2014/03/why-the-Jєωs-are-not-the-enemies-of-the-church/

I think it will give a picture of the clarity of his thoughts and beliefs.

Be sure (if you read it) to continue on with the comments below.

The criteria for the Pope's actually being immune from error are well established, and are set out by Vatican I in its dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus. An infallible papal definition involves three things: the pope must exercise his authority as successor of Peter in teaching; his teaching must be stated as a matter that concerns faith or morals; and he must assert that his teaching is a final decision that binds the whole Church to believe in its contents upon pain of sin against faith.

In contrast, the formula for the canonisation of John XXIII and John Paul II (substantially the same as the formulas used in earlier canonisations) is as follows:

For the honour of the blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define blessed John XXII and John Paul II to be saints, and we enrol them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Veneration is a matter of faith, the authority of the chair of St. Peter is clearly called upon to declare it, and the whole Church is ordered to follow it. That hits every criterion.
Furthermore, the belief that canonisations are infallible has been one that the Popes, Bishops, Doctors of the Church and Saints(but who knows who's a Saint according to you) have taught in unity for all of Church history. We are required to believe such teachings - that is what the universal magisterium is. There has never been any question of it until John XXIII's canonisation made loons like you change their tune overnight. 

Which is why I upbraided Ladislaus for it.

No, he actually made an argument. He was pointing out your hypocrisy - that you call Feeneyites heretics just because a few theologians consider BOD de fide whereas you're happy denying the infallibility of canonisation when many more theologians consider it de fide. 

No, I call them heretics because they deny an article of faith (explicit and/or implicit baptism of desire).

Except no form of BOD has ever been defined anywhere as an article of the faith and they have not been universally taught by the Church throughout its history. 

A little off-topic, but I decided to find out more about Lamont, and found this article

https://www.hprweb.com/2014/03/why-the-Jєωs-are-not-the-enemies-of-the-church/

I think it will give a picture of the clarity of his thoughts and beliefs.

Be sure (if you read it) to continue on with the comments below.

Oh would you look at that, Sean peddling the beliefs of a Judaiser. What's next I wonder?

What an idiot.

If he declared his belief in the Trinity, would you declare the Trinity heretical?

Apparently.

I don't think you'll find too many kikes believing in the Trinity. 

Ah, and here we have it: The bile spilling from the overflowing cup.

You know, Ladislaus, the one thing I can honestly say about you is that in all your proclamations and anathemas, I have never detected in you the least bit of piety or virtue.

I think Mithrandylan hit it on the head, when it comes to you.

At the end of the day, you are really just a loud-mouthed jackass, aren't you?

Is this all you have, Johnson, to refute my point?

Your claim is that rejection of BoD is heresy because a couple of theologians considered it to be de fide.  Well, according to the CE article, some theologians hold it to be de fide that canonizations are infallible.  By your own principles, then, you are a heretic.  According to CE, it is the common teaching of all theologians that they are indeed infallible, with disagreement being merely with regard to the theological note to apply to its denial.  Whenever you're in a corner theologically, you come out swinging with lame ad hominems ... or else you flee the thread and start another one, or flee the forum and post anonymously, or flee the forum and create alternate accounts.

Is this all you have, Johnson, to refute my point?

Your claim is that rejection of BoD is heresy because a couple of theologians considered it to be de fide.  Well, according to the CE article, some theologians hold it to be de fide that canonizations are infallible.  By your own principles, then, you are a heretic.  According to CE, it is the common teaching of all theologians that they are indeed infallible, with disagreement being merely with regard to the theological note to apply to its denial.  Whenever you're in a corner theologically, you come out swinging with lame ad hominems ... or else you flee the thread and start another one, or flee the forum and post anonymously, or flee the forum and create alternate accounts.

Loudismouth-

Nobody who is psychologically well adjusted has any desire to get into repeated stamina contests with the obsessive-compulsive disordered sedes and Feeneyites.

Threads running hundreds of pages: WHo has time for that but sedes and Feneeyites?

Then, when I move on to another topic, the OCD'ers hop onto that thread and derail it to continue the one I left behind (this has happened no fewer than 2 times today alone!).

I would say your own behavior is to blame for the self-fulfilling prophecy you are creating.