Secondly, you are being distracted by the judgment of the pope.  But judgment has no relevance or capacity to bind in things which are not contained or derived from revelation (which is precisely the case for the overwhelming majority of canonizations, most of which are neither contained in scripture, nor qualify as dogmatic facts as Jerome and Athanasius, et al would).

I don't know where you get the idea that Catholics are bound to accept the teachings contained or derived from Revelation, exclusively. That is Protestant in nature. Canonizations are a matter of Faith. But even if there were not; Catholics are still bound to obedience to the Holy Father in also those teachings concerning discipline and government.

From Vatican I Council:

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

SJ:

All those other doctrines, dogmas, bulls, etc. are grounded in revelation (scripture or tradition), and are therefore de fide subject matter.

No, they were not. Many teachings were of a disciplinary and temporary nature, not dogmatic. That does not mean they were errors or not binding.

One can't view a question like this exclusive of the larger picture, but one also cannot study something without a necessary isolation.  You are unable to view a specific question on a specific topic without injecting a "world view" or assuming an "agenda". 

So instead of holding the legitimacy of the V2 usurpers in doubt, you'll cast doubt on principles that have been widely held and taught by the vast majority of theologians,

Incorrect.  The legitimacy of the V2 popes ARE in doubt, for numerous reasons (potential Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ ties, potential heresy, etc).  Due to this doubt but also due to the doubt of their orthodoxy (which I consider a separate issue from their legitimacy), I also doubt their canonizations, but this is mostly due to the change and corruption of the process.  Had they stuck with the same process, I'd have less doubts.  I don't doubt the principles.

Cantarella will reply that "the process doesn't matter; what matters is the pope's declaration".  No, the declaration only matters for "de fide" truths, because those are DIRECTLY connected with Revelation.  Canonizations are indirectly and remotely connected, with the process, investigation AND MIRACLES being a necessary aspect of the declaration.  So a corruption in the early steps, gives doubt to the final step. 

And I'm allowed to have such doubts or questions, because of the lesser theological note which are attributed to this type of declaration.  How can you say I doubt the principles, when I'm allowed to question the outcome? 

What do you even mean?  You can't take every Papal declaration, ignore the different theological notes, and throw them all in the same bucket and act like there's no difference.  That's what you're doing here.

The "theological opinion" that you talk about says that canonizations are "Infallible/certain truths".  This is NOT the same as "Infallible/of the faith".  In the course of this DETAILED discussion, if you are fighting the USE OF DETAILS, then you're being intellectually dishonest.

Pax, you keep mixing several things up logically, which is why you're confused.

Infallibility and theological notes are two distinct things.  You keep blending them together.

"Canonizations are infallible" is either true or false, Pax.  You can go on all you want about the different kinds of infallible truths (de fide divina vs. de fide ecclesiastica) ... but in the end infallible is infallible, and the proposition "canonizations are infallible" is either true or false without any other qualification.  There's no in-between, there's no partly-infallible, no degree of infallibility.

Firstly, BXIV is quoted as a Cardinal before he became a pope, and even there he was only speaking in his capacity as a private doctor (while admitting many great named theologians disagreed with him, which would include Cajetan.

Do not underestimate the five volumes work of future Pope Benedict XIV as if it had been a minor irrelevant private letter.  

The substance of his De Servorum Dei Beatifιcatione et de Beatorum Canonizatione was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which governed until the promulgation of the revised Codex Iuris Canonici in 1983 by JPII.

I'll come back to your other points later, but let's start by being a bit more precise.

Just because something isn't technically de fide does not mean that it's optional, that you can take it or leave it.

If you reject a de fide truth, you're a heretic, outside the Church, and no longer even a member of the Church.

If you reject a truth that's proxima fidei or even "theologically certain", while you remain technically a member of the Church, you commit a mortal sin against faith and become a dead member.

For lesser truths, there can also be lesser degrees of sin involved in rejecting them.

As an aside, the sedevacatist argument often throws out rejection of theologically certain propositions as proof of "heresy".  While their rejection is gravely sinful, they do not constitute heresy in the strict sense.  Consequently, a Pope would not lose office (even if he has lost the grace of God) for rejecting such propositions.  But let's not digress.

You utterly idiotic baboon.  You call the teaching of St. Thomas and the position held by all theologians before Vatican II, that canonizations are infallible, "indefensible."

Well, all theologians before Vatican II........except for Cajetan and (per Pope Benedict XIV) "many great-minded theologians" who held exactly the opposite position.

In other words, you are an idiot.

Its ironic that the writer SJ believes that people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, and he believes that the Vatican II "popes" are valid popes, and yet he does not believe that John XXIII, and JPII , and soon to be Paul VI, are in Heaven.

"There was once a cat who dreamed he was a man dreaming that he was a cat, and when he woke up he did not know whether he was a man or a cat."

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears": (2Tim 4:3)

Still wounded from the BOD thrashing, made all the more acute by your sedevacantism being abused here?

PS: How does it follow that because canonizations cannot be infallible in light of Vatican I, that the aforementioned popes are in hell?

Idiot.

I don't know where you get the idea that Catholics are bound to accept the teachings contained or derived from Revelation, exclusively. That is Protestant in nature. Canonizations are a matter of Faith. But even if there were not; Catholics are still bound to obedience to the Holy Father in also those teachings concerning discipline and government.

Do you realize what you just said?

"Canonizations are a matter of faith."

Umm...even though they are not part of the faith (scripture or tradition, or derived from it)????

Care to explain how that comes about?

If the Pope declared Chevrolet's are the best car ever, does that become "a matter of faith" too??

You really ought to sit this one out (along with Loudestmouth).