Back to the point.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Based on this, why is it OK for you to reject the "fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization"?
The
Church doesn't teach it, the
theologians do (You know, the same ones who teach the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact).
Moreover, if the OP is heretical for denying the per se infallibility of canonizations, then I expect you to post a pic of you burning your Van Noort manual, who taught:
"Van Noort, Castelot, and Murphy specify that the canonisations in question are the final and definitive decrees by which the supreme pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone. The decree of authority that they attribute to the claim that such canonisations are infallible is 'sententia communis', the common opinion of theologians (van Noort, Castelot and Murphy, p. 117)."
As the OP explained, that level of teaching is far from infallible:
"The highest note is 'de fide': it belongs to propositions that must be believed with the assent of theological faith, and that cannot be knowingly and pertinaciously rejected without committing the sin of heresy.
The lowest note is 'sententia communis', which, as Ludwig Ott states, means 'doctrine which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally' (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 6th ed. (St. Louis, Mo.: Herder, 1964), p. 10)."
Consequently, if I must hold canonizations infallible because the theologians (not Church) say so, then I will expect you to do so regarding the dogmatic fact of the pope, in order to remain consistent.
Conversely, if you will allege the identity of the pope is not a dogmatic fact (despite the theologians all saying otherwise), then I should have the freedom to make the same appraisal of canonizations (per Van Noort and Ott).
Any other response from you will be hypocrisy.