7) But it is clear that the candidates for sainthood are not part of the divine revelation; they are not contained in the deposit of faith, either in scripture (unless we are speaking of biblical saints) or tradition, neither implicitly, nor explicitly.

8> As such, canonizations cannot be the object of infallibility, since the "faith" is precisely the totality scripture and tradition; nothing more, nothing less.

The canonization of saints is intrinsically connected to the dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as we proclaim in the Professions of Faith, so yes, they can and are objects of infallibility.

The canonization of saints is intrinsically connected to the dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as we proclaim in the Professions of Faith, so yes, they can and are objects of infallibility.

That is why they are called SECONDARY objects of infallibility rather than primary. I don't think this term has been used in this thread (although I may have missed it).

I am free to reject Mother Teresa, for instance; but adhere to Padre Pio, just because I perceive "heroic virtue" in the later; but not the former.

The process of canonization has been totally corrupted, as has most things since V2.  I would say it’s extremely likely that ANY saint who was canonized pre-V2 is a saint, just based on the process, patience and miracles which were studied.  

Putting that aside, it is unnecessary for Catholics to have particular saints to pray to.  One can get to heaven without them.  All those saints who are scriptural are enough of an example.  

Fatima is one of the most well known apparitions ever, with probably the most famous miracle ever performed, yet the Church does not make us believe in Fatima to get to heaven.  How much less important are praying to the saints, than praying to the “Lady of the Rosary”?

If many of you didn’t have a sede agenda, and could look at the facts objectively, you’d see that canonizations and sainthood is not an essential part of the Faith but a secondary blessing from God.  The native Indians who were converted in the West US had no idea about many of the saints and they still saved their souls.  If saints are truly an element of the faith, we should be REQUIRED to have them all memorized, no?

Show how something which is not part of faith or morals (e.g., canonizations) can be the object of infallibility.

But what I said is that canonizations are in fact intrinsically connected to Faith and Morals, as the Spirago's Catechism explains.

Padre Pio was canonized by JPII in 2002.

Mother Teresa was canonized by Francis in 2016.

Both of these canonizations occurred after Vatican II Council. Why are they different? The SSPX has no problem with Padre Pio's canonization from what I know. I have not heard anyone outside the SSPX and R&R circles attaching the canonization's infallibility to the methods and processes used. It is the final Papal Decree of Canonization what matters.

I have yet to read the SSPX saying it is obligatory to accept Padre Pio's canonization.

Fact is the canonizations are exactly the same in this: Neither is obligatory, and neither could be, because neither has anything to do with faith or morals (i.e., Vatican I requirements).

I believe Padre Pio is a saint, but it has nothing to do with the canonization.

Whether someone is a saint, and whether someone is obligated to venerate someone as a saint, are two different ideas you would apparently blur.

Not at all. We are not only obliged but virtually forced to venerate canonized saints within the liturgy.

Some of those saints are Biblical, and therefore part of revelation (which would qualify them, per Vatican I on the criteria of faith and morals).

The others would be dogmatic facts, and therefore indirectly (or "secondarily" if you prefer) qualified via Vatican I.

The same cannot be said for most of the rest.

Here again my list of examples for reference:

St. Thomas Aquinas
Pope St. Pius V.
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Peter Canisius
Pope St. Pius X.

Which of these was part of revelation?

Why should they be part of revelation?

The Vatican Council teaches that the pope is infallible under certain circuмstances.
The Vatican Council does not teach that all other teachings of the pope are fallible.

The definition defines cases where the pope is infallible. It does neither define cases where the pope is not infallible, nor does it imply that the pope is fallible in all other cases.

Study the text of Pastor aeternus and/or get your logic straight!