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!

What kind of gibberish is this?

You are removing Vatican I from the conversation, in order to argue that canonizations are infallible per the ordinary magisterium?

Even though canonizations are not acts of the ordinary magisterium?

And even though, if they were, you would still be running into the same roadblock at the level of the ordinary magisterium (i.e., The pope cannot teach anything infallibly which is not itself rooted in the faith: Scripture and tradition, since scripture and tradition are the guarantees of said infallibility).

Moreover, you seem to be unwittingly forwarding the idea that the pope can teach something infallibly at the level of the ordinary magisterium, which he could not also teach infallibly at the level of the extraordinary magisterium (e.g., canonizations, once again, per Vatican I).

No. The universal ordinary magisterium is a different topic.

But is it different?  I thought Vatican I included the OUM as infallible and canonizations were part of the OUM? But maybe I am getting confused at this point.

I thought Vatican I included the OUM as infallible and canonizations were part of the OUM? But maybe I am getting confused at this point.

Yes, the Vatican Council teaches papal infallibilty in Pastor aeternus (session 4) as well as infallibilty of the ordinary and universal magisterium in Dei filius (session 3).

The ordinary and universal magisterium is the magisterium of all the bishops all over the world, including their auxiliary bishops, and priests, and seminar professors etc., teaching, what has been taught "everywhere, always and by all" (apostolically authorized shepherds).

A canonization is not an act of the ordinary and universal magisterium, but an act of a pope. Thus, infallibilty of the ordinary and universal magisterium does not play a role. However, it is not needed to defend the infallibilty of canonizations, because the definition of papal infallibilty ex cathedra does neither define nor imply fallibility of all other acts of the pope.

V1 teaches that papal infallibility ONLY happens when the 4 requirements are met.  Anywhere else, the pope is fallible.

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.

papalencyclicals.net

There is no restricting "only".

Exactly!

A canonization is not at all part of divine revelation (scripture or tradition), neither implicitly nor explicitly.

And if it is not part of divine revelation, then it cannot be the object of infallibility (from which it follows that it cannot become obligatory for the faithful).

St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees, as do nearly all pre-Vatican II Catholic theologians.  "Exactly!" my rear end.  What a bad-willed fool you are.

because the definition of papal infallibilty ex cathedra does neither define nor imply fallibility of all other acts of the pope.

Yes, it absolutely does.  If I define A as infallible, then all else that is not A is fallible.

There is no restricting "only".

There doesn't have to be.  It's written to say that when the pope fulfills these 4 requirements he's infallible.  If he does not fulfill these 4 requirements, by definition, he's not infallible. 

No, only the conciliar saints are challenged and this is due to the impaired and corrupted process.

This thread is not about an impaired and corrupted canonization process in the conciliar sect. It is about infallibility of canonizations in general.