So far as introducing moderns into the equation, I do not believe they are disqualified simply because they are moderns: Men like Dr. Roberto de Mattei or Monsignor Piolanti, and Monsignor Gherardini (this latter being a consultor to the causes of saints until his death last year) will have valuable and relevant contributions to make in the matter...

Rat poison is 99% nutritious food. 

According to Mary of Agreda, our Lady revealed to her that [...] Hell [...] was reserved for bad Catholics.

Antiochus Epiphanes in heaven? Herod in heaven? Pilate in heaven? All who died in the flood in heaven? The wife of Lot in heaven? The citizens of Sodom and of Gomorrah in heaven?

I have seen bad writings attributed to Mary of Agreda. There are many apocrypha out there.

There have been many public sinners, many heretics, many usurpers in these last 50 years of the Church, but God still wills that all men be saved.

God does not will uncontrite sinners, heretics etc. saved. God wills that they burn in hell.

Under normal times, JPII (and many others) wouldn’t have been canonized so soon, if ever.  But they were, so all we can do is explain to others that them being canonized doesn’t mean they are good examples.

You could just as well explain to others that Martin Luther is not (yet) canonized, but a good example.

Trying to destroy Catholicism, that would work too.

There is no evidence that he may have repented any of his own heretical and absurd teachings.

Yes.  The reason I brought up public sinners is because of the comments about JPII's so-called repentance before death.  There is no evidence of this and the Catholic Church wouldn't have even given him a Catholic Funeral Mass let alone canonized him.  

How a Catholic can say with a straight face that they can tell others that, even though the so-called Church canonized a particular person (especially a so-called POPE), they just weren't a "good example".  Because the Catholic Church canonizes folks that just aren't good examples.  

The "last rites" of JPII's time was not the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but the healing of the sick. (p.s.- do you believe JXXIII and JPII are Saints?)

I believe they escaped hell by virtue of the last rites received. That will take great faith for some to accept, but the reason God created that sacrament was specifically to save sinners from hell in their last agony. Whether the NO sacrament has the power to save is debatable, yet the rule is that Church always presumes validity until proven otherwise. 

Ah, yes, Stubbornian ecclesiology, whereby the Church's Magisterium could become 99.9% corrupt and the Universal Discipline of the Church can fail.  So much or the "Holy" part of Holy Catholic Church, eh?  Your understanding of the Church is at once grotesque and blasphemous.

Vatican I defined dogmatically only this type of papal infallibility (and that of the OUM) ... but it is widely believed and taught that canonizations and the Church's Universal Discipline are also infallible.  Vatican I just never got around to defining these.

Ah yes, poor lad's NO theological ideas resurface. Yes, today, all sorts of ideas expand upon the doctrine of the popes' infallibility - even includes the "Church's Universal Discipline", whatever that is.

FYI, V1 defined the doctrine of the pope's infallibility in all it's completeness, and even clearly stated that no one is permitted to expand upon that doctrine under the pretext of a more profound understanding - so no matter who else (some 19th/20th century theologians) did it, you need to stop doing that and accept the teaching of V1 as written.

The Church's magisterium is 100% infallible, always has been, always will be and until you accept what the Church's Magisterium is, apparently you'll not see the stupidity of your continued repeating of the same foolish and false accusation that I believe it could become 99.9% corrupt - ridiculous.

Where are these quotes and who brought them to your attention? Those are just two people, is that it?

Ironically, he is quoting a Pope with a complete opposite view, as his support. He is quoting a Pope who disagrees with him in principle by affirming that canonizations are in fact De Fide.

The only reason he is quoting Benedict IV is because in his work, the pope allegedly said that some theologians do not consider canonizations to be so, as if theologians had more authority and doctrinal relevance than a Supreme Pontiff.

What the pope is emphasizing is that these theologians are wrong.

They are also condemned for daring to doubt the assistance of the Holy Ghost when the Pope canonizes a saint, preventing him from erring.

So he is quoting Benedict IV as his support but this is what the Pope thinks of those like SJ:

"If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.”

As far as Cajetan, I would be very interested to read where it is he denies the infallibility of Papal canonizations.