So once again, you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I said we have to apply the criteria found in Pater Aeternus. That determines whether the statement is infallible, or merely authoritative.
It is to be obeyed either way, and whether you agree with it or not. It is not only infallible statements which command obedience, but everything taught by the Church under apostolic authority. This is called the Ordinary Magisterium.
"Even in assigning Sainthood to people, the denomination doesn’t agree if God really told him to, or if it was just his personal decision to do so."
Listen: for the 7th time I'm going to say this: "Infallibility" does not mean "God told him." And now for 8th time: "Infallibility" does not mean "God told him."
I consider this repetition of already-corrected misinformation either provocation or impertinence, and I'm calling it quits.
You've undermined my motivation to go on with this conversation, which seems pointless because I seem to be talking to a hearing impaired person.
I haven’t seen anything corrected.
So far it looks like the belief that the head of your denomination can receive messages from God and is infallible in giving them to you, is something that you don’t believe in, except on a case by case deal, after you or others agree that he didn’t make that one up.
For instance in your case, you wait for the committee to decide on each infallible statement and whether they call BS on him or not, except for saints, for saints, you just don’t believe in his infallibility at all, is that correct?