How much (supernatural) prudence is required for the discernment of whether someone has entered into the glory of God or not, as opposed to the movement of the Holy Spirit? It makes sense to me for this to be left in the hands of the local bishop, who might have more of a familiarity with the person in question, or at least with the local cult of that person, as opposed to using a bureaucratic means of assessing that person's holiness. It also makes sense for that person to be adopted into the local liturgical calendar first, and then adopting that feast in the universal calendar of that rite, after the cult has spread, etc. But do bishops no longer have that "authority" to change the local liturgical calendar? Or is it a right that they can reclaim for themselves from the bishop of Rome?

Does a patriarch have sole authority over the liturgical calendar for his region or "particular Church" or rite?

How much of the average Latin Catholic's judgment concerning the sanctity of a person is shaped by that person's exposure through the mass media, a form of "marketing" as it were, rather than by personal familiarity with that person, or knowing someone who is familiar with that person? Should the opinion of someone shaped solely by mass media be taken into consideration in assessing the state of the cult? What role does faith play in the private or public judgment of individuals of someone else's sanctity? Plenty were told Fr. Maciel was a saint and believed it.