Does that mean that challenging the basic premise with Scripture such as Romans 3:23 and 5:12 is not allowed?
How about Mary's own profession of her need for a savior (aka her sinful nature), in Luke 1:46-48?
Are these evidences not allowed?
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
Luke 1:46-48
And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,
The article is about Nestorian heresies. Post away on those heresies.
Council of Ephesus -- post away on that.
**What God has joined, let no man separate.** As pertaining to the Mother of God and the Son, Jesus Christ -- post away.
Any other questions?
What you term as an "AKA" is something that neither the Church nor any prominent Protestant Reformer (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.) has ever believed.
Despite what non-Catholics say about us, we actually do read the Bible once or twice a century and we're actually aware of these texts. Obviously we don't find them conclusive arguments against those doctrines that some find outrageous. For example we don't find what we call the Magnificat evidence of a sinful nature, and since we say that Mary's Immaculate Conception was made possible by the saving work of Christ, we don't find her calling God her Savior in those verses in anyway troublesome as far as that doctrine is concerned.
What I, personally DO find troublesome is that those who attack the doctrine so often do so before they find out what it is.
My experience here is that a lot of alleged conversations about these things go very bad very fast. And that's why if this turns out to be one of those, I'm not interested. I just don't think fights over these things get anywhere, and my experience on FR bears that out. They're not real conversations at all, they're just debates. Many of us would be happy to explore the doctrine and to attempt to explain it, but because all these conversations seem so readily to deteriorate into general mayhem involving ecclesiology, the role of Scripture in determining doctrine, and other things far, far afield from s close examination of the issue at hand, in this case what "Theotokos" means in itself and in our lives, that doesn't seem to happen very much.
I hope that's a sufficiently respectful and clear answer.
I heard someone say today that Mary is mentioned more in the Koran than she is in the Bible.