I am willing to admit that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I hope that others are willing to admit that Protestants are not raving, fanatical out-in-left-fields cultists because they believe the absence of evidence is sufficient reason to come to a different conclusion.
We have scripture, we have the history that treats Mary doctrinally only as the virgin mother of Jesus and the fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy.
Using those facts we construct our teachings.
There is nothing irrational or faithless in it. It is premised on a sincere desire to deal with the facts at hand.
Why would you admit that?
Of course it is! The fact is that it is strong circumstantial evidence of absence. In court we use the fact of the absence of evidence all the time to disprove assertions of fact. If someone claims that they were seriously hurt in January but there is no medical evidence to show that they saw any doctor until July, then that is both evidence to show that not only did they not get injured in January as they claim, but that they were not seriously injured as well.
Here you have the Catholics arguing that this is a first century Apostolic teaching, but there is no evidence until the Fourth Century of ANYONE actually teaching it. The absence of evidence both goes to prove that it was not a first century teaching AND that it is not an Apostolic teaching.
This "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" trueism is a falseism. The fact that you could not find any evidence of it being taught for 300 years IS evidence that it wasn't. I would say it is pretty close to conclusive evidence.
I don't think you are a raving fanatic because you come to different conclusions regarding some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
However, I am wondering how you trust the Catholic Church in such matters as the Trinity, the relationship between the Son and the Father, the relationship between Christ's humanity and His divinity, and other such Catholic doctrines that are not CLEARLY laid out in Scriptures. As you may know, these and many other beliefs were hammered out over many years by bishops and other men poring over Sacred Scriptures AND the Apostolic Tradition passed down (read this as "correct interpretation of Scriptures). Why is it that you decide that the Church is right on such matters as the contents of Scriptures (which point to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth) and many doctrines defined many years later, but NOT on such matters as Mary's virginity?
If we believe that the Church infallibly tells us the contents of the Word of God, then we should believe that the Church ALSO infallibly tells us an explanation of the Word of God. From your studies up to Irenaeus, don't you remember what he said about heretics who used the VERY SAME SCRIPTURES to "prove" their fantasies? Several times in Book One, he mentions this. Thus, Irenaeus saw the Church as the protector of the CORRECT interpretation of Sacred Writ. Now, why would God suddenly drop His guidance of His established Church?
This is where I am lost regarding the Protestant mindset. It is a contradictory stance. Either determine the Scriptures for yourself and invent any sort of idea you want, or believe that God has revealed Himself through ONE Body. I don't see how you can have it both ways except by special pleading.
Regards