I believe that you are frustrated when it comes to defending Marianism. You know that it can’t be defended so you try to send me on a wild goose chase. I know because I’ve been sent on them so many times in the past. You know that when you read the case it made sense to you, but you can’t repeat it because of how convoluted it was. There is no biblical way to support Marianism, period.
"I" haven't mentioned Marianism at all, one way or another. You're the one who keeps bringing it up, so I can hardly be accused of "sending you on a wild-goose chase". However, "you" ARE trying to change the subject---which remains the grant of authority to Peter and his successors. I simply don't care one way or another about "Marianism". I accept the authority of Peter and his successors to make judgments on the subject, so I'm willing to take the Church's position on "Marianism" on faith.
The error in your argument stems from your insistence that only "biblical proof" is valid, which is BS. To put it thusly: all of the Bible is true, but not all truth is in the Bible. "Sola scriptura" is simply a ridiculous concept. The Catholic church accepts that there are other sources of truth in addition to the Bible, much of it writ by God's on hand, and that man can ascertain those truths by virtue of his God-given reason.
But, as I said, I'm not going to waste more time with you. Don't bother responding, as I'm done.