I realize you’ve read those scriptures before and ignored them - doesn’t mean you will ignore them forever, or that others reading have read them before.
One cannot "realize" what isn't so. It is always interesting to encounter someone who thinks that if you don't agree with his interpretation of Scripture you are ignoring the passage in question.
If Mariology is, as YOU said, “The body of belief or dogma OR [my emphasis] the systematic study of the Virgin Mary and her role in the Incarnation," Then a very small body of belief or dogma (= teaching) would be, "Mary lived, she gave birth to Jesus." Further explanations about why that would NOT make her in anyway special among creatures would involve systematic explanations of, e.g. the distinction between Creator and creature, etc.
Denying that those who reject the Catholic dogmas about Mary have a mariology is like saying that if the three side figure is small enough is ceases to be a triangle.
This may seem a quibble, but it's actually important for discourse. If the starting point of the conversation is, "YOU have a mariology, which is a false and idolatrous thing to have, while WE have the true and right belief about Mary," then all we've accomplished is to give ourselves more work. Now we have to say there are two sorts of beliefs and discourses about Mary:
(1)The true one, which we hold; and
(2)The false one, also known as "mariology", held by Orthodox, Catholics, some Anglicans and maybe some others.
How much more handy to say, "Of mariologies there are two major divisions:
(1) The correct and brief one; and
(2)The false and lengthy one.
A very, very small human is not a human?
Further is it a tad sophistical to suggest that all that true believers believe is that she lived. They have an opinion, one way or another, about her virginity. They have -- or ought to have -- some opinion about what happened when she visited Elisabeth, about just what exactly was going on when she told her Son, "They have no wine," and what she was doing at the Cross and in the upper room at Pentecost, and so forth. John thinks her role at Cana was worth mentioning (as do I. "Do whatever He tells you," is good advice.) Luke thinks the various incidents he recounts are worth mentioning. Which is to say, all these are part of the revelation.
We are on the one hand excoriated for ignoring Scripture and on the other accused of blasphemy for reading it and noting these events.
By "context" I mean the the stylistic context of what we would consider in this age to be rhetorical excess.
But even these days, Cheerleaders say "Jimmy, Jimmy! He's our man, if he can't do it, no one can." No dark-browed protestant rises up to say, "All that Jimmy can do is through the power and grace of the Lord, and it is blasphemy to say, 'If he can't do it, no one can." Why? Because everyone knows this excess is not to be taken with absolute logical precision.
At least nightly, we Dominicans (and many others) call Mary, "Mater misericordiae, vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra" - "Mother of Mercy (is she not the mother of Jesus, the Mercy of God?), our life, our sweetness, and our hope."
(I won't note here what we say about Dominic -- I don't want to be responsible for conniptions)
But we know perfectly well, indeed we celebrate, that Mary can only be called these things by analogy and by the gift of God in Christ.
Today we feelthy papists celebrate the birth of Mary. As I prayed the two morning "offices" (Ofice means "duty" and God is certainly "due" our prayes and praise,) I found lines like these:
Before Ps. 95:Come, let us celebrate the birth of the Virgin Mary, let us worship her Son, Christ the Lord.
Before Ps. 24: Mary received a blessing from the Lord and loving kindness from God her savior.
Before Ps. 46: The most High has made his dwelling place a holy temple.
Before Ps. 87: Glorious things are said of you, O Virgin Mary.
Before Ps. 69: We commemorate the birth of the blessed Virgin Mary, a descendant of Abraham, born of the tribe of Judah and of David's seed.
Before "The Song of the Three Young Men" (from Daniel): When the most holy Virgin was born, the who world was made radiant; blessed is the branch and blessed is the stem which bore such holy fruit.
Before Ps. 149: Let us joyfully celebrate the birth of blessed Mary so that she may intercede for us before Jesus Christ the Lord.
And before the "Benedictus" (Luke 1: 68-79): Your birth, O Virgin Mother of God, proclaims joy to the whole world, for from you arose the glorious Sun of Justice, Christ our God; he freed us from the age-old curse and filled us with holiness; he destroyed death and gave us eternal life.
It seems to me clear that even as we celebrate Mary we give GOD the glory. Sure we say "Glorious things are said of you, Mary", but that is right before we say "Glorious things of thee are spoken, Zion, city of our God."
Psalm 150,v. 2 asks us to praise God in His acts. If I am to obey that advice, I will spend some time talking about the excellence of the acts themselves. God forbid I should ever stop praising sunsets! God forbid I should ever stop praising what God does in His chosen ones!
If Mariology includes any acknowledgment of Mary, then where is Catholicism’s Adamology, or Paulology, or Johnology?
There is only one creature in the scripture that Catholics have an “ology” for - and that is Mary.
A sneeze and Hurricane Katrina both involve movement of air, but only one is a disaster.
As for charges of blasphemy, I’ve quoted your Pope. Let anyone who reads it decide for themselves if that is appropriate admiration for a woman blessed by God, or adoration belonging to God.
Do you think Mary enjoyed it when Jesus looked at her and called her, “Woman”? Judging from the mothers I’ve known, it stabbed her heart every time - and I believe Jesus HAD to do it to counter the worship of the “Queen of Heaven, Spouse of the Holy Spirit” that would arise in the Catholic Church.
When one stops calling Mary blessed by God, and starts calling her Mrs God, one crosses from respect to worship.