I just looked up St. Basil. He firmly believed in The Blessed Mary. You have him implying something that is not presented in full text then with an opinion from another writer.
Your response is another example of Catholics who are quick to charge a misrepresentation while it is they who are the ones who evidently failed to read or understand the context or what they protest against.
Your quote of Basil does not even refer to what my reference to him was about, which was that of a CF who did not believe in Mary, but as one of the church “fathers ” (i quote from my page) "who saw the sword as relating to Mary having doubt (some saying she sinned) during the Lord's crucifixion.”
And the link then takes you to one who understands Basil as teaching she sinned by such doubting, for (the ref. shows) he believed the sword that pierced the heart Mary was the fulfillment of the prophecy, "All ye shall be offended because of me," that being applicable to all, as Mary doubted like other disciples, and like Peter, she needed to be restored after the Lord's resurrection.
Regarding which Cyril of Alexandria is invoked as referred to by proMary RC scholar Michael O'Carroll, as one who,
"uses phrases about Mary which seem to continue the opinions of Origen (qv) and St. Basil (qv) on imperfection in her faith: 'In all likelihood, even the Lord's Mother was scandalised by the unexpected passion, and the intensely bitter death on the Cross...all but deprived her of right reason.' ((Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 113)
And although I myself did not argue that Basil or the others taught that Mary sinned, as that is of little weight to me here (some even believed that marital relations had to involve sinful passions), and would not say Basil is a strong case for that, yet while some overeactionary Romanists are quick to charge "out of context" or "fabrications" when they see most any such thing that impugns their claims, more notable RCAs as Newman concurs that Basil saw Mary as committing sin, even though he disagrees with him:
1. St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt. On the other hand, 1. he imputes it only on one occasion; 2. he does not consider it to be a grave sin; 3. he implies that, in point of spiritual perfection, she is above the Apostles.
In arguing against Basil, he sees his understanding as derived from Origen who stated,
"Are we to think, that the Apostles were scandalized, and not the Lord's Mother? If she suffered not scandal at {144} our Lord's passion, then Jesus died not for her sins. If all have sinned and need the glory of God, being justified by His grace, and redeemed, certainly Mary at that time was scandalized." This is precisely the argument of Basil, as contained in the passage given above; his statement then of the Blessed Virgin's wavering in faith, instead of professing to be the tradition of a doctrine, carries with it an avowal of its being none at all.
(http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/notes.html)
The CE also affirms that "Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady," mentioning Basil and Chrysostom, even if they (of course) disallow dissenting views as being Apostolic tradition. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
The demoniacs are coming out like busters I do not care to always be posting with daily life getting busier too. But that is my opinion on the writings. There are more important things going on right now.
Well John, silence would be better than dismissing all my work as horse excrement, even if you were being hasty, and protesting against a perceived misrepresentation, neither of which is the case.
Perhaps you could explain how you can professes to know so very much about Catholic doctrine can know so very little about its development.
Catholic doctrine was not dictated complete and intact is a concise document hours after Jesus ascended. Councils were convened and doctrines stated only when the established consensus was challenged. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, doctrine was developed like a wagon careening down a mountain road bouncing off the guard rails. Those rails were encounters with heresy. If a doctrine like the doctrine of Mary being Theotokos, the mother of God and more than the Christokos, the mother of Christ followed only because Jesus status as both God and Man was challenged by the Arians. Prior to that it was unnecessary. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Peace be with you.