And which one of the ECF's (as Schaff referred to them) recommended praying to Mary -- or anyone other than God Himself? The information you just brought fails to show us that.
As Origen noted [see footnote 424:5265] --- mention of Mary being "ever virgin" rather than just "the virgin" ---- as in virgin birth -- was not present within any ECF writings until after the Protoevangelium of James arrived on the scene, sometime in the late middlings of the second century, which may be somewhat besides the point in one sense, but goes toward part of the shakiness of the very foundation for the "hyper" portion of the "dulia" afforded Mary, alone.
That work (P of J) though accepted by some, for a while, was eventually put aside, but it's effect towards theological assumption and error, is still being felt, making it be next to a 'perfect' theological crime -- since the only perfect crime, as the saying goes, is one that escapes detection.
Th Protevangelium Jacobi (as it is referred to in the links given above) begins in it's very first sentence by telling a lie -- that it was written by James, the Brother of Christ. I mention that aspect, for much of the distinctive "Marionism found even today can find it's own roots THERE, and nowhere else.
Meanwhile, there are ECF's such as Tertullian who wrote of Mary bearing other children, by Joseph --- as the scripture indicates occurred, and which would be no "sin" at all for a Hebrew woman to have produced. Show us-- who can you quote that is much earlier than Tertullian?
Mention of St. Ambrose or most any other that late in history, referring to Mary as the “Mother of Salvation”, means little in regards to praying TO her for salvation, for she was the mother of Jesus Christ Incarnate -- who is our salvation.
Citing Athanasius in the middle of the 4th century (which your "Dr." did not do in what was quoted from him) -- as much as I like that Athanasius otherwise, by his own time period he's been made subject to the beliefs of others, and is valuable to show what was believed in his own time, at least by himself --but which still doesn't make any particular belief or aspect of belief entirely kosher.
Going back to approximately to the middle of the 3rd century for the Sub Tuum Praesidium found in one Grecian location (at first) is still fully 200 years afterthe first Gospel was written, with there being no other theological mention or support for praying TO her then, other than by 'popular belief' such as this one particular prayer.
Two full centuries allows a lot of time for erroneous folk belief to set in. Marianism, among Roman Catholicism, still to this day relies upon 'folk belief' in regards to Marionism within it's own ranks (when it positively supports expansion of the image and role of "Mary", leaning upon folk belief in recent beatification of "Juan Diego", who according to Franciscans in the 1700's whom had charge of the item of veneration (Virgin of Guadalupe painting) did not exist -- for they claimed way back then it was painted by "Marcos the Indian". Their objections led to having it removed from their custody, which up until that time had been maintained by them previously. That whole deal is a train-wreck of religious FRAUD, reliant upon vox populi more than anything else.
The existence of early drawing in catacombs, in light of Mary having born the Christ literally and physically as His earthly mother, and so looked upon as highly favored, blessed above all women, as Mary herself made note she would be seen as -- indicates nothing else much more than that, unless one has it written on the insides of their eyeballs that "Mary" was some ongoing key participant in salvation itself.
Find us any ECF who recommended that we pray TO "Mary" --- or even pray to anyone other than God the Father (though we may find prays directed to the Risen and Ascended Christ -- I don't recall exactly which ECF wrote it in that manner -- and being that Christ and the Father are now again as One -- to pray "to" Jesus Christ could be forgivable, if there being any error there of not addressing prayer to the Great I AM) anytime before the year 300 AD.
I noticed too that you had to go to Schaff, a Protestant, to find extensive ECF coverage, while previously you tried to say the "Protestants" abandoned the ECF's. Are you aware his work was inspired due to previous efforts at Oxford having been seen in his own eyes, and the eyes of those few who were in the know concerning what up to then was quite obscure information -- to be incomplete, even deliberately so, in that those previous efforts (which tended to favor Roman Catholic views) did not fully publish translations in context? With the wider context it can be seen that much of the reliance upon ECF's which RC aplogists lean on, are not *quite* as they are commonly advertised to be. But then again, that is the way the craftiest lies operate, isn't it? If wholesale fraud cannot be spun up out of wishful thinking, then distorting truth itself can be a fine way to mislead, or tell lies when self-justifying.
No sir -- "Protestants" have not entirely set aside ECF's, yet a careful and close reading of them (thanks to Schaff, and a few others, even some additional "Protestants" contemporary to this day) shows just how badly out-of-context [Roman] Catholic apologists all-too frequently quote the ECF's in efforts to wrest support from them, for various aspect of RC theology which were not part of the original, most primitive ekklesia, but came along only by way of later "development".
Face it. There are "Protestants" here at FreeRepublic (and elsewhere!) who know the apologetic, and all the associated twists and turns of associated theology --- better than *most* Roman Catholics.
One thing I have come to appreciate about this forum though-- is the opportunity it continually presents to provide rebuttal for Romanist and Marionist claims.
Once the evidences are dragged fully out into the light of day -- Romanist argumentation wilts under the pressure, e3ven as the adherents and promoters of the same double-down on the prayer-bead postings, and/or launch into personal attack/ heresy hunter modes, in desperate effort to salvage the wreckage.
Ancient graffit art, doesn't quite cut it. Contrary to RC writers present day opinions, the art itself does not show that Mary be PRAYED TO, for reason it shows she was from earliest times highly regarded.
Otherwise, regardless of all the blather, you have also failed to show us any scriptural Apostolic exhortation or recommendation that any should pray to Mary (for much the same reason as above -- high regard does not equal the theological consideration of praying TO Mary or any other- than God Himself) while now to that we can add -- any ECF's from the first 3 centuries.
Bringing commentary which quotes the ECF's, then adds Roman Catholic add-on interpretation, doesn't cut it. Shall we go over the few quotes provided, in closer detail? I'll isolate those from the copious copy/past, then shred the RC synopsis given for them, while you wait, if you care to test that.
Otherwise, try re-reading those things such as written by this Dr. Miravelle yourself, a bit more carefully this time, and see if you can isolate where he jumps to conclusions. As a hint -- alo9ng with his interpretations of ancient catacomb graffiti-art, it is at every time he cites any ECF before the beginning of the 4th century -- then trys to saw "clearly" or similar. He reads into things meaning which cannot be justified by the evidence he's looking at --- which makes it no "evidence" at all for his interpretations.
3 Centuries --- that's 300 hundred years for those of you in Rio Linda.
As further hint --- that which you have brought here, copied from one with a Doctorate in such things, in it's paucity of "early" actual data points (other than a single prayer coming from who knows where) which otherwise must have interpretation as in regards to images (oh, this must mean, etc.) read into them, coupled with then going towards mention of in later centuries having cathedrals and what-not "dedicated to Mary" becries the very developmental nature of those aspects of [Roman] Catholic theology, which itself is the argument (that it was not in the original articles of the church and theology in the church, but instead grew or developed over time--hence is questionable if not outright spurious & erroneous) which you have been challenged here with overcoming.
Much as bring conviction towards metmom being guilty of "Arianism", you have again FAILED, and shall continue to do so, until more fundamental truth concerning the matters is found and confessed to.
But at least now -- the failure is not as bad as the false accusations of "heresy", for this homegrown heresy of hyper-Marionism does have deep roots. Just not all the way to the original theological "seed" of core truths.
“homegrown heresy of hyper-Marionism”
Yeah.....right.....sure.....if you say so.
AMDG