That's an interesting twist. Scripture now contains everything necessary for doctrine as well as salvation? How do you support that statement? What about the Trinity? The hypostatic union?
Many of those we call church fathers were under the influence of the great explosion of heresy in various regions, Egypt being notorious for it. So their failure to maintain a strict and uniform doctrine indicated their fallibilities, not that of scripture.
Where does Christ say in Scripture that he is equally God and man? If you're saying they "failed to maintain a strict and uniform doctrine", and if Scripture "contains all that is necessary for doctrine", where is that doctrine spelled out in Scripture, and how could it be considered doctrine before it was defined?
What is ludicrous is that the Apocrypha, upon which these notions of Mary's sinlessness and ascension, were rejected from the canon of scripture (Council of Hippo) and were only included in the thirteenth century (Council of Trent).
You're referring not to the "Apocrypha", but "Apocryphal" books. In either case, you're wrong. "Apocryphal" books may not have been canonical, but that doesn't mean they contained a totality of error. e.g., if I taught a history class and remarked that the movie "JFK" was fiction, does that mean Kennedy wasn't shot in Dallas? Since the apocryphal Gospels assert the Jesus rose from the dead, does that mean he didn't?
No one says that belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is NECESSARY to your salvation. Whether Scripture contains all that is necessary as to doctrine or not, Jesus Christ gave the keys to Peter and by the Council of Jerusalem of about 54 AD, that decision as to the circumcision of uncircumcised Gentile male converts (mostly adults) to Christianity being unnecessary was made upon Paul's petition to Peter. (Acts).
Certainly, there were those among the early Church Fathers who were in error. The brilliant Tertullian comes to mind. He died holding the errors of UltraMontanism, despite having defined orthodoxy as "antiquity, universality and consensus." I am aware of only one Egyptian pope, Pope St. Miltiades (311-314) and, like most popes, he did not seem to have initiated much in the way of doctrine. He was the pope when the Emperor Constantine decided to accept Catholicism as the religion of the Roman Empire only a few years after the abdication of Diocletian and the end of Diocletian's persecution of Christians and the then pagan Constantine's success in the civil war of succession after seeing a vision of the cross in the sky with the legend beneath "In Hoc Signo Vinces" or In This Sign, You will Conquer.
The putative existence of a variety of heresies among Egyptian Church Fathers no more proves the inerrancy of Scripture (which ought to be conceded in its own right) than it could possibly prove the errors of popes none of whom were Egyptian Early Church Fathers. By analogous logic, does one reject the possibility of Christian orthodoxy in doctrine because of the reformation which began nearly 1500 years after the sacrifice of the cross and then metastacized into thousand of distinct "churches" each with its own notions to distinguish it from the others. This observation does not disprove the reformation but it also does not recommend it as a source of theological truth or orthodoxy either.
Again, it was the First Vatican Council of the mid-19th century that formally declared and defined papal infallibility and not Pope Pius IX (with the incomparable nickname Pope Pio NoNo). Neither John Paul II nor any other pope (including Pius XI) has ever defined Mary as Co-Redemptorix. She cannot be Co-Redemptorix and the confusion probably results from remarks as to her acceptance of her virgin maternity of Jesus Christ.
The reason that many Protestants have trouble with this stuff is that many are ever prepared to believe the worst about Catholicism. We Catholics certainly have our disagreements with the children of the reformation. We need not go out of our respective ways to find more. If Catholics have a weak grasp of the history of the reformation, then it is at least equally true that the reformed do not grasp the history of the Catholic Church.
You may have noticed a previous post whose author I have forgotten who posted that Jesus Christ must have been the Son of God because He could not be sinless (in the sense of Original Sin) as a Son of a descendant of Adam (through whom He would have had Original Sin). Made sense to me although God is wonderful and can do anything. Is it not equally obvious that Jesus's mother would be without Original Sin also. Therefore the Catholic tradition, eventually made dogmatic by Pius IX after Mary's apparition to St. Bernadette Soubarous at Lourdes, that Mary was conceived without the taint of Original Sin by Divine Intervention and protection at her conception. You may not believe it but it is neither necessary to your salvation nor a particularly difficult act by an omnipotent God desiring a perfect vessel through whom to send His Son to us.
It would also be consistent with several other traditional Catholic beliefs as to Mary which (to the best of my knowledge) have not been formally defined as dogma. Since pain in childbirth was a wage of Original Sin and since death was also a wage of Original Sin, many believe that an immaculately conceived Mary would have suffered no tribulation in the birth of Jesus and would have, at most, fallen asleep rather than died (this is known as the Dormition of Mary).
We who are Catholics are not the only Christians who have "traditions of men" as you may call them. There are a lot of traditions of reformed men and women as to the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Not all of them are true but they are the tradition of the reform nonetheless. None of this is to make fun of you or of your beliefs. I have no doubt that you believe what you believe as sincerely as I believe what I believe and that our God, nonetheless, loves each of us at least as much as we each love Him.
In any event, what I believe and what you believe are much more consistent (90-95%) than either of us is in the habit of saying. We ought not fight one another publicly on the 5-10% for the entertainment of our mutual enemies and those of our God (enemies who produce Discovery Channel programming suggesting that He did not rise from the dead, as Scripture teaches us both; that Dan Brown and not the Gospels have the truth that Mary Magdelene was NOT married to Jesus Christ NOR that any child Judah or otherwise was born to them; that Mary, assuming, as you might, that she was buried anywhere, was buried not at Ephesus in Turkey where she lived with John the Evangelist bu at Jerusalem's suburbs much less with the body of Jesus Christ, etc.).
Please do not regard my occasional historical corrections (such as the century of Trent) as hostile. Any perceived offense from me to you is not intentional but a fault of this fallen human that I am.
We are separated brethren in Christ. I think that Scripture teaches that we will know the Christians as those who love one another. Let us prove Scripture, here and everywhere, now and ever.
God bless you and yours.