You never agreed to the reasonableness of my offer. That is, refrain from gratuitous assertions if I could prove the BVM's unique status before God, and not just as the only woman to bear Christ, either.
Please explain how what I said shows that I have only the "barest awareness of Catholic teaching on the matter".
Frankly, because your entire approach to the question evinces Protestant presuppositions, not the least of which is the idea that only doctrine demonstrated in Scripture can be binding.
The argument from the Catholic side (while perhaps not "nothing") that this is Mary doesn't hold water for too many reasons to go into here
Why not let's try one, and see how we do?
Even should one accept the Catholic exegesis on Revelation 12, there is nothing in that to suggest that Mary should be prayed to, or can "intercede", etc.
Why don't we restrict ourselves to one bird per stone? I find many truths of the Bible seem to be designed to be seen but not seen, and heard but not heard.
Also, I have read a lot of the early history of the church and writings of the early church fathers.
Does that mean you have not studied a systematic Catholic defense of the Marian dogmas?
Still, what does this have to do with praying to a person who is dead and now in the presence of the Lord? There is nothing in scripture that indicates the dead in Christ can do anything, are aware of anyone here on earth or what we're doing, or that they can "intercede" for anyone (or any other activity)
Are you aware of anything in Scripture that *specifically* precludes the possibility?
except one offhand verse in Revelation that Catholic teaching extrapolates to a ridiculous level.
Do you know of any Catholics that cite this verse as a basis for their belief, or do they cite it as an hopeful accommidation to Protestant demands for Scriptural proof of every practice they disapprove?
And if in fact the true basis of the Catholic practice of praying to the BVM or saints is rooted in what Catholics refer to as Sacred Tradition, rather than Scripture, are you not misrepresenting the Catholic position and berating them for not meeting a standard they never accepted in the first place?
It is, at least, the only thing I have ever heard John Martinoni(sp) or Scott Hahn or any other Catholic apologist ever be able to muster up to offer any evidence, scriptural or otherwise, for what is clearly an invented doctrine.
Are you opposed to "developed" doctrine? And even if that doctrine were "invented" as you say, under what principle do you deny the Church the authority to invent it, anyway?
It is, to say the least, a thin and hardly convincing argument on which to base an entire doctrine that borders, if not crosses, the line of idolatry.
Let us assume for a moment that the Marian devotion is indeed, idolatry. What does that matter so long as Catholics accept the Gospel as defined by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4? Is organized, albeit optional, idolatry more heinous than the myriad varieties practiced by Protestants each and every day through prideful ignorance of the more subtle but equally deadly sins?
I don't know what you want me to agree to. But I am happy to hear what you have to say. Either say it, or let's just drop it.
"Frankly, because your entire approach to the question evinces Protestant presuppositions, not the least of which is the idea that only doctrine demonstrated in Scripture can be binding."
Only the doctrine demonstrated in Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I do not agree to the magisterium of the Church, or that it is infallible, or that it is always (notice, I don't say it can never be, just not always) of the Holy Spirit. Are you telling me that a Church that elected a Borgia as Pope, who had orgies in the Vatican, is infallible and always inspired by the Holy Spirit? Think again. In fact, I believe strongly that Martin Luther was God's judgment upon the Church for all of the evils, corruption, greed, and arrogance the Church descended into by the 1500's. The Church lost its way, and Martin Luther began the Reformation which returned Christ front and center, and punished the Church for its abandonment of its original mission. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
The argument from the Catholic side (while perhaps not "nothing") that this is Mary doesn't hold water for too many reasons to go into here.
Why not let's try one, and see how we do?
I gave you one of the primary arguments, that the woman in Revelation is not Mary but is Israel. The details of that argument are found in many good commentaries, specifically I mentioned Grant R. Osborne (you can look up his credentials, they're impeccable) and the Baker Exegetical Commentary. There are others. The primary argument is that this woman is not Mary but is Israel.
Also, I have read a lot of the early history of the church and writings of the early church fathers.
Does that mean you have not studied a systematic Catholic defense of the Marian dogmas?
I have read various things: the Catechism, the web pages on this issue from "Catholic Answers" (a good on-line Catholic apologetics resource), and various other items from Catholic web resources, as well as having listened to various Catholic apologists on EWTN radio, and such. Enough to get a detailed understanding of the doctrine and where and how they derived it, and what the standard apologetic arguments are for defending the doctrine. As to my opinion of the adequacy of their defense of the doctrine, well, I already gave you that.
Are you aware of anything in Scripture that *specifically* precludes the possibility?
This is an illogical argument. There's nothing in scripture to preclude me believing in elves or trolls, either, but I don't feel the need to make things up or try to derive arguments for things, when it comes to Jesus or my faith, simply because scripture doesn't preclude them. It's silly, to say the least, and a silly argument.
Are you opposed to "developed" doctrine? And even if that doctrine were "invented" as you say, under what principle do you deny the Church the authority to invent it, anyway?
The principle that I believe in the First Commandment.
Let us assume for a moment that the Marian devotion is indeed, idolatry. What does that matter so long as Catholics accept the Gospel as defined by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4? Is organized, albeit optional, idolatry more heinous than the myriad varieties practiced by Protestants each and every day through prideful ignorance of the more subtle but equally deadly sins?
What does it matter? Are you serious? How can you even ask such a question? Go to Exodus, find the Ten Commandments, read #1.
Yes, idolatry is more heinous. Idolatry is numero uno on God's list of commandments, and it's #1 for a reason. And this has nothing to do with the myriad other sins of Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox. We're not discussing any of that. Of course sin is sin and it's all equally ugly to God. Any Protestant denominations that are engaging in anything that is idolotrous (especially those that follow the Theology of Glory and the "Prosperity Gospel") are on the fast path to damnation and taking others with them. It's all wrong. But the worst possible thing one can do (it's a common liberal Democrat tactic, remember) is to say, "Well, maybe we are...but look at them, they do it too, see!". Come on, I respect you more than to believe you would resort to that kind of argument.