The Catholics argue about the Apocrypha being scripture and why don’t the Protestants accept such AS such. That is another argument besides the unsettled controversies regarding mary. I don’t see how the one argument destroys the other...the argument is...there is nothing written down about the more exalted roles of Mary in the accepted compendiums of scripture from both the Catholic and/or the Protestant perspectives that at least had some type of legitimacy of origin...say by an apostle or by the authorship of Luke the physician.
Had any of the apocryphal scriptures had mentioned Mary, that might have made for a stronger claim for their legitimacy!
The argument is more fundamental than that. If one is unwilling or unable to distinguish between worship, adoration and honor; words with distinct and different meanings then how can they be trusted to give a faithful interpretation of any text whether it be Sacred Scripture or the phone book.
The protestant conflates these terms to mean the same thing when they do not. Such a fundamental error in exegesis casts serious doubt on their understanding of the text. Its born of either two things: laziness or inherent bias from a conclusion-selective interpretation. I suspect it is the latter.
But to answers your comment more directly, the assumption (based on the inherent bias) is that Sacred Scripture is the only source of authority when it has been demonstrated it is not. Sacred Scripture (what was written) and Sacred Tradition (what was done), neither superseding the other, are the pillars of the Truth of Christianity, the Deposit of the Faith. By amputating the one (tradition) the Protestant does a disservice to the other (scripture).
So, as a Catholic, I would put the question to you: Why would I do that? Why would I play in your sandbox, a construct of your own mind where the perimeter is solely defined by how you interpret Sacred Scripture when you won't even give proper due to the definition of terms?
The Quran/Koran mentions her!!!