I agree that it would not be reasonable to dismiss every belief and practice which has not been officially defined or declared by the authority of the Magisterium.
However, the views presented about Marian devotion in this forum have resulted in a distorted picture of the Church, much like the elephant as perceived by the six blind men, who thought an elephant was very like a rope, a tree trunk, a palm leaf fan, a branch, a spear, or a wall.
It's like seeing in a Fun House mirror an unrecognizable image of yourself, composed of a huge nose, tiny eyes fluctuating between 2 and 4 in number, one cheek flexing in an out, and the other almost invisible, lips that shake like Krakatoa and a brow that looks like Kansas.
An analogy: I once read with great interest a short book called "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll, which was put in my hands by my late father-in-law as a true account of Baptist belief. I am sorry to say that Carroll claimed the spiritual descent of Baptists from much earlier groups like the Waldensians, the Cathari, the Paulicians, and the Donatists. Not to go into great detail, let me just say that if I were to analyze this naive little booklet line by line, I could go on for volumes about the absurdity of Baptist beliefs.
But I would be wrong. Why?
Because the booklet, though widespread in distribution and considered reliable by many, simply does not represent core Baptist doctrine, or even the folk-beliefs of Baptists taken as a whole.
The lesson I am trying to convey by use of this "Trail of Blood" analogy is this: when comparing doctrines, the first thing you want to determine is whether the proposition or text you are discussing is actually a doctrine.
Latching onto dubious non-doctrinal statements seems to show polemicism rather than the patient discernment of the truth. Lobbing one dubious specimen after another into the discussion is a disorienting rhetorical ploy, not a way to advance understanding.
If it's hard to distinguish doctrine from courtly poetry, arcane mystery or theological speculation --- and I can see how it's sometimes difficult ---my advice would be to stick with authoritative summaries of doctrine, e.g. the Catechism. Or to ask a knowledgeable Catholic, "What do you mean by this?" with the expectation of a good-faith explanation.
The problem with your assertion is that these are not dubious statements.
They are consistent with official catholic teachings regarding Mary.
All of the "dubious" quotes provided are from people who the catholic church would consider to be doctors, saints or other reputable people in catholicism.
As I noted earlier this is the problem with catholic tradition. All of these guys could claim they received their authority from the apostles. How can you deny it?
I know these quotes must sting. If I were catholic they would make me re-evaluate what I believe.
The telling part is that no one has denied these as legit statements or the writers of these statements or positions of catholicism regarding Mary. They are from catholic websites.
An analogy: I once read with great interest a short book called "The Trail of Blood"
Your analogy is faulty if the issue is what RCs teach, which is what the poster responded to ("Nobody thinks that the saints...."), and what he cited does not present a false description about Marian devotion, nor a distorted picture of the Church since she allows such to abound, and which even comes from popes, as overall they are not seen to contradict official statements.
when comparing doctrines, the first thing you want to determine is whether the proposition or text you are discussing is actually a doctrine.
But when responding to statements, the first thing you want to determine is what the text you are discussing is actually referring to, which in thus case was in regard to the "Nobody thinks" how saints in heaven act, not what is officially taught. Which itself is subject to interpretation by RCs.
my advice would be to stick with authoritative summaries of doctrine, e.g. the Catechism. Or to ask a knowledgeable Catholic, "What do you mean by this?" with the expectation of a good-faith explanation.
CCC statements was not the issue, but what knowledgeable Catholics say about Mary. Changing the subject will not change that.