Why? The doctrine doesn't deny Mary's humanity at all.
“Why? The doctrine doesn’t deny Mary’s humanity at all.”
Of course it does, P. Every other human being since Adam was either (a) born distorted in such a way by the sin of Adam so as not to be able to fulfill their created purpose [Eastern Christianity] or (b)stained with “Original Sin” [Latin Christianity]. In either case, humanity needs a savior...except of course Panagia in the Latin way of thinking. Now if Panagia was born either free from “Original Sin” or not subject to the distortions of ancestral sin, then she was not a woman. She was a goddess and her Son not “True Man”. This is of course the most serious implication of the doctrine of the IC, but there are others. For example, what sort of example is a goddess to us insofar as our Theosis is concerned? If Panagia was ontologically different from us and had no need for a savior, how does she teach us that we do need one? Isn’t it precisely the point of the Incarnation that God became Man and dwelt among us? Doesn’t +Athanasius the Great teach us that all those divine “appearances” throughout the OT just were getting the job done? Why would God only choose a human form and not true humanity (another Christological heresy)through a goddess if more direct divine intervention wasn’t working. And why would some “goddess” do any good at all? Another IC problem is this whole Co-Redemptrix thing which logically follows from a notion that Panagia was ontologically different from the rest of humanity. It also, sadly, leads some beyond veneration and right into worship of the Theotokos.