However, it took Rome 2,000 years to declare that blasphemy as dogma.
Not long enough.
Actully, here is what you wrote in post #8628:
It was a recent and impious speculation that turned into RC doctrine just over a century [sic] ago.
Are you saying that over 500 years ago is "recent"?
It's no coincidence that artwork was created during the Reformation which worked to rid the church of such blasphemy.
Actually, it is a bit of a coincidence (nevermind the fact that Botticini's painting preceded the Reformation by about two generations and Titian's was painted at the very start of the Reformation), the reality is that these were painted during the Renaissance and there are very few paintings from before the Renaissance that are well-documented. There are icons that precede these by centuries.
However, it took Rome 2,000 years to declare that blasphemy as dogma.
First of all, it was more like 1900 years.
Secondly, the truth is the truth regardless of when it's defined (people know the dangers of falling long before Newton defined the Law of Gravity).
Finally, even if it is false, your use of the word blasphemy makes no sense. NOTHING in the definition of the Assumption suggested that the Blessed Mother was assumed by her own power or suggests that she is divine or shows any contempt of lack of reverence toward God, therefore it cannot be blasphemous. If you want to claim that it is blasphemous, please take actual statements from Munificentissimus Deus which meet the definition of blasphemy.
Again, I will point out that you have failed to address the FACT that the Dormition of the Theotokos (Assumption) is celebrated by the Orthodox Church and the Schism was in the middle of the 11th century. Why do they believe it's nothing more than "recent and impious speculation" by the Catholic Church.