“It is a teaching not reflected in the scripture......”
Precisely! Jesus warned that the fine wheat planted would be oversown with the poisonous pseudo wheat or weeds and Paul said that,
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29, 30)
“All patristic writings serve a similar purpose: unless we see heresy in them, they testify to a belief of the Early Curch and therefore teach us what to believe.”
Who do you think Paul was talking to and about?
He was talking to the “older men, the elders” of the Ephesians, men who had been taught by an apostle, from those leaders of the flock would arise men who spoke perverse and twisted things, things not taught in God's word.
“The essential point in our argument is that “all” in Romans 5 does not refer to Mary. Neither did I mean that “many” in Romans 5 means people commonly are born and live without sin.”
The essential point is that what you have been taught and have argued is unscriptural and based upon a false teaching of men, a teaching based upon fraud and myth, by the Catholic Church’s own statement.
A 4th. century charlatan is in no way superior to a 15th. century one. But as Jesus further said in his illustration, when the weeds and wheat were fully developed in this harvest time then it would clear one from the other.
“The fact that is in not canonical that is to say, is apocryphal, — nothing of 4c. is canonical — is irrelevant.”
Not if we take Jesus’ own words at John 4:24 seriously about worshiping God “in truth”, That “truth” being God's word. (John 17:17)
Regardign Romans 5, you started by saying that St. Paul somehow was contradicted by the teachings of the Church regarding Mary. You now have seen that it is your interpretation of Romans 5 that is contradicted, but not the text itself.
Regarding the authority of the Church, — it is in the Scripture. See for example the authroty to “bind and loose” that Christ gave the Church, and the promise of continuing divine councel in John 14. The idea that unless we find something in the scripture it should not be taught, however, is not itself in the scripture. It is also absurd, because, naturally, lives of saints, including the Virgin Mary, exceed the scope of the Scripture.
The criterion for orthodoxy is not what is and what is not in the scrupture, but rather:
1. Is the teaching compatible with other infallible doctrines?
2. Is the teaching compatible with the Scripture (this is nto really a separate requirement but I list it separately for clarity)
3. Is the teaching of apostolic origin in some form?
On the assumption of Mary, all three are satisfied.
On the fallacies of Luther all three fail. Most notably, the doctrine of “sola fide” is directly contradicted by the scripture, and “sola scriptura” is at best not supported by it, and clearly contradicts the scripture when it is used to deny the authority of the Church.
There are many warning in the scripture about false doctrines of men. They all apply to Mohamedanism and Protestantism amply and prophetically.