Indeed, Mary could have parted the Red Sea, but such speculation has no place as a doctrine, especially in the light of the fact that the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm among notable persons, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), devotion (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), to the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, etc., etc. to John the Baptist "being" Elijah, and Christ being sinless and the prophesied Messiah and Divine.
But Mary is nowhere presented as being a sinless perpetual virgin and highest created being in virtue, titled the mother of God and bodily assumed into Heaven and crowned as its Queen, with authority over angels, and hearing virtually infinite amounts of prayer from earth addressed to her, etc. .
Meanwhile, it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
But the weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for the veracity of RC doctrine, lest they be as evangelicals, but assurance of Truth for an RC is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
Under which Scripture, history and tradition only assuredly consist of and mean what she says they do. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
That has been the point of this thread all along. Roman Catholicism DOES require belief in the Assumption of Mary as ex cathedra doctrine and those who do not believe it are anathematized, cut off from communion and, according to the CCC, unable to be saved. Those who are excommunicated - correct me if I am wrong - cannot go to heaven when they die as long as they die in that state.
If it all was just a matter of personal choice whether to believe the teaching or not, it wouldn't be an issue and there probably wouldn't be a thread on it - though I think it is an interesting point that two prior popes called heretical the ONLY writing that could have been a historical source for the belief. Without that, there IS nothing to base the dogma on other than wishful thinking of some people centuries afterward. Don't you wonder why the Apostle John never mentioned Mary's death in any of his epistles seeing as Jesus entrusted her care to him? His last book was written towards the end of his life and Mary was already long dead by then. If there had truly been a miraculous ascension of Mary to heaven, why wouldn't he have said anything about it? I think these are legitimate questions and are not asked just to tick Catholics off.