I don’t read your stuff anymore. These are very neophyte and sophomoric exercises of yours in internet theology. First try reading the “greats” like Augustine Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict XVI rather than referring to street bloggers on the works of St. Irenaeus. If this goes over your head, at last make a half decent attempt to read up on the pre-eminent Lutheran and Episcopalian converts to Catholicism who have devoted a lifetime to the study and teaching of Christology and have since debunked and decamped from the nonsense you still keep repeating.
Then this;
which are logically self exclusionary, for if you have not read what I provided link to you for, even that which one week ago you seemed to have run away from --- then how could you ever determine that those were "very sophomoric exercises...of internet theology"?
And this after by your words you have excluded yourself from having authority to interpret Scripture...
Then again, what we were discussing for the most part, was not precisely Scripture, but particular patristic writings instead.
It's too bad that the writers do not establish what it is that you sought, and instead, as I have shown need be more widely studied (in the instance of Irenaeus) for greater context --- which sadly, as for your own assertions, that context itself, the words of the very writer which you said you preferred (in comparison to my own words) refutes your central-most contentions, and in doing so can be seen to support my own objections to those same contentions.
In the other instance, that of Cyril's litugy, I was able to point towards how theological developments (in that instance, theological addition) can come about.
That is only one of the ways theological addition has at places in the literature been entree for later consequent adoption of subtly different additional theological considerations.
As such it is example for how development takes place.
In the list of those whom you "name-drop" as suggested reading for myself, I can tell you that I am acquainted with them all, but not too deeply as for Newman, yet enough to know the man to be a misrepresenting liar who used dubious means and logic to showcase marginal materials, employing inductive reasoning (specific incidence to all encompassing claim for generality) to then himself proclaim that "all Protestants are liars" when it comes to their own objections as towards specific aspects of Romanism.
That said, when I have been speaking of development, I have been all along touching upon something which Newman himself (and those closely contemporary to himself) wrote towards, or about --- namely theological development.
Paraphrasing here, those men would say such as "From the acorn grows the mighty oak, although acorns appear outwardly nothing as the tree it grows into being..." etc., in attempts towards justification for what developments have admittedly (admittedly, by those in the RCC, when they are not otherwise flatly proclaiming "unchanged, as passed down from the Apostles") transpired over the centuries.
I have read some of Ratizinger, and believe I understand him well enough, for this is not rocket surgery which is being discussed...all though many do make it much more difficult than it needs to be...
I myself have more than mere, brief, passing & shallowest acquaintance with the Spirit of the Lord also...which is a humongous assistance to one such as myself, and without which I am certain I would not have interest in this subject matter.
Here again it does appear to me that you again have things turned around near entirely backwards.
There is not one single thing which you have touched upon which "goes over my head". If you assume such for reason that I have not replied to each and every of your own assertions, explaining to yourself what those actually meant, then I would say that in this are you are likely operating under an erroneous set of assumptions...
After having multiple opportunities to do so, you have in no way whatsoever established that anything much which I have said is "nonsense", for most all of my own contentions you've done nothing in reply to those but to repeat ad nauseam your own assertions, doing so (most often) while ignoring what it is that I provided to you in reply which refutes those assertions.
Again, that is what makes attempt to have conversation with yourself be tedious...
Pre-eminent converts you say?
What makes you think I have not read quite a bit from some of those?
In the articles which have been brought here for the last dozen years, at least, and a great deal of those written by these "pre-eminent converts" which you mention, I've seen nothing all that much which was not covered long ago by the Oxford Movement, Newman & Co.
The arguments brought forth have generally have the same inherent weaknesses, and some outright problems, most of which were identified long ago by men such as Philip Schaff & Henry Wace.
Yet why the mention of "Christology"? Was that to help bring "Mary" more into the picture? It was, wasn't it?
Now -- quit talking to me as if I am stupid.
Perhaps admit to yourself that the things which I write about are often over your own, for you have demonstrated to me a general lack of being able to follow, and then keep up with discussion.
Send to myself those whom have this 'authority', which you lack.