I love the 1st and 2nd Apologies of St Justin.   What an increditbly wonderful guy.  Where did he write about Mary?

I do find it concerning that dogmas are the end of the road on any theological issue.  Seems to me that they should be leading at the front of an issue, rather than explaining common practice at the back end.  Of course, in a perfect world...

Please read the Protoevangelium of James.  This will clearly show Mary's sinlessness from her time of conception and her parents role in bringing her to temple from the age of 3 to her betrothel to St Joseph.

From what I understand, the Protoevangelium of James is not considered cannonical by even the Catholic Church, so while it might be interesting reading, I could not personally consider it as valid for such a hugely influential doctrine as the sinlessness of Mary.

I guess where I stand is that I can believe that the Church (prior to designations of denomination) was entrusted to Peter.  It may give many Catholics comfort to think that a Pope cannot speak in error while ex cathedra.  I just can't make the leap that says God will automatically protect someone, anyone, from doctrinal error under any circumstance, limited or otherwise, at some future point.  I believe the Apostles and their disciples spoke and wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit, because their words are supported by the Old Testament, not because at any given moment they were incapable of doctrinal error.  St Peter's early waffly position on Gentile Christians and meat sacrified to idols is certainly proof that he was capable of error while in an official capacity, long before there was a fancy Latin formula to dogma.  He also had the sense to realize when he was wrong and grow from it.

For me, obviously not for many Catholics, believing in the whole ex-cathedra thing is something like some of my more colorful Protestant brothers and sisters who believe the "once saved, always saved" position.  That doesn't work for me, and the Catholic Church, I think, supports a faith bolstered necessarily by personal responsibility for our actions.  In the same vein, "Once pope, always right" doesn't work for me.  The minute you destroy free will, you destroy any meaningful relationship that we have with God and each other.  It may be irritating and even scary to think of a world where sin sometimes wins even in the hearts and minds of godly people, but the alternative is a world where the gospels are subject to addendum whenever custom overwelms doctrine, early in the game or not.

yep, I'm sure alot of Protestants probably do misunderstand that Catholics think the Popes are perfect.  I do understand that it's only under the ex-cathedra provision that the issue of infallibility comes along.  I just disagree with it, especially as it regards the veneration of Mary.  I don't believe there is any scriptural or practical basis for the doctrine of infallibility.  Of course, Catholics can very rightly say that Protestants often throw the Christ Child out with the bathwater when it comes to starting yet another denomination. As in, "Forget you, I'll start my own church"--which is both silly and dangerous.  But there is alot of division in the Catholic Church too, over what constitutes being a good, practicing Catholic. 

So, for example, if I as a Protestant, believe in the Real Prescence of Christ in the Eucharist, but I am required (so I'm told) to say that I believe in the sinlessness of Mary in order to be confirmed Catholic, where does my greatest responsibility lie?  As a Christian, I must receive the Eucharist in order to be saved, no?  But in order to receive the Eucharist, I have to lie, and say I believe the Marian doctrines.  If I say that, I've told a whopper of a lie about what I believe, so negating any good that would normally come from receiving the Eucharist.  Catholic leaders might say as soon as I have a properly formed conscience I'll be fine, but suppose I, and others like me, am right after all?  What then?  Do I lie to look good, or do I hold to the best of my ability to what I understand to be true?  I'll take the latter, as I think my soul is in greater jeopardy by offending God than the Catholic Church.

Crickhollow wrote:

So, for example, if I as a Protestant, believe in the Real Prescence of Christ in the Eucharist, but I am required (so I'm told) to say that I believe in the sinlessness of Mary in order to be confirmed Catholic, where does my greatest responsibility lie? As a Christian, I must receive the Eucharist in order to be saved, no? But in order to receive the Eucharist, I have to lie, and say I believe the Marian doctrines. If I say that, I've told a whopper of a lie about what I believe, so negating any good that would normally come from receiving the Eucharist. Catholic leaders might say as soon as I have a properly formed conscience I'll be fine, but suppose I, and others like me, am right after all? What then? Do I lie to look good, or do I hold to the best of my ability to what I understand to be true? I'll take the latter, as I think my soul is in greater jeopardy by offending God than the Catholic Church.

You must be baptized in order to be "saved".  Belief in Marian Doctrine is not a prereq to receiving the Eucharist or being a Catholic as far as I know. I have never heard what you have stated above.  I think many protestants think Catholics are all about Mary.  But, actually, Mary is not a focal point in our worship.  She is certainly important but  emphasis on  Mary is more a cultural thing in the Church, imo.   Yes, we have high regard for her and a great love for the mother of our Lord but she is not God nor are we to view her as such. 

I don't know who "told" you this.  I would be surprised if it was a Catholic.