Your path surely does indeed include Mary as God has come to us in human form through her.
If Mary had said no, and God had chosen another, we would be discussing that other Mother and she would have the same attributes.
But, Mary said yes and it is through her that God became Man and it is her flesh that clothes Him in His Incarnate form.
Wow, think of that. I do and I honor her because of it.
Just getting caught up, so if you haven't gotten to my previous question about alternates for Mary, don't worry about it. You have answered it here.
This last sentence caught my eye. You said Mary's "flesh" clothed Jesus in his incarnate form. Are you familiar with embryology? The fertilized egg and then embryo (we don't know at what exact stage the human Jesus took up residence in Mary's womb) is completely separate from the mother's. The DNA is different and even the blood type is different. The baby is NOT and never has been the "flesh" of the mother. In fact, in some cases, the developing child gets treated as a foreign substance in some mothers and her antibodies work to kill the invading cells. A negative Rh factor mother will develop antibodies against an Rh positive baby, and after the first child is born - without a special injection to prevent it from happening - subsequent pregnancies with Rh positive babies are threatened.
Not intending to give a biology lesson, but I was surprised to see a statement that implied Jesus' incarnate body was clothed with Mary's flesh. That is not a correct statement. If you mean her womb protected Jesus' incarnate body for the months he was in utero, then - never mind. ;o)