LOL. Now we're devotees. As opposed to what, devout Christians? LOL. I suppose there will always be an audience who enjoys antiCatholic material. This stuff certainly isn't written to engage a Catholic who understands the faith.
Typical knee jerk reaction...
You just don't REALLY understand.
Actually by God's grace, we came to our senses and now really do understand.
Please, there is plenty of cogent discussion in that post of hers , yet I see no reply but this one complaint, followed by what appears to me to be hand-waiving, calling it all "anti-Catholic material".
If issues cannot be spoken of directly, how can they at all? The first link she gave, at the top of the post outlined arguments on both sides of an issue, that one specifically being Genesis 3:15.
I notice a distinct avoidance by any to address those points, the changed gender in the passage, and the conflicts between various positions taken regarding Mary, at different times.
The trouble many of us have are the inconsistencies that can be found. When they are brought to light -- if we are not ignored, we either get rudely insulted, are in lesser fashion called "anti-Catholic" or worse, but rarely ever are the inconsistencies addressed in logical, rational manner, for the explanations if they do appear all too often rely upon some sort of having things both ways, are tossed back to "infallible magesterium" as "proof", or in the case of much of current Mariology, have scant support found other than in apparent folk belief which sprung up early in church history, particularly in the East, and tap nearer to present day apparitions of Mary which then circulate among the faithful.
Near the end of the article we encounter statements such as;
Exalted to the seat closest to Him? When did He promise that specifically to her? What gives? Where, oh where does that sort of idea come from? Long winded apologia about how much he loves her, what she went through, how close she is to Him etc., still don't get us to "exalted...to closest seat..to Him in God's Kingdom", in fact such a claim can be seen to contradict scripture, (those scriptures having been posted on this thread already, by more than a few -- but ignored!) before even entering into being theologically troubling.
One Creator. One Son, One Spirit. But now there's four? When we otherwise hear of Mary being trumpeted as being "Queen of Heaven" perhaps one might see where others would object to the sound of it? If Mary "Queen", what next? "Move over Jesus, you're sitting in mommy's chair?"
I mean, the Roman Church IS quite famous for "unpacking" revelation said to have already existed. The phrase itself comes from a Roman Church prelate. But I predict there will be a difficult time stretching three more fully into being four, any more than has already been, and is currently being expounded upon in some RCC quarters.