[BlatherNaut]

But what I cited is the conclusion of the homily on the topic.

And failed to cite the portion that provoked this discussion to begin with.

[piusv]

Like I said, he’s playing a game. Just like he truncates our posts when we use the word “hypothetical”.

Time for us to move on. I have no doubt (lol) that time will prove us correct and annalex incorrect.

[annalex]

The part that provoked the discussion was all merely a description of the "shocking mystery" as John Paul II called it; that part, -- the only one you paid attention to, -- is subject to the conclusion, which is the important part, and cited. Besides, all we know about the homily is right here, -- it is not like the reader has to rely on my quoting it.

The Gospel tells us nothing: if she said a word or not ... She was quiet, but in her heart - how much she said to the Lord! 'You told me then - that's what we have read - that He will be great. You told me that You would give him the throne of his father David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. And now I see Him there!' The Blessed Mother was human! And perhaps she would have wanted to say, 'lies! I have been cheated!'. John Paul II said this when he spoke of the Mother of God at one point. But she was overshadowed with the silence of the mystery that she did not understand, and with this silence, she has accepted that this mystery can grow and flourish in the hope.

As you can plainly see there is nothing unorthodox in the passage as a whole.