Yes, I understand how that can be. I'll attempt to explain.
It was not for reason that you had said that they shared the same blood (as in the same flowing through one, and then the other) yet many other Catholics have (not your fault they would say so, of course) but for the small portion which I did quote from you, including the less than clear, to me;
with that having followed prior contextual presentation of the concept
which with many other than yourself, judging by their own words, it becomes apparent that in the minds of many there is at least now, since her own dogmatically declared Assumption (and wait! there's more!) there is implied oneness of Mary herself with Christ's two indivisible "natures" (she's Queen of Heaven, sitting at the right hand, etc.)--- with those lines of thought and repetition of word usage, along with many other titles and statements regarding Mary (as Daniel posted short list of) which are similar or related, them corporately all together as 'body of teachings' for *some* Catholics leads far beyond a mere arms wide-open embracing of salutatory titles for Mary such the theological misleading "Co-redemptrix", which as daniel1212 included near the bottom of his comment #210 bringing commentary from Benedict XVI where (writing both as Pope and himself at the same time?) Benedict expressed precautionary towards the title "Co-redemptrix" saying such as;
But the language has been manipulated, and continues to be manipulated even by Benedict.
Persons today attributing continuing heavenly powers to Mary scarcely indistinguishable from those of the Holy Spirit (thus God Himself, theologically speaking) as "only coming from God" but still thru Mary herself as heavenly person-entity, is cover up for making Mary God-like, with that still allowed to continue, said to not be what it is --- for Marion considerations the nature of which I speak towards, most assuredly are significant theological addition.
Foundational support for them can not be found in scripture, or in the Christological debates either, other than by way of argument from silence perhaps, and a purposeful reading-in-between-the-lines of every word otherwise written towards her in adoration & praise. Well, that sort of thing, plus plentiful doses of a "if that-then this" continuation which Benedict himself seemed to prefer be on guard against, even as he craftily protected hyper-Marionism while appearing to tamp it down (somewhat).
Could anyone honestly imagine the Apostle Paul heartily agreeing to the Marion devotions of such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and the more thorough "development" of the devotion to "Mary" expressed by St. Louis de Montfort [secret of Mary]???
That latter makes Mary out it to be an indispensable (thus required) and heavenly gateway six ways from Sunday! What was that Benedict XVI was saying again about it being "simply improper to manipulate language?"
wow...just wow...and today there are many (not you I take it) little de Monfortian wanna-be clones runnin' 'round figuratively-rhetorically shaking their rosaries at folks -- and even (I've had this happen to myself here on FR, dealt out to me by one of the most prolific thread OP's) telling those who push back against Montfort-styled hyper-Marionism (for lack of a handier term) that those who speak against the breathless rhetoric (and the theological implications) have committed the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Ghost --- while no other "Catholic" steps in saying "wait a minute, you are going too far sister", thus leaving Mary here and elsewhere be elevated even higher than Jesus; for He said of Himself that all manner of things said against or about Himself (His own person) could be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ---not.
Which in that sense, even as to theological consideration, (if one speaks out against the Marion theology and earns for themselves guilt of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit for doing so) puts Mary on par with the Holy Spirit(!), but what the hey -- that's what de Montfort does, without coming right out and admitting in so many words that he does so.
Perhaps de Montfort was oblivious to only but the narrowest hopes he held(?) that everything (as in all graces, and more) flowed thru "Mary" --- WITH NO EXCEPTION if one reads carefully just what he wrote as provided at the one link I provided. There is more along those lines in other writings of his which make everyone out to be so filthy that none can approach even the Eucharist without having Mary come to them (or them go to her) to be first cleansed inwardly by singular ministrations which God Himself (according to de Montfort) has assigned to "Mary" -- alone.
Please forgive me for being so long winded, and for repeating some parts of that which Daniel just posted to you also --- but for these sort of reasons and more, I wrote what I did concerning the blood of Mary & Christ not having "ontological oneness", with this of great significance for the life is in the blood, with that having far reaching theological implications, yes, within discussion of Christ's Incarnation.
The Risen Christ told his disciples that He would go to the Father, and must do so, or the Comforter could not (or would not) be sent to them. There was no mention that at some centuries later date the workings of the Holy Spirit would be transferred over to his own earthly mother (after her own alleged bodily Assumption).
Denial that the theological implications of Marionism have led to this consideration by saying -- but it still all comes from God, just thru "Mary" are as fig leaf hiding the nakedness of the theological addition & change, which has arrived incrementally, step by rhetorical step. I do believe the Apostle Paul would be aghast...
Initially, in the previous note to you, I was just repeating the information concerning the circulatory systems being entirely separate from one another, as much for reason this "oneness" spoken of was one of the points being discussed by yourself, with many Catholics in past times (and here on the pages of FR also) arguing among other things that Mary and Jesus shared the same blood while He was forming in Mary's womb, as support for the concept of this "ontological oneness" of Christ Himself now included Mary too (but to what extent?) for the ontological oneness was being reexamined/discussed, with yourself having made mention of related perceptions of implication as to Mary.
The abortion mentions came about as something of afterthought & addendum, but there also, although one may need focus not on the "sameness" of mother and child, and rather instead the very differences (two separate and individual living entities) happily enough, though that may let some of the air out of a few dedicated Marionist's balloons;
At the same time, very much can possibly be recovered in ideological ground against the Materialists pro-choice persons, as how in mother-child relationship, the individual living human beings are not the same entity.
Granted there is indeed much overlap between mother and child, particularly when that babe is yet to be born, but is in existence. The two persons are not ontologically one even when a babe be yet in the womb --- or else the pro-choice crowd is right, and it's all about only a woman's body, and none other, everybody else should just go mind their own business, nobody has any say whatsoever regarding the yet unborn child.
The “ontological oneness” tag comes from daniel1212, not from me. I deny it theologically and linguistically. I especially deny that it is lingusitically equivalent to Father/Son with respect to ontology.
I am a Dominican tertiary, as was deMontfort. I think of him as “Crazy Louie.”
I hope to have time for a more thoughtful reply later. I should say that the “heart” was a typo. I meant to say “heard.”
The biggest source of confusion may turn out to have been my typo. I meant to say, relying on the unity of two natures in one person, secundum Chalcedon, that when Mary hearD the heartbeat of her child, she heard the heartbeat of God.
Again, I think that daniel1212's proposition that the expression "Mother of God," implies ontological unity is mistaken. The suggestion that "Mother of God" has the same sort of implication as "Son of God," is very unlikely to be true.
Paul, IIRC, makes a distinction between "children" and "sons" because, as he says, "If sons, then heirs." The mother of the child is mother in any case, but the Father must acknowledge the child.
(This is why some 'de-sexing' and politically correct translations run the risk of blurring important matters.)
Further, as I have already written, in the biology of the time (and up to at least the time of Aquinas), the mother only supplies the 'stuff,' of the child while the quiddity is supplied by the Father.
Now, the hairy parts:
First, there is no denying that, leaving aside those formally charged with heresy, there is a lot of Marian nonsense out there. There are times when I want to give Crazy Louie and others a good shake! And this issue is complex, IMHO.
For example, in both the Memorare and the Salve Regina there is language that is over the top theologically. I personally found the Salve repellent until I heard it sung in Latin by some Cistercians after night prayers. Then I 'got' it.
And what I 'got' was something of which many non-Catholics do not think, and upon which they look with grave misgivings: Marian devotions (and devotions to other saints) often lead to deep affection. And the language of affection is not philosophical or theological. I make predications of my daughter TO my daughter that she and I both know are not, strictly speaking, true. But I am not going to stop saying she's the most wonderful girl in the world.
Words suggesting Necessity
When we say things like,"God HAD to to thus and such to redeem the world," it's a little more complicated that it may appear. As far as we know, God could have made what seemed to be a neonate (who was also God) without the involvement of a woman at all. Or He could have just presented to the world a perfectly human thirty-year-old Jewish guy (who was also God). This is one of the reasons that I prefer the word "fitting" to "necessary." We 'know' what He DID. He wouldn't do anything indecent. Therefore ...
okay That's quite enough for one post. Let me catch my breath and I will drone on (and on... and on .... and zzzzzzzz).
You mean "saint" Montfort. Whose college teachers, the Jesuits, were known for their zeal in propagating devotion to the angels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Montfort
It is all summed up in the unofficial policy Monsignor J.D. Conway with its essentially meaningless practical distinction:
We must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess, because it is not possible to overestimate the privileges God gave her in making her His own Mother. - “What the church teaches,” by Monsignor J.D. Conway/ Imprimatur of Ralph L. Hayes,, New York; Harper and Brothers; 1962 (He also states, “It seems manifest that Christians simply adapted the art of pagan Rome to their religious needs:” p. 218)
You can somehow never honor Mary to excess, but know you are not adoring her. What this amounts to in practical terms is that Catholics can engage in forms the Scriptures collectively associate with idolatry or would be blasphemy when ascribed to men, such as attributing to entities beyond the grave the power to hear and respond to virtually infinite amounts of requests from earth, making offerings to such, kneeling, prostrating before such, imploring them for mercy and heavenly aid with fastings etc., ascribing vast powers in the unseen world, praising, blessing, extolling as possessing supreme virtues, in a word, "adoring," etc., as long as they claim they are only giving "hyperduliain" honor to the "mother of God," and not adoring her as God, who alone among those in Heaven is the recipient of the above in Scripture.
Idolatry does not have to mean the being supplicated is the supreme being, but includes ascribing to such uniquely Divine attributes and giving obeisance and adulation to those in the unseen world. beyond the grave, even if in submission to other deity, as in some forms of paganism. (http://www.hierarchystructure.com/greek-religious-hierarchy)
Thus we see pagans doing what Catholics do, "O Baal hear us," "O Mary hear us," and making offerings to, even as the Queen of Heaven, kneeling, prostrating before (and graven representatives thereof), beseeching such for help, directly accessing them by mental prayer, as beings possessing superior powers and Divine abilities in the unseen world.
Which is not once seen in Scripture, not even one single prayer by a believer on earth amidst its multitudes addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord. And the model prayer instructs us to pray to the Father, to whom the Spirit cries, (Gal. 4:6) which one has direct access to by the sinless shed blood of Christ, (Heb. 10:19) and who is the only intercessor btwn man and God, (1Tim. 2:5) and to whom we come directly, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13) Which is a mark of Deity. It is quite certain that in Scripture if one was found kneeling, beseeching and directly praising one in the unseen world then he/she could not excuse it as simply engaging in hyperdulia. Even if the elect were to praise and supplicate a departed saints, the fine distinction btwn such hyperdulia and latria is too much to expect to be followed, and what Scripture does is censure some of the very things engage in towards departed saints (the distinction btwn "saints and other believers also being unscriptural) under the premise that this extrascriptual practice is sanctioned and that they are only engaging in dula or hyperdulia.
But the attitude of Catholics is much like that of their predecessors in "hyperdulia of a "Queen of Heaven" whom they cannot honor to excess:
But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. (Jeremiah 44:17)