I really think a lot of the responses you get are due to (bearing in mind all the usual apologies for my projections, etc.) the way when we Cat'licks read your posts, we only know we've been clobbered, but we're not sure where or why. So all we can respond to is the general clobbering, but not to any particular assertion.
I don't even know, sometimes, if you are quoting something with approval or disapproval. For example, you gave us this:
Her motherhood does not, therefore, extend to all the Trinity, but only to the Second Person, the Son, ...Do you like this or not -- and in either case, why? I think it's fine.
One of our titles for Jesus is "Pantocrator" which essentially means all-powerful or all-ruler ('crator' as in aristocrat), but I don't know any serious theologian who thinks that The Entire Trinity was in Jesus, rather than "God the Son of God."
Understand.
I can try and prefece some of my sentence frags with a clue as to whether I support them or not! LOL.
Sorry about the lack of clarity.