[OLD REGGIE]

But it was when somebody else quoted somebody like deMontfort saying as clearly as could be that in every respect mary is secondary and derivative and blah blah, and the response from the other side was, in essence, "He's just saying that. He doesn't mean it."

The skeptic might call De Montfort's disclaimer as but the standard disclaimer. He then feels free to fill page after page with over the top "veneration" to Mary.

This "veneration has continued through the reign of "TOTUS TUUS" Pope John Paul II who considered De Montfort's True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin at least one of the most important books he has ever read and gave due credit in his encyclical "Rosarium Virginis Mariae".

What do you expect?

[Mad Dawg]

The skeptic might call De Montfort's disclaimer as but the standard disclaimer

How long has a "standard disclaimer" been false because it was standard? What's the matter with a "standard disclaimer"? What is he supposed to do? A non-standard disclaimer?