See post 61...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2628718/posts?page=61#61
Rome dwells on the inconsequential. The incarnation is a mystery, and as such, we are not to extrapolate heresies from what we do not understand.
What we do understand is that Mary plays no part in our salvation; only in her own. Men are saved by Christ ALONE. Keep your eye on the prize and don’t be distracted by “foolish questions.”
It's only "inconsequential" when Geneva hasn't got the chops to understand it.
Count-your-change's point, if that's what you are referring to, is mistaken in making a mystical connection into an equality of substance. Christ's body is not Mary's body. The two are related in a deep mystical and physical way--a way which I cannot even begin to speculate on--but they are not the same thing. And yes, in the mystical and physical sense as Da-Shrimp already pointed out, Christ's body *does* have a human connection to Anne an Joachim and all the way back to Adam and Eve. That is what "becoming man" is all about--entering a family.
Mary is mystically present in the Eucharist, not SUBSTANTIALLY present in the Eucharist. She is present in the sense that her body gave rise to Christ's. But her soul is not in it. She has no divinity to put in it.
So what you saw as some glaring example of heresy is, in fact, a complete misreading of the idea.