I'm pretty sure you did notice that I provided link to source which cited that 1987 Edition. In your own usage, the citation towards that edition as source that you yourself openly provided being here otherwise seeming ignored.
This very issue has arisen before on FR, and with the same nasty twistedness, focus placed singularly to that one phrase in question to the exclusion of all else, not only other surrounding information as presented, but also similar likes of which be available through any number of "scholarly" historical work & publication, resulting or leaving the drive-by posting/sniping/impugning of source approach, in practice, being itself anything bUT actual scholarship itself, even as it derides [ahem] "poor scholarship".
All of which irritates me to no end, leaving myself and more than a few others wondering if that is much itself the point, a goal behind the impetus to drive any and all who refuse blind submission to "sola ecclesiasia", and whom take exception to argument of assertion brought by way of rhetorical wordsmith tap-dancing--- right TO the edge if not right over it.
It is earthly & demonic in it's origins, that I do know, for I know and can see it's fruit, no matter how piously camouflaged. Yet we must resist putting hand to that latch (such as poetically sang of in regard of another sort of interpersonal relationship) regardless of all the incessant pushing to do so. But still I will raise my own voice and cry out loudly, but not into a void.
I do thank you again, for your efforts of exactitude, and reticence, though perhaps it may not be your duty at this juncture to chase down a '87 copy of that particular encyclopedia --- for at this stage it be more incumbent upon those who bring complaint, to in actuality establish factual basis for their complaints. Item by item. I mean -- is that not the standard to which we ourselves are continually being held?
So don't feel too obligated to spend time you may not have to waste (since you are moving, or have just moved family domicile) on that one small item from "the Catholic Encyclopedia" of 1987, for the overall positional argument is scarcely reliant upon that extensive but still rather "iffy", source, for reason of it itself being a quite highly and stealthily editorialized combination of history/apologetic/polemic which cannot help but make mention of certain historical facts and conditions (in attempt to be taken seriously?) even as it goes to some (sly) lengths attempting to polish the more problematic to Romanist apologetic portions into insignificance.
As to that which you presented in the bullet point listing in reply 1472 for sake of wider information there, and in hopes of actual review of concept (the troubles with Mariology) taken at risk of yet more impugning of source, and further high-horsed a priori dismissal; the following commentary can be seen to apply;
The above chart indicates that Mary’s Person and Work is extremely parallel to that of Jesus Christ. This is why Dr. Martin refers to, "Rome’s systematic effort to raise Mary to Deity." Walter Martin, The Roman Catholic Church in History (Livingston, NJ: Christian Research Institute, Inc., 1960), p. 54.He also makes the following important comments:
I have in my library hundreds of pamphlets, manuscripts and books all published with the official imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church. In every one of them, language which is applied to God alone in Scripture is applied to the Virgin Mary. She is worshipped: she is given almost every title of Christ. Thus, they are subtly but systematically raising her to a place of equality with our Lord.... Worship, prayers, shrines, and even altars in churches have been consecrated to her around the earth. The healing grottoes are seldom dedicated to Jesus of Nazareth, but to "Our Lady of Lourdes," "Our Lady St. Anne de Beaupre," "Our Lady of Fatima," etc. The statues which are seen in Roman Catholic homes are invariably of Mary. The largest niches in Roman Catholic churches are occupied by images of Mary. The preponderance of prayers are to Mary, and the "Hail, Mary" is repeated in the Rosary continually.
With such as the above being important in light of what is mentioned from earlier in presentation at the same source [linked above];
As H. M. Carson remarks, "The development of Mariology has been accompanied by an ever-increasing tendency to accord Mary a worship that, in much popular devotion, is indistinguishable from that offered to God alone. H. M. Carson, Dawn or Twilight? A Study of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 128.For example, when the average Roman Catholic invokes the aid of Mary as a heavenly, all powerful, omniscient intercessor, or to beseech Jesus for them, or to help forgive their sins, it is hard to imagine that in that precise moment they are mentally distinguishing in a split second between latria, dulia and hyperdulia. "Rome may deny that Mary is worshipped as God. But to attribute to her powers which involve omniscience and omnipresence, if she is to hear [and answer] the prayers of millions, is to accord to her what belongs to God alone. Furthermore, the prayers themselves are phrased in such a way that it is hard to distinguish them from those offered to God." pg.29 ibid
It is at least true that no excess of praise rarely seems too much for Rome.
When one reads the supererogatory Marian praise and the reasoning of Newman below many years after the Reformation then one can see how easily the disputed description attributed to the CE could be reality.
It intends to express that God is her son, as truly as any one of us is the son of his own mother. If this be so, what can be said of any creature whatever, which may not be said of her? What can be said too much, so that it does not compromise the attributes of the Creator? He indeed might have created a being more perfect, more admirable, than she is; He might have endued that being, so created, with a richer grant of grace, of power, of blessedness: but in one respect she surpasses all even possible creations, viz., that she is Mother of her Creator .
It is this awful title, which both illustrates and connects together the two prerogatives of Mary, on which I have been lately enlarging, her sanctity and her greatness. It is the issue of her sanctity; it is the origin of her greatness.; What dignity can be too great to attribute to her who is as closely bound up, as intimately one, with the Eternal Word, as a mother is with a son? What outfit of sanctity, what fullness and redundance of grace, what exuberance of merits must have been hers,...
Basil of Seleucia says that, "she shines out above all the martyrs as the sun above the stars, and that she mediates between God and men." "Run through all creation in your thought," says Proclus, "and see if there be one equal or superior to the Holy Virgin, Mother of God." And St. Cyril, too, at Ephesus, "Hail. Mary, Mother of God,...through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified . . . through whom Angels and Archangels rejoice, devils are put to flight.. (Works taken from "Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II); http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp
And what is the warrant for this novel hyperexlatation of an instrument of God, the like of which is seen nowhere in Scripture and in number of honorific titles (http://tomsdomain.com/rosary/titles.htm) surpasses that seen given to Christ by the same sources.
The alleged basis is that she is the mother is the mother of God, and blessed above women, full of grace so that no sin is attributed to her. Mary was indeed a chosen instrument to incarnate the Divine Son of God, through whom the body the Father prepared for Christ (Heb. 10:5) came, yet she owes all that she is to God, and is blessed because of that, not because she is described as being the most righteous soul on earth.
For as regards virtue, this no more required her to be sinless than those holy men whom God used to bring forth His Divine word, (2Pt. 1:121) or Mary's parents themselves, or Israel, of whom The Holy Spirit states "as concerning the flesh Christ came , who is over all, God blessed for ever," (Rm. 9:5) and it is certain the nation was not sinless. Note also the Holy Spirit's qualifier, "as concerning the flesh" (not as it Israel was the author of His Deity) which restriction applies to Mary as well.
And without detracting from her humility and virtue seen in Scripture, and as her privileged role as mother, what is missing is a record of extensive tested virtue and love for all the church like as the Holy Spirit record of Paul, who is relatively marginalized by Catholics compared to Mary.
It is not written of Mary such things as that she was, "in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? " (2 Corinthians 11:23-29)
And thru whom most of the NT came, nor can any sin be attributed to him as a new creation with certainty. Yet where is the consecration to Paul among Catholics such as is given to Mary, or even a tenth of the laudatory titles and praise and (statues and prayers) given to him among Catholics, who can only wish Mary had a tenth of the record of Paul, whose testimony of his tested virtue and use of God is so extensive that some have composed a list supporting him as "pope Paul" (in satirical mimicry in response to RC exaltation of Peter)? And thinking of him (or Peter) above (or less) that which is written is also wrong as well.
As Ratzinger acknowledged, Mary, “in the gospel tradition is quite marginal,” (“God and the world;” p. 296 ) nor is her appearance always totally positive.
Mary is called "full of grace" by Catholics, quoting Lk. 1:28, yet the Scriptures do not say she was "full of grace," but highly favoured, as there is only one word used, which is the same as said of all believers in Eph. 1:6, which can denote "graced" or favored."
Trying to find support for superlatives from Aramaic is invalid as we must submit to the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the words of Christ in. As for other arguments, see here .
Jn. 1:14 uniquely states that Jesus was “full [plērēs, which is used 17 times, all denoting “full”] of grace [charis=grace] The key phrase in Lk. 1:28 simply says “Hail [chairō=rejoice, greeting, etc.] grace [chairō, denoting to be graced, favored, enriched with grace as in Eph.1:6.
Besides the lack of warrant for exalting Mary as the holiest of all, the hyperexaltation of Mary is based on her being the mother of God. While technically this is true in the limited sense that Mary was the chosen vessel thru whom her Creator was incarnated, and nurtured him as a child, yet her own body and blood came thru the One she birthed as a human being.
The unqualified use of the term "mother of God" (Theotokos) predominates Catholicism, and in which Catholics greatly emphasize what Christ owes to Mary, as if God actually owes anything to an instrument of His, while like Israel, the honor she has is due to God choosing to use her in His grace, and in His grace He rewards faith, (Heb. 10:35) and recompensing their works done by grace. This reason for Mary being blessed and her debt to God is far less prominent amid all the adulation of her as being the mother of God and holiest of all etc.
The abundant use of the term "mother of God" is part of the Catholic emphasis on what Christ owes Mary, in which case He also owes Israel, the corporate body "of whom Christ came, God blessed for ever," but Rm. 9-11 provides the right perspective.
Instead of the emphasis being on Mary's debt to Christ, the abundant use of the term "mother of God" is that it most naturally conveys that Mary is ontologically the mother of God, as if Mary was the author of the Divinity of Christ.
And the counsel of Ratzinger regarding title 'Co-redemptrix' is applicable here", he at least recognized that the title 'Co-redemptrix,'
“departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...” For, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word 'Co-redemptrix' would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way." (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306
For indeed, the objection to the term "mother of God" is not that it cannot be correctly used in a qualified sense, and Lk. 1:43 (the mother of my Lord should come to me) may arguably be used to support that (if the Divinity of the Messiah was being understood), but that its use is part of the exaltation of Mary which not only far exceeds that which it written of her or anyone in the tempered manner that the Holy Spirit describes His instruments, but conveys things which are not Scriptural. And in which only the Lord is set forth as the Heavenly object of prayer and praise, and being a mother of a child normally means providing and thus being the same nature as it, which in this sense would require Mary to be Divine if she were ontologically the mother of God.