D-fendr, did you read what DeMontfort wrote? Do you consider that a little too far or way way over the top? If you consider it a too far please show me what you think is too far?
I should have summarized, in answer to your question, that I think the article has the balance; if anyone takes part without the other, that would be an unbalance.
As for DeMontfort, I think one can take him to a quite unbalanced place; and, reading him one, usually, needs a guide. I think this one helps:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-reader-s
I could try summarize a great deal of my thinking:
Who Christ is, God in history, “in person” if you will, is in a huge part what our religion is. Fully realizing this - not just intellectually - is a spiritual exercise, and that is putting it far too mildly.
Who God is, who we are and our relationship to God is a way of encapsulating the whole of religion.
All three of these: God, man, relationship, are there in Christ, in His incarnation. One very good way - I think essential for me - is realize (make real) Christ, the Incarnate Word. And a key way to do this is relate to oneself that God had a mother. In this way we, as humans, who also have a mother...
This is ineffable, but an attempt to explain what for is to Jesus through Mary.
Last post should have typed:
This is ineffable, but an attempt to explain what for *some is* “to Jesus through Mary.”