And yet the Gospels don't instruct us to sing hymns of praise, glorify and extol her, or any such thing. Honor her, sure, that's fine, but it goes beyond honor I think sometimes. It's true that she was selected, by the grace of God, for a very special role, but then so were others. Abraham was selected to be ancestral father of the nation and lineage of the Savior. Christ was still 'in his loins', so to speak, when God commanded Him to leave his home country and kindred and sojourn in the land of Canaan. And he obeyed without reservation. It could be argued that, without his cooperation and obedience in the plan of God, the God-man could not have come into the world. Why not say that Abraham is thus highly exalted above all saints, to the right hand of Christ Himself, the source of salvation, and so forth? After all, we are actually told in the New Testament the he is father to the faithful. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians in general explicitly told to regard Mary as Mother. What Jesus said to John, "behold your mother", doesn't necessarily mean that she is the Mother of the Church. He was instructing him to care of her after his departure. Even Jesus didn't call her His mother, strangely enough. He said "Behold, my mother and brethren", and stretched His arm toward his disciples. Perhaps He did this knowing that they would one day come to worship her just for being his mother. But even if she is the Mother of the Church, does that justify the elaborate hymns of liturgical praise, the wealth of Iconography, the feast days and prayers and all the like, all in her honor and with such great extravagance? Or is it rather the God she carried and birthed and and nurtured, who by his grace enabled her to accomplish the task, who really should be receiving such attention and devotion and adoration from the church?
Oh, but then those who make that argument are said to not understand the incarnation. But what if it's the other way around. What if the point of the incarnation is that He might be a faithful and merciful and all-sufficient high priest, one who through his humanity became partaker with us in all of our temptations and afflictions and sufferings, even unto death, and yet thorough his divinity overcame and conquered all. What if he did this so that he would not be "unable to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities", so that we through him could with boldness come before God and receive His mercy and grace. But if on some level you feel that He is not naturally inclined to help you that you must go and implore another mediator to stand between you and Him and gain his favor on your behalf, could it not be argued that on some level you would be missing the whole point? Granted, intercessory prayer is completely biblical and important, but it can be interpreted in a manner that is not appropriate. Some make it sound as though, without the intersession of Mary, we'd be toast. Like it's an indispensable part of salvation. If so, might as well go all the way and call her a co-savior and co-redeemer. But even if all true Christians are all co-saviors and co-redeemers in a the sense that God works through each person for the salvation of the whole body, we still have to deal with the fact that the Apostles, in their writings, did not instruct us to look at either themselves or any other person who played a role in the plan of God as anything more than human beings who were dependent on the mercy of God. If Peter rebuked Cornelius for bowing down to Him, and if the angel rebuked John for the same, why then should we bow to an image of Mary? Is it not possible that she would rebuke us likewise?
At the very least, this possibility occurs to me, and so I'm going to research it a bit more and see if something changes. Sometimes I can almost see it your way, and sometimes I look at it and the whole thing just seems blasphemous. If I am to become Orthodox, it's going to be a processes, and it won't happen over night. Not with the way feel about this issue currently.