Okay I'm jumping in here a bit because I see a bit of confusion with everyone in regard to Mary. Sax is actually more accurate in some of his concerns than some others here, although his gnostic confusion is preventing him from understanding Christ's nature and he's coming out to unbiblical conclusions when he realizes the problems with a nestorian view.
How you can pray “Hail Mary, full of grace” when Christ is our grace.
Because that is the point. It was no human who first called her that, but Gabriel is the one who originally said "Hail, full of grace" to her, as though that was her name in heaven. This was because of her immaculate conception, which was by the grace of Christ retroactively applying to her entire being for every moment of her existence. This is only possible, in view of Ephesians 5:25-27 and Titus 3:5-6, if she was the first perfection of the sanctified state through the Holy Spirit that all of the people of God eventually obtain. This is also how she was the new ark of the covenant but did not die from such intimate connection with his divinity as everyone ever did from touching the ark of the covenant. She was indeed espoused to the Holy Spirit, but it was in this manner wherein all of us are espoused to the Holy Spirit and wherein all earthly marriage is only a dim reflection of the true marriage, which is the bride of Christ unto him by the Holy Spirit.
And no, this does not mean Mary is his mother and his bride, not any more than he means we are his brothers and his bride. Our heavenly union with God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is not in competition with or parallel to earthly marriage, but earthly marriage is only a kind of metaphor through which we understand the spiritual events. The Bride is all of us collectively, yet Christ is the firstborn of many brethren which is what we are to him, and we sons of the Father, and all of this is accomplished through the Holy Spirit, through whom we are also made into Christ's likeness. We can understand this metaphor of earthly marriage through Matthew 22:30 where Jesus says we aren't given or taken in marriage in heaven, which was after he was tested with a question about the heavenly relations of someone who is widowed and remarried several times on earth, and Ephesians 5:32 where Paul says the likeness of earthly marriage unto Christ's marriage and unity with the Church is a profound mystery. And you know if Paul of all people just has to leave it at "profound mystery" it may be beyond articulation! Nonetheless, after speaking about the unity of man and woman in marriage, he says he was talking about Christ and the church.
Now
I know Sax you have serious issues with all this, since you can't seem to comprehend the distinction between person and being, so the flat rejection of Trinitarian necessity here will lead you into some oddball conclusion, but scripture makes it clearly necessary for all statements in it to be true at once. I can tell from your pattern of posting here that you will feel compelled to share what ways you justify getting out of it to yourself, but just so you know I will not be paying attention or responding to any such thing after last time with the "God is a title" nonsense. I am only clarifying the Catholic understanding of Mary here, not wasting any more time on your rejection of the trinity.
But away from that tangent, let's focus on the fact she is espoused to the Holy Spirit and that is how she gave birth to Christ despite his divine nature, and this relation isn't part of some double marriage in view of her earthly marriage to Joseph. However, Christ also has human nature, two natures in one person. She brought forth Christ in the flesh, making her perfection of the spiritual marriage greater than it has been accomplished with any other created being, and in respect to this her earthly marriage with Joseph was unlike most earthly marriages; in the flesh dimmer than other marriages but in spirit and love far brighter. She did not bear children by him, which is exactly why she asked Gabriel in Luke 1:34 "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" even though she was by this point married to Joseph. If their marriage was as any back in that day, the presumed way that you would be having kids would be by having relations with your husband when you are brought under his roof. That option is clearly not in place here, since she does not think of "You will bear a son" in the manner as it applied to Abraham, but she did believe Gabriel, so she simply asked how it would be done since she wasn't planning on breaking any vows but children only came one way so far as she knew.
When Joseph learned she was pregnant he sought to divorce her quietly, why quietly? Because he was a widower who took a vow of celibacy himself, and thought she had done so as well, which is why she was a suitable wife for him. So for her to become pregnant was thought to be a result of sin in regards to her (I like to think he would presume her a victim before an adulteress), but because he didn't plan to have any children with her the possibility of cheating was not a deep personal offense, but he had a merciful attitude and wanted to protect her from the punishment that presumptions would impose on her. This type of relationship as well as these dangers from people presuming the pregnancy was from sin is precisely why he was a perfect earthly husband for her. His job was to protect her and Jesus from the results of false assumptions, and to not seek from her what she was not to have with any man. And here is where Sax is correct, that it would be seen as defilement of the holy temple of her body through which Christ entered the world if she would bear children by any man, since mankind's seed carries sin. The Church Fathers believed this.
However, where Sax is wrong is thinking Jesus was just materialized from spirit in her womb with divine DNA or something. Jesus didn't just come from spirit, since Romans 1:3 says Jesus descended from David
according to the flesh. In fact, this had to be in order for him to be the Messiah. So as Mary was a descendant of David, Jesus actually took everything of his flesh from Mary, and that is another reason for belief in the immaculate conception, because her DNA had to have been cleansed from all stain of sin since Jesus would take his body from hers. This is also another way wherein Mary is the redemption of Eve. For where Eve came from Adam's flesh and then by sin defiled mankind, Jesus came from Mary's flesh and by perfect sacrifice saves mankind.
Also VAL0R's description of the Wedding at Cana is also spot on. However he left out the fact that him calling her "woman" was in part to express the result of beginning that road. When he starts his ministry, his role as savior of mankind becomes the foreground and his role as her son goes to the background. Likewise, her role as his mother starts to go into the background, and her role as the new Eve and mother to all comes into the foreground. This is why he uses that Hebrew saying "what is that to me and to thee?" since he was pointing to the effect it would have on both their lives. He could do it, but it wasn't his time yet, so it didn't have to be his time. It could "not be their problem" and be fine, but the amazing thing is that with this question he left it in her hands, and she decided they would together commence his work of redeeming the world, and he followed her wishes. I even think of this question to her like a bittersweet inside joke. This is also why at the cross he says to John "Behold your mother" because it is in the perfection of his work that the perfection of her role is established. She is now fully "woman" in the redemptive sense, the work of cooperation with his grace unto the world initiated with her pregnancy now brought to completion, and she is not just his mother, but through perfect cooperation and unity with his work of grace unto the world, also mediatrix and mother to us.
Calls her THE MOTHER of God. It really doesn’t get clearer. It’s openly blasphemous. I’m starting to believe that that’s why the world falls for so much nonsense. If you can teach the world that Christ is God when he never said that or the Bible never says that, somehow elevate Mary to the queen of heaven which again is nowhere in scripture, then the sky is literally the limit with these people BUT through the grace of God, they still failed with that garbage because I don’t buy it and many others don’t either nor will we ever accept it.
Listen all I know is Christ is the Son of God, God is the Father and Mary isn’t as important as some make her as scripture mentions Christ born of someone other than Mary that was a female before creation 
unnnnnnnnnbelievable. Full on JW status. Can I subscribe to your monthly publication?