Our Lady’s body is not John Brown’s body: it had a higher vocation; there is no tradition, as there is with other saints, of relics: what happened? Historians have little to go on…..
Since Vatican II, it has proved a lesser obstacle than expected. True, Barthians do not like it. But John Macquarrie’s Mary for All Christians (1991) gave a positive C of E critique; and the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, in 2005, affirmed “the teaching that God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into his glory as consonant with Scripture, and only to be understood in the light of Scripture”. When Anglicans speak of unwarranted developments these days, they are more likely to be talking about disputes among themselves. Indeed, the charge of setting the bar too high for communion, levelled against Rome in 1950, has a topical ring to it….
It’s nice, but it’s written to a very small minority in the Anglican world. Remember how C.S. Lewis says in the intro to Mere Christianity that he didn’t include a lot about the Virgin Mary? He said it was because it didn’t make much sense to talk about the Virgin to people who didn’t believe the Virgin’s son is God. So right 60 years ago, so much more now. The way the Orthodox and other traditionally minded folks have treated this over the centuries is that there are tings you proclaim and things you don’t. Christ crucified and raised is taught in public. Anything else like the family facts about the Mother of God are for the family, in the bedroom of the Church. I can’t imagine teaching anything about the Theotokos to 99% of Episcopalians. They haven’t got it straight (!) about who can even get married in a church.