Indeed. I didn’t mean to imply that the Mary sitting at Christ’s feet with the “better part” was His mother. I only meant to emphasize that the Scriptures say that prayer is the “one necessary thing” and at the same time, also emphasize that Mary the Mother of God is the model contemplative-- taken together they show Mary as the ideal disciple of Christ.
It seems to be a reasonable thing to suppose that Luke who portrays Mary the Mother of God as a contemplative did not forgot what he later said about prayer being “the better part” (Lk 10:42).
I didn’t mean to assert anything more than this, only that Mary is portrayed as an ideal disciple of Christ if we compare both Luke’s infancy narrative and his later comments on the primacy of prayer.
The problem with placing much emphasis on the word kecharitomene/favoured/whatever, is that Paul addresses the Ephesians (I think) with the same word. So far, it has not been suggested that they must therefore have been conceived without sin - yet that is the sort of inference that is drawn from Luke’s use of the that same wored for Mary of Nazareth.
The argument stems not from the word itself, but from the dual usage of the particular tense (perfect) and the use as a name for Mary. This is why the link to Philvaz’s site which Fidelis gave emphasizes that while kecharitomene is perfect passive, the usage in Ephesians 1:6 is indicative active aorist. If the argument wasn’t founded particularly on the tense of the word, then it seems it would be susceptible to your argument. But as it is, it isn’t dependent merely on the word itself, but argues based on the particular usage of the word.
Neither the “Mary as Ark of the Covenant” nor “Mary as New Eve” typologies are Biblical - just very ancient; the NT Ark of the Covenant is Christ. It was because that typology began by being applied to Him, that in due course it was applied to her.
I’m not sure I can quite agree with this. It seems to me that 2 Samuel 6 is a quite obvious parallel to Luke 1. That would seem to suggest that Luke consciously made the parallel.
So, while I think that the Ark of the Covenant may be actually intended by Luke, I would generally agree with you that the human authors of Scripture probably didn’t directly intend the typology otherwise. It is more of a case of the plenary meaning of Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit, not strictly accessible by historical-critical method.
That’s why, again, I only offered them as illuminations which show the plausibility of the later development of the Marian doctrines. Typology cannot, strictly speaking, carry any argument by its force. I think it can, however, induce one to see the reasonableness of a certain doctrine, on the one hand, by seeing how it is a self-consistent doctrine from the Catholic side, and on the other hand, by seeing how the doctrine has a certain, although hazy, anticipation in sacred Scripture.