[ealgeone]

There are some outright errors in the writings of some mystics. These are not endorsed by the Church. Even if the mystic in question is a canonized saint, that does not mean all their writings are perfect in all respects! Some of them are too ambiguous to yield a judgment of their accuracy. (Ambiguity is a characteristic of any Bible passages too, as we have seen.

To begin with...the mere fact he has written an entire book devoted to the "glories of Mary" is mind-boggling in itself.

The quotes in the book, and there are more than one, lend support to my position that these writers were placing their hope and trust in Mary.

St. John of Da mascus expresses the same thing when, address ing the blessed Virgin, he says to her: Oh Lady, in thee I have placed all my hope, and with firm confidence I look to thee for my salvation,

f St. Thomas says that Mary is all the hope of our salvation.

J St. Ephrem explains: Oh most holy Virgin, receive us under thy protection, if thou wilt see us saved, since we have no other hope of being saved but through thee.

Paul and John would have recoiled at such statements. I find it telling that in all of their writings no such "devotion" or reliance was ever accorded to Mary as there are in more than one roman catholic writing.

To your point that the "mystics" sometimes made errors.

This new and improved translation of "The Glories of Mary, " having been duly examined, is hereby approved of.

John, Archbishop of New York NY, Jan 21st 1852

This illustrates the problem with roman catholicism's reliance upon tradition. When the writer says something catholics like he's a great guy and accepted. When the same writer's works are really examined and contradictory positions to the Bible are espoused the catholic retreats to "it's not doctrine" or they made errors.

However, in this case the Archbishop of NY approved this book and it's contents and message. This would tell me he has found no doctrinal issues with the book. Being an Archbishop I would imagine he had a pretty good grip on roman catholic beliefs.

Catholics cannot have it both ways.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Again (sigh) no Catholics see this as Mary *instead if* Christ, Mary as a rival to Christ, a double to Christ, or a substitute for Christ.

"To Christ Through Mary" would be the overriding theme, and it's a legitimate one. Why? Bcause we obviously approach Christ through His Incarnation, and His Incarnation is through Mary. Just as you could legitimately say,

• "To Christ Through the Jewish People" (since, as Christ says, "Salvation is from the Jews" -- (John 4:22) and we could say

• "To Christ Through the Church" ---since the Church is the Body of Christ, or

• "To Christ Through the Bible" --- since Jesus is the Word of God (personal) while the Bible is the Word of God (in writing).

• And there are many other examples parallel to this. The meanings are not identical ---- they are distinguishable in rank, in kind, in degree --- but they are comparable. They "rhyme".

Every Marian doctrine or devotion is about what God does ("The Almighty has done great things for me.")

None of it presupposes Mary as in independent actor, a Lone Ranger(ess).

Keep this in mind, my FRiend, and I am confident your understanding will increase and your misunderstandings will be overcome.