[Claud]

Where he says, in the third paragraph, "because it (Mary's name) alone will suffice to cure them of all their evils". It seems to me that "alone" is quite intentional.

That may be a bad translation, but even if it isn't, it's clear that Richard of St. Laurence didn't hold to that "alone" in any absolute sense. Otherwise why would he say this is paragraph 1:

"there is not such powerful help in any name, nor is there any other name given to men, after that of Jesus."

You could add "the Holy Ghost" and "God" as well. Assuming the "alone" not a bad translation, I would just say that Richard's pen got ahead of his brain on this one. Anyone who claims that Mary's glory is in any way higher than Christ's is a heretic, plain and simple. Even Catholic theologians would make mincemeat out of such a statement.

[armydoc]

Even Catholic theologians would make mincemeat out of such a statement.

But it took a protestant to point it out on the 87th post of the thread. Not one "hey, this must be a mistake" or "this can't be right, can it?" from a Catholic. That seems to be the paradigm for Marian doctrines. On the one hand, the official "party line" of the RCC is nicely spelled out (hyperdulia, etc.) but in practice, anything and everything Marian is tolerated.