The biblical formula as spoken by Christ in John 14:6 leaves no room for mary or anyone else regarding salvation. The NT is crystal clear on this. We have no NT examples of Jesus, or any of the writers, saying we must first come to mary and then we can come to Jesus.
John 2:5
Not sure what you're referencing, but Mrs. Don-O is correct in stating that "Mary apparitions" are private revelation, and as such, have no doctrinal authority. Zero.
Now if the "Mary apparition" you're talking about is approved by the church, that means that the churchmen who examined it think there's an orthodox way to understand what (is claimed to have been) said. There may be heterodox ways also, but that's not how the church understands them.
If it's not an approved apparition, you're on your own. There's no guarantee that the "apparition" isn't teaching grave heresy.
Speaking of grave heresy, there's no room in the NT for the kind of "Jesus and me" non-ecclesial ecclesiology you're teaching. Jesus saved his *church*, his *flock*, or he would never have called himself a *shepherd*, much less "the good shepherd".
Besides which, saying that there's "no room for mary [sic] or anyone else regarding salvation" means that the Incarnation had nothing to do with salvation, which is as contrary to Christianity as you can possibly get.
We have no NT examples of Jesus, or any of the writers, saying we must first come to mary and then we can come to Jesus.
Nobody used the word "must" in this context except you. "Can" or "should," but not "must".
Why is the story of the wedding feast at Cana in the Bible at all? John says everything in his gospel is there "that you may have life in [Jesus'] name," so that means the original example of Marian intercession is there for that reason as well. Does your church ever preach on John chapter 2?