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?
The wedding feast is about the beginning of His ministry. It’s not about Mary as catholics like to illustrate. Her name is not even mentioned. It’s all about Him.
I find that generally when there is shallow comprehension about Mary, thee is shallow comprehension about the Incarnation.
Some FReepers have even gone so far as to suppose that Mary served as God's birthgiver unwillingly --- she was supposedly, and they will say this explicitly, taken against her will --- and even that she was just a kind of surrogate-mother, an incubator who had nothing whatever to do with the providence of Christ's human nature. And they'll say that this had nothing to do with "covenants" (as if every covenant in the OT did not point to this!!) and that she was just an instrument in the most dehumanized manner imaginable: she was unfortunately flesh, so God had to unfortunately get onboard her uterus, but don't take it personally!
Not all, or even most, of our polemical friends take this attitude, thanks be to God; but some do. Not mentioning names, because I sure don't want to ping them into this discussion, which would be a near occasion of sin for us all.
As I noted to Mrs Don-o:
Catholicism has dogmas about Mary; the immaculate conception; perpetual virginity though none can be supported by Scripture.
Catholicism prays to Mary which is not sanctioned by Scripture.
Catholicism has tons of writings on Mary.
Catholicism has titles for Mary of co-redemtrix, mediatrix, advocate which are not supported by Scripture.
Catholics believe Mary influenced the Battle of Lepanto.
Pius V instituted "Our Lady of Victory" as an annual feast to commemorate the victory which he attributed to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This sure sounds like an endorsemetn of acceptance by Catholicism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_the_Rosary#Feast_day
This apparition is the same one who appeared at Fatima and the same at Guadalupe. The latter asked for a shrine to be built in her honor.
The Bishop of Leiria-Fatima noted the visions of Fatima were officially declared "worthy of belief" in October 1930. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima#Official_position_of_the_Catholic_Church
Yet, when an apparition shows us claiming to be Mary, which has to be the same Mary as noted above based on Pius's endorsement through the feast, and says things that make catholics uncomfortable such as: "5.The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the rosary shall not perish. or 11.You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the rosary, it becomes a take it or leave it proposition.
If the catholic really believes the apparitions are Mary why does the catholic not believe what the apparitions claim?
It sure seems like catholics want it both ways.
On the contrary, Jesus saves individuals, not groups.
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
The seven churches in Revelation were a mixed group of believers and unbelievers. There are always going to be wolves in a group calling itself a church.
The body of Christ transcends denominational affiliation.