[Tantumergo]

"The phrases I underlined all required explanation of how they don't say what they seem to say on the surface. They all are better and rightly said about Jesus.

Give me the primary and I'll leave the secondary for others."

You are working on the assumption (no pun intended!) that to say something about Mary and the saints which can also be said, or said in a primary way, about Christ, is to necessarily detract from the uniqueness of Christ or the glory that is due to Him alone.

This is not the case and there is a very similar parallel in Protestant jargon. What is the Word of God? We would all agree that the primary meaning of this phrase is the second person of the Holy Trinity - Jesus Christ. But also we all agree that it is acceptable to use this term in its secondary meaning - about the bible.

Would it be reasonable to assume that using the title "Word of God" about the bible in any way detracts from the honour and glory that are due to Christ alone?

[FormerLib]

Would it be reasonable to assume that using the title "Word of God" about the bible in any way detracts from the honour and glory that are due to Christ alone?

You know, that's quite good.

[drstevej]

The written word (Scripures) and the living word (Christ) are both rightly called the Word of God. They testify to each other. Jesus authenticates the Scriptures and the Scriptures authenticate Jesus. In this sense neither are secondary.

Granted that Jesus as God is a member of the trinity and the Scriptures are a witness to Him. So if you call that secondary, I won't protest.

I will restate my point.

Give me the primary as fully primary and I will let the secondary be secondary to the extent the Scriptures allow. But don't inflate the secondary -- keep it the right size.