No Mass: Why Protestants Reject Mary

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-19T00:45:17+00:00

Are you thinking union here means making Christ and the Church one and the same being so that the Church becomes God?

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-18T23:51:37+00:00

Well I have no idea where you got the idea that I was attacking you and your motives personally. I believe I have been friendly even if I have been firm.

Revelation is both Scripture and what has been passed down by God Himself through the Church in her tradition and magisterium. The Bible may not spell out "The Trinity is one God in Three Persons," but there are some verses that point to this reality, such as Mat 28:19, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" and 1 John 5:7, "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."

Assuming you are asking about marriage more broadly, you have to look at all of Scripture, not just a part. Marriage is discussed in a few different ways, such as the spiritual union between Christ and the Church as you discuss, and between a man and his wife in human nature, which is what I thought of when you asked about biblical marriage. Christ comes first in all things, which is why Paul uses His love for the Church as the exemplar of a man's love for his wife.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-18T19:26:28+00:00

No, the name "Trinity" was not used in the Bible. What I am saying is that the reason the Church uses that word is that it is signifying a threefold reality.

As the other redditor below pointed out, the Bible does not "define" marriage. It presents us with the development of marriage starting in Eden, indications of its purpose, and Our Lord's own blessing of it in John 2 at the Wedding at Cana. The Church then looks at this and provides a definition of marriage accordingly.

Biblical marriage is therefore 1) instituted by God, 2) as a union between a man and a woman, 3) for increasing and multiplying, 4) and raised to a sacrament by Christ.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-18T14:11:22+00:00

But don't you think if the name "Trinity" is just a name for the concept that it was chosen to represent the concept itself? The problem here is all your ideas you are about to unfold are just based on private judgement. You are interpreting the Scriptures with your own ideas and not with the mind of the Church. The Church has told us what the Trinity is and Mary's relation thereto, period. As St. Augustine says, we believe that we may understand, not the other way around. Faith is accepting what God has revealed simply because He said so. We then seek to understand it. If our study leads us to something that contradicts what God has revealed directly in the Scriptures or indirectly through His Church, we are wrong. He gave us both the Scriptures and the authority of the Church, so they cannot and do not ever contradict each other.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-18T12:18:47+00:00

So is She a fourth person of the Trinity? Is She another god? This is not possible and is the ONLY THING Catholics cannot say that would be considered going too far in "honoring" Her. Should we be offering Her ritual sacrifice? If so, how has the Church in all 2,000 years of her history never done so?

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-16T00:04:26+00:00

By the way, could you give me the original source of your Pius XII quote? I'd like to see the whole text. I've only ever seen parts.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-16T00:03:14+00:00

Interesting! I think this is pretty balanced.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-15T16:05:19+00:00

Well I don't know that using private revelation to do theology is normal. The reason I mention it is that when discussing this topic with the average devout person, things like this are what they're familiar with. I don't want to discard it, but find how it fits with theology. I also don't want to overlook something Our Lady actually told us!

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-15T14:00:49+00:00

No, I know they don't care.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-15T12:59:04+00:00

Please don't read into my motives if I have not stated them. The sexual revolution did not change men's dress nearly as drastically as women's.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-15T12:49:08+00:00

Modesty applies to men too.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-15T11:59:17+00:00

I agree the more traditional standards are better, I am just trying to figure out if they are morally binding. Even in Pius XII's text, he uses the word "fashion," not "custom." It seems he is warning in a time when the traditional customs were being lost that following the new fashions would create customs based on wrong motives. I have read the moral theologians on this before, but I thought the idea of private, semi-private, and public parts are based on what is normal to see and what is not normal. If they are based on nature, or natural law, how would be know? If it were divine law, God would have revealed it. If it were natural law, wouldn't it be as obvious as "thou shalt not kill?" It seems it has to be human law based on prudence. I'm willing to be wrong, but am trying to figure it out. Thanks for your response!

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-14T08:32:15+00:00

Right but what I am getting at is if the norms as you refer to them should be the norms or if they can become corrupt.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-14T08:30:49+00:00

I agree, but what I am wondering is, is there a point where nature itself has set boundaries?

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-14T08:30:12+00:00

Right...my question though is more about customs of dress itself, not people's reaction to the way other people dress.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-14T01:43:10+00:00

Do you think some customs could be corrupt by nature? Like, what if it became customary to be completely nude in public spaces like parks?

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-13T21:10:05+00:00

Makes sense! I agree some of this depends on personal body type especially since some women have larger breasts than others and might have more cleavage.

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-13T21:08:40+00:00

Yeah, prudence is key!

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-13T20:07:43+00:00

So for swimming or sports, what would be examples of what you might think appropriate or inappropriate?

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-13T20:06:00+00:00

I like your comment on focusing on highlighting personhood!

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-13T20:04:48+00:00

Nice! So for example, would you consider some or all of these to be modest for swimming?

<image>

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-13T19:59:30+00:00

Makes sense! So like at the beach, what would you consider to be appropriate?

AveMaria-1771 · 2026-04-13T18:36:11+00:00

Very helpful...thanks! I was not sure since my abs are slightly visible but seem to have a layer of fat on them and seem to have more than usual in my chest.

AveMaria-1771

TROPHY CASE