Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[Alexander_Roman]

Mormons aren’t Protestants. In fact, our view of salvation is a lot closer to Catholicism than to Calvinism–or any strictly belief based system. No 'name it and claim it" ideology over here.

Care to share? That’s quite a sweeping statement.

(sigh)

No we don’t.

Now that is an ironic statement indeed, given what you wrote about Mormons in this post.

OK, you are on

I never said Mormons are Protestants - they are not part of Christianity, nor is their baptism considered valid etc. (If I’m wrong, please correct me).

As for the God the Father thing - what is the LDS teaching on how Christ became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary. I will accept your presentation here as THE LDS affirmation (and will always tell this to Mormon missionaries at the door).

As for Mormon scholars studying Patristics - do you or do you not invoke the early church Fathers and have scholars who study the Fathers? As for why they do, we’ll leave that alone.

My statement on the “carnal religion” thing is actually taken out of context. I was referring to those contemporary Protestants who feel that the Virgin Mary somehow “had to have children” after Jesus to “fulfill herself.” We like to impose our own human views onto God and His saints - and we shouldn’t.

If I haven’t made myself clear, please let me know.

Cheers,

Alex

 

[dianaiad]

Mary said, how can this be?

That’s a lot of meaning you got out of 'how can this be?" Kathleen. Most fourteen or fifteen year old girls, even today, ‘haven’t known’ a man. It doesn’t mean that they are officially consecrated virgins.

 

[KathleenGee]

Alex and Schaick,

St. Thomas Aquinas was not a firm believer in the Immaculate Conception, its concept debated for centuries. Given his stature, it surely added to the reservation of the Church to fully define it.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dianiad,

It is true about that age group of girls…we were taught in Catholic grade school that women in that period of time married at that age, as do many as such in Mexico today.

We were taught that Mary was consecrated to God because she was first born, taking that into context of her given culture and times. The Church has always taught Mary was consecrated virgin with the fact that the Holy Spirit and not a man, would overshadow her.

 

[ERose]

If I may suggest one more point to consider ,on both sides,is to consider the long term ramifications of such dogma on ,: more Marion dogma -this being the beginning ,and the fruits thereof? It seems we go from ever -virgin ,to Immaculate ,to Assumption,mother of God, co -redemptrix etc.etc…I also understand there are more titles to be put before current pope. We also have alledged visions of Mary,and a lot of praying to her etc…I see the evrer-virgin doctrine as a slippery slope to further untruths and carnal ,even pagan imitating practices.

This I disagree with you. It is not a slippery slope because the other doctrines and accepted beliefs about the Blessed Mother do not directly come forth from the Perpetual Virginity. In fact these doctrines or beliefs come from our belief in Christ. For example: We believe that Mary is the Mother of God because we believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. She is referred as the Co-Redemptrix because it was through her accepting to be the Mother of our Lord “Let it be done to me as you said” that the Redeemer entered into the World. Etc. So maybe it would be a good idea for you to do a little research that is not bias to your side and try to understand why we believe what we believe.

On the flip side ,Mary is venerated , by what is simply put forth scripturally.Our prayers generally are to the Lord . Luther ,sees it as wrong to be "active " towards Mary ,and preferred passive veneration-and veneration, still close to catholic dogmas.Protetstants could be lukewarm in her veneartion ,then probably lukewarm to all saints ,

All I know is that if it is good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me. So I will pray to His Mother and to His Saints as well as to Him.

but Catholics could go overboard , almost displacing what is reserved for the ministry of the Holy Spirit. You would have a stronger position with me if your Mary dogma stopped at ever-virgin. We also have a stronger base from which to debate -Holy Scriptures .

This I disagree as well. By our teachings on the Communion of the Saints we magnify the ministry of the Holy Spirit and not displace it. It is through the Holy Spirit that those before us have become Saints and how we can become saints. Acknowleging that those who have gone before us to our Lord are still interested in fighting for the souls of men and that the Holy Spirit has given them the grace and access to help us only magnifies His Work.

Indeed ,that is what church fathers did -discuss the same scriptures we do today.I believe it is wise to use hindsight to help determine the very beginning of it all. The ever-virgin doctrine today,does not stand alone as it did at the beginning.

This is not necessarily true. The Church Fathers discussed Church teaching primarily and used the Scriptures to support their arguments, but you didn’t have the Church Fathers saying that something was not true because it wasn’t in the Bible. No they argued from the teachings of the Church.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Nicea325;7049460:

I understand his point…it took me quite awhile to understand the Catholic POV on this. I have to admit that from the outside looking in

it looks very much like worship…as if Mary is being worshiped as a goddess, and for the very reasons that were brought up.

I have since come to an understanding (probably also erronious, but closer to what I think Catholicism means) of the place Mary and the Saints actually have; not as ‘goddess’ or as idols, but as intercessors for you with God the Father and His Son. It’s worship of God at a remove, out of respect for Him, not out of divine worship for her. Mary is easier to love and relate to; the Saints shared mortal tribulations and are closer to mere sinners like us; they might understand the problems–or rather, the sinner might feel more comfortable thinking so. Mary and the Saints are not worshipped instead of worshipping God; they are used to help in the worship of God.

At any rate, that’s my impression of it.

I don’t agree with it, but I think I’m closer to an understanding of the idea, anyway. At least, I don’t see y’all as idol worshipers putting Mary in as a female goddess!

What a great Catholic you would make! (Any chance, by the way . . .?)

Venerating the saints is a way to honour God’s Grace present and working in us. Just as the Body of Christ became the instrument of salvation for humanity, the Divine Nature working through it, so too do saints and members of the Communion of the Saints become sacraments of God’s incarnate presence in the world - indeed, we are called to be. A Christian saint is someone in whom we experience the Presence of Jesus. Through the Holy Spirit and in the Body of Christ, we are partakers of Theosis and we are transfigured. We become, as Martin Luther said as well, “little Christs.” To venerate the saints is to honour the Body of Christ as they are members of that Body and we are all called to participate in the bringing of salvation through and in Christ to all.

Martyrs were honoured and invoked by the early Church, not just imitated. It was all a single “package.” Then other categories of saints were added. For me, this is part and parcel of a truly Incarnational faith and practice. It was God’s choice to bring us salvation through matter, to save us by becoming One with our frail nature, thereby recreating it in His own Divine energies.

This is why the Church, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, anathematized those who refused to invoke the Saints. As with icons, it was and is a form of unbelief in the Incarnation and its consequences for us and the world.

And all the ascriptions to Mary have everything to do with her role in the plan of Salvation through her Son.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex and Schaick,

St. Thomas Aquinas was not a firm believer in the Immaculate Conception, its concept debated for centuries. Given his stature, it surely added to the reservation of the Church to fully define it.

You are right, he wasn’t. But given the Western Church’s acceptance of the “stain of Original Sin” (usually ascribed to Augustine), Aquinas couldn’t see how that was possible. Bl. John Duns Scotus the Franciscan was the one who developed a theology of the Immaculate Conception which was, as we know, accepted by the Church.

The Eastern Church had no such problem and didn’t accept the Augustinian view of Original Sin. Mary’s complete sinlessness from her conception was never in doubt in the East.

Ultimately, a Father or a theologian can offer their own views to the Church. It is the teaching authority of the Church as the Body of Christ under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that alone has the final word.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

That’s a lot of meaning you got out of 'how can this be?" Kathleen. Most fourteen or fifteen year old girls, even today, ‘haven’t known’ a man. It doesn’t mean that they are officially consecrated virgins.

Are you just trying to be deliberately disrespectful or does it come naturally to you?

Again, you compare today’s situation to the situation then. Sociologically, you are on shaky ground. You already know what I think of your theology.

Alex

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, Alex…good points.

I tend to brace myself when a non-Catholic pulls out a quote from a saint who was not speaking in the spirit of the church, but in his own opinion.

There are no lone rangers in the church.

What we draw on is the working of the Holy Spirit through the universal church, meaning the common faith shared by the Holy Father, the bishops and the believers in their given dioceses.

I met some Catholics who were in utter disbelief when they heard of St. Thomas’ opinion regarding Mary’s conception as well as his comment that women had defective genes.

How how I love the dignity Mary has shared with women Christian or not!

There is this outline to picture in one’s mind…the Western Latin Fathers, – St.Augustine and original sin, St. Anselm and the Doctrine of Atonement and how these gave rise to the Dominican Tradition and St. Thomas Aquinas that indirectly caused various Catholics to develop a more sin and atonement centered spirituality, Jesus as expiation for sin, work at worthiness and performance based vs the Cappodocians, the Greek Fathers.

Under the Greek Fathers we draw on Athanasius who was a great promoter of having well educated Christians versed in science and other disciplines, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus. These gave rise to the Franciscan Tradition – Francis and Clare, Bonaventure and Scotus, a spirituality that is Love-centered, Jesus as the blue print of creation, that working at worthiness is instead refocused by the Franciscan tradition as only God is worthy, from performance based to Love and gift based.

The former Dominican Tradition, – and I am a great devotee to St. Catherine of Siena and Carmelite spirituality --is under the title of Primary Catholic Theology that is reinforced by the understanding of our Catholic liturgy, I also personally draw on Franciscan perspective that is Alternate Catholic Theology, from the juridical/Path of Ascent to the relational, Path of Descent to the feet of Christ…to serve God in our neighbor as servant. I am drawing here on a comparative derived from the Franciscan order.

The Church is big and all encompassing of the different weights and perspectives and always the fruit is Jesus Christ. It is said that the Dominican tradition is the head of the Church, and the Franciscan its heart. We need both.

All in the Church work to help us further define holiness by the living example of the Apostles and saints. And Mary is considered by all as the greatest saint.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, Alex…good points.

I tend to brace myself when a non-Catholic pulls out a quote from a saint who was not speaking in the spirit of the church, but in his own opinion.

There are no lone rangers in the church.

What we draw on is the working of the Holy Spirit through the universal church, meaning the common faith shared by the Holy Father, the bishops and the believers in their given dioceses.

I met some Catholics who were in utter disbelief when they heard of St. Thomas’ opinion regarding Mary’s conception as well as his comment that women had defective genes.

How how I love the dignity Mary has shared with women Christian or not!

There is this outline to picture in one’s mind…the Western Latin Fathers, – St.Augustine and original sin, St. Anselm and the Doctrine of Atonement and how these gave rise to the Dominican Tradition and St. Thomas Aquinas that indirectly caused various Catholics to develop a more sin and atonement centered spirituality, Jesus as expiation for sin, work at worthiness and performance based vs the Cappodocians, the Greek Fathers.

Under the Greek Fathers we draw on Athanasius who was a great promoter of having well educated Christians versed in science and other disciplines, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus. These gave rise to the Franciscan Tradition – Francis and Clare, Bonaventure and Scotus, a spirituality that is Love-centered, Jesus as the blue print of creation, that working at worthiness is instead refocused by the Franciscan tradition as only God is worthy, from performance based to Love and gift based.

The former Dominican Tradition, – and I am a great devotee to St. Catherine of Siena and Carmelite spirituality --is under the title of Primary Catholic Theology that is reinforced by the understanding of our Catholic liturgy, I also personally draw on Franciscan perspective that is Alternate Catholic Theology, from the juridical/Path of Ascent to the relational, Path of Descent to the feet of Christ…to serve God in our neighbor as servant. I am drawing here on a comparative derived from the Franciscan order.

The Church is big and all encompassing of the different weights and perspectives and always the fruit is Jesus Christ. It is said that the Dominican tradition is the head of the Church, and the Franciscan its heart. We need both.

All in the Church work to help us further define holiness by the living example of the Apostles and saints. And Mary is considered by all as the greatest saint.

I thank you for such a thoughtful and theologically rich statement. If the Catholic Church would ever allow women bishops, I would certainly cast my vote for you!

Seriously though, you’ve made my day and I’m going off to the weekend a happy person!

May God richly bless you!

Alex

 

[dianaiad]

OK, you are on

I never said Mormons are Protestants - they are not part of Christianity, nor is their baptism considered valid etc. (If I’m wrong, please correct me).

You are wrong. Or at least…sloppy. YOU May not consider us ‘part of Christianity’ or consider our baptism valid, but WE do. You could, with equal accuracy, say that Catholicism is not considered part of Christianity (a BUNCH of evangelical fundamentalists refuse to consider Catholicism Christian, y’know) or that your baptism is not valid (well, as to that, we don’t think Catholic baptisms are valid; we only think ours are.)

So we can begin with this: you don’t think I’m a Christian. Fine…I’ve got that. However, I think I am. I also think you are. You don’t think my baptism is valid–fine, I understand that, too–I don’t think yours is. As long as you remember that, and understand that a sweeping declaration of “Mormons aren’t Christian” isn’t something I’m going to let slide, or agree with, we’ll get along fine. I don’t mind if YOU don’t think so, actually, or even if you tell me that you don’t think so–just don’t make declarative proclamations that imply that I have to agree with it. it’s begging the question, and I will usually call you on it.

As for the God the Father thing - what is the LDS teaching on how Christ became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary. I will accept your presentation here as THE LDS affirmation (and will always tell this to Mormon missionaries at the door).

The Book of Mormon states that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God in the Flesh, quite literally. So…whatever miracle happened to cause Jesus to become fully human, and grow in Mary’s womb as fully human, it did not involve God having sex with her. Of all the Christian groups, we are the one group that MUST believe this, because unlike other Christian groups that can wiggle around with the word ‘virgin’ in the bible, the word in the Book of Mormon can be translated in no other manner but that of the English interpretation…that of a woman who has never had sex with anyone, or Anyone. What we know of His conception is what everybody else does; The Holy Ghost ‘overshadowed’ or ‘over came’ Mary, and she conceived Jesus…but the Holy Ghost was not the Father of Jesus; God the Father was. If you look at the context of the quotes you are probably familiar with, you will see that they are generally about that; how God is the Father and the Holy Ghost is not. It’s about how, even though the Holy Ghost was the One who visited/overcame her and was instrumental in that conception, God the Father is the Father…and the father. I realize that the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity (though it comes a lot closer to the LDS one than either group likes) isn’t the LDS one, but THAT is the argument here, not whether God had sex with Mary.

As for Mormon scholars studying Patristics - do you or do you not invoke the early church Fathers and have scholars who study the Fathers? As for why they do, we’ll leave that alone.

I don’t, so much, no. Though we do have scholars that do, of course; we do, after all, want to know what went wrong when and who messed up first.

My statement on the “carnal religion” thing is actually taken out of context. I was referring to those contemporary Protestants who feel that the Virgin Mary somehow “had to have children” after Jesus to “fulfill herself.” We like to impose our own human views onto God and His saints - and we shouldn’t.

If I haven’t made myself clear, please let me know.

Cheers,

Alex

Well, when you take things out of context to make a point, you can’t blame me for reacting to the point you were making. Thank you for the clarification!

…as for me, I don’t think she ‘had to have children.’ I just don’t see the problem with the probability/ possibility that she did. It does not, in my view, alter her very special position as the mother of Christ in any way…except perhaps to make her feel a little more like, well…the rest of woman kind. Just a thought…but given the very special place that Catholics put Mary in, with the immaculate conception/perpetual virginity/Queen of Heaven stuff, she isn’t exactly like any other human woman, is she? She’s superhuman…not exactly divine, but closer to it than any other human being ever born. If she needed to be that in order to have Jesus, how can He be said to be 'fully human?" Born of two…God the Father and a woman who was considerably more than human?

Sorry, just musing a little bit there, my own opinions and thoughts alone.

My bemusement is for this obsession regarding perpetual virginity: why is that belief necessary? What would change about the role of Jesus Christ, or indeed of Mary’s role as His mother, if she did have other children? Would Jesus be any less the Savior? Would He be any less His Father’s Son? Would the Atonement be invalid? What would happen?

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Alex,

And this is why, drawing on the universal faith of believers in the Church, that even though I practice indulgences, I don’t bother with the linear day thing–250 days freed from purgatory – who knows!!, …

considering we who try – try to live by faith not sight, – see this world, as well as heaven, purgatory and hell as spiritual states…if we do not turn towards redemption in Christ, we continue on where we are – either to God or away from Him…

Have a great weekend… I am going out do things…but never a priest or bishop!

Kathleen

 

[dianaiad]

Dianiad,

It is true about that age group of girls…we were taught in Catholic grade school that women in that period of time married at that age, as do many as such in Mexico today.

We were taught that Mary was consecrated to God because she was first born, taking that into context of her given culture and times. The Church has always taught Mary was consecrated virgin with the fact that the Holy Spirit and not a man, would overshadow her.

Well now, that’s a problem for those of us who are not Catholic, Kathleen.

I have no problem understanding that you believe this, or why you do. The problem lies in the evidence you use to support the idea. It is not, after all, in scriptures. That alone would cause problems with sola scripturians (which we are not) but what does cause problems for us is that we have troubles accepting as authoritative for us the writings of church leaders much after 100 AD. We do, after all, claim that y’all fell into apostacy.

So the question is, not why you believe it, or whether you should believe it, but why we should.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad;7049498:

What a great Catholic you would make! (Any chance, by the way . . .?)

I dunno…any chance you’d ask the next LDS missionaries that visit you for a baptism date?

Venerating the saints is a way to honour God’s Grace present and working in us. Just as the Body of Christ became the instrument of salvation for humanity, the Divine Nature working through it, so too do saints and members of the Communion of the Saints become sacraments of God’s incarnate presence in the world - indeed, we are called to be. A Christian saint is someone in whom we experience the Presence of Jesus. Through the Holy Spirit and in the Body of Christ, we are partakers of Theosis and we are transfigured. We become, as Martin Luther said as well, “little Christs.” To venerate the saints is to honour the Body of Christ as they are members of that Body and we are all called to participate in the bringing of salvation through and in Christ to all.

Martyrs were honoured and invoked by the early Church, not just imitated. It was all a single “package.” Then other categories of saints were added. For me, this is part and parcel of a truly Incarnational faith and practice. It was God’s choice to bring us salvation through matter, to save us by becoming One with our frail nature, thereby recreating it in His own Divine energies.

This is why the Church, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, anathematized those who refused to invoke the Saints. As with icons, it was and is a form of unbelief in the Incarnation and its consequences for us and the world.

And all the ascriptions to Mary have everything to do with her role in the plan of Salvation through her Son.

Alex

I don’t understand the idea completely, Alex…and that which I do understand I don’t agree with. Or rather, I have other beliefs that contraindicate them.

Personally, I think that Catholic veneration of Saints and of Mary can be very meaningful and beautiful, and I certainly don’t believe that those who engage in it are going to hell or being pagan idol worshipers…I just don’t agree with it.

 

[dianaiad]

Are you just trying to be deliberately disrespectful or does it come naturally to you?

Again, you compare today’s situation to the situation then. Sociologically, you are on shaky ground. You already know what I think of your theology.

Alex

That was not being disrespectful, Alex, even a tiny bit. It was a simple statement that the words 'how can this be?" do not indicate that the speaker was a consecrated virgin. As it happens, though girls of fourteen did indeed marry that young, they still were, especially in good families (like that of Mary obviously was) virgins as a rule, not an exception. The point is, it would have been far more unusual for Mary to have ‘known’ a man than that she had not. So…where is there any evidence of her having been a 'consecrated virgin" in those words?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well now, that’s a problem for those of us who are not Catholic, Kathleen.

I have no problem understanding that you believe this, or why you do. The problem lies in the evidence you use to support the idea. It is not, after all, in scriptures. That alone would cause problems with sola scripturians (which we are not) but what does cause problems for us is that we have troubles accepting as authoritative for us the writings of church leaders much after 100 AD. We do, after all, claim that y’all fell into apostacy.

So the question is, not why you believe it, or whether you should believe it, but why we should.

Actually, to claim the church fell into apostasy is to attack Christ’s scriptural promise to remain with His Church for all time. As for falling into apostasy - do you mean to say that the Mormon scriptures are part and parcel of the NT and the Bible as a whole? There is evidence from before 100 AD that this is so?

Catholic faith is based on scripture and tradition/the fathers as interpreted and authoritatively taught by the Church. If you don’t accept sola scriptura, as you yourself said, then why do you apply a sola scriptura standard to the Catholic faith?

The contention of a 19th century sect that the Catholic Church apostatized and the true church only came back in the (surprise!) 19th century - is that even a serious position? We Catholics have always said scripture and tradition understood by and in the Church is the “datum” of our faith - please do go ahead and take us at our word.

If we had a sola scriptura position (and it can be argued that even the Protestants have always had their own tradition alongside that of scripture), then your argument would hold water. The experience of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, her assumption et al. is based on the ongoing relationship the Christians at that time had with her and the Apostles. That was handed down in Tradition. We don’t see it as contradicting scripture, not one shred of scriptural evidence showing that it does has been produced here.

Once again, sola scriptura is without foundation in the Bible. The Mormon scriptures outside the Bible have no foundation in the Bible. The church’s authority and Christ’s promise to be with it always does have foundation in the Bible. The notion that Christ’s promise to be with His Church lasted only about 100 years after His resurrection is the true apostasy.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends on the Forum,

I guess I didn’t think I’d be in such discussions when I signed up here as this one. I didn’t come here to be argumentative, but only to deepen my knowledge of the Catholic faith.

I see that I really shouldn’t be here and so I want to thank you all for your kindness toward me and to wish the administrators and moderators and members here all the best. You people are A1!

Over and out,

Alex

 

[adrift]

One area of usage I haven’t seen mentioned is past vs future tense

Future tense - She refused to date him 'until hell freezes over’
Usage in future tense does not clearly indicate a change in state. Since the Granny & medicine example is future tense, it does imply a review of state instead of a change in state

**Past tense - She was chaste until her wedding night **
Usage in past tense clearly indicates a change in state. The discussion of ‘knowing Mary’ was past tense usage of until, clearly inicating a change in state.

Net, any more examples offered should use until in past tense.

past tense refers to a verb. Until is a conjunction which meaning is only about a period of time. The verb is not past tense but Imperfect.

 

[Mike2010]

Todd520;7049192:

I

Well put .I have often thought of that, but forgot that saying .Scary when you think about what could have been preserved ,intentionally or not. Wonderous that so much did get “through”.

This statement is a position of many Non-Catholics.

The first Christians were persecuted during the first centuries, and faced attacks from heretics and non-religious for centuries. We know about these attacks on the Church’s doctrine. The earliest Christians defended the faith from heresies and we know about these heresies.

Why would they destroy your beliefs that you have now and try to hide it, but not these other beliefs that the early Christians believed were wrong and defended against?

I highly doubt that your positions were destroyed by the Catholic Church that were the “victors”.

If the Catholic Church destroyed evidence of your beliefs, why accept the Bible? The Bible did come from the Catholic Church.

 

[ERose]

It seems to me that the best attack by protestants on the perpetual virginity of Mary is Mat 13:55 & Mark 6:3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him. Am I correct? I mean I know that you want to use other verses to support this verse, but this is the only verse that you have that I know of that can in your view point stand on its own.

Well let us look at this verse and compare it to other verses in the Bible. The best way is to find references to James, Joseph, Jude and Simon. So here are the verses that I found that reference these men:

Matt 10:3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus,

Matt 27:56 Among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark 15:40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome:

Luke 6: 14-16 Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes, And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.

Acts 1: 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.

The James that is usually referred to as “the brother of the Lord” is the one that is also referred to as James the Less who was the brother of Jude and of Joseph as is referenced in the two main verses: Mat 13:55 & Mark 6:3. But it should be shown that the father of James as per Scripture is Alpheus and his mother is also named Mary but nowhere does it indicate that the Mary the mother of James who is married to Alpheus is the same person as Mary the mother of Jesus. So as I have said before there is no scriptural proof that Mary the mother of Jesus was also the mother of James, Jude and Joseph. Rather James and most probably Jude and Joseph were born of another Mary and their father was Alpheus.

In fact I challenge you to find a verse in the Bible that says so and so (not Jesus) is biologically born of the Blessed Virgin Mary.