S
SIA
Guest
dillusional.Concerning the identities of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, please see my reply #543 in the thread: Re The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - an offshoot…Apologetics Forum. Hopefully you’ll see how the names match up. The lists of the Apostles should be sufficient when it comes to names. Going beyond these lists leads to “straining the text”.
It is uncertain who Salome is. Some scholars think that it’s probable she is the mother of the sons of Zebedee, while others have inferred she is a sister of Mary. But she is not the sister of James the less, Joseph (Joses), Simon, and Judas (Jude).
I apologize and stand corrected with regard to Josephus. I had Acts in mind. The historian is referring to the execution of James the less (the Just) in A.D. 62. The son of Alphaeus was not a uterine brother of Jesus. So the term “brother” should mean “cousin.” Please cite your source about this supposed dispute between Origen and Josephus.
My entire position is grounded on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, not hearsay. These two mediums of divine revelation must not be divorced from each other. Eusebius’ account does not reflect a traditional awareness of the Church with regard to Jude (Judas/Thaddeus). He simply reports what an annonymous group of people have to say. Moreover, he fails to mention who these people are and provide actual quotes. The apostle Jude was a brother of James the less (the Just) and a cousin of Jesus, the author of the epistle in his name. The Letter of Jude was read in the liturgy of the Mass before the canon of Scripture, for the Church accepted it as the work of an apostle of Jesus.
You’re mistaken about the Church Fathers with regard to the scriptural Mary. Hyppolytus is the first to call Mary the Ark in keeping with a tradition acknowledged by Luke, who clearly draws a parallel between Mary and the ark of the Old Covenant by referring to the Book of Samuel. Anyway, all Church doctrines have developed over a period of time. Christ established his Church to last until the end of the age, not until the end of the 2nd century. And all our Marian doctrines are based on what has been revealed implicitly in Scripture. The Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth”, Paul tells Timothy. Still Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr taught much more than what we have left in a few written letters and extant fragments. Paul never wrote about the virgin birth, or the ontological deity of the Holy Spirit, but I’m sure he mentioned it when he preached; although Arian Catholics and Unitarians would disagree. Churches had already been erected in honour of Mary in the Apostolic Era. James, the son of Zebedee, for instance, erected one in Spain before he returned to Jerusalem. Today this church still draws many pilgrims each year.
The Marian teachings of the Church Fathers have been consistent through the centuries, with the exception of Tertullian, who significantly denied Mary’s ‘virginitus in partem’. No Church Father has objected to the teaching of Mary as the New Eve and Mother of God, but rather articulated these teachings even further. No Church Father objected Mary was sinless. Origen merely believed Mary had personal faults like vanity and doubt. The consistent and developed teachings on Mary’s sinlessness through the centuries by the Fathers of the East and West led to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Finally, once the Church Fathers explicitly taught the Assumption in the 6th century (the feast was already celebrated in Palestine by the 4th century), only one lone bishop objected to this teaching in the 8th century, but it was not yet dogmatic. May I suggest you read Luigi Gambero’s book on Mary and the Church Fathers. You are obviously misinformed.
Mary does “inhabit an important role in the economy of salvation”, unless you consider the birth of Jesus unimportant. If not for her Divine maternity, the apostles would never have been called. Maybe you should stick to law and forget about theology.
PAX
