SPLIT: Did Jesus have brothers? The perpetual virginity debate.

[Cat_Herder]

I guess it’s because I am not emotionally invested in the particular tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary, nor do I need to defend it against all assaults.

Those of us who you perceive as being “emotionally invested in the particular tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary” are actually invested in defending the divinity of Christ. You want a “pure” and “simple” Gospel but you want to take away the very core of the Gospel, which is that Jesus is God. Every attack that you make upon Catholic Marian teaching is actually an attack on the divinity of Christ. Case in point: By trying to deny Mary’s perpetual virginity, you are actually denying that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies perfectly.

I am free to take an unbiased look at the Scriptures and form an objective opinion without having my mind pre-conditioned to have to superimpose that pre-conceived notion upon Scripture.

The subtext of your comments drips with anti-Catholic bias. For example, you believe that:
Catholics have their “mind pre-conditioned”
Catholics rely on “pre-conceived notion” of “particular tradition”
Catholics are not “free to take an unbiased look at the Scriptures and form an objective opinion”

Respectfully, I do not see how your opinion can possibly be objective.

A reading of Matthew 1:25 with no pre-conceived notions plainly tells me that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary were like a normal, married couple.

Actually, besides anti-Catholicism, you have another preconceived notion, and it’s called English grammar.

The actual New Testament is not written in English, so I don’t know why you think you can interpret it using English preposition rules.

 

[Algo1]

I am free to take an unbiased look at the Scriptures and form an objective opinion without having my mind pre-conditioned to have to superimpose that pre-conceived notion upon Scripture.

…which is the result of private interpretation - which scripture prohibits. At some point, one either makes up their own beliefs, or trusts that God has kept the truth safely deposited somewhere. It is not all in the bible. It cannot be. The bible tells you so.

Here is what a respected ECF wrote about interpreting the Bible:

Jerome (347-420): . . . let us call upon the Lord, probe the depths of His sacred writings, and be guided in our interpretation by other testimonies from Holy Writ. Whatever we cannot fathom in the deep recesses of the Old Testament, we shall penetrate and explain from the depth of the New Testament in the roar of God’s cataracts—His prophets and apostles.
FC, Vol. 57, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 2, Homily 92 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1966), p. 246.

Jerome (347-420): Some may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter . . . FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily 6 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 45.

Jerome (347-420): A: This passage to the ignorant, and to those who are unaccustomed to meditate on Holy Scripture, and who neither know nor use it, does appear at first sight to favor your opinion. **But when you look into it, the difficulty soon disappears. And when you compare passages of Scripture with others, that the Holy Spirit may not seem to contradict Himself ** with changing place and time, according to what is written, “Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts,” the truth will show itself, that is, that Christ did give a possible command when He said: “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” and yet that the Apostles were not perfect.
NPNF2: Vol. VI, St. Jerome Against the Pelagians, Book I, §14.

Exactly how many Bible passages has the Roman Catholic Church interpreted infallibly?

I have seen a multitude of different interpretations of who the brothers are in the above quoted Bible passages by various Roman Catholic posters in this thread.
It seems that none of them are able to give an official interpretation of exactly what the relationship is between them and Jesus.
They (as well as the Magisterium) can only interpret what they are not:
Biological Brothers from the same womb as Jesus.

 

[BrianH]

Of course, 1st century AD writers totally used English phraseology and 21st century understanding of words like ‘until’ (the ENGLISH translation of the original words of Scripture). . .

Scriptural passages from not only the Old Testament (“And Michal, wife of David, had no children until the day of her death”) meant that Michal had children after she died. Of course.

And Scriptural passages from the New Testament ("And Christ must reign UNTIL all His enemies are under His feet) mean that after all the enemies surrender, Christ STOPS ruling.

Perfectly clear. If the understanding of ‘until’ means, as the ‘modernist’ says, that the use of ‘until’ means that after that ‘until’ the preceding action CHANGES, then that meaning must be EXACTLY the same every time the word ‘until’ is used. Right?

It is not the use of the word until (hoes hou) as the context.

Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife,
25and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

Joseph took unto him his wife” has the connotation of a normal marriage, which includes physical relations. Nevertheless, Matthew wanted to point out that he did not have relations with her “until she had brought forth her firstborn son.” Why?

A virgin birth and it does not offend sensibilities.
Why bring up sex to say he took her as his wife but did not have sex until she had given birth if they never had sex at all?
Matthew would have said, “Mary remained a Virgin forever”. End of story and not confusing in the least. The Catholic view is that Matthew brings the topic of sex up in a maritial relationship to indicate they never had sex. ???
The Protestant view is that Matthew mentions it because Jews would think that Jesus would be unclean if Joseph had sex while Mary was pregnant and you have a Virgin Birth (ie she never had sex until Jesus was born).

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

When the Holy Family came out of Egypt, how old was Jesus?

2

Does the fact that no other children were mentioned when Jesus was 12 years old mean that there were no others? It’s quite a leap to make that assumption.

That is the most skewed logic I have ever seen. You people are the one’s making the quantum leap in assuming Blessed Mary had other children when it is proven the very childern (James, Joseph, Jude, and Salome and Simon) you assumed were her other children, are in fact not. In proving this, the default position is that she never had any other children. The onus is on you to prove otherwise, but the overwhelming evidence proves our position so you’ll never be able.

When did they have other children? The gospel writers were focused on Jesus and did not consider it important enough to tell us one way or the other.

Assumption and not relevant to a debate on facts.

Joseph was of old age? Where did you learn that fact?

You learn much more of our past when you’re not shackled by the sola scriptura mindset.

 

[po18guy]

:

Here is what a respected ECF wrote about interpreting the Bible:

Jerome (347-420): . . . let us call upon the Lord, probe the depths of His sacred writings, and be guided in our interpretation by other testimonies from Holy Writ. Whatever we cannot fathom in the deep recesses of the Old Testament, we shall penetrate and explain from the depth of the New Testament in the roar of God’s cataracts—His prophets and apostles.
FC, Vol. 57, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 2, Homily 92 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1966), p. 246.

Jerome (347-420): Some may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter . . . FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily 6 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 45.

Jerome (347-420): A: This passage to the ignorant, and to those who are unaccustomed to meditate on Holy Scripture, and who neither know nor use it, does appear at first sight to favor your opinion. **But when you look into it, the difficulty soon disappears. And when you compare passages of Scripture with others, that the Holy Spirit may not seem to contradict Himself ** with changing place and time, according to what is written, “Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts,” the truth will show itself, that is, that Christ did give a possible command when He said: “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” and yet that the Apostles were not perfect.
NPNF2: Vol. VI, St. Jerome Against the Pelagians, Book I, §14.

Exactly how many Bible passages has the Roman Catholic Church interpreted infallibly?

I have seen a multitude of different interpretations of who the brothers are in the above quoted Bible passages by various Roman Catholic posters in this thread.
It seems that none of them are able to give an official interpretation of exactly what the relationship is between them and Jesus.
They (as well as the Magisterium) can only interpret what they are not:
Biological Brothers from the same womb as Jesus.

Trotting Jerome out when he is conveneint? Are you forced to unearth the non-binding opinion of a Catholic, since your private interpretation has caused you to disagree even with the fathers of protestantism?

I do not remember Jesus saying “Take it to Jerome” (Matthew 18:15-18) or Paul writing “Jerome is the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). They both said “Church”. Call me silly, but that is good enough for me.

“Holy writ” tells us that it must be interpreted by those in authority. Or, is your bible redacted at Nehemiah 8:4-12 and Acts 8:26-35?

None of this matters, except when you sit in the judgment seat. I will not sit in the seat only to explain why I added to scripture and made common the mother which God chose for His Son.

 

[po18guy]

When the Holy Family came out of Egypt, how old was Jesus? Does the fact that no other children were mentioned when Jesus was 12 years old mean that there were no others? It’s quite a leap to make that assumption. When did they have other children? The gospel writers were focused on Jesus and did not consider it important enough to tell us one way or the other. Joseph was of old age? Where did you learn that fact?

I may be wrong (again), but seems that you are adding the desires of your ego to scripture, as the bible nowhere, at no time - ever - mentions “other children” of Mary. Neither does it mention children of Joseph. Be anti-Catholic! Good on ya’! But, don’t add to scripture. 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16.

Again, why do you so desire that the mother which your God chose for Himself, be so common? Her marriage just like everyone else’s? Your bible tells you, inerrantly, that Mary declared to Gabriel, who stands in God’s presence, that she was the bond slave of the Lord. What does “bond slave” mean? And, what was the expiration date of Mary’s self-declared bondage to the Lord? Where is the Lord’s declaration of Mary’s freedom from bondage to Him? I’m afraid that I don’t see those in scripture, either.

In a court of law, your assertion would be excluded from the argument by the judge, as you are assuming facts not in evidence. Will you take your argument to the judgment seat of Christ?

 

[po18guy]

Please pardon the firm replies. As a Catholic, I tend to get a little edgy when the mother of the Church is questioned, when she first found favor with God. The bible calls her blessed, but man now calls her common?

Neither do Catholics allow a passing spirit to lead our interpretation. The only guarantee that a Christian has of leading by the Holy Spirit is within the authority of the Church, to which the Holy Spirit was given for that specific purpose. That is 100% scriptural.

All believers and non-believers are free to interpret scripture as they wish, but such private interpretation comes at a price. We can deny ourselves and receive the fulness of truth, or we can indulge ourselves and take the risk. Only one path is scriptural.

 

[Tomb54]

Here is what a respected ECF wrote about interpreting the Bible:

Jerome (347-420): . . . let us call upon the Lord, probe the depths of His sacred writings, and be guided in our interpretation by other testimonies from Holy Writ. Whatever we cannot fathom in the deep recesses of the Old Testament, we shall penetrate and explain from the depth of the New Testament in the roar of God’s cataracts—His prophets and apostles.
FC, Vol. 57, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 2, Homily 92 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1966), p. 246.

Jerome (347-420): Some may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter . . . FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily 6 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 45.

Jerome (347-420): A: This passage to the ignorant, and to those who are unaccustomed to meditate on Holy Scripture, and who neither know nor use it, does appear at first sight to favor your opinion. **But when you look into it, the difficulty soon disappears. And when you compare passages of Scripture with others, that the Holy Spirit may not seem to contradict Himself ** with changing place and time, according to what is written, “Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts,” the truth will show itself, that is, that Christ did give a possible command when He said: “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” and yet that the Apostles were not perfect.
NPNF2: Vol. VI, St. Jerome Against the Pelagians, Book I, §14.

Exactly how many Bible passages has the Roman Catholic Church interpreted infallibly?

I have seen a multitude of different interpretations of who the brothers are in the above quoted Bible passages by various Roman Catholic posters in this thread.
It seems that none of them are able to give an official interpretation of exactly what the relationship is between them and Jesus.
They (as well as the Magisterium) can only interpret what they are not:
Biological Brothers from the same womb as Jesus.

I have no problem you quoting the ECFs but then quote other things he also professed like;
“But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the **Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.” **Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 21 (A.D. 383).

and
“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

And quite a few others but I am sure this makes my point. If you quote Jerome he also teaches what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary.

 

[BrianH]

Please pardon the firm replies. As a Catholic, I tend to get a little edgy when the mother of the Church is questioned, when she first found favor with God. The bible calls her blessed, but man now calls her common?

Neither do Catholics allow a passing spirit to lead our interpretation. The only guarantee that a Christian has of leading by the Holy Spirit is within the authority of the Church, to which the Holy Spirit was given for that specific purpose. That is 100% scriptural.

All believers and non-believers are free to interpret scripture as they wish, but such private interpretation comes at a price. We can deny ourselves and receive the fulness of truth, or we can indulge ourselves and take the risk. Only one path is scriptural.

I think a lot of people that have been around here for awhile understand the passion and feelings Catholics have on these issues. It almost makes the conversation something to avoid except it clearly divides us. On the other hand, the verse that you cited concerning private interpretation is something I will address. I will not link the site because I do not adhere to many of their views but I do like the explaination.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).
The verb “is” in verse 20 is the translation of the word ‘ginomai’ which according to Strong’s Lexicon means, “to cause to be, to become, come into being.” Hence the sense of this verse is this: “no prophecy of Scripture ‘came into being’ by any private interpretation.” The apostle Peter is here speaking about the process by which the Scriptures came into being, namely, their origin, and not about the understanding of Scripture already given.

Peter says that no scripture came into being by ‘private interpretation’ - that is by one’s own explanation. Whom does he have in mind? Is it the reader, or the men who penned the Scriptures? Since Peter is speaking about the origin of Scripture, it seems likely that he is talking about the prophets themselves. In other words, Peter is saying that the Scriptures did not originate in the prophets’ own understanding. This could be confirmed if we read the following verse since the apostle Peter gives the reason why scripture did not come into being of the prophets’ own understanding, “for” he continues, “prophecy never came by the will of man.” The prophets did not invent the scriptures. Rather, they were God’s instruments to write his Word: “…holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

I agree that the passage is not suddenly talking about private interpretation but instead is talking about the origins of scripture.

 

[po18guy]

I think a lot of people that have been around here for awhile understand the passion and feelings Catholics have on these issues. It almost makes the conversation something to avoid except it clearly divides us. On the other hand, the verse that you cited concerning private interpretation is something I will address. I will not link the site because I do not adhere to many of their views but I do like the explaination.

I agree that the passage is not suddenly talking about private interpretation but instead is talking about the origins of scripture.

The verb “is” in verse 20 is the translation of the word

Does it all hinge upon what the meaning of the word “IS” is? Where have I heard that before? Outside of the Church, there is not one who has the authority to interpret scripture. Outside of the Church, there was not one who had authority to write scripture! But, so many insist on interpreting, twisting and distorting - and the fruits of their work is division.

Would it take an unreasonable act of humility to assume that the Church which produced the Bible was also correct about Mary?

Apparently, yes, it would.

 

[po18guy]

I will not link the site because I do not adhere to many of their views but I do like the explaination.

Is this not evidence that you risk fashioning a faith to your own desires? Picking and choosing from both scripture and interpretation is not how we deny ourselves, take up our crosses and then, follow Him. Matthew 16:24, Matthew 19:27, Luke 9:23

 

[paul_c]

The church teaches that Mary, who is to be called blessed, was ever a virgin. But in the Gospels she has 4 sons mentioned and the word “sisters” used talking about Jesus. Now i know that the word Brother can be used to mean cousin, but the word for sisters can only be translatted to mean sister. Holy Spirit does not confuse people. So lets look at why Mary has to be a eternal virgin. I don’t find anything in Scripture that says if she was or was not that will add to my salvation.

Scripture clearly shows that the 4 sons listed are not Mary’s children. Let me show you how:

Here is Mark 6, which defines Jesus" brothers:
3b Is he not the carpenter,* the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Now here are the three accounts of the crucifixion Note, that each lists 3 women in addition to the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are the same women but described in different ways, I’ve color coded the three verses to show who is who

John 19: 25* Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

mark 15: 40: 40* There were also women looking on from a distance.m Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.

Matthew 27: 55There were many women there, looking on from a distance,* who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

So the women are:

Mary Magdalene

Salome, mother of the sons of Zebedee ( the older James and John), and the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister

Mary, the wife of Clopas, who is the mother of the younger James and Joses (Joseph)

So James and Joses, the brothers of the Lord are the son’s of Mary, the wife of Clopas (who tradition says is the brother of Joseph, Jesus Foster Father).

 

[BrianH]

Is this not evidence that you risk fashioning a faith to your own desires? Picking and choosing from both scripture and interpretation is not how we deny ourselves, take up our crosses and then, follow Him. Matthew 16:24, Matthew 19:27, Luke 9:23

.
No I was simply looking for a succinct explaination of the verse. I have read commentaries, not a lot, on the verse and I think you get a mixed bag when it comes to interpreting that particular verse. I also know not to link to sites that do not conform to what I believe. I have learned that lesson over the years.
I think it is talking about the origin of scripture. It would be a very odd twist in the train of thought. Besides 2nd Peter never mentions the church…I think that is true. Someone will correct me if I am wrong

 

[BrianH]

Does it all hinge upon what the meaning of the word “IS” is? Where have I heard that before? Outside of the Church, there is not one who has the authority to interpret scripture. Outside of the Church, there was not one who had authority to write scripture! But, so many insist on interpreting, twisting and distorting - and the fruits of their work is division.

Would it take an unreasonable act of humility to assume that the Church which produced the Bible was also correct about Mary?

Apparently, yes, it would.

I do not think it hinges on is. We have seen that hoes hou usually indicates a change in state but certainly that is not what I was saying at all. It is the context.
I hear what you are saying about the Church. It is not unreasonable. However the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is infallible. It has to be believed by Catholics. It is of huge importance.
It is an afterthought in Protestantism. IF a Protestant reads Mattew, they will assume the most natural conclusion if they even spend anytime on a verse that probably does not catch their attention.
So yeah I have a choice. Do I believe the Catholic Church or what I really do seriously believe Matthew was saying? I cannot change how I see that verse. Heck, if it was not infallible it would not have to be such a deal breaker. But it is…

 

[BrianH]

Scripture clearly shows that the 4 sons listed are not Mary’s children. Let me show you how:

Here is Mark 6, which defines Jesus" brothers:
3b Is he not the carpenter,* the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Now here are the three accounts of the crucifixion Note, that each lists 3 women in addition to the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are the same women but described in different ways, I’ve color coded the three verses to show who is who

John 19: 25* Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

mark 15: 40: 40* There were also women looking on from a distance.m Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.

Matthew 27: 55There were many women there, looking on from a distance,* who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

So the women are:

Mary Magdalene

Salome, mother of the sons of Zebedee ( the older James and John), and the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister

Mary, the wife of Clopas, who is the mother of the younger James and Joses (Joseph)

So James and Joses, the brothers of the Lord are the son’s of Mary, the wife of Clopas (who tradition says is the brother of Joseph, Jesus Foster Father).

So let me clear this up, John mentions Mary the mother of Jesus. I get that. A lot in fact.
But Luke, Matthew, and Mark **never **mention the mother of Jesus but they DO mention other women of minor importance…but not the famous Mary…You said they mention her. But they don’t…
Also is the same women standing close in one passage and further away in the other passage? Which is it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

what I don’t understand is how the first ‘reformers’ such as Luther, reading the very same “scripture” passages that today’s Protestants are reading, still didn’t ‘see’ that ‘until’ meant, ‘hey, they’re gonna have sex now like a ‘real’ married couple’.

Wouldn’t you think that a person who was out to show where the Catholic Church had ‘gone wrong’ with Scripture would have IMMEDIATELY NOTICED this supposely Oh-So-Very-CLEAR passage and announced with the same fervor of some (not all) protestants today,
“LOOK, LOOK. SEE, SEE. SCRIPTURE says that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus’ birth. Scripture PROVES that she had OTHER CHILDREN. Scripture says it! IT does, it does!”

But Martin Luther taught that Mary “WAS A PERPETUAL VIRGIN”.

The man who was so quick to find “CATHOLIC ERROR IN SCRIPTURE” NEVER, NEVER, NEVER thought that the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity was false.

I challenge you to search the Catholic (and Orthodox) history of the last 2000 years to find where it was EVER taught as CHRISTIAN teaching by EITHER that Mary had children other than Jesus or did not remain a virgin.

Because you won’t find this teaching until 1600 years ‘after the fact’, and you can see where it is taught by MEN and not by GOD.

 

[po18guy]

.
No I was simply looking for a succinct explaination of the verse. I have read commentaries, not a lot, on the verse and I think you get a mixed bag when it comes to interpreting that particular verse. I also know not to link to sites that do not conform to what I believe. I have learned that lesson over the years.
I think it is talking about the origin of scripture. It would be a very odd twist in the train of thought. Besides 2nd Peter never mentions the church…I think that is true. Someone will correct me if I am wrong

All interpretation must come via the authority of the Church, as it is the same authority which was inspired to write the scripture that is being interpreted. As to that authority, we should not focus on the contemporary individuals involved, their personalities or nationalities, or on the passage of time, as the underlying authority they bear is exactly the same.

Please do look into the Catholic interpretations - most of which allow for a certain variations. Scripture teaches principle over precision. Consider that even Methodist teaching has changed, mostly during the 20th century. This should be troubling to any believer, no?

Jesus did not leave us orphans. Neither did He leave us the bible. What He did leave, and send forth, was Apostles with authority, guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[po18guy]

I do not think it hinges on is. We have seen that hoes hou usually indicates a change in state but certainly that is not what I was saying at all. It is the context.
I hear what you are saying about the Church. It is not unreasonable. However the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is infallible. It has to be believed by Catholics. It is of huge importance.
It is an afterthought in Protestantism. IF a Protestant reads Mattew, they will assume the most natural conclusion if they even spend anytime on a verse that probably does not catch their attention.
So yeah I have a choice. Do I believe the Catholic Church or what I really do seriously believe Matthew was saying? I cannot change how I see that verse. Heck, if it was not infallible it would not have to be such a deal breaker. But it is…

Brian, please bear in mind that infallible doctrine is always declared in response to heresy - the divinity of Christ in response to the Arians, etc. Dogma is declared to settle the argument for all time. Thus, the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity did not come during the reformation, as it was never challenged by the reformation. But, consider what has happened to protestantism in the intervening centuries: almost innumerable further divisions, and from this entropy rose the challenge to her perpetual virginity. Thus, it was declared later in time.

Here is the Wiki, which is most certainly not a pro-Catholic site. Of note is the fact that Islam does not teach definitevely on this, but does teach that both Jesus and Mary were ‘untouched by Satan’ at the moment of their birth. But, that is another dogma to discuss.

 

[Algo1]

I have no problem you quoting the ECFs but then quote other things he also professed like;
“But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the **Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.” **Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 21 (A.D. 383).

and
“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

And quite a few others but I am sure this makes my point. If you quote Jerome he also teaches what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary.

Here’s a little context for your second quote:

Pastor King Responds to Bryan Cross’ Misuse of Jerome

 

[Gift_from_God]

In Aramaic, the word cousin doesn’t exist. Hence, using brother and sister probably would have been used to refer to someone as your cousin