I agree with that.Of course everything in scripture should be studied
You indeed have the light of tradition, just not sure it is apostolic, unless you think James wrote the Protoevangelium.But WHY not study in in light of Apostolic Tradition?
If it may not be apostolic, it may not be 2000 years old. And anything not apostolic might, might qualify as an invention.Why come up with theological inventions that cannot be supported, that also contradict 2000 years of Church history?
I have been defending this teaching of the Church for many years here on CAF.You indeed have the light of tradition, just not sure it is apostolic, unless you think James wrote the Protoevangelium.
.If it may not be apostolic, it may not be 2000 years old. And anything not apostolic might, might qualify as an invention.
I am sorry mcq72.CCC 500a Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157
The Church has ALWAYS understood these passages as NOT referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. . . .
I know …sorry, but a few fathers did for some of the aspects of this dialogue.Never once have I appealed to the Protoevangelium. Not once.
No apologies necessary. (I’m not bothered by this at all.)I know …sorry, but a few fathers did for some of the aspects of this dialogue.
Perhaps when doctrines are not explicit in apostolic teaching they then require a lot of energy and usually some time to develop implications and then to formulate pros and cons.just don’t understand WHY you put so much energy into DENIAL of a doctrine that has been so widely accepted.
Not being condemned is not such a high bar.Did any Fathers that you are aware of CONDEMN the Protoevangelium?
You seem to be condemning it. Is it not such a high bar for YOUR argument then?Not being condemned is not such a high bar.
I didn’t understand the point in bringing up a celebrate priesthood as we still have married priest mostly in other rites. It is also a discipline and not a dogma as Mary being ever virgin is.has interesting twist, to combat or address issue we bring up, that doctrine solidified during ascetic stage of church history, by citing those against perpetualness don’t believe in celibate priesthood…which is funny because it still does not address how such a celibate priesthood developed (the first church certainly did have married priests)
I don’t know thie Meier but if he says that Mary had other children he does not espouse Catholic thought or teaching.on another note from different article citing a Catholic historian (Meier) who says Josephus in his writings definitely used Greek word for cousins 12 times, and was certain that when he used brethren then for James , it meant sibling. That is, Josephus did not let his culture color his historic writings in terms of brethren cultural nuance that we have discussed.
WHO are you talking about here??citing those against perpetualness don’t believe in celibate priesthood
Right, we have been over this and so it is not condemned, and it is not inspired as eye witness account writing. It definitely has a few of its points contested by Fathers. It also has some fathers citing it as source for some beliefs, or that it is a record of such beliefs, or that “some say” certain points of the writing.It is certainly not as well received as say Rome’s (Clement) letter to the Coronthians, which I believe had zero critics on any points. It apparently had trouble with someone centuries later listing it as a book to be avoided. Agree the author is unknown and attached itself to a pope (Gelatian?), but that is no different than someone attaching James to the nativity story. And if James is reflection of beliefs, then so may the “books to be avoided” do the same. It definitely seems to be a good reflection of their current assesment of said books.At best you could say it was due to the graphic nature dealing with midwife and Salome (?), but we just aren’t told.Maybe not but I expect that your answer means that there were none and I disagree with you that it does substantiate that even though it was not scripture it was reliable as to what was believed.
I wish I had an emoji of scratching a head. I have no idea what you are saying Pope Clement was said to have written the letter but I think that it is now attributed to someone unknown. Do you mean Pope GELASIUS?Right, we have been over this and so it is not condemned, and it is not inspired as eye witness account writing. It definitely has a few of its points contested by Fathers. It also has some fathers citing it as source for some beliefs, or that it is a record of such beliefs, or that “some say” certain points of the writing.It is certainly not as well received as say Rome’s (Clement) letter to the Coronthians, which I believe had zero critics on any points. It apparently had trouble with someone centuries later listing it as a book to be avoided. Agree the author is unknown and attached itself to a pope (Gelatian?), but that is no different than someone attaching James to the nativity story. And if James is reflection of beliefs, then so may the “books to be avoided” do the same. It definitely seems to be a good reflection of their current assesment of said books.At best you could say it was due to the graphic nature dealing with midwife and Salome (?), but we just aren’t told
Yes and I think the poorer the people the more accepted this practice is. I am friends with a Philippine family that all sleep on a concrete floor. One mother, 5 children of various fathers, and two cousins of different siblings. Just in the last week an additional 13 year old second cousin of a friend also started staying with them because his grandmother locked him out of his house and his drunken uncle was abusing him.Another point. We have talked about the culture. Families lived together. You didn’t have uncle Joe and aunt Emma and children living in separate houses across town. They lived as a group. When family was referred to it incorporated grandparents their children, and their children’s children. When the people referred to His brothers it included the whole family of aunts, uncles, and cousins. So mcq how would the writers refer to such a diverse group of relations especially since that same group did not have such distinctions such as already been mentioned. In today’s world, we would say there is the Smith family. I just thought of something if they had used Jesus’ Family we would be discussing if Jesus has children.LOL.
Just read an article that looks at scripture to show high probability that “unmarried” meant more often than not as widow, and because rabbis were required to be married, and most Pharisees were married, that Paul most likly was widower.There is no indications that Paul was ever married in fact what he says would lead to the conclusion he was never married.