Was "Protoevangelium of James" Declared Heresy?

[pacersFan]

This website has a page on the perpetual virginity of Mary that references the “Protoevangelium of James” in it’s argument: catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

I brought up the “Protoevangelium of James” in a friendly debate on the subject of Mary and someone mentioned that this work was declared heresy by Pope St. Gelasius I. I was just curious if this is true?

 

[_veritas]

While there is a reason that the Protoevangelium of James is nowhere to be found in our Bibles, the book itself as far as I know has never been deemed officially heretical by the Church. A few of the early Church Fathers, and other individuals within the Church (perhaps even the Pope you mention) have disbelieved the authenticity of the book – however, uncertainity of its orgins and the validity and/or orthodoxy of what it actually says are two different things.

The Protoevangelium shows up in a few early canons of Scripture, and along with the Epistle of Barnabas and a few other books, it was one of the “debatable” books that eventually were not included in the final Bible canon. However, these books were never deemed “wrong” or even “fake”, they were simply deemed to be not inspired Scripture from God. Historically, they very well could be authentic documents, even written by the people they are attributed to. (Contrary to many of the other extra-Biblical books, the now-famous Gnostic gospels especially)

The Church does not rely on the Protoevangelium for her arguments in certain doctrines and dogmas, however, the Protoevangelium certainly does contain supportive data for these arguments.

And, while there were (and are) definitely some theologians and others who deny the worth of the book, there are many who do consider the book to be of value (including Scott Hahn today, and way back to St. Jerome, the first translator of the Bible to Latin). It was never on the “banned books” list, and reading it is certainly not forbidden to the faithful, as long as one keeps in mind that it is not to be held to the same infallible standard as the Bible itself.

To read the entire Protoevangelium of James (containing the birth and life of Mary among other things) go to:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-mrjames.html

(Be forewarned – this site has all the early Christian writings – Biblical, non-Biblical, and Gnostic… it is also not a Catholic site, but is the best resource I have found to get information and texts of the early Christians…)

+veritas+

 

[Todd_Easton]

In the article on ‘Apocrypha’ in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm), Protoevangelium of James is classified as an apocryphal Gospel of Catholic origin. I take this to mean that it is not of apostolic origin but, rather, it is a work of pious fiction by a second-century writer that does not contain anything contrary to the Catholic faith.

 

[metal1633]

pacersFan:

This website has a page on the perpetual virginity of Mary that references the “Protoevangelium of James” in it’s argument: catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

I brought up the “Protoevangelium of James” in a friendly debate on the subject of Mary and someone mentioned that this work was declared heresy by Pope St. Gelasius I. I was just curious if this is true?

What is being refered to is that Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal. He did NOT declare them heretical.

 

[_veritas]

Todd Easton:

In the article on ‘Apocrypha’ in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm), Protoevangelium of James is classified as an apocryphal Gospel of Catholic origin. I take this to mean that it is not of apostolic origin but, rather, it is a work of pious fiction by a second-century writer that does not contain anything contrary to the Catholic faith.

You are basically correct, however, “apocryphal” does not mean fictional in any way. Though, it is true that it does not necessarily mean that a work is not fictional either (though most apocrophal works are certainly not considered fiction, symbolic perhaps, but not fiction) The term apocryphal itself has nothing to do with whether a book is ficitional or not, it only has to do with whether or not the book is recognized as being inspired by God.

The term apocryphal is applied to ANY writing that is outside the established canon of Scripture.

Go to angelfire.com/fl2/csf/apocrypha.html for a good definition of apocryphal, as well as a great listing and categorizing of the various apocryphal texts.

+veritas+

 

[Pani_Rose]

I would say it is definately not heretical since this is the source for the teachings of the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, in regards to the life of Mary. It has been used since the beginning, so it has never ceased being read by the faithful.

Pani Rose