Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?

[Linda_Marie]

Mary did not say in sacred scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit who is God “All generations shall called me depraved and infested with sin”.

Is she forever blessed and should be called forever blessed or is she forever depraved and infested with sin?

(Edited)

“Full of grace” equals SO MUCH grace that God wouldn’t give Mary anymore grace.

Tell me folks–with that much grace from God are you going to tell me that Mary would still fall to sin?

Are you going to tell me that after bearing the Son of God that Joseph would be keen on Mary begetting him natural children.

Mary and Joseph “got it”.

(Edited)

+1

I think you’ve got it.

 

[Truthstalker]

It is apocryphal, which means it is not inspired, but can still be useful as a historical document. It serves as an early instance of the belief that Mary was ever virgin. Obviuosly we also corroborate this with Tradition, the Church Fathers, and Scripture (as has been shown). The idea of her perpetual virginity is not merely an invention pulled into existence in the 400s or 500s. Not even close. The Protoevangelium serves to show this.

More to the point, it was banned from Catholics reading it and it was rejected by Aquinas. Whether something was believed is not the litmus test for Catholic teaching but rather what the Church held to. It would be interesting to determine why the Protoevangelium was placed on the list of banned books,and why, with that knowledge, it still seems to be used to cite the continuity of the Catholic faith on this issue, when the Church had official declared it to be unsuitable for Catholics to read - its teaching so dangerous that Catholics were forbidden to read it. And yet you [plural] use it to support Catholic teaching. It seems to me that you should avoid it, and its content. Or give the Gnostic gospels equal authority, as they were, at one time, believed by many and those beliefs have resurfaced today. Arianism was very popular as well. There were many beliefs then.

The issue here is not whether the PV is correct. It is how that doctrine was derived, and whether the basis is plausible.

 

[thesmiter1]

More to the point, it was banned from Catholics reading it and it was rejected by Aquinas. Whether something was believed is not the litmus test for Catholic teaching but rather what the Church held to. It would be interesting to determine why the Protoevangelium was placed on the list of banned books,and why, with that knowledge, it still seems to be used to cite the continuity of the Catholic faith on this issue, when the Church had official declared it to be unsuitable for Catholics to read - its teaching so dangerous that Catholics were forbidden to read it. And yet you [plural] use it to support Catholic teaching. It seems to me that you should avoid it, and its content. Or give the Gnostic gospels equal authority, as they were, at one time, believed by many and those beliefs have resurfaced today. Arianism was very popular as well. There were many beliefs then.

The issue here is not whether the PV is correct. It is how that doctrine was derived, and whether the basis is plausible.

Like I said, this just serves to show that the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity and her immaculate conception existed early on in Christian history. Obviously the infallible teaching we inherit is from oral Tradition, but a written record doesn’t hurt. Further, is it because of these teachings that the Protoevangelium is considered non-canonical? Or is it because of doubt about the author, and/or doubt about the accuracy of some of the other claims that it makes? Certainly it is not banned because of the teachings of perpetual virginity, virgin birth, or immaculate conception, as these were held by the Early Church, and the Church Fathers (including Augustine).

So tell me, if these beliefs (about Mary) existed and were taught in the early Church, were taught consistently throughout Church history (whereas heresy died out), and were even believed by the Protestant Reformers, why should they now be discounted?

Oh, by the way, the Gnostic Gospels and other heretical literature are still useful as historical documents, as we are better able to discern the theology that Gnostics espoused. Similarly, while the Protoevangelium is not canon, it still serves to show evidence of early belief that did, in fact, turn out to be infallible and remain consistent throughout Church history.

 

[Jala]

I am not Catholic, so it would make no difference to me whatsoever. I am far more concerned with the Message than with picayune details of the Messenger and His earthly Family.

Jala

 

[tabycat]

I am not Catholic, so it would make no difference to me whatsoever. I am far more concerned with the Message than with picayune details of the Messenger and His earthly Family.

Jala

Welcome, to the CA Forums!

 

[zz912]

I am not Catholic, so it would make no difference to me whatsoever. I am far more concerned with the Message than with picayune details of the Messenger and His earthly Family.

Jala

Then you miss the Message. The Messenger, who He IS, is the Message.

Catholicism is different from other religions, in that it is far more important WHO Jesus is, instead of what He taught.

 

[Truthstalker]

Like I said, this just serves to show that the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity and her immaculate conception existed early on in Christian history. Obviously the infallible teaching we inherit is from oral Tradition, but a written record doesn’t hurt. Further, is it because of these teachings that the Protoevangelium is considered non-canonical? Or is it because of doubt about the author, and/or doubt about the accuracy of some of the other claims that it makes? Certainly it is not banned because of the teachings of perpetual virginity, virgin birth, or immaculate conception, as these were held by the Early Church, and the Church Fathers (including Augustine).

We don’t know why it was banned. We can assume its teaching had something to do with it - thus, it cannot be used to demonstrate Catholic teaching in anything that is unique to it.

So tell me, if these beliefs (about Mary) existed and were taught in the early Church

Can you substantiate this without resorting to banned documents?

, were taught consistently throughout Church history (whereas heresy died out),

heresy has not died out.

and were even believed by the Protestant Reformers, why should they now be discounted?

For obvious reasons.

Oh, by the way, the Gnostic Gospels and other heretical literature are still useful as historical documents, as we are better able to discern the theology that Gnostics espoused. Similarly, while the Protoevangelium is not canon, it still serves to show evidence of early belief that did, in fact, turn out to be infallible and remain consistent throughout Church history.

Here your reasoning seems to be circular: the Church has always believed this, because the Church says it has always believed it. Why does it say that? Because it does, because it says it does.

I am looking for evidence to back up your claim.

 

[adrift]

We don’t know why it was banned.

Would you give me a source that it was banned?.

 

[Truthstalker]

Would you give me a source that it was banned?.

thelatinlibrary.com/decretum.html

 

[RobbyS]

I am not Catholic, so it would make no difference to me whatsoever. I am far more concerned with the Message than with picayune details of the Messenger and His earthly Family.

Jala

Picyune? You mean the whole of what Luke said in Chapters One and Two? Is that NOt part of the Message? The heretic Marcion, the 2nd Century founder of a counter-church (which lasted for centuries, BTW) omitted these from his Bible, precisely because of its message, which was that Jesus was incarnate in Mary by the Holy Spirit. Your faith seems to follow the same lines.

 

[adrift]

thelatinlibrary.com/decretum.html

It does not say banned but rather to be avoided. It list apocryphal books but also there is some debate about the authenticity of the document. We do not accept Josephus as being inspired but indeed it show us the period belief. Even though The Protoevangelium of James is apocryphal does not mean that it cannot show us what was believed. You don’t find an outrage about what is written. You don’t find anyone saying “no,no the writing is wrong” Where is the outrage that you would expect if the claims were false. You should be able to point to objections being made like was evident with the Arianism heresy. You don’t find it because it was a common teaching, a common belief.

 

[thesmiter1]

We don’t know why it was banned. We can assume its teaching had something to do with it - thus, it cannot be used to demonstrate Catholic teaching in anything that is unique to it.
Can you substantiate this without resorting to banned documents?
heresy has not died out. For obvious reasons.

Here your reasoning seems to be circular: the Church has always believed this, because the Church says it has always believed it. Why does it say that? Because it does, because it says it does.

I am looking for evidence to back up your claim.

Are you serious? We have oral Tradition, something you have no faith in, so I also point to an apocryphal book to coincide, and you increase the burden of proof and declare that because the book is not canonical and to be avoided, it has no relevant information. This is blatantly false. Show me where this book was condemned because of the teachings about Marian dogma. You are the one making the claim that it cannot be used to show early existence of Marian theology, thus the burden of proving that it has been deemed untrustworthy for these reasons is on you.

I have shown you evidence of this early Christian belief that turned out to be dogma. You did not address that it was believed throughout the Early Church. We have evidence from the Fathers calling her the ‘Theotokos’, or God Bearer. The Mother of God. Did this just spring out of nowhere at a counsel in 431? How little is your faith? Even the Reformers believed in this.

Why do you deny this teaching, and why does an apocryphal book (that you cannot provide the reason for being ‘avoided’) not show insight into early Church oral Tradition?

And yes, heresy does exist. But it always dies out and is condemned. Gnosticism died out; they all do eventually. The Truth always reveals itself through our Church. But of course, there are those individuals that think their theology is greater than 2,000 years of extensive and meticulous discernment of Faith and Morals in creating dogma. What can really be done about that?

 

[Truthstalker]

It does not say banned but rather to be avoided.

So the Pope putting it on the same level as the Gnostic Gospels and Faustus, etc., makes it theologically ok? Absurd.

It list apocryphal books but also there is some debate about the authenticity of the document.

I do not understand whether you are referring to the Decretum or the Proto. Of J.

We do not accept Josephus as being inspired but indeed it show us the period belief.

Was he to be avoided? Where is that work on the list?

Even though The Protoevangelium of James is apocryphal does not mean that it cannot show us what was believed.

This is absolutely false and you know it - or should, after reviewing the works it is classed with, to see what kind of work it was considered, by the Pope…

You don’t find an outrage about what is written.

Being put in the category of books that it is in by the authority of the pope is certainly indicative of outrage.

You don’t find anyone saying “no,no the writing is wrong”

Being put in the category of books that it is in by the authority of the pope is certainly indicative of outrage.

Where is the outrage that you would expect if the claims were false.

Being put in the category of books that it is in by the authority of the pope is certainly indicative of outrage.

You should be able to point to objections being made like was evident with the Arianism heresy.

Being put in the category of books that it is in by the authority of the pope is certainly indicative of outrage. It is in the same category as the Arian and Manichean documents.

You don’t find it because it was a common teaching, a common belief.

Please furnish documentation that it was a common teaching or belief. If so, placing it on this list (in case you missed the fact that it was on the list of books to be avoided) was an attempt to correct the errors then in circulation, errors in the work.

 

[Truthstalker]

Are you serious? We have oral Tradition, something you have no faith in, so I also point to an apocryphal book to coincide, and you increase the burden of proof and declare that because the book is not canonical and to be avoided, it has no relevant information. This is blatantly false. Show me where this book was condemned because of the teachings about Marian dogma. You are the one making the claim that it cannot be used to show early existence of Marian theology, thus the burden of proving that it has been deemed untrustworthy for these reasons is on you.

I have shown you evidence of this early Christian belief that turned out to be dogma. You did not address that it was believed throughout the Early Church. We have evidence from the Fathers calling her the ‘Theotokos’, or God Bearer. The Mother of God. Did this just spring out of nowhere at a counsel in 431? How little is your faith? Even the Reformers believed in this.

Why do you deny this teaching, and why does an apocryphal book (that you cannot provide the reason for being ‘avoided’) not show insight into early Church oral Tradition?

And yes, heresy does exist. But it always dies out and is condemned. Gnosticism died out; they all do eventually. The Truth always reveals itself through our Church. But of course, there are those individuals that think their theology is greater than 2,000 years of extensive and meticulous discernment of Faith and Morals in creating dogma. What can really be done about that?

See my previous post.

 

[adrift]

So the Pope putting it on the same level as the Gnostic Gospels and Faustus, etc., makes it theologically ok? Absurd. .

Where did I say that it was theologically ok. That is an abusrd conclusion. What I asked of you was proof of your statement that it was condemned. In answer you point to a document that itself is doubtful. But taking it at face value does not condemn but recommends that it be avoided.

Even though The Protoevangelium of James is apocryphal does not mean that it cannot show us what was believed.
This is absolutely false and you know it - or should, after reviewing the works it is classed with, to see what kind of work it was considered, by the Pope…Being put in the category of books that it is in by the authority of the pope is certainly indicative of outrage.

You make me laugh with your fax indignation. The Pope classified it as being apocryphal that is it was a false writing. He didnot declare that all of it was false. Apocryphal did not have the negative meaning that many people assign it today. A book could/can be “apocryphal” and still be true, accurate, and good for learning…just isn’t included in the Canon of Scripture.
Some of it is suitable history. It names Joseph as her husband. It says Mary was a virgin. It mentions her visit with Elizabeth. There is much in it which is fanciful and kookie but that does not then eliminate everything it states.

Being put in the category of books that it is in by the authority of the pope is certainly indicative of outrage. Being put in the category of books that it is in by the authority of the pope is certainly indicative of outrage.

Are you being obtuse? What you don’t see is an ourtrage even by the Pope saying that Mary was not an ever virgin. Let us have one quote that the Pope is contesting it for saying Mary was ever virgin.

It is in the same category as the Arian and Manichean documents. Please furnish documentation that it was a common teaching or belief.

Origen [185-254 AD] Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her.
Lactantius [290-350 AD] The Epitome of the Divine Institutes
“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary”
Hilary of Poitiers, St [300-367 AD] On the Councils, or the Faith of the Easterns
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate”
Athanasius, St [296-373 AD] Discourse II Against the Arians
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary”
Ambrose of Milan, St [340-397 AD] Letter 63
“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son”

If so, placing it on this list (in case you missed the fact that it was on the list of books to be avoided) was an attempt to correct the errors then in circulation, errors in the work

This is a conclusion of yours not supported by anything the Pope said.
One more

Jerome, St [347-420 AD] The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel-that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).Read More
“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock”

 

[adrift]

absurd
faux indignation.

Two corrections to my post.

 

[thesmiter1]

See my previous post.

You lump it with other apocrypha, but again, is it done so because of Marian theology? Considering that the Church held these beliefs before the synods and counsels determining canonical Scripture (as Adrift has shown), I’d have to say the answer is ‘no’.

Lumping it with other apocrypha and claiming it was heretical because of Marian theology, and claiming everything in it is untrue, all without proof, is rather fallacious, don’t you think? Is everything in the apocrypha untrue? Certainly some of these books profess Christ, correct? Did Christ not exist because apocrypha says He did? Perhaps we must have some kind of body to determine what is true and what is false, like some kind of authority that discerns Truth. I wish we had something like this… Oh, wait…

Since we have shown that belief in Mary as the Theotokos was held since before canon was determined (Adrift’s last post, quoting Early Church Fathers), and you demanded this proof of us, I now demand that you show me that the Protoevangelium is apocryphal because of its Marian theology.