Jerome also taught that the apocryphal books should not form a part of the canon. Why is Jerome wrong there but right in addressing Helvidius?Besides, Jerome's argument doesn't stand up when it is examined closely -- Mary and Joseph were truly husband and wife, not putatively, as Jerome argues. And the old "Jesus' brother and sisters were really his cousins" argument is specious, too, not only because of the scriptures, but because of contemporaneous church and secular documents which, for example, describe James as the physical half-brother of Jesus.
The problem is that Catholics want to claim that all of what they call apostolic teaching was held by every generation yet they do not wish to prove that all of what they call apostolic teaching was held by every generation, especially the early church.
Jerome believed that the deuterocanonical books did not deserve the same prominence as the protocanonicals. He was overruled by his ordinary, and he presented a translation of them for liturgical use.
Besides, Jerome's argument doesn't stand up when it is examined closely -- Mary and Joseph were truly husband and wife, not putatively, as Jerome argues.
Jerome made his case from the same Gospels you have in front of you and he drew a different conclusion than the one you assert.
And the old "Jesus' brother and sisters were really his cousins" argument is specious, too, not only because of the scriptures, but because of contemporaneous church and secular documents which, for example, describe James as the physical half-brother of Jesus.
No secular documents exist naming James as the "physical" half-brother of the Lord.
No "church" documents exist which attest this physical link either.
The problem is that Catholics want to claim that all of what they call apostolic teaching was held by every generation yet they do not wish to prove that all of what they call apostolic teaching was held by every generation, especially the early church.
Teachings are rarely defended until they are challenged. It is incumbent upon those who deny orthodox doctrines to demonstrate that such notions that Our Lady was not a perpetual virgin was widely-held in the Apostolic era.
The point of view that the Church which emerged from persecution in the early 300s was a radically different in its beliefs from the Church which preceded it is not readily defensible.
Hey, Mike, you, remember, claimed that the PVoM was unknown before AD 400. Wideawake correctly pointed out that Jerome called Helvidius' rejection of it "an innovation". Now you're changing the topic to whether Jerome's ideas about the canon ought to be taken authoritatively.
Stick to the subject, man! If you'd like to claim that Jerome was mistaken, and Helvidius' ideas were not an innovation, prove it. You might start with addressing the question of why Pope Siricius rejected Helvidius, also. Then you might also try addressing the question of why Martin Luther and John Calvin also rejected Helvidius' errors.