[SoothingDave]

It was shown here within the last 200 posts that a fair number of those you wish to call early fathers made specifice note of the natural kin of Jesus (Children of Mary and Joseph)

No it wasn't. I don't care how many times you or Reggie bold and captialize the word "brother" in a statement of the Church Fathers. It means the same thing it means in the Scripture you also quote -- it means "kin."

There is no "big admission" here, no "loophole," no "something the Catholics ignore." We are talking about what words mean, in context.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

". . . For also JAMES, THE BROTHER, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF CHRIST OUR GOD, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms: "That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water." Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down"

(Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 14; The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called The Quinisext Council, A.D. 692, Canon 32, p.716) (Emphasis not in original)
------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, it wasn't a valid council.