There are all sorts of early "CHristian" documents. I don't remember the Father, he is referenced in this thread someplace, but he was dubious of the recent appearance of the protoevangelium. It wasn't a first century document and only appeared AFTER some of the extra-biblical doctrines about Mary began to be developed. As such, it is a non-issue. It is not Scripture. It is a story that someone who is pro-Mary wrote. Nothing more.
Origen (182-251AD) "like that of a Gospel of Peter was of dubious recent appearance". Origen also noted that he shared with the notion that the brethren of the LORD were sons of Joseph by a former wife. In the same train of thought, he admits, while the notion might seem pious, it was not unlikely that the obvious interpretation of Scripture (that Mary bore them for Joseph) was true and acceptable.
"I don't remember the Father, he is referenced in this thread someplace, but he was dubious of the recent appearance of the protoevangelium.
There were several Fathers who had problems with the Protoevangelium of James. It is of course an apocryphal book. Tertullian thought that all apocrypal writings were false and heretical, a unique position among the Fathers and as we all know, he died a heretic. +Irenaeos asserted that the work was clearly a forgery. +Jerome and several other Fathers rejected specific parts of the story relating to +Joseph.
My suspicion is that the Fathers who quoted the Protoevangelium were fully aware that it was neither scripture nor written by +James. Rather, they were aware of the fact that it is a recording of what someone believed were the beliefs of early Christians about Mary. Its a very early work, though clearly composed after she died. To the best of my knowledge, Orthodoxy has no dogmas as such which find their origen in the story, but there is theologoumenna which find their source there.
The Protoevangdlium is not scripture, but it is evidence of the Jewish culture. If the notion of a custodial marriage were as foreign ro the 1c Jews as it is to us, it would not have been copied through, considered for canonization and generally treated as reliable before veneration of Mary became wide spread.