CHURCH GREW IN UNDERSTANDING OF MARY’S ROLE

L'Osservatore Romano ^ | 11/8/1997 | Pope John Paul II

[Always Right]

Very little is said about Mary's family. If we exclude the infancy narratives, in the Synoptic Gospels we find only two statements which shed some light on Mary:

The Bible is pretty clear that Jesus had brothers, but that is heresy to Catholics.

[Quix]

Not my construction on reality.

Appears to me that down through the centuries, it repeatedly became politically profitable to up the ante a bit more about Mary.

[Quix]

Absolutely.

And the semantics rationalization just does not wash.

They would have it that the authors only had use of one word that meant two things about relatives. That’s nonsense.

[markomalley]

The Bible is pretty clear that Jesus had brothers, but that is heresy to Catholics.

Why in the world would that be heresy to Catholics?

Ever read the Protoevangelium of James? Yes, I know it's not part of the Canon and, so, I don't assert it as a scriptural source (rather an early non-canonical source that reflects the views of, at least, some of the Church in the second century AD -- that's a couple of centuries before Constantine for the conspiracy theorists in the audience)

Anyway, if you haven't, you can Google it yourself. If you read that, you'll find a potential explanation contained therein that is totally consistent with scripture (what is actually written there, not the explanations given by you and your teachers). If, in fact, it is correct in its explanation, it shows how the term "brothers of Jesus" could be applied AND also demonstrates the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.

Heresy to Catholics? Hardly. Only a point of salivation for a Protestant.

[Kolokotronis]

Oh, Q, you shouldn’t blame the Latins for Marian devotion. Its 100% Eastern in origin. In other words, blame us Orthodoxers! By the way, no one in my family ever profited politically from our devotion to the Most Holy Theotokos...but we have spiritually! :)

[Silly]

Why don’t you just explain it in your own words, instead of pointing someone to Google? Three to five sentences. Go.

[trisham]

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee.

Blessed art Thou among women

And Blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God

Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

Amen

[markomalley]

Why don’t you just explain it in your own words, instead of pointing someone to Google?

There's way too much detail in the document for me to explain, other than doing a cut and paste job.

Three to five sentences. Go.

Try two: the document advances the theory that Joseph was a widower prior to his espousal to Mary. "Brothers" would have been the result of that previous union.

This is not part of the explanation, but is a reminder: this document is not part of the Canon of Scripture. So you will note that I am not advancing it as truth, but rather as a plausible theory...one which was held by many in the second century.

[wmfights]

Ever read the Protoevangelium of James? Yes, I know it's not part of the Canon and, so, I don't assert it as a scriptural source...

That's pretty magnanimous of you, since it's a forgery and was written at least 100 years after the end of the Apostolic Era.

[markomalley]

That's pretty magnanimous of you, since it's a forgery and was written at least 100 years after the end of the Apostolic Era.

Gee, thanks.

Since you (sarcastically) accuse me of magnanimity, let's review what I wrote initially:

Ever read the Protoevangelium of James? Yes, I know it's not part of the Canon and, so, I don't assert it as a scriptural source (rather an early non-canonical source that reflects the views of, at least, some of the Church (for those of you in Rio Linda, the prior phrase implicitly disassociates itself with an authorship of James the Lesser, and asserts that the document reflects the views of some...rather than the views of an apostle) in the second century AD (For those of you in Rio Linda, the second century incorporates the time that the respondent refers to as 'at least 100 years after the end of the Apostolic Era')-- that's a couple of centuries before Constantine for the conspiracy theorists in the audience)

In other words, you should really make an effort to read and comprehend what was written before slamming it. You'll generally not embarrass yourself so badly if you do so.

[Zionist Conspirator]

The faith of the simple is admired and praised by Jesus, who recognized in it a marvellous expression of the Father's benevolence.

"The faith of the simple" is not so admired by the Catholic Church (and especially the late JPII) when it comes to evolutionism and Biblical inerrancy.

[Frumanchu]

It's more than just that. The Roman Catholic Church justifies the rationalizations under the pretense of the infallibility of the Sacred Magesterium in interpreting Scripture. The veracity of nearly all Roman Catholic dogma rests upon this pretense. The views and words of the early church are often interpreted through that lense by making assumptions that their present understanding of the nature of Christ's church is precisely the same as that of the early church.

It really comes down to an issue of authority. Those Catholics who are forthright enough to admit that the Roman Catholic Church was in fact in dire need of reform in the 16th Century typically reject Luther's actions and the subsequent Reformation by arguing he and the other Reformers did not have the authority to do what they did.

[wmfights]

Gee, thanks.

Your welcome.

If you want to consider discredited forgeries that's up to you.

[markomalley]

If you want to consider discredited forgeries that's up to you.

Oh, but I do.

Let me explain to you exactly why and how I consider these "discredited forgeries."

 

As a caveat, I don't hope to change your mind, wmfights, one way or the other. I'm a papist and I know my place among my betters. But I also realize that there are other people who read these threads and never contribute. Perhaps some of them might get some value from this explanation:

 

First, let's see what we both agree to: that the document was written in the Second Century AD. I understand it's from around 150 AD. You say 'at least 100 years after the close of the Apostolic Era,' which would place it a couple of decades later than that. OK, whichever. The point that we both agree on is that it was written before 200 AD.

The easiest way for me to show the utility of apocryphal documents like this is through example:

There is a widely-accepted Protestant school of thought that says that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus; that she was only a virgin when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (for what it's worth, I've met Protestants who hold the heretical belief that Jesus was the genetic product of Mary and Joseph and that he is only 'spiritually' the Son of God). A subset of this widely-accepted Protestant school of thought is that the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary was an invention of a paganized Rome and that no early Christian group actually believed this. Alexander Hislop advanced this idea with his book, The Two Babylons. I am not saying if you are part of the latter group or not...if you are, great. If not, all the better.

This apocryphal document goes into rather gory detail about the midwife Salome verifying Mary's intact hymen after the birth of Jesus. As Free Republic is a family board, I'll spare all the details how she did that. And, as we both agree that the Protoevangelium of James is an apocryphal document, I would hardly stake my life (or my soul) on whether that actually happened or not, but it's really not important one way or the other. What is important about it is this: that some people believed that she was perpetually a virgin. And those people who believed this were around during the second century AD. Considering that this was two centuries prior to Constantine's reign, the mere fact that this was written, whether it is a factual story or a made-up story debunks the idea that Mary's perpetual virginity was invented by a paganized, post-Nicene, Catholic Church. The idea was around long before the Roman Empire was even close to tolerating Christianity, much less giving it official sanction.

The other important part to consider is this: this story is either documentation of 'oral history' or is, to one degree or another, fiction. One of the two.

• >If the story is documentation of 'oral history' up to that point, then its accuracy is limited to the accuracy by which stories were passed down from generation to generation, until it was recorded. (Sort of like information one can glean from Homer's Odyssey)
• If the story is a fiction (which, considering its pseudograph, I actually believe it to be), then you have to ask yourself the question, why was it written? Looking at this piece, in isolation, I can see one of two possibilities:
  • This was a belief held by a minority of people and they were trying to propagate it through the invention and embellishment of the "facts" that made up their beliefs. Since this is a pseudograph, it's likely that they attached the name of an apostle to give it more weight. The other possibility is that:
  • This was a common belief held by the majority of people and they were trying to defend it against sources that were attacking the belief system (sort of like the defenses against gnostics we see in the epistles of Peter). As above, since this is a pseudograph, the likely reason for attaching the name of an apostle to give it more weight.

The bottom line is that even though this is apocryphal literature and is definitely a pseudograph, there's still a lot that one can glean from it. Most importantly, an understanding of what was believed by, at least, some of the people at the time.

(BTW, I'm pinging some other folks because I think they'd be interested in reading this, not to get folks to gang up on you or anything)

[trisham]

I would say that your post is an illustration of why I so like these "Religion" threads.

Thanks so much.

[Mad Dawg]

Thanks for that. I believe somewhere on some dusty bookshelf I have the proto — uh what you said. Now I’ll go read it.

I think your analysis seems sound in the provisional realm in which you rightly put it.

[Mad Dawg]

I am strangely reminded of a time when a nice Mennonite lady who liked me and therefore thought I couldn't possibly be Catholic told me that Catholics worship Mary. She said this conspiratorially as if confiding to me that Clinton had been rumored to misbehave sexually. I had to put my hand to my mouth (to stifle my smile) and say, "They DO?" And reading your post I have a certain "Nobody here but us chickens, boss!" feeling.

Are there Catholics NOT forthright enough to admit that the Church was a mess in the late 15th and early 16th centuries? You know they canonized Pius V on account of internal reforms (and his piety of life, etc.). It's hard to do internal reforms unless what is needed is, uh, internal reforms.

And I guess I don't get the "Oh my goodness!" side of your remark about us and Luther. He didn't have the authority. He said WE didn't, we said HE didn't. That's remarkable?

Or am I just miles away from what you're saying. Wouldn't be the first time. If so, sorry.

[Frumanchu]

Or am I just miles away from what you're saying. Wouldn't be the first time. If so, sorry.

I do think you missed the jist of my comments. I've encountered some Roman Catholics who are so zealous to defend their church that they turn a blind eye to the parts of the past they don't find comfortable. To be sure, there are many Protestants today that also hold a revisionist view of church history for the sake of expediency in discussions such as this.

My point though was that the central issue that continues to stand between Roman Catholics and Protestants is that of authority. It underlies even the fundamental division over justification, and it stands as a roadblock to virtually every doctrinal disagreement we have. You and I can argue vehemently over the meaning of a passage of Scripture, but when it comes down to it you will appeal to an authority I don't recognize: the Roman Catholic Church. The argument then becomes about the validity of that authority, and any appeal to Scripture either loops into a self-reinforcing argument or undermines the very authority trying to be established.

Luther's actions truly cut to the heart of the matter, as is evidenced by his request to be convinced by Scripture and plain reason. The authority issue is truly the card upon which the whole card house is built.

[RightWhale]

way too much detail in the document for me to explain, other than doing a cut and paste job

Information is irrelevant. Content eventually overwhelms the message and everything comes preinterpreted. I don't follow links in lieu of explanation and don't believe anybody else can possibly represent my opinion. When somebody says read this it explains what I mean, I know it doesn't.