But they *need* it to be true, lest the entire ecosystem of mariology should crumble into nothing, and they can’t have that.
I believe Mary only had one child, but perpetual virgin? i have no idea and its none of my business.
I have no problem with some one believing that the brothers of Jesus was Marys sons but don,t believe it should become Church doctrine.
I do not believe in building Church doctrine around the most popular assumptions because regardless of how sensible it may seem it could be wrong.
If it is something that is a matter of life or death then i would look at it a little different but which ever side is right on this issue would not change anything even if it could be proven beyond doubt.
I wonder why one might believe that Mary only had one child. What purpose does it serve, when the Bible specifies brothers? And as far as inheritance goes (the legal aspect of his right to the line of David through his apparent father), doesn't his recognized right and familial authority become problematic if he was not the eldest son? Why aren't his brothers mentioned until later in the tale? Did they ALL go down to Egypt? Why weren't the elder sons mentioned on the trip to Bethlehem? There is no mention of anyone other than Joseph and Mary on that trip... Wouldn't Joseph have to present all his sons for the census?
I don't think the protestants hold it to be doctrine (or necessary) outside of the obvious defenses against the nearly absurd construction of the papists in their zeal to manufacture the conditions for the eternal virgin. It is incidental to belief, except in the bare fact that it follows nicely, and is thereby more reasonable to assert. Simple logic dictates.
I do not believe in building Church doctrine around the most popular assumptions because regardless of how sensible it may seem it could be wrong.
I can truly understand and encourage that statement.
If it is something that is a matter of life or death then i would look at it a little different but which ever side is right on this issue would not change anything even if it could be proven beyond doubt.
Oh, it would change everything if it fell against the papist way, which is why the Roman church is so adamant in their defenses. Without her eternal virginity and the magick surrounding it (see Ishtar, Isis), their goddess would fall to a position of merely mortal status. From the Protestant position, you are right, as it would change little if it were proven the other way, as Protestants appeal strictly to an higher authority anyway...
I think a valid question to ask Catholics about this point is, "If Mary can be shown to have had additional children with her husband, Joseph, after Jesus was born, would it effect their views about her and how would it?". In other words, how much a part of Mariology IS her perpetual virginity? If she can be shown to have had a normal, divinely-approved sexual relationship with her husband that produced other children, WHY would she be thought of or honored differently? How is the view of her changed?