Doctors of the Church

That still proves nothing, least of all that Mary had any biological children besides Our Lord and Savior. You seem oddly obsessed with Jesus' mother's intimate relations.

Now THAT is funny coming from a Catholic.

If He did have biological brothers, why would He leave his own mother with John? It would be an affront to Jewish custom (to say nothing of the Law) for one of His own brothers not to care for her in His absence

Because John was at the cross with Him.

Why is it so important for Catholics to insist on the perpetual virginity of Mary even to the denial of the clear teaching of Scripture to the contrary?

It would be an affront to Jewish custom (to say nothing of the Law) for one of His own brothers not to care for her in His absence.

In case you may have missed it when reading Scripture, Jesus didn't think much about Jewish custom.

And perhaps you could point us to where in the Law Jesus was required to have His brothers take care of Mary on His death.

Mark 7:9-12, 1 Timothy 5:4-8...

Actually, it goes way, way back, at the very least as far as Origen, who, in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, says:
... Such an one must he become who is to be another John, and to have shown to him, like John, by Jesus Himself Jesus as He is. For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, "Woman, behold thy son" ..."

I mention this passage only to show that it isn't some recent, even several centuries' "recent", invention of the Roman Catholic Church, but a very, very long-held belief.

Maybe not. Here's some more from Origin:

And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) "is not this the carpenter's son?" And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end (Origen. Commentary on Matthew, Book X, 17).

Thus, it is generally believed that the earliest written claim as to Mary's so-called perpetual virginity comes from a false document known as the Protoevangelium of James (McNally, p. 73) which Origen called "The Book of James" (Origen was NOT referring to the epistle of James). Why is it false?

This "gospel" falsely claims to have been written by James in Jerusalem and in the first century (The Protoevangelium of James. Translated by Alexander Walker. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. ). It states Joseph had sons before marrying Mary and was concerned about Mary and that a midwife checked, and found, intact proof of Mary's virginity shortly after Jesus was born. The claims of its authorship and date of writing are both being claims scholars realize are false (The Infancy Gospel Of James; Alternate title: The Protovangelion. Geoff Trowbridge's Introduction. http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/infjames.htm viewed 08/13/11; Kirby, Peter. "Infancy Gospel of James." Early Christian Writings. 2011. 13 Aug. 2011 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html; Reid, George. "Apocrypha." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 17 Aug. 2011 ). The "Gospel of Peter" is also a false gospel.

Thus, this perpetual virginity teaching seems to have started from false sources.

It may be of interest to understand that the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin was denounced once it started to become popular. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
Antidicomarianites An Eastern sect which flourished about A.D. 200 to 400...The sect denied the formula "ever-Virgin Mary" used in the Greek and Roman Liturgies. The earliest reference to this sect appears in Tertullian, and the doctrines taught by them are expressly mentioned by Origen (Homilia in Lucam, III, 940). Certain Arians, Eudocius and Eunomius, were great supporters of the teaching. (Shipman, Andrew. "Antidicomarianites." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. 7 Oct. 2011 .) …the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the “brethren” of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary (Bechtel, Florentine. "The Brethren of the Lord." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 10 Dec. 2008 ).

That last article in The Catholic Encyclopedia also teaches that "St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours" held positions similar to the Antidicomarianites. Furthermore, another article in The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "writers like Tertullian, Hevidius, and possibly Hegesippus disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma adds that the perpetual virginity of Mary was also denied in the “Early Church” by Eunomius, Jovian, Helvidus, and Bishop Bonosus of Sardica as well as Christians with practices some considered to be Jewish (Ott, p. 204). More: http://www.cogwriter.com/saint-mary-dogmas.htm

It closed a debate which started after Luther removed seven books from the canon.

Since you've only been here for less than a week, you may not know that your statement about Luther "removing" seven books from the canon of the Bible is quite false. It has been disputed more times than I can remember on these forum threads. This may help educate you on the topic so you might avoid doing so again:

Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture

Since you've only been here for less than a week, you may not know that your statement about Luther "removing" seven books from the canon of the Bible is quite false.

I was about to thank you for your courteous, well-referenced earlier reply, but this post gives me pause.

Protestant apologetics regarding the canon of the Bible are not unfamiliar to me, and I would only refer you to original copies of the King James (though the Catholic Douay-Rheims was published earlier), which included those books Catholics refer to as deuterocanonical (or, "of the second canon," meaning of lesser, but still significant, importance).

These were later moved, in bulk, to an "addendum" at the back of the King James Bible, and eventually removed altogether, for reasons with which you are surely familiar.

I fail to understand the hatred so many who call themselves "Christians" have for Catholics, and the Catholic Faith. My mission, if I have one, is to mend that, and your last post is discouraging. Please accept my apologies if I have misinterpreted it.

Thank you for recognizing that I am new to these forums, but really, your condescension was unnecessary.

Welcome to the Free Republic Religion Forum.

As boatbums indicated, there has been a whole lot of disputing on this forum about who added, removed, or moved around books of the Bible. What can’t be disputed, though, is the fact that seven Old Testament books that were in the Vulgate are not in Bibles that are used by Protestants today. Luther may not have deleted the seven books, but he did remove them from the Old Testament, rename them as Apocrypha, and relocate them as an appendix to the Bible.

I was about to thank you for your courteous, well-referenced earlier reply, but this post gives me pause.

It shouldn't have given you pause and was not meant to be condescending in any way. You seemed pretty familiar with the way things happen on this site so it sounded like you might be a "retread", or someone who once posted here and who left or was zotted and who came back again. Have you been a lurker for a while? The arguments you were making are those that have been batted back and forth for years here. The one line you included about Luther and the canon is one that pops up often even after it has been repeatedly examined.

Protestant apologetics regarding the canon of the Bible are not unfamiliar to me, and I would only refer you to original copies of the King James (though the Catholic Douay-Rheims was published earlier), which included those books Catholics refer to as deuterocanonical (or, "of the second canon," meaning of lesser, but still significant, importance). These were later moved, in bulk, to an "addendum" at the back of the King James Bible, and eventually removed altogether, for reasons with which you are surely familiar.

I'm well aware of that. The Douay-Rheims, though, went through a big update (the Challoner revision) and the KJV was utilized extensively, so there's that. The Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphals, because they had ALWAYS been seen as "of lessor" (your words) or secondary to the universally recognized Old Testament canon, were rejected eventually by Protestants and excluded from modern versions exactly for that reason - they were not seen as Divinely-inspired Holy Scripture. Even Jerome acknowledged that back in the fourth century and he wasn't alone:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Additional information concerning the canon can be see HERE.

I fail to understand the hatred so many who call themselves "Christians" have for Catholics, and the Catholic Faith. My mission, if I have one, is to mend that, and your last post is discouraging. Please accept my apologies if I have misinterpreted it. Thank you for recognizing that I am new to these forums, but really, your condescension was unnecessary.

First of all, there is no "hatred" towards Catholics here and that some are so quick to accuse others of that shows their own bias and animosity. I, as well as several others here, once WERE Roman Catholic so any criticism or disagreement with Catholicism is doctrinal and not personal. The Free Republic Religion Forum is a place where ALL views can be discussed and OPEN threads can and often do get heated. If someone is uncomfortable with reading criticism about their beliefs, then the Religion Moderator cautions them to stay off such threads and stick to ones that are not confrontational such as prayer or devotional or "Caucus" threads.

If you decide to stay on this site and participate on these kinds of threads, put yourself in the other's shoes for a bit once and a while. I think what you will start to notice is that most of the animosity, provocation and insults DON'T come from the non-Catholic side. It's taken some time for me to develop a thicker skin over the years to be able to read someone's frequent condemnation of me and my beliefs while they extoll the superiority of their religion and not take it personally. A few Catholics here have a history of intentionally posting anti-Protestant threads that provoke responses. I think they should expect a robust discussion and not bemoan criticism of beliefs as "anti-Catholic" hatred or bigotry.

I sincerely welcome your participation and your support of Free Republic.