The counterargument, of course, is Jesus’ entrusting of Mary to St. John, which would have been unnecessary and impious (in that he was denying His brothers the chance to fulfill a mitzvoh) if He had indeed had brothers whom the law would have mandated to care for her.
There are a number of plausible reasons Christ’s blood brothers and sisters did not get Mary’s elder care—EVIDENTLY, DID NOT.
1. John was likely the preferred choice of Christ—given that He delcared John well above all other mortals yet lesser than any Heaven residing folks.
2. Christ’s blood siblings may have had enough of Mary’s doting on Christ, still tending to see him as the rug rat they once knew . . . and simply didn’t want such family obligations on their shoulders.
3. They may have been afraid of governmental repressioins for Christ’s blood relatives.
4. They may have been ‘unspiritual’ enough that Mary would not have been comfortable under their care.
. . .
The fact is, SCRIPTURE refers to Christ’s blood siblings. Scripture does NOT call them cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, hounddogs or anything else—Scripture calls them Christ’s blood brothers. The context and import of the words and phrases used is quite sufficiently clear to folks reading Scripture to learn of Scripture rather than rewriting or stretching ‘vulcanized’ Scripture to suit their !!!!TRADITION!!!! bound fantasies and biases.
Arguing from silence is hazardous on all sides. However, I’ve never found it a negative thing to take Scripture at face value to believe that it means what it says and act accordingly.
Perhps since the ruling intellectual elite of the RC edifice get bored not having Inquisitional victims to mangle and have therefore over the centuries contented themselves with mangling Scripture . . . of course, always in ways which control the serfs more and elevate the hierarchy as exclusively a list of things . . .
OUR truly true truest truth is MUCH MORE RIGHTEOUS AND LOFTY than that of those hick Prottys over there . . .
that attitude tends to go over well with certain personalities from certain types of backgrounds.
Not really trying to be hard on you in this reply. I appreciate your tone and attitude. That’s just the best way I know how to put it quickly.