When was the Protoevangelium of James written? Hint: not hundreds of years later. The first prayer that we have a parchment of is the Sub Tuum Praesidium from 250 AD
Opinions regarding: Protoevangelium of James:
Aquinas: "apocryphal ravings" (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 9, Reply to Objection 3)(source)
Jan Wakelin, Director of Radio for Catholic Answers, in response to the question "How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?": "We don't."
[Pseudo?]-Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496, lists it among "The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:" - Gelasian Decree, Chapter 5
Why would Roman Catholic authors use apocryphal ravings whose credibility they cannot confirm and which works have been condemned (apparently) by a pope of their church? There are two obvious explanations:
(1) many Roman Catholic apologists have only a passing knowledge of history and the fathers, and
(2) some Roman Catholic apologists simply don't care: if it seems to support Rome's position, it is used.
(3)In some cases, there is a third reason, which is that it is heretical works like the Protoevangelium of James from which, as an historical matter, were the true sources of the Roman Catholic doctrines and beliefs.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3441
Aquinas: "apocryphal ravings" (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 9, Reply to Objection 3)(source) Jan Wakelin, Director of Radio for Catholic Answers, in response to the question "How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?": "We don't."
[Pseudo?]-Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496, lists it among "The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:" - Gelasian Decree, Chapter 5
We have Origen, ca. 240 calling the Protoevangelium trustworthy by the Church. Aquinas lived a thousand years later. The Gelasian Decree calls Maccabees Scripture - do you accept Maccabees?
Do you also accept the primacy of St. Peter based on:
1. After all these [writings of] the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we discussed above, on which the catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also have thought necessary to say what, although the universal catholic church diffused throughout the world is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision, but from the voice of the Lord our saviour in the gospel obtained primacy: 'You are Peter,' he said, 'and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven'.
2. In addition there is also the presence of the blessed apostle Paul, 'the chosen vessel', who not in opposition, as the heresies jabber, but on the same date and the same day was crowned in glorious death with Peter in the city of Rome suffering under Nero Caesar; and equally they made the above-mentioned holy Roman church special in Christ the Lord and gave preference in their presence and veneration-worthy triumph before all other cities in the whole world.
3. Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter 'having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]'.
The truth is that the Protoevangelium was circulated and read widely amongst Christians and formed much of the traditions that developed before NT Scripture was compiled.
Why would Roman Catholic authors use apocryphal ravings whose credibility they cannot confirm and which works have been condemned (apparently) by a pope of their church? There are two obvious explanations:
(1) many Roman Catholic apologists have only a passing knowledge of history and the fathers, and
(2) some Roman Catholic apologists simply don't care: if it seems to support Rome's position, it is used. (3)In some cases, there is a third reason, which is that it is heretical works like the Protoevangelium of James from which, as an historical matter, were the true sources of the Roman Catholic doctrines and beliefs.
Having trouble counting? Nowhere does it say that the Protoevangelium is heretical. Nowhere. It simply says that Roman Catholics are to avoid them. Nonetheless, they were not dismissed by all of the East, and anyhow, were part of the formation of the early doctrine. Picking and choosing individual Church Fathers is ignoring the Consensus Patrum, which is the true decision making working of the Church. Individual Church Fathers may be in error on this or that. Even Augustine got a bunch of things wrong.