The Protoevangelium is not Canon, yet it obviously seriously influenced the early Church.Yes, it did. It was obviously the source of the mischief that crept into the church and was anathemed by Popes. It certainly did not originate with the Church.
It serves no purpose, other than giving glory to Mary which Christ went out of his way NOT to do.
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
The Church’s belief about Mary started long before any NT Scripture was ever written.That is simply an asertion without a basis. The church was totally silent about any Marian doctrine for centuries.
You could offer some proof for you assertion.
I am utterly mystified by the groups that say that Mary was just another Jewish girl, and nobody special, and that Christ her Son was disrepectful to her (in spite of the proven mistranslation). They seem to view any honor given to Mary as “worship” — which makes me worry about them. After all, if that’s true, what kind of lame worship do they have for Christ?
It looks like all of the women criticizing Mary think they are “just as good as her,” and that any of them could be the Mother of God just like Mary was. Mary is an offense to them, even while they denigrate her importance and position as human mother of the Only Begotten Son of God Almighty.
It was really shocking the first time I saw that propaganda posted here on FR, I hadn’t thought anyone could be so hateful. Now it’s just sad, and I am sure that Mary will pray for the redemption of those who, through despising his mother, tear down the Savior.
Because the fact that God preserved Mary from all stain of original sin says more about who Christ Jesus, His Son, is, than about Mary.
That is simply an asertion without a basis. The church was totally silent about any Marian doctrine for centuries. You could offer some proof for you assertion.
Well, we have St. Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons) who was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of St. John. In Against Heresies 3:22 written about the middle of the second century, we have this:
4. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first.
And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto you.” For the Lord, having been born “the First-begotten of the dead,” and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.
And in 5:19, we find:
1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled – was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former disobeyed God, the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.
No Constantine and not centuries. The student of the student of John.
Yes, it did. It was obviously the source of the mischief that crept into the church and was anathemed by Popes. It certainly did not originate with the Church. It serves no purpose, other than giving glory to Mary which Christ went out of his way NOT to do.
Hardly. We do not glorify Mary. We think rather highly of her, though, as did the earliest Christians.