Jerome went a bit overboard in his polemic. The claims Jerome made about the earliest 'church fathers' (regarding
perpetual virginity be attributed to Mary) were not as true as they needed to have been.
Didn't I supply a link to you a few days back that explained how that was?
Most of the ECR's Jerome cited can be noted for their LACK of mention of PVM (perpetual virginity of Mary). Chew on that one for a while. Seriously.
Even Clement does not ever say that Mary was perpetually virgin. I just read what he wrote on the subject. If he had thought that, among what he wrote stressing virginity as being (part of?) a superior spiritual condition -- then why did Clement NOT make more of an example out of Mary? He touched upon her being virgin, and giving birth to Christ, then quickly moved on.
Here again it appears to me that you are following in path of Jerome error, in this. Helvidius was not the first, nor the only Christian to assert that Mary and Joseph had other children -- after the miraculous "virgin birth" of Jesus, of course.
As late as the earlier 4th to mid 4th century, St. Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD), although himself believed Mary to not have given birth to children after the miraculous birth of Jesus, mentioned that the view that Mary and Joseph did have children together was widespread, and was not outside of orthodoxy. That last part-- "not outside orthodoxy" is almost a direct quote. It's the idea of it that is important.
As such, it serves as a way-point of sorts for the development of the PVM doctrine.
Let's all face the facts here, shall we? If PVM was in actuality a teaching coming down from the Apostles -- there would not be need for RC apologists to revert to relying upon one of Jerome's worst, ill-founded argumentatives, or else treating Protoevangelium of James as if it were anything other than the unreliable, fanciful pseudograph that it is.
"The claims Jerome made about the earliest 'church fathers' (regarding perpetual virginity be attributed to Mary) were not as true as they needed to have been." That's a bit convoluted. Are you saying these claims were true? That they were false? That their truth/falsity were unverifiable either way? Or what?
St. Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD)-- can you get me that quote and that link? Thanks.
I remain with Jerome and the churches. So I'm not just speaking of polemical writings; I'm speaking of liturgical practice/texts. There's lots of liturgical acknowledgement of Mary Ever-Virgin. Not just Roman (Latin Church) but Greek, Assyrian, Coptic, Armenian.
For example, here's a citation in Ge'ez (LINK) , the classical Ethiopian language, concerning Ever-Virgin Mary.
"His ever-Virgin Mother is properly and truly called the Mother of God..[Liturgy] is conducted in Ge'ez, the ancient classical and liturgical language of Ethiopia."
If you can find any liturgical mention anywhere referencing other "sons of Mary," that would be huge.
