Your idea this doctrine of Mary;s ever-virginity consists of Charles Pope's "presuppositions and agendas" needs a little gentle correction.
He derives this doctrine from the doctrine and example (practice) of the early church, which was informed by the instructions of the Apostles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Liturgy of St. James, which is the earliest known written Liturgy and which came to us from Apostolic times, contains the lines:
"...our all-holy, spotless, exceeding glorious Lady and Ever-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints and just men, let us commend ourselves, and each other, and our lives unto Christ our Lord."
Similar terms (Aeiparthenos, Gr. "ever-virgin") are found in the oldest written manuscripts every ancient liturgy without exception: the Assyrian Church of the East, the Armenian Church, the Coptic (Egyptian) Church, etc. . --- which were not at all culturally "sourced" or dominated by the "Roman" (Latin) Church.
The first Christian on record to claim that Mary had other children was Helvidius (approx. 350 A.D.) Jerome referred to Helvidius's theory as "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world". This [judging by Jerome's reaction] was an entirely new interpretation, one nobody had ventured before.
In any case, Helvidius new hypothesis got zero traction with the Apostolic churches, which strongly clung to Apostolic-age doctrines against any theological innovations.
“He derives this doctrine from the doctrine and example (practice) of the early church, which was informed by the instructions of the Apostles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit”
Except there is zero evidence any Apostle taught this.
You are calling something “the early church” to avoid saying it was believed hundreds later.
That is absolutely false.
Who told you that?
Do you teach that to those you instruct? If so, and if you are interested in truth --- then you really should stop repeating such erroneous information. You've been provided enough information ---even recently--- to have precluded yourself making the above italicised statement.
Source??
See http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/11/victorinus-and-perpetual-virginity-of.html
Other than this being a dogma of the Roman Catholic church and binding upon RCs to believe it, why is it so critical that EVERY Christian believe it and why is it constantly brought up in threads by Catholics inciting arguments? I would join you in arguing for the Virgin Birth, but I don't see the Biblical demand nor prophetic value for Mary remaining a perpetual virgin.
The one that tells us that the angel told Joseph to not be afraid to take Mary as his WIFE and that he held off sex until AFTER Jesus was born.
The one that tells us this....
Mary of the Bible certainly did have other children...
Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 12:46-47 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
Mark 6:2-3 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?”... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”
Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
1 Corinthians 9:4-5 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Strong's Concordance
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.
http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm
The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.
It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.
It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.
They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.
The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.
And it would not be *cousin*.
The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm
Strong's Concordance
suggenes: akin, a relative
Original Word: συγγενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: suggenes
Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')
Short Definition: akin, a relative
Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.
The first Christian on record to claim that Mary had other children was Matthew, followed by Mark, John, and Paul.
ALL who predated the EFC by MANY years.
Matter of fact, the personally met the Incarnate Jesus Himself.
The first BIBLICASL reference to other children is found in Matthew 12.
...knew her not UNTIL the birth of Jesus.
got it all started.
Read the Old Testament. God refers to Israel (and by extension, all believers), over and over as the bride. (And when they turned their backs on him, he called them harlots. When they repented, He accepted them as his bride, again). Both the Old and the New Testament refer to Jesus as the Bridegroom, and the church (that is, the entire body of believers, Catholic or protestant) is the bride. To say Mary is the bride and Jesus is her bridegroom, in a relational sense, is nonsense. Yes, as a believer, Mary is a part of the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, but not in a marital sense. To believe otherwise, is to believe that Mary is the bride of her Son, which is sick. But I don’t know why I waste my breath. You’re going to believe what the Catholic church teaches, whether it is Scriptural or not. As long as you do that, we’re just butting our heads against a brick wall. There are millions of former Catholics, who when shown the Gospel, have received it and been born again, and reject the non-Scriptural parts of Catholicism. There are also millions of Catholics who have been born again, and remain Catholics, and are on a path of discovery about the truth of scripture. I don’t doubt your sincerity, but as long as you believe that Mary is your co-redemption, (of which there is NO Scriptural evidence), you minimize the very reason Jesus came to this earth, as the ONLY sacrificial Lamb. Only through HIS sacrifice, are we saved. He paid the price that was owed for our sins, because God demands a just scale, and the price MUST be paid. It is for this reason He came. God in the flesh, settled all accounts HIMSELF, because only He could. The amazing love of God, that He loves us so much, and knew we owed a debt we could not pay, paid it Himself. I ascribe honor to Mary, as the mother of Jesus, that she was obedient to the task asked of her, but like every other human being, she was required to accept Jesus as her Savior, in order to be redeemed. “There is NONE Holy. No not one”, but the triune God.