Protoevangelium of James

[simonthezealot]

Where is your support for such a grievous claim?

Based on the fact that you have provided no evidence I think this should be retracted or at the least provide some support.

Jack,

The catechism itself attaches credit to the Proto of James. I've showed your own pope disqualifying it. Pretty straight forward bro
Furthermore anyone who has read scripture can clearly tell you this is all absent from the inspired word of God.

 

[Mr Dave]

Could this have anything to do with the story that Mary made a vow to never know a man?

Which story's this? I've not heard of Mary making such a vow

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,

The catechism itself attaches credit to the Proto of James. I've showed your own pope disqualifying it. Pretty straight forward bro
Furthermore anyone who has read scripture can clearly tell you this is all absent from the inspired word of God.

The Constitution of the United States is not inspired by God, as far as I know. Yet, it is used for guidance and learning.

My point is that apocrypha means it is not inspired by God but does not necessarily mean it is anything else.

There were writings that were labelled as heretical and this is not one of them.

 

[simonthezealot]

The Constitution of the United States is not inspired by God, as far as I know. Yet, it is used for guidance and learning.

My point is that apocrypha means it is not inspired by God but does not necessarily mean it is anything else.

There were writings that were labelled as heretical and this is not one of them.

It may not have gotten the label heretical but gelasius decree stated, "we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever."

SOUNDS WORSE THAN HERETICAL, DON'T YOU THINK? ANATHEMATIZING?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It may not have gotten the label heretical but gelasius decree stated, "we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever."

SOUNDS WORSE THAN HERETICAL, DON'T YOU THINK? ANATHEMATIZING?

I am glad that you do read allot of ECFs and the early Popes.

However, I think that something is off with this.

I would like to know where Aquinas wrote of the Protoevnagelium of James.

I mostly question your information regarding Pope Gelasius because it is attributed to Pope Damasus and not much is known.

 

[simonthezealot]

Here is the decree put forth by Gelasius.
HERE


And Aquinas question 35 article 6 objection 3
Pg 118 HERE

 

[simonthezealot]

It's not attributed to damascus.
It was appended to the damscus list from the prior century look further down on the link right at the roman numeral III section, they still have originals of this Jack and it is not in question whether Gelasius wrote it, research it some and you'll find it to be true.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And Aquinas question 35 article 6 objection 3
Pg 118 HERE

Article 6. Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?


Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first parents, according to Genesis 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall [Vulgate: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains of childbirth, according to Genesis 3:16: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the same reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.
Objection 2. Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to Isaiah 53:4: "Surely . . . He hath carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity was not without the pains of childbirth.
Objection 3. Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain."
I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according to Isaiah 35:1-2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."
Reply to Objection 1. The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Genesis 3:16) after the words, "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and thou shalt be under thy husband's power." But, as Augustine says (Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [Supposititious), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.
Reply to Objection 2. As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death" [Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time, so by His pains He freed us from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth. Reply to Objection 3. We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm#article6


We are looking for the Protoevangelium of James. Is this Protevangelium Jacobi the same?

 

[simonthezealot]

Definitely one in the same, [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] says #'s 19 and 20 and speaks of midwifes, see below...also only at newadvent does it say jacobi.



19. And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither are you going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me: Are you of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me: Is she not your wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit.
And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel, but restore me to the poor; for You know, O Lord, that in Your name I have performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Your hand. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord has heard you. Put your hand to the infant, and carry it, and you will have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things you have seen, until the child has come into Jerusalem.

 

[simonthezealot]

HERE

They call them one in the same

There are a number of ancient texts not in the canon of Sacred Scripture which claim to present details about the life of Mary. The Protoevangelium Jacobi [First Gospel of James] (ca. 150) examines her early life and gives us details like the names of Mary's parents (Joachim and Ann).

 

[Hairy Tic]

Let's discuss the Protoevangelium of James.

Link: CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James

Or use your own copy. But if you do please provide a link if you have one.

Let us discuss it's importance and what it has to say and it's value for learning.

## No good if one wants a correct list of High Priests - but interesting as an index of attitudes to the BVM. And a rich source of scenes for Christian art, like many of the NT Apocrypha. Historical value otherwise nil.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Which story's this? I've not heard of Mary making such a vow

## It's a theory of respectable antiquity, about the Perpetual Virginity, that sees it as the result of a vow, for which vow Luke 1.34 is sometimes treated as a "proof-text"

 

[JacktheCatholic]

## No good if one wants a correct list of High Priests - but interesting as an index of attitudes to the BVM. And a rich source of scenes for Christian art, like many of the NT Apocrypha. Historical value otherwise nil.

Thanks

 

[simonthezealot]

So Jack ya gonna heed the words of Gelasius and Aquinas?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So Jack ya gonna heed the words of Gelasius and Aquinas?

Yes. I thought I was.

 

[simonthezealot]

Yes. I thought I was.

So after you throw this writing out where it belonged into the flames.
What is their left to hang your hat on for much of the marian doctrines ?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So after you throw this writing out where it belonged into the flames.
What is their left to hang your hat on for much of the marian doctrines ?

I think you missed the whole point.

How many times has someone posted that Marion doctrines were invented?

Too many is my answer.

With writings like the Protoevangelium of James, we know stories existed very early regarding Mary.

Also, the writing we have from Aquinas dismissing an obvious error in the Protoevangelium of James that the RCC recognizes as well. Aquinas pointed out that Mary had no birth pains because she was immaculately conceived.

So, I expect all that read the Protoevangelium to be educated. That they will no long speak of inventions because they now know that these are not inventions.

This one writing, though apocryphal, shows proof that teachings regarding Mary have been around since the beginning.

Immaculate Conception
Assumption of Mary
Need I say Ever Virgin?

It is all there.

 

[buzuxi02]

These early writings reflect traditions that were already common in either specific communities or within the larger part of the Church itself. The content itself was not new to the ears of the intended audience.
The virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke was commonly held among that community which the gospel was written for. But the lesser details between the two vary, such as the placing of the birth in Bethlehem. The two gospels did not present the virgin birth as something unknown before they wrote it on paper, but the intricate details of the narratives may have been in dispute.

 

[simonthezealot]

I think you missed the whole point.

How many times has someone posted that Marion doctrines were invented?

Too many is my answer.

With writings like the Protoevangelium of James, we know stories existed very early regarding Mary.

Also, the writing we have from Aquinas dismissing an obvious error in the Protoevangelium of James that the RCC recognizes as well. Aquinas pointed out that Mary had no birth pains because she was immaculately conceived.

So, I expect all that read the Protoevangelium to be educated. That they will no long speak of inventions because they now know that these are not inventions.

This one writing, though apocryphal, shows proof that teachings regarding Mary have been around since the beginning.

Immaculate Conception
Assumption of Mary
Need I say Ever Virgin?

It is all there.

You can no more attach any amount of credibility to this than an unknowing reader could attach credibility to the wizard of OZ as a former governor of Kansas, your reaching for straws Jack. This VERY likely could have been fictional work that centuries later became food for false teaching, or literally the SOURCE for this false teaching...You're messing with fire and i think you know it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You can no more attach any amount of credibility to this than an unknowing reader could attach credibility to the wizard of OZ as a former governor of Kansas, your reaching for straws Jack. This VERY likely could have been fictional work that centuries later became food for false teaching, or literally the SOURCE for this false teaching...You're messing with fire and i think you know it.

Fiction or not it was written about and addressed in many other letters.

The straw man is the argument of invention. These writings show the "invention" argument for what it is.

I think that in all intellectual honesty one cannot know of these writings and then say that the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of Mary are inventions since that would imply the idea never existed.