You are confusing Church discipline with Church doctrine in terms of the dietary rules mentioned. These were disciplinary declarations rather than dogmatic declarations. Church discipline may change to meet the changing requirements of the times. At that time it was an issue whether Christians were required to observe the Old Law.

What is to be learned from the Council of Jerusalem is that the Apostles assumed that they had the approval and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which indicates that they believed in the promise of Christ that the Church would have divine protection and guidance. It also indicates their understanding of the words of Christ regarding this (which should be our understanding of the Church’s divine protection as well). Had they not understood and believed in the words of Christ in this way they would never have presumed to say “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us …”

harry,

It is strange you cite the Council of Jerusalem, since some of the things that “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” have simply since been ignored.

‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’

When was the last time you had a nice, juicy steak?

… those who are not Catholic (or even Christian) can read the New Testament for themselves.

Exactly. And they do. And there can be nearly as many interpretations of the New Testament as there are people who read it, rendering it useless in terms of deriving correct doctrine from it in the absence of an authority acknowledged by Church members. God realized that would be the case, so He founded a Church, promising it that “He who hears you, hears me.” (Luke 10:16) When we submit to the authority of the Holy Spirit present in the official teaching of the Church according to the promise of Christ, we are given boundaries within which we can remain in order to interpret the Scriptures in an orthodox manner. It is not without reason that Paul points out to Timothy that the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

Certainly the opinions of the Fathers of the Church are very important, but we have the actual texts they were interpreting, and in some ways, we know more about those texts than the Fathers of the Church did.

And in some ways we know much less, just as those who study the American Civil War in a couple of thousand years will never understand it the way we do. Many American families have orally passed on to each succeeding generation since then stories of their ancestors who fought in the war. Some still have in their possession letters written by them. Just as those families have insights due to their closeness in time to the war that will be lost in a couple of thousand years, so did the Apostolic Fathers have insights due to their closeness to those who actually knew Jesus and were taught by Him. Modern scholars simply do not and cannot have such insights.

It is interesting that Jerome points out to Helvidius that he could “array against” him “the whole series of ancient writers … Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men.” He obviously had documents written by those men that have been lost to us, as I don’t think anyone today could, for example, cite Ignatius in terms of his discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jerome’s remark suggests that he had access to texts in which Ignatius must have mentioned Mary’s perpetual virginity. Whatever advantages modern Scripture scholars have, there are advantages to being closer in time to events that they do not have.

… the majority of Catholic Biblical scholars today would say that, judging by the New Testament alone, the weight of evidence would be that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Judging by the New Testament alone, with the interpreter acknowledging no authority outside his own imagined authority, interpreters can and do determine that the weight of evidence demonstrates nearly any conclusion they want to arrive at. Most often these are conclusions that contradict what others have determined the “weight of evidence” demonstrates. Again, that is why Christ founded a Church, gave it real spiritual authority, and promised it the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That this was the provision of God and that the Early Church was aware of that provision was demonstrated at the Council of Jerusalem, which made determinations that “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” (Acts 15:28)

Just to start with, not everyone is married. Some are to poor or to socially awkward or to whatever to marry. Does the fact that Jesus minsters to the poor necessarily make him farther away from the rich who are willing to humble themselves and accept him? Why should He not sacrifice so He can minister to those unlucky in love?

You are stating the Catholic position, and I respect that, but those who are not Catholic (or even Christian) can read the New Testament for themselves. Certainly the opinions of the Fathers of the Church are very important, but we have the actual texts they were interpreting, and in some ways, we know more about those texts than the Fathers of the Church did. I think (although this would be difficult to document) that the majority of Catholic Biblical scholars today would say that, judging by the New Testament alone, the weight of evidence would be that Jesus had brothers and sisters. But of course, when Tradition is also considered, they would say that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. I have every reason to expect you can provide an endless stream of documents asserting the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but they will be Catholic theological arguments, not historical evidence.

Tertullian believed that those referred to as brothers and sisters of Jesus were his actual siblings. So it wasn’t unanimous.
– David Nickol

At the time Tertullian wrote On Monogamy, to which I assume you are referring, he was no longer an orthodox Christian but a Montanist. Jerome’s answer to Helvidius’ citation of Tertullian in this regard is still sufficient:

Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel – that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.

I would only add that the unanimous consent of the Fathers never did mean 100% agreement, and certainly not agreement that included the opinions of heretics and schismatics. As Vincent of Lerins puts it in his Commonitory:

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

In Jerome’s time, the interpretations of Scripture held by “Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men” were “those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers,” and were the “definitions and determinations of all, or at least of almost all priests and doctors” of antiquity. And there was also the sensus fidelium that caused the Christians of Jerome’s time to insist that he answer the novel and heretical notions of Helvidius. Against this “fountain of truth,” the fulfillment of the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever leading it to the Truth, you propose Tertullian’s “tiny stream of opinion” after he had fallen away from orthodoxy.

Mike Melendez,

You seem not to distinguish between a flat assertion, say, “You’re reading people’s minds now,” and a tentatively offered opinion such as, “So I am not sure what the fuss is about, although I think [that] part of it has to do with some people being extraordinarily uncomfortable with the idea of the sexuality of Jesus.” Are you really willing to assert that everybody is comfortable with the idea of the sexuality of Jesus?

As I noted, Karen King says emphatically that the fragment “does not provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married.” Basically all that is happening is that the discovery—which proves nothing at all and can prove nothing about the historical Jesus—has raised the question again in the popular mind, and this seems to bother some people in my humble opinion.

Put simply, sex sells. Just ask Dan Brown. Professor King seems to know that as well. So we fight a rear guard action in hopes of preventing this from being a common meme.

If saying that someone was married is “sex,” then I suppose a wedding is equivalent to an orgy. The idea that Jesus might have married and had descendants struck a chord in the popular imagination, but I don’t think there was anything at all prurient about it. As I recall The Da Vinci Code, there were no flashbacks to steamy love scenes in the first century.