The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary

Catholic Int'l. ^ | November 19, 2003 | Robert Sungenis

[NYer]

Ding, Dong, The Witch is Dead: The Radio Debate of Gerry Matatics Against James White and Eric Svendsen on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

On November 18, 2003, Gerry Matatics debated James White and Eric Svendsen on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, hosted by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

Let me say first of all that besides his excellent arguments, Gerry Matatics conducted himself as a true Christian gentleman. James White and Eric Svendsen, on the other hand, spent much of the time screaming at Matatics, and accusing him of all kinds of motives and statements that simply were not true.

Be that as it may, if you didn’t notice, the debate was over at about 7:55 pm, Eastern Standard Time. The rest of the 35 minutes was all conversation. Perhaps many missed it, because James White did his best to make it go unnoticed.

At about 7:55 pm, Mr. Matatics gave an example of the Greek phrase “heos hou” used in the time period of 100 B.C. to 100 A.D. which showed conclusively that “heos hou” continued the action of the main clause, not terminate it. Essentially, that was the only thing Matatics needed to do in the debate, and he did it well.

Before I proceed, again, let me explain why this is important. Eric Svendsen claims that the use of “heos hou” in Matthew 1:25 (which is translated by the English word “until” in the sentence “...he knew her not until she bore a son”), is a special Greek phrase that terminates the action of the main clause “knew her not.” In other words, Svendsen claims that Joseph’s state of “not knowing Mary” terminated at the point when Mary bore Jesus, which means that Mary, according to Svendsen, had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. Svendsen makes this claim because, as he has continually boasted over the last few years, EVERY reference to “heos hou” in the time period under discussion (100 B. C. to 100 A.D.) shows that “heos hou” terminates that action of the main clause, never continues it. If “heos hou” continued the action of the main clause, then it would mean Joseph’s “not knowing Mary” would continue beyond the birth of Jesus, which would mean that Joseph and Mary never had sexual relations.

As a side note, Svendsen admits that the Greek word “heos” (“until”), used by itself, can either terminate or continue the action of the main clause. But it is his contention that when “heos” is coupled with “hou” in the phrase “heos hou” in the period under discussion, it NEVER continues the action of the main clause. He admits that prior to and after the period of 100 B.C to 100 A.D. “heos hou” was sometimes used to continue the action of the main clause, but that for some reason (which he never really explains) the meaning of “heos hou” which allowed a continuation of the main clause suddenly dropped out of existence. It just so happens that Matthew’s gospel was written in this particular time period.

Now, let me continue with the November 18th debate. As I stated above, Mr. Matatics provided a reference, between the years of 100 B.C. and 100 A.D, in which “heos hou” continued the action of the main verb. Here is the reference he gave:

And Aseneth was left alone with the seven virgins, and she continued to be weighed down and weep UNTIL the sun set. And she ate no bread and drank no water. And the night fell, and all (people) in the house slept, and she alone was awake and continued to brood and to weep; and she often struck her breast with (her) hand and kept being filled with great fear and trembled (with) heavy trembling.

First, the reference for this comes from the work of C. Burchard, in the story titled “Joseph and Aseneth,” which is found in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2, Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H.Charlesworth, p. 215. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

Second, the word “UNTIL” in the clause “weep UNTIL the sun set” is the Greek phrase “heos hou.” You will notice if you read the sentence in context that Aseneth cried until the sun went down, but she continued to cry way into the night when everyone else was asleep. Here we have a classic case of “heos hou” continuing the action of the main clause, for the context itself tells us there is no other possibility. There are only two available choices: either “heos hou” terminates the action of the main clause, or continues it. It certainly does not terminate it in this incident, otherwise, Aseneth would have stopped crying and not continued when the sun set.

Thus, Mr. Matatics, in one fell swoop, has discredited the whole thesis of Eric Svendsen (which is the essence of the whole debate on November 18, if you were listening carefully). Svendsen had boasted that there were no such references to “heos hou” continuing the action of the main verb. He knew that if his opponents found just ONE reference that contradicted his boast, Svendsen’s entire argument would fall like a house of cards. Opponents didn’t need a dozen references. They only needed one, and that one reference would be the magic bullet. It is the magic bullet that totally discredits Svendsen’s entire doctoral dissertation, for the whole dissertation essentially boils down to the meaning of “heos hou” in the time period under discussion. If you were listening closely to the debate, it was at this point that Svendsen grew conspicuously quiet in the debate, and didn’t raise his voice again until near the end by trying to capitalize on a point that James White was challenging of Matatics.

Sensing that Matatics shot that magic bullet into the heart of Svendsen at 7:55 pm, James White went into his famous misdirection tactic. As soon as White realized that Matatics provided the needed reference to discredit the whole “heos hou” thesis of Svendsen, and noticed that Svendsen did not have an answer for Matatics, White then asked Gerry: “Does the New Testament have any such examples?”

Now, let me tell you what White’s question really means. It means that White either doesn’t know the essence of Svendsen’s thesis, or, he indeed does know it, but tried to cover for Svendsen. Svendsen’s thesis, as I stated above, is that in NON New Testament writings, between the dates of 100 B.C and 100 A.D, there is no usage of “heos hou” which continues the main clause of a Greek sentence. Since White couldn’t argue against the evidence Matatics provided of a Non New Testament source using “heos hou” to continue the action, White quickly jumped to the New Testament and asserted to Matatics that if he couldn’t find such a usage in the New Testament then Matatics’s argument was invalid.

Eric Svendsen should be ashamed, and James White should apologize to Svendsen, for Svendsen’s whole thesis is that the Non New Testament literature contains no such references of “heos hou” continuing the action of the main clause. The very challenge that Svendsen has been boasting about for years, Matatics indeed answered, and White knew it, and thus White tried to misdirect the audience to think that Matatics failed unless he also showed that “heos hou” in the New Testament continued the action of the main clause. But he didn’t fail. He actually succeeded in discrediting Svendsen’s whole thesis. Any evidence Gerry would have given from the New Testament would simply have been icing on the cake.

This tactic of White’s is extremely dishonest and hypocritical, especially since he, about five minutes later, began ranting and raving at Matatics on another topic of contention, saying “Gerry, that is absolutely grossly inaccurate!” Yet White, five minutes prior, had given the audience one of the grossest ploys and coverups I have ever seen anyone attempt in an open debate.

All I can say is, THANK YOU, Gerry Matatics, my good friend and colleague. If you don’t mind me using an oft used cliche, you showed yourself to be a true “gentlemen and a scholar” tonight. God bless you and keep you.

Your Catholic brother,

Robert Sungenis

[NYer]

Eric's Top Ten Errors

[NYer]

Congratulations to Gerry Matatics and thanks to John Pacheco and the Catholic-Legate for posting the details on this debate.

* * * * *

As many faithful Catholics are painfully aware, the Church's doctrines are always under attack by Her enemies. When the attacks are veiled by an air of scholarly research and presentation, they can become a source of doubt to some Catholics or a stumbling block to those wishing to become Catholic.

In recent years, Eric Svendsen of New Testament Research Ministries has taken aim at the Catholic Church's teaching about Mary and in particular her perpetual virginity. He has even written a book entitled Who is My Mother? - The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism, attacking the Church's teaching about Mary and her virginity. This is a book which has such a veneer of scholarly research and professional detachment.

It is, in fact, neither.

In order to convince Catholics that Our Lady lost her virginity, Svendsen utilizes the conspicuous until in Matthew 1:25. Instead of focusing on the traditional Protestant polemic surrounding 'until', he concentrates on a particular Greek grammatical construction for the 'until' in Matthew 1:25. It is alleged that this Greek phrase in question, heõs hou for the uninitiated, proves that Mary did indeed lose her virginity.

It is my pleasure to release a thorough refutation of this claim, presented below and entitled Heõs Hou and the Protestant Polemic. It will hopefully shatter all pretense and veiled legitimacy of this argument, which, for too long now, has been floating around cyberspace with impunity.

The Heõs Hou polemic is now over - for good.

Blessed Be Mary Ever-Virgin!

* * * * *

Heõs Hou and the Protestant Polemic by John Pacheco

[xzins]

Dueling scholars.....always as fun as watching the water boil.

In this case, I don't really mind if Mary remained a virgin. It's possible.

But there's a legitimate argument on either side. I don't think there's a salvific issue at stake either way since Mary is not a co-redemptrix. Do you agree with that?

[redgolum]

Carefull, you just entered in to the minefield of Mariology. The issue of Co redemdrix alone will probably call out the trolls.

[redgolum]

Carefull, you just entered in to the minefield of Mariology. The issue of Co redemdrix alone will probably call out the trolls.

[xzins]

I think co-mediatrix will definitely cause a fight, but I think the church itself decided that co-redemptrix is a non-starter.

Is that what you remember?

[Pyro7480]

The titles co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix does NOT mean her participation in Christ's redemptive and mediating roles is EQUAL to Christ. It does mean that among humans, as His Mother, Mary played the largest role in Christ's life, death, and resurrection, and therefore, has these special descriptive titles bestowed on her by the Church.

[xzins]

Honestly, I think I read that y'all's theology department dropped the co-redemptrix movement.

I think it related to the redemption being the crucifixion and there being only one person on the cross.

[Pyro7480]

I don't know about that. The co in co-redemprtix comes with the Latin word "con" which means "with." Yes, Jesus was the only one on the Cross. However, Mary, the women, and John were the only ones who stood by Him to His Death. In this, Mary stands out because she is His Mother.

[Pyro7480]

I don't know about that. The co in co-redemprtix comes with the Latin word "con" which means "with." Yes, Jesus was the only one on the Cross. However, Mary, the women, and John were the only ones who stood by Him to His Death. In this, Mary stands out because she is His Mother.

[Salvation]

Marian bump!

[xzins]

But there's something in the back of my memory and I can't dredge it out, but some kind of doctrine group in your church decided that co-redemptrix wasn't official doctrine.

It went to the heart of the eucharist and transubstantiation, I think. Jesus was on the cross; it was Jesus' blood that was shed; redemption is in His blood and no other.

Something like that. They were concerned it somehow violated eucharistic teaching.

[Maximilian]

The co in co-redemprtix comes with the Latin word "con" which means "with."

This is way too confusing and declaring such a title would be a disaster from a prudential viewpoint. The prefix "co" has an obvious prima facie meaning which would create confusion and potential for heretical misunderstandings when it's used in a non-obvious way. The other title that is currently debated, "mediatrix of all graces," makes a lot more sense. It's less open to misunderstanding and better supported by theology and history.

[Codie]

Perhaps you should go back to the Jackson thread.

[NYer]

Maybe you can email this link to Fr. David. I'm sure he would enjoy the argument and ensuing discussion ;-)

[franky]

The point of this discussion is not history, not verbage and not opinion.

The point is that by faith are we saved and the discussion should not even be had as the Church and its members live by faith. Faith in the Blessed Virgin Mother of Jesus, Mary, who was assumed into Heaven and sits with the Blessed Trinity.

[xzins]

Do you remember what I'm talking about? My memory says it was a discussion while I was still in the Army so that makes it at least 2 years old. I think I was in the states, so that means about 4 years ago.

Do you remember it?

[NYer]

I don't really mind if Mary remained a virgin. It's possible.

If this is 'possible', then you must also consider it 'possible' that Joseph remained celibate as well ;-)

From Catholic Insights:

"Consider only the most obvious factor about the man: he was married to the most beautiful woman in the history of the world (because her beauty began from her sinless nature and thus surpassed all other beauty) and was therefore the happiest man in the world, but he lived in total chastity with her! We know from Sacred Tradition, the witness of the Fathers, and the hints of his life in the Gospels, that Our Lady and St. Joseph lived as husband and wife but that theirs was a marriage lived without sexual consummation: for Mary remained a virgin the whole of her life. "

[Codie]

Newsweek ran an article in it's August 25th, 1997 issue about a movement within the Catholic Church. Millions of Catholics signed and submitted a petition to Pope John Paul II in an effort to name Mary, the Mother of our Lord, as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate for all Christians. This would be the fifth and final Marian dogma. Members of Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici ("The Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix") spearheaded the effort.

Supporters include Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta; the late Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, OP, papal theologian emeritus; Cardinal Jaime Sin of Manila, the Philippines; Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, president of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses; over 480 bishops including 40 cardinals; prominent lay leaders and ordinary faithful from all parts of the world. Hardly a fringe group!

Here's a short description from the petition submitted to the Pope:

When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10).

And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."

It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.

Mary's role was unique. If she had said 'no' to Gabriel ... to God, would we have a Savior, would we have our true Redeemer ... our Lord .... the Messiah? Mary played a definite role in our salvation. But back to the original statement ... that role is entirely dependent and subordinate on Jesus.

Mary is called to give her free and full consent to conceive this child. She is not merely a passive recipient of the message, but she was given an active role, and heaven awaited her free choice. It is precisely by her free consent to collaborate in God's saving plan that she becomes the Coredemptrix. The prophecy of Simeon to Mary, "and a sword will pierce through your own soul also" (Luke 2:25), affirms Mary's unique participation in the work of redemption, as it warns her that she will undergo an unspeakable pain that will pierce her soul, for the salvation of mankind. John 19:25 tells us of Jesus' Mother at the very foot of the cross, persevering with her Son in his worst hour of agony, and therein suffering the death of her Son.

Thus in her own suffering too, the Mother of the Redeemer participates in the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ.

St. Paul tells us we are to make up what is lacking in the sacrifice of Jesus (Col 1:24): "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,"

Paul is making a very similar statement here also. By his sufferings he is completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the church and us. This is a role we all can partake .... but this role is dependent on Christ and subordinate to Christ.

That is all that statement about Mary is saying. Mary had a role, a contribution in filling what was lacking in us, the Church. It's a very biblical statement.

Jesus Christ as true God and true man redeems the human family, while Mary as Coredemptrix participates with the Redeemer in his one perfect Sacrifice in a completely subordinate and dependent way. The key word here is "participation" in that which is exclusively true of Jesus Christ. The title "Coredemptrix" never puts Mary on a level of equality with our Lord; rather, it refers to Mary's unique and intimate participation with her divine Son in the work of redemption. "Coredemptrix" is a Latin word; the prefix "co" in the title, "Coredemptrix," derives from the Latin word "cum," which means "with," not "equal to." Mary's sufferings are efficacious towards the redemption of man because they are wholly rooted in the redemptive graces of Christ and are perfectly united to His redeeming will. Similarly, as Mediatrix, the Mother of Jesus does not "rival" Christ's mediation but rather participates in the one mediation of Jesus Christ. Imagine water from a reservoir reaching the people through a system of aqueducts or channels. By analogy, Jesus is the infinite "reservoir" of all grace, which is distributed to us through Mary .... as she gave birth to Jesus. Jesus, the one mediator, does not exclude secondary, subordinate mediators.

Catholics do agree wholeheartedly that Jesus is the one and only mediator between man & God. No question ... the bible teaches this ... the Catholic Church teaches this. No subordinate co-deities, no additional redeemers, no additional mediators! Clear enough?

But what about our role in bringing people to Christ, preaching the Gospel, as teachers, pointing people to Christ .... and so on? We can be mediators in that fashion. Surely you do not disagree that faith comes from (by grace) from receiving the gospel message.

This is not saying we are mediators between Jesus and God for mankind ... but we can have a subordinate & dependent role.

This isn't adding to Jesus' mediatorship, not a seperate channel, not an end-run, or anything that takes away from His role.

[xzins]

Here is something like it: it's found at catholic planet:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/

See #5 Below.



Summary of Correct Doctrine

Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, Mediator, Advocate. Christ is assisted by the Virgin Mary in her triune role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. The following 12 points are an important part of a correct understanding of this doctrine.

1. Mary’s triune role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix is a reflection of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

2. All three aspects of this one role are substantially different from, and wholly subordinate to, Christ’s triune role as Redeemer, Mediator, Advocate.

3. Mary’s role is different from, and subordinate to, Christ’s role because, in God’s plan for Creation, the role given to women is different from, and subordinate to, the role given to men.

4. The “co-” prefix in co-Redemptrix refers to Mary’s cooperation with us; it does not mean that Mary is co-Redeemer, not even with and under Christ. (The “co-” prefix should not be capitalized, since it refers to our mere human efforts towards our salvation; the “R” in co-Redemptrix should be capitalized since it refers to Divine efforts towards our salvation.)

5. Mary is not a co-Redeemer and is not able to save anyone, not even with and under Christ. Christ alone redeems; Mary merely assists Christ in His work of redemption. Her role is not co-redemptive.

6. Mary is Mediatrix of all graces, but with two exceptions. She is not Mediatrix of grace given to Christ, nor is she Mediatrix of grace she herself receives from Christ.

7. Mary is also Mediatrix of Divine Providence and of mercy and of all that God does within Creation, except with respect to Christ and herself. Therefore, she should be called: “Mediatrix.”

8. Mary is Advocatrix. The term “Advocate,” when applied to the Virgin Mary, is theologically deficient because it lacks the feminine form, which would distinguish Mary’s different and subordinate role from Christ’s role as Advocate. Use of the Latin form of the word allows a clear theological definition to be attached to the term, unfettered by the various connotations which the word “advocate” has when translated into various languages.

9. The expression “Advocate of the People of God” can only be used to refer to Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. The Virgin Mary has no role of advocacy herself; instead, her role as Advocatrix is to assists Christ, our Advocate. Mary is not “Advocate of the People of God,” but rather is a humble assistant to Christ, the Advocate of the People of God.

10. Mary does not stand before God as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. In truth, only Christ stands before God to redeem, mediate, and advocate. The Virgin Mary humbly kneels before Christ, in worship of Him, and assists Christ fully in His work of redemption, mediation, advocacy.

11. Mary is truly co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix. But this true doctrine is neither the fifth Marian dogma, nor is it the final Marian dogma. The claim that this doctrine is “the fifth and final Marian dogma” is a heresy which fundamentally contradicts the teaching of the Church.

12. Theological works about Mary’s triune role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix should omit any and all references to the false private revelations of Ida Peerdeman at Amsterdam. Works on this topic should clearly and unequivocally reject the apparitions and messages of Ida Peerdeman.