Posted on 11/19/2003 10:57:57 AM PST by 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
Bump for a later read.
This smacks of numerology, and always assigning anything in threes as "Trinitarian". Rather, it seems these roles are a refelction of the Christ-like quality of Mary to which we are all supposed to strive. We should all work with Christ to redeem the world, mediate goodness to others, and advocate with God for their salvation. Mary is then simply an exemplar par excellence of this.
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.)
This is a good explanation, because "co" most certainly means "jointly" or "mutually", and implies equality. Thus "co-workers", "co-belligerents", etc. Mary (or anyone else) is not "co" anything with Christ in the Redemption. As Max noted above, the Magisterium has very much avoided the use of the word "Co-Redemptrix", which I also think is a non-starter.
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.”
Without venturing into heresy, it is impossible to say something like that without the qualifier of "after the Incarnation", or even better and more acurately, "after her Assumption". Frankly, I've never even heard of this claim before by the Marianists (Mary as mediator of Divine Providence and Mercy), and it certainly smacks of heretical notions of the eternal existence of Mary. Worse in my view, Divine Providence is the ordering of events towards their proper end by the mind of God. It is really a stretch to say Mary can "mediate" this to us.
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.
This is VERY strange sounding. First, Christ is God. Speaking about Christ standing before God smacks of Arianism or at least Nestorianism. The Creed confesses that Christ now "sits at the right hand of Father". Second, certainly all the Angels and Saints also stand before the heavenly throne (unless we are going to toss out the Apocalypse of St. John, and also verses like Jeremiah 15.1 and 2 Maccabees 15.12-15 which explicitly speak of saints mediating for us with prayers before God). Third, Mary does not "assist" Christ (is He not all-powerful and all-knowing?), but intercedes with Him for us and bestows the favors granted in return. That is certainly my understanding of Mediatrix. Christ does not need her assistance, but has instead deigned to give us His mother as our spiritual mother, and to accept her pleas for pity and mercy through bestowal of divine grace on our behalf. I don't see any reason to go beyond this.
Many saints have said this. It is undoubtedly true, that to disdain the intercession of Mary is to close off the hope of salvation, since it is the same as disdaining the bestowal of the grace of God. The fifteenth anathema of the Second Council of Nicea (Ecumenical 7) reads:
(15) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, let him be anathema!
Also:
(17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, let him be anathema!
The priest you mention was quite right.
I don't think it's a central issue, or even a terribly important issue. Whichever, she intercedes for us in a big way.
How can you say that after you just confessed it as an integral part of the Creed?
natus ex Maria Virgine
That is "born of the Virgin Mary" [perpetual virginity], not "born virginally of Mary" [virgin birth only].
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.