Eric Svendsen<\/a> is an anti-Catholic Protestant, who was, for a time, arguably the second most influential and active anti-Catholic polemicist online, after Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White<\/a>. Then he suddenly vanished from the Internet in 2008. He had been indicating that he would do so as early as 2 November 2005, when he wrote on his blog that he was \u201cpacking it in\u201d<\/span> in large part because of \u201cthe incorrigible and vitriolic pooling of ignorance that comes from self-styled \u2018apologists,\u2019 each promoting his own version of a false gospel.\u201d <\/span>He wrote on 27 April 2003 on his \u201cdiscussion\u201d forum: \u201cRC apologists will do or say just about anything\u2013true or not\u2013to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception\u00a0regularly<\/i>.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Svendsen produced three anti-Catholic books with small publishers<\/a>: Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists<\/i><\/a> (Reformation Press, 1999), Who is My Mother?\u00a0<\/a><\/em>(Calvary Press: 2001), Upon This Slippery Rock<\/a><\/em> (Calvary Press: 2002). This series of critiques is devoted to his doctoral dissertation from 2000: Who is My Mother?: The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and in Roman Catholicism<\/em><\/a>. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n In his \u201cBackground and Problem Statement\u201d (p. vii) Svendsen stated that Catholics tend to \u201cportray Mary as the most exalted of <\/span>God\u2019s creatures, something of a demigod between the rest of mankind and the Trinity . . .\u201d<\/span> I looked up \u201cdemigod\u201d at Dictionary.com<\/em> and it defines the term<\/a>\u00a0as:<\/p>\n Merriam-Webster<\/em><\/a> defines the word similarly: \u201ca mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god.\u201d<\/p>\n Interestingly, both highlight the idea that a demigod is a \u201cmythological being.\u201d Is this<\/em> what Svendsen wished to convey in his dissertation, as to how Catholics regard the Blessed Virgin Mary? A few pages later (p. ix) he refers to \u201ca Roman Mariolatry that is guided by legend and myth rather than biblical data.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t seem very scholarly to me at all. The only \u201clegend and myth\u201d here is Svendsen\u2019s absurd caricatures of actual, demonstrable Catholic teachings. As always, when these outrageous claims are made as to the supposed Catholic dogmatic teaching regarding Mary\u2019s \u201cstatus,\u201d they are never backed up with documentation. Needless to say, no Catholic magisterial document ever asserts such an absurd thing. If that were the case, surely the anti-Catholics would be right on it. But instead they make the charge and never ever document<\/em> it.<\/p>\n Svendsen elsewhere tried to rationalize this. On his discussion board on 17 January 2004, he described Catholics as \u201cthose who would raise Mary to the status of the Trinity . . .\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Challenged by Reformed Protestant theologian Paul Owen to prove this absurd description, Eric retorted on 19 January 2004:<\/p>\n If what you mean by this is that you\u2019ll find no official RC statement that says \u201cwe elevate Mary to the status of the Trinity,\u201d then I\u2019m happy to agree. Of course you\u2019re not going to find anything as overt as that. What you\u2019ll find instead is that Mary is<\/span>\u00a0[laundry list of Catholic titles for Mary given]\u00a0. . . With titles like these, who in the world needs an explicit statement that Mary is on par with the Trinity?<\/span><\/p>\n In his \u201cProblem Statement\u201d (p. viii) he writes:<\/p>\n In spite of the progress that has been made since Vatican II, the tendency on the Roman Catholic side to read the Marian texts in far too favorable a light is still highly prevalent (Brown, 1982:378), resulting in a view of Mary that portrays her as Ever Virgin and highly exalted.<\/span><\/p>\n First, he implies that Vatican II changed the Catholic position as regards Mary. It did not<\/em>. Never mind that the Church fathers with virtual unanimity believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that all of the original founders of Protestantism did as well. I get a chuckle over his citing of the ubiquitous Fr. Raymond Brown.<\/p>\n It seems that he is as beloved among anti-Catholic Protestants as he is among atheists, who also absurdly fawn over him (which I have observed innumerable times in my hundreds of debates with them). Well-known online atheist Jonathan M. S. Pearce, just eight days before I wrote the words in this paragraph, described Fr. Brown<\/a> as a \u201cgreat Catholic exegete\u201d and stated that \u201cI can\u2019t tell you how [much] I revere the work of Raymond Brown\u201d.<\/p>\n Why is this? Why would an atheist love a Catholic priest and fawn all over him? Well, it\u2019s obviously because he was a liberal dissident<\/a>, who denied many Catholic doctrines; thus he is so often lavished with praise and approvingly cited as a sort of \u201cuseful idiot\u201d for those opposing Catholicism (or Christianity in general, as it were). Jesus said: \u201cWoe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets\u201d (Lk 6:26, RSV).<\/p>\n If we speak full Catholic truth, we\u2019ll be hated by the enemies of the Church, just as Jesus was, and as He foretold that we would be also, as His followers (Mt 10:22; Mk 13:13; Lk 21:17); or at the very least<\/em> not rapturously admired. When someone is so loved by anti-Catholics and atheists alike, beware<\/em>. There is a reason<\/em> for it. Accordingly, Fr. Brown is the very first person that Svendsen cites (two different works in his first and second references). He knows where to go to back up his falsehoods.<\/p>\n Svendsen cites Fr. John L. McKenzie, whom he calls a \u201cmoderate\u201d<\/span> Catholic scholar; but what he writes in the citation proves that he was a dissident, too, and anything but<\/em> a \u201cmoderate\u201d<\/span>:<\/p>\n The Mary of Christian legend, art, poetry, hymnody, and even theology is a fictitious character \u2026. Faith in the Mary of traditional Christian devotion is faith in something which is not true <\/em>. . . (emphases in original)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Later, on page 42, Svendsen notes that both Fr. Brown and Fr. McKenzie denied Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity, and adopted the \u201cHelvidian\u201d view of the \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus being His biological siblings. Therefore, they can\u2019t possibly be orthodox Catholics, having denied one of the Catholic dogmas that Catholics are not at liberty<\/em> to deny. For Svendsen, in light of this, to deny that they are heterodox by Catholic magisterial standards is either outright dishonest or exceedingly ignorant (take your pick). In other words, they don\u2019t speak for historic, orthodox Catholicism as it is self-understood and presented in the Catechism, the councils, papal encyclicals, etc.<\/p>\n On pages 7-8 Svendsen makes another ridiculous claim:<\/p>\n Roman Catholicism has in many ways attributed the unique role and activity of the Holy Spirit to Mary, in that she guides, inspires and acts as the link between the believer and Christ . . . prior to Vatican II Roman Catholic Theology manuals had no section on the Holy Spirit . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As an example, take A Manual of Catholic Theology<\/em><\/a>, by Matthias Scheeben, Joseph Wilhelm, and Thomas B. Scannell (London: 1906; Vol. 1, including \u201cGod\u201d: 508 pages). Searching an online PDF version<\/a>, I found 447 instances of \u201cHoly Ghost\u201d, 102 occurrences of \u201cthe Spirit,\u201d and four more of \u201cHoly Spirit.\u201d This is about 553 references (a few of \u201cthe spirit\u201d references were to the \u201cspirit of man\u201d etc.), or an average of more than once per page over the entire work. It appears not to have a section only devoted solely to the Holy Spirit, but that\u2019s because most of the analysis happens in sections devoted to the Holy Trinity. I highly suspect that it would be the same with similar Protestant works.<\/p>\n Not a single reference<\/em> to the Blessed Virgin Mary appears in the entire work, by the way. Yet Svendsen would have his unfortunate readers to believe that she is a \u201cdemigod\u201d in Catholic teaching, and almost elevated to the Trinity, and that she has usurped the role of the Holy Spirit in Catholic theology, and that \u201cthe period between Trent and Vatican II was concurrently a time of great development in Mariology and a time of depreciation in Pneumatology.\u201d<\/span> This is sheer nonsense, as shown in this manual from 1906, which mentions the Holy Spirit around 553 times and Mary not at all. That\u2019s beyond odd if supposedly we are given to substituting Mary for the Holy Spirit. Svendsen is out to sea without a lifeboat on this score.<\/p>\n Shinnets traces numerous examples of this type of \u201cmariolatry\u201d from the period following the Reformation down to the present day; beliefs which include Mary\u2019s ability to save even if God is bent on judgment<\/em>, . . .<\/span> (p. 16)<\/p>\n One would have to see examples of such alleged \u201cmariolatry\u201d<\/span> in context, but I suspect that they are quite similar in essence to what we already find explicitly in the Bible: situations that clearly involve anthropomorphism<\/a> with regard to God\u2019s supposed changes of mind (He can\u2019t and doesn\u2019t do so: being both immutable and omniscient):<\/p>\n Genesis 18:22-32<\/strong> So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD. [23] Then Abraham drew near, and said, \u201cWilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? [24] Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? [25] Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?\u201d [26] And the LORD said, \u201cIf I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.\u201d [27] Abraham answered, \u201cBehold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. [28] Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Wilt thou destroy the whole city for lack of five?\u201d And he said, \u201cI will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.\u201d [29] Again he spoke to him, and said, \u201cSuppose forty are found there.\u201d He answered, \u201cFor the sake of forty I will not do it.\u201d [30] Then he said, \u201cOh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there.\u201d He answered, \u201cI will not do it, if I find thirty there.\u201d [31] He said, \u201cBehold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.\u201d He answered, \u201cFor the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.\u201d [32] Then he said, \u201cOh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.\u201d He answered, \u201cFor the sake of ten I will not destroy it.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In that case, of course, Sodom was judged and destroyed, but Abraham\u2019s prayers would<\/em> have \u201csaved\u201d it if only ten righteous people could have been found there. In other words, this shows how God directly involves exceptionally righteous people into His plans. He didn\u2019t tell Abraham: \u201cwho are you<\/em> to wrangle with Me<\/em>\u00a0about what I should do or not do? I\u2019m God<\/em>!\u201d He involved Abraham in the process.<\/p>\n Numbers 11:1-2<\/strong> And the people complained in the hearing of the LORD about their misfortunes; and when the LORD heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. [2] Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire abated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What is this: \u201cMosiolatry<\/em>\u201c? After all, Moses was directly involved in \u201cpersuading\u201d God to not judge His own people. How is that any essentially different from Mary doing the same thing? If it\u2019s \u201cmariolatry\u201d when she does it, then it must be \u201cidolatry\u201d when Bible writers have no problem recording Abraham and Moses and Samuel and King Hezekiah doing the same thing. And so then Svendsen would have to go after God\u2019s inspired, inerrant, infallible revelation. This was not an isolated incident with Moses. There are at least four more in the Bible:<\/p>\n Therefore, there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong at all, let alone \u201cmariolatrous\u201d in the notion of God choosing to involve Mary in profound intercession for the human race: even if universally<\/em>, according to His will. That looks exactly like 1) God\u2019s boundless mercy, and 2) God\u2019s desire to involve human beings in the process of reform, redemption, and salvation.<\/p>\n If Protestants object that Scripture doesn\u2019t explicitly indicate this about Mary, we reply that 1) it does by analogy<\/em> (see the above examples),\u00a0 and 2) who says that everything in Christianity must be explicitly indicated in the Bible<\/em>, anyway (since the Bible itself never states such a thing)? The canon of the Bible isn\u2019t in the Bible; nor is sola Scriptura<\/em>. Yet Protestants presuppose the canon (minus just seven books out of 73), and build their entire unbiblical rule of faith (sola Scriptura<\/em>) from it. The Bible never once lays out the Protestant standard definition of sola Scriptura<\/em>. It\u2019s not an explicit biblical doctrine (nor, I would argue, even an implicit<\/em> doctrine).<\/p>\n Nor is universal and profound Marian intercession. But it\u2019s thoroughly in harmony<\/em> with what is in the Bible; whereas sola Scriptura<\/em> is not (see my two books: 100 Biblical Arguments Against\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura<\/a> (2012) and Pillars of\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura:\u00a0Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical \u201cProofs\u201d for \u201cBible Alone\u201d<\/i><\/a> <\/i>(2012), and my massive web page: Bible, Tradition, Canon, & \u201cSola Scriptura\u201d<\/a>. Nor is sola Scriptura<\/em> part of apostolic and patristic tradition, whereas the Catholic Marian doctrines are, though they developed relatively slowly.<\/p>\n St. Cardinal Newman (who so often brilliantly argued from analogy) noted that there was much more about purgatory in the Church fathers (which Protestants deny) than about original sin (which they accept). Development of doctrine (my favorite topic in theology) is a completely separate and complex factor<\/a>. Here I am concentrating on Svendsen\u2019s arguments from the Bible, or lack thereof. As usual, I provide far more relevant scriptural analysis than my Protestant dialogical opponent (in this case, Svendsen) does.<\/p>\n Post-Tridentine Catholic theology \u201cwent so far as to develop arguments from \u2018fittingness,\u2019 holding that it was impossible to say too much about Maty. In her regard, if God could have done it, God should have done it, and therefore God did it!\u201d (McKenzie, 1983:7). This \u201cfittingness\u201d argument is usually traced to Duns Scotus. Excesses such as this lent credibility to the Protestant charge that Catholics \u201cdivinized\u201d Mary in an idolatrous way.<\/span> (pp. 16-17).<\/p>\n Eric Svendsen, who fancies himself an expert on Catholic Mariology, opines that Dun Scotus (c. 1265-1308) began this form of argument (probably referring to a piece regarding Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception<\/a>). He doesn\u2019t even get that<\/em> right. Duns Scotus in his first paragraph of the aforementioned treatise, cites St. Anselm (c. 1033-1109): \u201cIt was fitting that the Virgin should be resplendent with a purity greater than which none under God can be conceived.\u201d But he\u2019s 1200 years<\/em> off<\/em>. It was actually the writers of the New Testament<\/em> (drawing from deuterocanonical precedent<\/a>) who thought in these terms:<\/p>\n Hebrews 2:10<\/strong> For it was fitting<\/span> that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.<\/p>\n Hebrews 7:26<\/strong> For it was fitting<\/span> that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.<\/p>\n Matthew 3:15<\/strong> \u00a0But Jesus answered him, \u201cLet it be so now; for thus it is fitting<\/span> for us to fulfil all righteousness.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 11:13<\/strong> Judge for yourselves; is it proper<\/span> for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?<\/p>\n Ephesians 5:3-4<\/strong> But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting<\/span> among saints. [4] Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not\u00a0fitting<\/span>; but instead let there be thanksgiving.<\/p>\n Colossians 3:18<\/strong>\u00a0Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 1:3<\/strong> We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, as is fitting<\/span>, . . .<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 2:6<\/strong> who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the<\/span> proper time<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 6:15<\/strong> and this will be made manifest at the proper time<\/span> by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,<\/p>\n Titus 1:3<\/strong> and at the proper time<\/span> manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by command of God our Savior;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So we see that supposedly exclusively Catholic \u201cfittingness\u201d is a frequent and explicit biblical teaching, whereas the canon of Scripture and sola Scriptura<\/em> are not only not explicitly biblical<\/em>, but also totally absent<\/em> from Holy Scripture. Thus we again see \u2014 as we so often do \u2014 that Catholic thinking is much more thoroughly and comprehensively and deeply biblical than the Protestant worldview and \u201ctheological imagination.\u201d<\/p>\n Hence, Blessed Pope Pius IX, in declaring the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854 (Ineffabilis Deus<\/em>)<\/a>, thought in these explicitly biblical terms:<\/p>\n And indeed it was wholly fitting<\/span> that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent.<\/p>\n And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ<\/span>, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.<\/p>\n For it was certainly not fitting<\/span> that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting<\/span> that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n After all, an angel declaring that the Blessed Virgin Mary was \u201cfull of grace\u201d meant that she was without sin, as a straightforward deduction from the biblical data regarding grace and sin (as I have argued elsewhere<\/a>). This is why it is indeed \u201cfitting\u201d that Mary was immaculately conceived, so that she could be freed \u2014 entirely<\/strong> by God\u2019s grace<\/em>, since she had no will or self-consciousness a moment after her conception \u2013, from original as well as actual sin.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n See the next installment of the series: Svendsen\u2019s Dissertation on Mary: 2. \u201cBrothers\u201d of Jesus (Including a Handy, Nine-Point Summary of Solid Exegetical Arguments for the \u201cCousins\u201d Theory of Jesus\u2019 \u201cBrothers\u201d)<\/a> [2-2-23]<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> The Heart of Mary<\/em>, by Leopold Kupelwieser (1796-1862). Photograph by Diana Ringo\u00a0at\u00a0Peterskirche,\u00a0Vienna,\u00a0Austria (9-22-13)<\/span>\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons \/\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: I critique Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Eric Svendsen\u2019s dissertation on the Blessed Virgin Mary, concentrating on his (rather pathetic) attempted biblical arguments.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Including Explicit Biblical Indications or Analogies for Mary\u2019s Universal Intercession and the Notion of \u201cFittingness\u201d Eric Svendsen is an anti-Catholic Protestant, who was, for a time, arguably the second most influential and active anti-Catholic polemicist online, after Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White. Then he suddenly vanished from the Internet in 2008. He had been indicating […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":69531,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,45],"tags":[17013,1507,2357,508,2382,46,2907,550,677,2356,680,2582,507,685,1447,17016,681,2385,504],"class_list":["post-69507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-anti-catholicism-mary","tag-assumption-of-mary","tag-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-catholic-mariology","tag-eric-svendsen","tag-immaculate-conception","tag-marian-apparitions","tag-marian-devotion","tag-marian-doctrines","tag-mariology","tag-mary-mother-of-jesus","tag-mediatrix","tag-mother-of-god","tag-perpetual-virginity","tag-rosary","tag-svendsens-dissertation-on-mary","tag-theotokos","tag-veneration-of-mary","tag-virgin-mary"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/02\/Mary26.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n