|
O'Reilly Notification of Correction.
Topic: Mary and the Immaculate Conception
Bill O'Reilly enters the "PC
(Practicing Catholic) No Spin Zone"
On December 1, 2005 the following e-mail was sent to Bill
O'Reilly:
|
| Subject: I hope you will be open to correction. |
 |
| |
Put your mouse over Bill. |
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the piece on the teacher from St. Rose of Lima Catholic school. The Judge's
two cents was great, too!
On a different issue, you can double check with any priest-friend you have, but I
have to correct what you said on your show. You stated:
"According to Catholic theology, Mary was a Virgin and Jesus was the
product of an Immaculate Conception."
Not quite. Two points have to be corrected:
"Mary was a Virgin"
- Mary was, and is, an ever Virgin. This was a miraculous Birth since Our Blessed Mother was a virgin, before, during, and after Jesus' Birth. The Church refers to this as her "Virgin Birth".
- She and St. Joseph
never had sexual intercourse.
"Immaculate
Conception"
- Note that in "Ineffabilis Deus" under "The definition" it says,
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
- So the "Immaculate
Conception" refers to her conception in her mother's womb, St. Anne, not Jesus' conception in Mary.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Immaculate Conception
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception affirms that “the Blessed
Virgin Mary was preserved, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular
grace and privilege of God omnipotent and because of the merits of Jesus Christ
the Savior of the human race, free from all stain of original sin.”
From "Ineffabilis Deus" The Immaculate Conception by Blessed Pope Pius IX,
December 8, 1854.
|
You said:
" . . . and Jesus was the
product of an Immaculate Conception."
I would just say:
Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. (CCC 491)
I don't think referring to (God/Jesus) as a product is a good idea.
Not to make this correction on your show would be to distort Catholic teaching.
In the season of Christmas, it would be appreciated if you give my website a
plug.
We have won four Catholic awards.
Merry Christmas to you and the O'Reilly family.
Mike Humphrey
The following was sent to Bill O'Reilly of Fox News on December 3, 2005,
two days later:
Hi Bill,
I just wanted to resend my original e-mail seeing you may have not read it. I
strive to watch your show every night and agree with you on about 90% of your
positions. Nevertheless, I'm still concerned that I didn't see any on-air correction
in the "E-mail section" of your program.
As one who has a vocation as a lay Catholic apologist loyal to the teachings
of the Church, I would like to urge you to say something about the e-mail I sent
to you two days ago.
I'm on your side Bill!, but if you don't say anything, I'll have to post a "Notification
of Correction" on my website, so faithful Catholics will know that the Immaculate
Conception does not mean:
- Jesus was the product of the Immaculate Conception in Our
Blessed Mother's womb.
Instead it refers to the fact that:
- Mary was without sin, immaculate in her soul, from the first
moment of her conception in the womb of St. Anne, her mother.
Mary came to be as any one of us did, through
the conjugal embrace of St. Anne and her father,
St. Joachim, in cooperation
with God. God created the soul of Mary full of grace from her beginning.
The "Immaculate" refers to her soul, not to her conception. She was
without sin from the moment of conception, because the flesh of the Son of God
was to be formed from her.
This is a big issue for us Bill! The reason people often confuse the Virgin Birth
and the Immaculate Conception is that they deep down believe something false
and harmful. They believe that sex is dirty and that, therefore, the only clean,
pure or immaculate conception would be one without sex — like Jesus' conception. This
idea of sex is wrong. Sex is a creation of God, a holy mystery,
pure and good, when engaged in according to His plan. The marital act, whether it
is between St. Joachim and St. Ann, or any other baptized Christian husband and
wife in a state of grace, is actually the image God chose to express His love
for us. Jesus was born of a virgin, not to avoid sex, but because God was His
Father through the power of the Holy Spirit.
I hope you don't perceive this e-mail as being mean-spirited. I'm just trying to
be loyal to the teaching of the Church. If you are unsure, talk to a priest-friend who is faithful to the Church.
Mike Humphrey
Natick, Mass
Side note: In order to clearly communicate the Church's teaching
in this area, the above e-mails have been edited and improved upon with the help
of Mary Ann Parks and Terry Quinn.
Terry Quinn has a B.A. Hons Pontifical Degree in Theology (which means his work
was assessed not simply for academic achievement, but also for Catholic orthodoxy),
and M.A. in Mariology.
He made the following comment on Bill's statement:
Terry replied:
|
Good morning Mike,
This is a brief, off the cuff response so you can respond quickly. However, should
this be insufficient, or if the questions persist, I would be happy to respond fully
— but beware, last time I tackled this subject was a 10,000 word Masters Degree essay
on the subject.
Certainly the first proposition is wrong, and the answer given may give rise to a
slight misinterpretation.
Firstly, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception has nothing whatever to do with the
conception of Jesus. That is in the realm of doctrines of the Virgin Birth and the nature
of Jesus to be both God and Man. (See the early Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, Constantinople — etc.)
The Immaculate Conception relates to Mary having been conceived in the natural manner
of nature, by the sexual intercourse of Saints Joachim and Anne, while her soul
was infused by God without the stain of Original Sin. (See the Catechism on Original
Sin.) This was in anticipation of the merits of her Son, Jesus who alone is the Saviour
of mankind. The most common argument being that, it is fitting for the Mother of
God, Theotokos the God Bearer, to have no stain of sin, even the stain of Original
Sin on her soul.
Therefore, Mary was truly human, but not subject to the effects of Original Sin, such
as concupiscence.
This has been the teaching of the Universal Church throughout the centuries, and is
accepted also by the Orthodox (although they have a different concept of Original
Sin). Although the doctrine was the subject of some dispute between scholastic theologians
in the Middles Ages, the belief was held by the general Church, and the Feast of Mary's
Conception is an ancient one celebrated on December 8, nine months before the celebration
of Our Lady's Birthday on September 8th. As a rule, General Councils and Papal definitions
don't occur unless a matter is challenged. Hence, that is why the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception was not defined until Pius IX in 1854, and one should note here . . .
the date
was only four years before Our Lady appeared to St. Bernadette at Lourdes, and declared
herself "I am the Immaculate Conception." — hardly the words one would have expected
a 14-year-old peasant girl to have been capable of inventing!
Mary being EVER VIRGIN
24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded
him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name
Jesus.
Matthew 1:24-25 |
The Protestant argument against Mary being Ever Virgin is most interesting, since it refers simply to Scripture and ignores Tradition. This
Teaching of the Church, in so many ways, emphasizes the Catholic understanding
of the two methods of God's Revelation, Scripture and Tradition. This actual
Scripture text, referenced by Protestants, neither confirms nor denies whether
Mary was ever virgin. It states simply that Mary was a virgin when she
conceived Jesus. Just as the text is silent on the issue, so it proves nothing
either way. It's simply the fulfillment of the prophecy that "a virgin will
conceive and He shall be called . . . "
However, the perpetual virginity of Mary has been taught since the earliest
times:
Interpreting Matthew 1:25 correctly:
Remigius wrote the following as an accurate understanding or interpretation:
| or, took her so far, as that the nuptial rites being complete, she
was called his wife, but not so far as to lie with her. |
Jerome wrote:
| Helvidius is at much superfluous trouble to make this word ''know", refer
to carnal knowledge rather than to acquaintance. |
He goes on to show how this word can be interpreted in different ways,
referring also to Luke, chapter 2. "The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem
and his parents knew not of it."
Later Jerome writes:
I would ask, why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of the
birth? He will surely answer, because of the Angels words, "That which
is born in her . . . "
He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not
to dare to touch his wife, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles,
dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother
of his Lord. |
St. Peter Chrysologus wrote:
| It were credible that Joseph might have known her before the birth,
while he was yet ignorant of the great mystery, but only after that he
understood how she had been made the temple of the Only Begotten of God. |
"First born" refers to first born among the elect by grace, not first
born of others born to Mary. Mary was (is) ever virgin before, during,
and after the birth of Jesus.
Rev. T.E. Brigett (Our Lady's Dowry page 39) writes:
At the Council of Hatfield in 680 A.D., the Anglo Saxon Church received
and published the decrees of the Lateran Council of 649 A.D.
"If anyone
shall not confess, in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Fathers,
that the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary is properly and truly
the Mother of God, since at the end of ages, without union with any man,
but of the Holy Ghost, she conceived God Himself the Word, specially
and truly, who before all ages was born of God the Father, and brought
Him forth without corruption, retaining indissolubly her virginity even
after the birth, let him be condemned." |
Elfric wrote of Ezekiel, the prophet, who saw a closed gate in the house
of God, and an Angel said to him,
| "this gate shall be opened to no
man, for the Lord only will go in by that gate and again go out, and it
shall be shut for ever". |
That closed gate in the house of God betokened
the holy maidenhood of the blessed Mary.
These are just some of the numerous writings and explanations on this
subject, which have been proclaimed throughout the centuries of Christendom,
and a full unbroken history from the Old Testament, through to the modern
day; all orthodox exegetes proclaim the same.
In more modern lay, every day language, let me ask you to consider the following
question:
All the writings of the Church, of the Apostles and theologians, the Creedal
formulas, the great Church Councils, all declare Mary to be ever virgin. Even our Mass, and every day prayers like the Hail Mary, declare the same.
- How would anyone have known, unless Mary herself had not explained these
things, probably to St. John after the Death and Resurrection and Ascension
of her Son?
- If it was Mary herself who taught the Apostle John, what possible
motive could she have for being untruthful to an Apostle who would have been
well aware if Mary had borne other children?
This is most interesting, since it raises the
reason why Sola Scriptura is a flawed system.
Our belief is based upon
Holy Scripture, and those Scriptures authentically interpreted by the Church
of Rome, who alone has the mandate of Christ Himself to teach all people,
until the end of time
God bless your enquiry,
Terry
Terry Quinn,
BA (Divinity) Hons, MA Theology (Marian Studies)
England
|
Note of Interest.
Five days later, I sent Mr. O'Reilly a third e-mail similar to the ones above on this issue.
To this day, I have not received a call or reply to any of these e-mails.
We report, you decide!
Mike Humphrey
[Related posting] [Related posting] |
|
