Mary Did You Know???

[Lujack]

The song has no place in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because it contains lyrics that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. The fact that a Protestant wrote it further makes the point, as Protestants do not believe what the Church teaches about Mary.

I don’t necessarily think that the mere fact that the words were penned by a Protestant can detract from the song. It will stand or fall on the merits of its lyrics.

Mary knew that the child she was carrying, of her own free will, was the Son of God. St. Gabriel told her as much. She agreed to this awesome responsibility, conforming her will to that of God’s. Furthermore, Mary knew full well about her Son. If she did not, why would she have asked Jesus to do something when the wine ran out during the wedding at Cana? Why would she have insructed the waiters to “do whatever He tells you”?

Yes, she did understand that her son would be Jesus Christ, the son of God, but I think it still can convey an interesting point. Just because she knew that He would be who He was, she wasn’t graced with divine understanding of the world. She couldn’t foresee the Cross or the Resurrection, or even necessarily any of the miracles.

It took me a while to grasp that my favorite team had won a championship. Even though I was aware of that essential truth, it was still hard to grasp all that it meant. Even though Mary understood the essential truth that her son was who He was, that doesn’t mean she understood all that it entailed.

In my opinion,those who do not have a problem with this song may not fully understand the Church’s teaching on Mary. Pretty music doesn’t make a piece suitable for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, especially if the lyrics are 180-degrees to the opposite of what the Church teaches.

The one line, the one line, that differs from Church teaching can be easily changed without breaking the melody whatsoever.

 

[CWBetts]

I, too, have a seething hatred for this song. Unfortunately, I am the lone Catholic in my VERY LARGE Protestant family, and of course they think it is such a beuatiful song about Mary. The discussions about why i dislike the song are never pretty, usually ending with my sister changing the subject to a different Catholic doctrine she disagrees with. I am just glad that the Protestant Christmas season ends at Christmas, and that song will disappear until next Thanksgiving.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t necessarily think that the mere fact that the words were penned by a Protestant can detract from the song. It will stand or fall on the merits of its lyrics.

Yes, she did understand that her son would be Jesus Christ, the son of God, but I think it still can convey an interesting point. Just because she knew that He would be who He was, she wasn’t graced with divine understanding of the world. She couldn’t foresee the Cross or the Resurrection, or even necessarily any of the miracles.

It took me a while to grasp that my favorite team had won a championship. Even though I was aware of that essential truth, it was still hard to grasp all that it meant. Even though Mary understood the essential truth that her son was who He was, that doesn’t mean she understood all that it entailed.

The one line, the one line, that differs from Church teaching can be easily changed without breaking the melody whatsoever.

The song falls on its lack of merit in that it fails to take into account Catholic teaching on the Blessed Mother. Of course, given the fact that it was written by a Protestant, it is not supposed to do that because Protestants do not understand the Church’s teachings on the Blessed Mother. Because they do not belive it, they don’t understand it.

Furthermore, Mary had two confirmations that the child she was carrying was the Son of God. The first came at the annunciation from St.Gabriel. The second came when her cousin, Elizabeth, asked “who am I that the Mother of my Lord shoudl come to me?”

As I noted in my previous response, Mary knew who her Son was. Why else would she have asked him to intervene at Cana if she didn’t think he could do something about the wine? Why did she ask the waiters to “Do whatever He tells you” if she didn’t know her Son well enough?

The song is squarely against Marian doctrine and does not belong within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Incidentally, the older thread whose link was posted addresses every conceivable argument against the song. I would ask that y’all read the thread in its entirety, all nine pages.

 

[Lujack]

The song falls on its lack of merit in that it fails to take into account Catholic teaching on the Blessed Mother. Of course, given the fact that it was written by a Protestant, it is not supposed to do that because Protestants do not understand the Church’s teachings on the Blessed Mother. Because they do not belive it, they don’t understand it.

Furthermore, Mary had two confirmations that the child she was carrying was the Son of God. The first came at the annunciation from St.Gabriel. The second came when her cousin, Elizabeth, asked “who am I that the Mother of my Lord shoudl come to me?”

As I noted in my previous response, Mary knew who her Son was. Why else would she have asked him to intervene at Cana if she didn’t think he could do something about the wine? Why did she ask the waiters to “Do whatever He tells you” if she didn’t know her Son well enough?

The song is squarely against Marian doctrine and does not belong within the context of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Incidentally, the older thread whose link was posted addresses every conceivable argument against the song. I would ask that y’all read the thread in its entirety, all nine pages.

I skimmed through it to try and get the gist of the arguments. The one line that is irredeemable can be easily changed from “soon will deliver you” to “has delivered you”.

Of course she knew Christ was the son of God, but does that mean that she knew exactly what that entailed? Did she know that this meant the Cross and the Resurrection? As far as I know, there is no Church teaching that she instantly grasped all the mysteries of the faith (she does now, of course).

 

[benedictgal]

I skimmed through it to try and get the gist of the arguments. The one line that is irredeemable can be easily changed from “soon will deliver you” to “has delivered you”.

Of course she knew Christ was the son of God, but does that mean that she knew exactly what that entailed? Did she know that this meant the Cross and the Resurrection? As far as I know, there is no Church teaching that she instantly grasped all the mysteries of the faith (she does now, of course).

Do you really think that God would purposely withhold from his own Mother his identity and his mission? Mary had already perfectly conformed to His will with her fiat. She relied entirely on God and His Divine Will as to how this would all take place.

Just because Jesus knew about the Cross and Resurrection, that didn’t necessarily mean that he was spared the full brunt of suffering. Mary shared in her Son’s pain. As far as I can tell, there is no Church teaching that indicates that she didn’t grasp the mysteries of the Faith.

 

[Lujack]

Do you really think that God would purposely withhold from his own Mother his identity and his mission? Mary had already perfectly conformed to His will with her fiat. She relied entirely on God and His Divine Will as to how this would all take place.

Just because Jesus knew about the Cross and Resurrection, that didn’t necessarily mean that he was spared the full brunt of suffering. Mary shared in her Son’s pain. As far as I can tell, there is no Church teaching that indicates that she didn’t grasp the mysteries of the Faith.

There’s no reason to think she grasped all of it. I mean, look at the story of Christ in the Temple. Mary couldn’t understand why He had stayed behind to teach the elders. If she didn’t understand that, why would she know about the Cross and Resurrection before He was even born?

She was sinless, immaculately conceived, and knew Christ was going to the Messiah. There is nothing in Scripture or Church tradition that says whether or not she was gifted with a divine understanding of the method of that redemption, and I don’t see any particular reason why she should be ascribed that understanding.

 

[benedictgal]

There’s no reason to think she grasped all of it. I mean, look at the story of Christ in the Temple. Mary couldn’t understand why He had stayed behind to teach the elders. If she didn’t understand that, why would she know about the Cross and Resurrection before He was even born?

She was sinless, immaculately conceived, and knew Christ was going to the Messiah. There is nothing in Scripture or Church tradition that says whether or not she was gifted with a divine understanding of the method of that redemption, and I don’t see any particular reason why she should be ascribed that understanding.

Actually, Mary understood that the age of 12 was not the time for Jesus to begin his ministry. Roughly 18 years later, when they were both at Cana, Mary effectively told Jesus to start his work and he did.

Who is to say that God didn’t fully prepare her for the responsibility, as well as the coming sufffrings and joys? Simeon warned her that such things would happen. God does not give us any task that He knows that we cannot handle and He provides us with the graces necessary to overcome whatever comes our way. Should that not apply moreso to His own Mother? Mary was conceived without sin and has remained so. God applied the merits of her Son to her in advance so as to prepare a fitting dwelling for His Son. The true temple that God didn’t permit David to build, He himself created when He made Mary.

Furthermore, the song fails to take in a very important item. Mary had a faith greater than Abraham. She accepted everything that came with being the Mother of God.

Regarding the song, itself, Pope John Paul II, in his Chirograph on Sacred Music (marking the 100th anniversary of the document written by Pope St. Pius X) notes that:

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

Because this particular song is contrary to Catholic dogma and doctrine about Mary, it has no place, in my opinion, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[kage_ar]

Yes, she knew.

 

[MusicMan]

And yet, through out this thread, no one has considered the fact that Mary still had to exercise her God given free will to say “Yes” to God.

 

[benedictgal]

And yet, through out this thread, no one has considered the fact that Mary still had to exercise her God given free will to say “Yes” to God.

That’s because I think we covered it in the previous thread of the same name that I started back in January. Yes, Mary could have very well said “no”. That was her free choice. Furthermore, Jesus could have also said “no” to the suffering and death He was to endure. But, like Son, like mother, both said “yes” because they were able to pefectly conform their wills to that of the Father’s.

Mary’s state of pure grace is something that this song fails to take into consideration. She was free of concupiscence and all of the other trappings. The song also fails to take into account that Mary’s “yes” undid Eve’s “no”. Unlike Eve who wanted to grab at divinity, Mary, through her fiat, received the divine life of her Son.

 

[MusicMan]

That’s a paradox. If Mary could have said “no,” how could the Immaculate Conception have occurred? It seems to me that Mary was either predestined to say “yes,” denying her Free Will, or the Immaculate Conception could not have happened.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s a paradox. If Mary could have said “no,” how could the Immaculate Conception have occurred? It seems to me that Mary was either predestined to say “yes,” denying her Free Will, or the Immaculate Conception could not have happened.

I do believe that even though Mary certainly had free will, she made the choice to give her Fiat to God. Remember that Eve came into the world sinless. However, she succumbed to the temptation of the serpent. Mary, having been given the grace of the salviffic act of her Son beforehand, was free of concupisence and pride. The pride that was Eve’s downfall, Mary undid with her humble acceptance. The fact that Mary was conceived sinless was what laid the groundwork for her fiat. It was her conception, I believe, that set the wheels in motion for God’s redemptive work to take place.

Again, Jesus could have said “no” in the Garden of Gethsemane. But, He said, “Not my will, but Yours be done.” Mary said, “Behold, I am the slave of the Lord, be it done unto me according to your word.” The two statements run parallel. The same acceptance of the Father’s will that caused salvation to enter into the world is the same accpetance that allowed the salvific act to be completed. Incidentally, I use the word “slave” because that is the Spanish translaton of Luke’s account, as proclaimed from the CEM version of the Book of the Gospels that is approved for use in the United States.

In the final analysis, the song in question, fails to take these very important teachings into account.

 

[Lujack]

Actually, Mary understood that the age of 12 was not the time for Jesus to begin his ministry. Roughly 18 years later, when they were both at Cana, Mary effectively told Jesus to start his work and he did.

She was still confused as to why He had chosen to stay behind in the Temple. It wasn’t a mistake on His part; He had a reason for doing what He did, and Mary, sinless as she was, did not understand why. It isn’t tearing down Mary to say that she didn’t understand everything that Christ would do before she did it. She had prior knowledge of his role of the Messiah, but I don’t see how this implies that she knew the methods of the Messiah.

Who is to say that God didn’t fully prepare her for the responsibility, as well as the coming sufffrings and joys? Simeon warned her that such things would happen. God does not give us any task that He knows that we cannot handle and He provides us with the graces necessary to overcome whatever comes our way. Should that not apply moreso to His own Mother? Mary was conceived without sin and has remained so. God applied the merits of her Son to her in advance so as to prepare a fitting dwelling for His Son. The true temple that God didn’t permit David to build, He himself created when He made Mary.

But who is to say that He did give her the full knowledge of the faith? It isn’t required of any Catholic to believe that Mary knew the methods of the Savior before he employed them, so how can the song be criticized on those grounds?

Furthermore, the song fails to take in a very important item. Mary had a faith greater than Abraham. She accepted everything that came with being the Mother of God.

Where does the song even mention Abraham? On a similar note,

Mary’s state of pure grace is something that this song fails to take into consideration. She was free of concupiscence and all of the other trappings. The song also fails to take into account that Mary’s “yes” undid Eve’s “no”. Unlike Eve who wanted to grab at divinity, Mary, through her fiat, received the divine life of her Son.

The song doesn’t even deal with this, and I don’t see why it should have to. Not every song has to reflect every aspect of Mary. That would be impossible.

Because this particular song is contrary to Catholic dogma and doctrine about Mary, it has no place, in my opinion, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

That’s what we’re arguing about, isn’t it? The one line that places Mary’s salvation incorrectly can be easily changed. That’s the only thing that is unequivocally wrong.

 

[benedictgal]

She was still confused as to why He had chosen to stay behind in the Temple. It wasn’t a mistake on His part; He had a reason for doing what He did, and Mary, sinless as she was, did not understand why. It isn’t tearing down Mary to say that she didn’t understand everything that Christ would do before she did it. She had prior knowledge of his role of the Messiah, but I don’t see how this implies that she knew the methods of the Messiah.

But who is to say that He did give her the full knowledge of the faith? It isn’t required of any Catholic to believe that Mary knew the methods of the Savior before he employed them, so how can the song be criticized on those grounds?

Where does the song even mention Abraham? On a similar note,

The song doesn’t even deal with this, and I don’t see why it should have to. Not every song has to reflect every aspect of Mary. That would be impossible.

That’s what we’re arguing about, isn’t it? The one line that places Mary’s salvation incorrectly can be easily changed. That’s the only thing that is unequivocally wrong.

Actually, it’s the whole song that is problematic. I am perplexed as to why you would still continue to defend a song that goes against what we believe as Catholics. It goes squarely against the Church’s doctrine on Mary.

She knew that her Son was the Son of God. At the Annunciation, the account that we heard proclaimed this past Sunday, St. Gabriel tells her that:

Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. 39

And, let’s examine what the angel told St. Joseph regarding Mary’s pregnancy:

But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins. 22

Do you not think that the Blessed Virign Mary and St. Joseph discussed Jesus and the role he would play? Most certainly they did. Thus, even if St. Gabriel didn’t tell her outright that He would be the Messiah and “save people from their sins”, he certainly told that to St. Joseph. Certainly they would have discussed the matter.

Thus, Mary certainly had an idea. Do you really think that God would purposely hide this from His own mother? I don’t think so. I mention Abraham because he had faith that God would restore Isaac to him even though the patriarch was about to sacrifice the son of the promise. Mary, too, had faith that her own Son, the true Son of the promise, would be restored to her. This effectively refutes the song. She had the certainty within her. That is because she had a profound relationship with God, something that this song doesn’t take into account.

While a song doesn’t need to reflect every aspect of Mary, a song used in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass needs to reflect the correct Marian aspect, most especially dogma and doctrine that the Church holds true. The song in question fails miserably because it was written by a Protestant who does not believe in Mary as the Church does nor understand our teaching on her.

 

[Aramis]

Praying for an increase in charity,

Ruthie

Ruthie, read Psalm 141…

1. *]A psalm of David. LORD, I call to you; come quickly to help me; listen to my plea when I call.
   *] Let my prayer be incense before you; my uplifted hands an evening sacrifice.
   *]Set a guard, LORD, before my mouth, a gatekeeper at my lips.
   *]Do not let my heart incline to evil, or yield to any sin. I will never feast upon the fine food of evildoers.
   *]Let the just strike me; that is kindness; let them rebuke me; that is oil for my head. All this I shall not refuse, but will pray despite these trials.
   *]When their leaders are cast over the cliff, all will learn that my prayers were heard.
   *]As when a farmer plows a field into broken clods, so their bones will be strewn at the mouth of Sheol.
   *]My eyes are upon you, O GOD, my Lord; in you I take refuge; do not strip me of life.
   *]Guard me from the trap they have set for me, from the snares of evildoers.
   *] Into their own nets let all the wicked fall, while I make good my own escape.
   
   I hear this every time I say vespers. Note #5. When just, it’s a blessing.

 

[ac_claire]

Thanks. The reason why I posted responses is that there seems to be a misunderstanding about how this song contradicts basic Marian doctrine in the worst way. A seeminly innocous song winds up being a vehicle for causing confusion, as evidenced, in my opinion, by those who support this song.

Well the first thread is locked, too. Seeing as how the song is (unfortunately) not going away, I think this debate should be a CAF Christmas tradition from now on! (ok, j/k)

Personally I don’t feel so so strongly about it like I did in the first go 'round. Mostly I just don’t like the song and don’t give it a lot of credit as a medium for doctrinal teaching. It’s certainly not the kind of music that needs to be in a Mass.

 

[Pax_Vobiscum_57]

The first year I went to Midnight Mass with my husband and kids at his new assignment, they sang that stupid song during the offertory. My youngest, who was 18 at the time, leaned over to me and said “Yes. She did know.” We were also the only ones who knelt at the words of Incarnation.

The following Palm Sunday, they blasted the parishioners with “Hey, Sanna, Ho Sanna” from Jesus Christ Superstar.

But wait, there’s more!!!

Faith Hill has a new heretical tale to tell:

A BABY CHANGES EVERYTHING

Faith Hill – A Baby Changes Everythng
Teenage girl, much too young
Unprepared for what’s to come
A baby changes everything

Not a ring
On her hand
All her dreams and all her plans
A baby changes everything (x2)

The man she loves she’s never touched
How will she Keep his trust
A baby changes everything (x2)

And she cries, oh she cries

She has to leave, go far away
Heaven knows she can’t stay
A baby changes everything

She can feel it’s coming soon
There’s no place, there’s no room
A baby changes everything (x2)

And she cries and she cries O she cries

Shepherds own they got their …
Star shines down…

Choir of Angels say
Glory to the newborn king
A baby changes everything (x2) everything, everything, every day
Hallelujah x4

My whole life is turned around
I was lost and now I’m found
A baby changes everything (x2)
Thanks to

 

[Ridgerunner]

Guess I should be embarrassed to admit that I like it.

The first time I heard it was on a Kathleen Battle CD. I thought it was beautiful. Your average parish choir struggles with it, though, and that’s not too good.

It’s possible to know the defects in the song and still appreciate it. It certainly made me think about the nature of the Incarnation and the incredible admixture of the ineffable Divine with ordinary humanity in Jesus.

“…and when you’ve kissed your little baby, you’ve kissed the face of God.”

Sure she knew it. I think the message is for us, not for Mary. When we kiss a child, are we immediately aware that we’re kissing the face of God? When we sponge off a sick child with a fever at 3:00 a.m., do we think about the fact that we’re sponging Jesus’ fever away? Then, expanding the thought, do we realize when we aid some person in trouble, we’re doing that to Jesus? The smallest thing…overtipping some inept waitress who doesn’t look like life has favored her all that much…we’re giving encouragement to Jesus; giving praise. Do we think about that? I’ll confess that the song chokes me up a bit. It sure reminds me of my own failings. No question about that.

Anyway, that’s how I thought of the song, and still do.

 

[mary_bobo]

Good grief, ya’ll, it’s just a song. I think we might be assigning meaning where none was meant. Shall we move on? I just don’t see anything anti-Catholic about it. But then again, I was looking for any.

 

[CWBetts]

Good grief, ya’ll, it’s just a song. I think we might be assigning meaning where none was meant. Shall we move on? I just don’t see anything anti-Catholic about it. But then again, I was looking for any.

With regards to what is acceptible for Mass, there is no such thing as"just a song" with that attitude, we’d be singing Baetles songs before long. Second, even when I was Protestant I thought it was stupid because it is contrary to scripture. As a Catholoic, the incorrect teachings about Mary were jumping out at me. I wasn’t looking, but some problems are obvious.