Mary, Did You Know

[anamchara]

I hope not to be a thread closer…but I will chime in.

I find the song Offensive and so do others. For that reason alone it should not be sung in a Catholic Church.

Because you and a few others on a message board think it offensive, the entire Catholic Church should not sing it? I love it I wonder if the Pope will let you and a few others fly to Rome and set the record straight on all these things. :ehh:

 

[ac_claire]

I hope not to be a thread closer…but I will chime in.

I find the song Offensive and so do others. For that reason alone it should not be sung in a Catholic Church.

…that reason being because you choose to find offense in it?
Do you really think that’s a good argument?

One’s perception doesn’t create reality. Isn’t that correct…?
If this thread isn’t splitting hairs, I don’t know what is.

 

[Indyann]

Well, Mr. Clark, I’ll give it an 8. It has a haunting melody, beautiful words (except for
4, apparently), but it is impossible to dance to!

 

[THurifer2]

Because you and a few others on a message board think it offensive, the entire Catholic Church should not sing it?

Not a bad idea

I wonder if the Pope will let you and a few others fly to Rome and set the record straight on all these things. :ehh:

The pope has spoken on the use of sacred music. From what I have read…Mary , did you know doesn’t seem to be one of those songs that fit his musical taste.

You pay for the trip and I’ll ride coach

 

[Jennifer_J]

For centuries, eminent, scholarly, and saintly theologians have gone round and round over Mary’s Immaculate Conception, without resolution, until heaven sent Mary herself to proclaim it at Lourdes.

This debate will not be solved by asserting one’s interpretation about when the fruits of redemption were applied, other than through Church teaching. The CCC is a more recent and enlighted teaching than the original proclamation in 1854. No Catholic can be faulted for following the current teaching as presented to them in the Catechism.

As this senseless debate now enters another page using up precious bandwidth and going nowhere, I pray the moderators will close the thread and leave all to hold their respective opinions. I foresee that every time Benedictgal asserts her perception, others will rebut it with theirs, like hamsters on the endless circular wheel.

http://bestsmileys.com/angry2/11.gif

I didn’t realize that YOU were the arbitor of what we can discuss and debate? If you don’t like the discussion, then bow out. If it’s a waste of time, then find something else to do.

Jennifer

 

[Joysong]

Problem is, Jennifer, it is not a discussion, nor even a debate. It is a monolog where only one opinion is acceptable. All other possible opinions are labeled heretical. Last count, I noted 13 posts where the OP replayed the same record, as if that would change a person’s mind. Well, it hasn’t and it won’t.

When a monolog is stalemated, it serves no other purpose but to shut down. Thanks for your ‘charitable’ contribution, which also served no valid purpose but to affront.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Problem is, Jennifer, it is not a discussion, nor even a debate. It is a monolog where only one opinion is acceptable. All other possible opinions are labeled heretical. Last count, I noted 13 posts where the OP replayed the same record, as if that would change a person’s mind. Well, it hasn’t and it won’t.

When a monolog is stalemated, it serves no other purpose but to shut down. Thanks for your ‘charitable’ contribution, which also served no valid purpose but to affront.

No problem, esp since you’ve said the same things over and over again, as well. Other people have chimed in with their opionion, both for and against, and they have been ignored. I’m not being uncharitable, I’m truly confused that you think it’s a waste of time and yet, here you are

Jennifer

 

[Joysong]

Exactly. While I did not use your wording “waste of time”, I did say the argument is circular, going nowhere, because each contributor is keeping their own opinion and simply repeating it. There is nothing new added for discussion.

Other people have chimed in with their opionion, both for and against, and they have been ignored

No, they were not ignored, but neither did they question a person’s Catholicity, nor did they imply their opponent’s opinions are dealing with heretical matter. In my book, that is a very serious charge to make, and that is why there is so much more opposition and defense concerning those particular posts, rather than the others you believe were ignored.

Bear in mind, too, that I never expressed my opinion until a couple posts ago, so I can hardly be accused of repetion, as were the 13 posts alluded to.

the Hamster

 

[anamchara]

Not a bad idea

The pope has spoken on the use of sacred music. From what I have read…Mary , did you know doesn’t seem to be one of those songs that fit his musical taste.

You pay for the trip and I’ll ride coach

Ah but the faithful don’t give the Pope credit. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind if our parish sang it once in a while maybe I’ll take that trip with you and ask him myself

 

[ac_claire]

Joysong, no one is contesting that. It is the wording of the song that is in question. Mary was not delivered after the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Her Son. God applied the merits of same to Mary’s Immaculate Conception (which, obviously, happened before Jesus’ salvific work), hence, she was born without the stain of original sin and was free from sin (through God’s action). This was a singular privilege because of what she was going to undertake, namely, being the Mother of God. Unlike the song’s assertion, this didn’t not happen after, it happened before. Therein lies the problem.

…oh my poor head. I need some excedrin. This is it for me on this subject:

The song does not assert that Mary’s redemption happened after Jesus’s death, resurrection, etc. (BTW, It doesn’t seem correct to say it happened before or after, but because of…Since of course we are talking about something that happened in God’s time, not in our linear time…)

Anyway, the song doesn’t address the IC at all, but it doesn’t contradict it either. It’s already clear from this argument that the “soon deliver you” part can be interpreted either way. I’m sure the protestant songwriter did not intend to stick it to Catholic dogma when he wrote the song. So why choose to make a problem out of it? is my point. Because the faith of children is at stake? Come on now…

p.s. the accusation of bigotry I’m reading about now is just stupid- seems like a diversion and nothing more. (Not saying this thread couldn’t use a diversion, but that’s beside the point, too…)

 

[ac_claire]

Some here say that “deliverance” is one and the same as the effects -the merits- of Christ’s action on the cross. Others are saying that “deliverance” is an action of Christ and should not be confused with the objective fruit of that deliverance, which in the case of Mary is her Immaculate Conception.

The truth of the matter is that our English language is not well structured to express a future event affecting the past. …at least not in a single line of a song. In fact the entire concept is foreign to our human perception.

In human time, when Jesus was born, Mary “was delivered” but Christ had not “delivered” her yet.

That was very well said.

Lovemyfaith:

Wow 8 pages long and I still don’t like the song.

Hehe. I don’t either!

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you, all.