Mary, Did You Know

[benedictgal]

benedictgal

and with that ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

Jim

Jim, you may have “rested” your case, although you, yourself, fail to see the heresy. Furthermore, because Evangelicals don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, they can write stuff like this.

You seem to like to take things and isolate them in order to fit your opinions and, perhaps fan the flames to stir things up. This is not helpful to constructive dialogue.

I maintain my claim that the song clearly goes against Church teaching. Pretty music and the kind of poetic license that you advocate don’t make the song right. It is especially problematic when children are involved because, as Cristiano pointed out in a previous post, it leads to confusion.

We need to call a spade a spade and not hedge around things.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The song is nice to listen to OUTSIDE of Mass. It has no place in Mass unless the problematic line is changed. I’ll bet many of us like to listen to some protestant music, just not in MASS. I don’t even mind my children listening to protestant music, because I can explan to them the errors they might contain. However, in the context of the MASS, there are certain rules that need to be followed, a big one being that Church teaching and doctrine should be upheld within the hymns. That shouldn’t really shock anyone.

Jennifer

 

[Joysong]

From the CCC:

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.” Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:

As St. Irenaeus says, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.” Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”

From EWTN referring to St. Irenaeus:

Thus then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve, was untied through the obedience of Mary." But - and this is why we are led to suppose special inspiration for S. Irenaeus - the knot was not untied at the annunciation, the moment presupposed in the context of St. Irenaeus. No, the knot was not untied until the divine Victim cried out: “It is finished.” So objectively, probably without realizing it himself, St. Irenaeus implied even her cooperation on Calvary.

According to Church teaching, Mary herself needed to be ‘delivered’ (redeemed) through the saving act of her Son, irrespective of her Immaculate Conception.

 

[benedictgal]

From the CCC:

From EWTN referring to St. Irenaeus:

According to Church teaching, Mary herself needed to be ‘delivered’ (redeemed) through the saving act of her Son, irrespective of her Immaculate Conception.

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.

 

[Joysong]

Benedictgal, This was to correct some false understanding that this entire thread has engendered, which is more problematic than the song, and which is being read by a lot of viewers.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3147271&postcount=5

For the record, I am still not rendering an opinion.

 

[pnewton]

If you read the thread you will read that thos who oppose the hymn, say it is written by protestant evangelical and heretical, therefore should not be heard or sung by Catholic children.

Thats religious bigotry, no two ways about it.

I am not offended. Iam am not the one claiming bigotry. I still say your claim is bull. Even in the above statement “and heretical” is the quality that prevents it from being sung, not the author. This is not bigotry, but discenment. Your attempt to label folks who disagree with you as bigot is nothing but and ad hominen attack on character.

 

[Joysong]

Benedictgal,

Since you primarily, along with a few others, are making the charge of heresy based on knowledge that Mary was delivered previously through her Immaculate Conception,

And since many are reading, but have no documentation with which to sort out who and who is NOT heretical,

And since you asserted that ‘some’ had little knowledge of Marian theology,

**Therefore, would you kindly provide us with the proof that may finally settle this issue, since you claim to know it. Where in Church documents, CCC, or encyclicals does the RC Church solemnly proclaim that Mary was redeemed at her I.C. **

It is one thing to assert one’s belief, but since this thread is so highly controversial and contains several legitimate opinions, you are the one with the burden of proof to end this debate.

 

[ac_claire]

Remember, though, ac claire, the authors of the song are Protestant. Again, I don’t think you read the entire lyrics. The main bone of contention here is that the authors claim that Jesus didn’t deliver Mary until after his Passion, Death and Resurrection. This goes against the Church’s dogmatic and doctrinal teaching on Mary.

Isn’t it true, though, that the way Mary was conceived w/o sin was through the merits of Christ’s atoning death, applied at the moment of her conception…? (obviously working in God’s eternity and out of our chronological time.)

I’m afraid that Jim is trying to make poetic license fit into this; however, as pnewton excellently pointed out, the shoes don’t fit, Cinderella.

Well see i guess this is the crux of my argument, and where we disagree: I think that “poetic license” is entirely appropriate because we are talking about a song. Or are you analyzing the song only in the context of it’s appropriateness for mass or a[Catholic] children’s choir?

The other thing is, the term “heretical” starts to lose some of it’s value or authority if used indiscriminately, as I feel it is in this case. It’s just more ammunition for liberals in the church who want to say that we cry “heresy!” at the drop of a hat.

 

[benedictgal]

Isn’t it true, though, that the way Mary was conceived w/o sin was through the merits of Christ’s atoning death, applied at the moment of her conception…? (obviously working in God’s eternity and out of our chronological time.)

Well see i guess this is the crux of my argument, and where we disagree: I think that “poetic license” is entirely appropriate because we are talking about a song. Or are you analyzing the song only in the context of it’s appropriateness for mass or a[Catholic] children’s choir?

The other thing is, the term “heretical” starts to lose some of it’s value or authority if used indiscriminately, as I feel it is in this case. It’s just more ammunition for liberals in the church who want to say that we cry “heresy!” at the drop of a hat.

I’m not crying heresy at the mere drop of a hat. I believe that you still fail to see the point.

I did not respond sooner because I was at my parish handing out “roscas”, “Three Kings Bread”, if you will, to our children. It’s an old Mexican custom wherein you hand out sweet bread and whoever gets a piece with a plastic infant Jesus has to throw a party on February 2nd. Of course, we changed it up a bit to the point that whoever gets the Infant Jesus gets a prize.

However, I digress. Here is a section from the Dogmatic Constitution of Pope Pius IX declaring the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception:

Now inasmuch as whatever pertains to sacred worship is intimately connected with its object and cannot have either consistency or durability if this object is vague or uncertain, our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, therefore, while directing all their efforts toward an increase of the devotion to the conception, made it their aim not only to emphasize the object with the utmost zeal, but also to enunciate the exact doctrine. [6] Definitely and clearly they taught that the feast was held in honor of the conception of the Virgin. They denounced as false and absolutely foreign to the mind of the Church the opinion of those who held and affirmed that it was not the conception of the Virgin but her sanctification that was honored by the Church. They never thought that greater leniency should be extended toward those who, attempting to disprove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, devised a distinction between the first and second instance of conception and inferred that the conception which the Church celebrates was not that of the first instance of conception but the second. In fact, they held it was their duty not only to uphold and defend with all their power the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin but also to assert that the true object of this veneration was her conception considered in its first instant. Hence the words of one of our predecessors, Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: "Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of Original Sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception." [7]

Therefore, this happened at the instant of Mary’s creation, which is the polar opposite of what the song suggests. Here is the actual declaration by Pius IX:

“***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.” ***[29]

Hence, if anyone shall dare ---- which God forbid! ---- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

You can find the entire constitution at:

catholictradition.org/Mary/conception3b.htm

I figured I’d go straight to the source itself for this information, that source being the Dogmatic Constitution that was issued forth by Pope Pius IX, which occurred four years before Mary’s own self-declaration at Lourdes, wherein she identified herself to St. Bernadette as the Immaculate Conception.

 

[ac_claire]

Benedictgal,

Since you primarily, along with a few others, are making the charge of heresy based on knowledge that Mary was delivered previously through her Immaculate Conception,

And since many are reading, but have no documentation with which to sort out who and who is NOT heretical,

And since you asserted that ‘some’ had little knowledge of Marian theology,

**Therefore, would you kindly provide us with the proof that may finally settle this issue, since you claim to know it. Where in Church documents, CCC, or encyclicals does the RC Church solemnly proclaim that Mary was redeemed at her I.C. **

This wasn’t directed to me, but let me add this:

She was redeemed at her conception…that’s what saved her from the stain of sin. But God did this through the merits of Christ’s death. We’re still talking God’s time, which isn’t necessarily linear.

From the CCC:

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

So, it seems on this point at least, both sides are sort of correct: Mary was “delivered” previous to Christ’s birth, but only through Christ’s death and resurrection.

 

[benedictgal]

This wasn’t directed to me, but let me add this:

She was redeemed at her conception…that’s what saved her from the stain of sin. But God did this through the merits of Christ’s death. We’re still talking God’s time, which isn’t necessarily linear.

From the CCC:

So, it seems on this point at least, both sides are sort of correct: Mary was “delivered” previous to Christ’s birth, but only through Christ’s death and resurrection.

Please read the post I just wrote as it quotes the Dogmatic Constitution. The song is still incorrect.

 

[Joysong]

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

All are aware with how much diligence this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God has been handed down, proposed and defended by the most outstanding religious orders, by the more celebrated theological academies, and by very eminent doctors in the sciences of theology. All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime.

Keyword: foreseen

In my opinion, both sides are applying the infamous verse of the song from their own personal perspective. Benedictgal persists in teaching that Mary was delivered before the passion. Others rightfully say it was after. If we look at Mary’s merits being applied pre-emptively (foreseen), then maybe yes I might see her rationale, but Mary STILL needed to await the full actual redemption of her Son in order that her and our redemption be accomplished, according to the CCC statement made by St. Iraneus, quoted a few posts ago.

Thus then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve, was untied through the obedience of Mary." But - and this is why we are led to suppose special inspiration for S. Irenaeus - the knot was not untied at the annunciation, the moment presupposed in the context of St. Irenaeus.** No, the knot was not untied until the divine Victim cried out: “It is finished.” **So objectively, probably without realizing it himself, St. Irenaeus implied even her cooperation on Calvary.

So the song was correct, in that her Son would soon deliver her – in TIME. B.G. says she was already delivered … before the passion.

Everyone is splitting hairs needlessly on this. Had Mary not given a fiat at the Annunciation, it would suggest then that she was already delivered and had no need of anything further, which is utterly false.

I perceive, Benedictgal, that you have an intense need to be right, but why do you fail to see that others are following a validly taught doctrine by Holy Mother Church and are not heretics for heavens’ sake. It is all in the way one perceives the doggone song. Let it go, please.

 

[benedictgal]

Keyword: foreseen

In my opinion, both sides are applying the infamous verse of the song from their own personal perspective. Benedictgal persists in teaching that Mary was delivered before the passion. Others rightfully say it was after. If we look at Mary’s merits being applied pre-emptively (foreseen), then maybe yes I might see her rationale, but Mary STILL needed to await the full actual redemption of her Son in order that her and our redemption be accomplished, according to the CCC statement made by St. Iraneus, quoted a few posts ago.

So the song was correct, in that her Son would soon deliver her – in TIME. B.G. says she was already delivered … before the passion.

Everyone is splitting hairs needlessly on this. Had Mary not given a fiat at the Annunciation, it would suggest then that she was already delivered and had no need of anything further, which is utterly false.

I perceive, Benedictgal, that you have an intense need to be right, but why do you fail to see that others are following a validly taught doctrine by Holy Mother Church and are not heretics for heavens’ sake. It is all in the way one perceives the doggone song. Let it go, please.

I would refer you again to the Dogmatic Constitution. Mary was already declared full of grace when the Archangel saluted her at the Annunciation. God applied the merits of Jesus’ Passion, Death and Resurrection at the moment of her conception, not after Jesus’ salviffic act. It didn’t happen afterwards, it was foreseen. The argument some people make regarding God’s time and space certainly applies here.

The main problem with this song is that it is very misleading. I engaged in a similar debate over I Myself am the Bread of Life, another very dubious song. The fact of the matter is that both of these songs, as innocuous as they may seem, are not compatible with what Holy Mother Church teaches. You can try to squeeze and make the teachings conform with these songs, but, it just doesn’t work that way.

You challenged me to find you documentation. Rather than sift through the CCC, I went straight to the source. Have you read the entire dogmatic constitution? If so, what part do you not understand? Pope Pius IX is very clear on this matter and spoke (and wrote) infallibly. Even Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzainger, has said the same thing.

The bottome line is that the song is incorrect. Remember, too, that this song was written by a Protestant Evangelical who does not share our belief in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[ac_claire]

I’m not crying heresy at the mere drop of a hat. I believe that you still fail to see the point.

I’m pretty sure I do see your point; I just disagree.

Therefore, this happened at the instant of Mary’s creation, which is the polar opposite of what the song suggests. Here is the actual declaration by Pius IX:

The song doesn’t actually suggest a refutation of the IC. Your interpreation of the song does. You seem to insist on reading heresy into something which can, in all fairness, be interpreted either way. (And, IMO, the fact that a protestant wrote the song is neither here nor there.)

 

[anamchara]

quote=benedictgal;3160173]

The main problem with this song is that it is very misleading.

The song is not misleading at all. We have played in our parish. You are assuming it’s misleading to people. I’m so glad you have a handle and deep understanding of all Catholic minds.

Remember, too, that this song was written by a Protestant Evangelical who does not share our belief in the Immaculate Conception.

OH no the horrors!!! A Protestant!!! Oh dear, here we go again with all this bussiness of eccumenism!!! Curses on VACII!! Now we are stuck with that awful Protestant influence!

For the love of heaven, it’s a song. It doesn’t confuse anyone. These constant debates make me sick to my stomach. We are Catholics people, this obession with controlling every single minute movement is causing more polarizing in the Church. Stop reducing our faith down to a set of assembly instructions: “insert Prayer A into Worship B”

 

[SMHW]

I myself agree that “Mary, Did You Know” is confusing at the least.

But it seems to me that the cause of argument here is over semantics rather than doctrine. It’s not clear to me that everyone agrees what we are arguing about. (And anyone who disagrees with me kind of proves my point.)

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.

 

[Joysong]

Rather than sift through the CCC, I went straight to the source. Have you read the entire dogmatic constitution? If so, what part do you not understand? Pope Pius IX is very clear on this matter and spoke (and wrote) infallibly.

And what part of the CCC’s current infallible teaching about what Catholics are to believe, did you NOT understand? Notably, the part, "No, the knot was not untied until the divine Victim cried out: “It is finished.”

The bottome line is that the song is incorrect.

Only in your sole opinion, which is your right to hold it, but it is NOT your right to assume infallibility in your perception and make pronouncements in the name of the Church, and in your fixated opinion, deny the right of others to lawfully disagree.

Remember, too, that this song was written by a Protestant Evangelical who does not share our belief in the Immaculate Conception.

There it is again, for about the third time that I remember seeing it.
JimR-OCDS seems to have hit the nail on the head.

 

[Joysong]

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

 

[Lovemyfaith]

Wow 8 pages long and I still don’t like the song.
I will never claim to be a catholic scholar or an authority by any means, but I do know I will be in church on 12/8 for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which happens to be nine months before the Nativity of Mary, on 9/8.

 

[THurifer2]

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.