Mary, Did You Know

[benedictgal]

And of course, it is absolutely horrible to sing a song written by a Protestant (if in fact that is true?). :tsktsk:

Should we therefore get a petition to remove this carol from every hymnal in our Churches.

carols.org.uk/hark_the_herald_angels_sing.htm

“Hark the herald angels sing” Christmas Carol was written by Charles Wesley, brother of John Wesley founder of the Methodist church, in 1739.
I agree with ncjohn, some have waaaay too much time on their hands.

Joysong, you are certainly way off the mark on this one. You evidently have not been paying attention to the major point of contention that this hymn raises. The line concerning Mary’s deliverance is heretical. Please re-read the posts in this thread.

No one is mentioning other Christmas carols written by Protestants. It’s this one that is very problematic because it goes against Church dogma and doctrine regarding Mary. Maybe if you were to reread Church teaching on Mary (or familiarize yourself with the documents), then you will better understand why this hymn has some serious problems.

It is also dangerous to have children sing this because then they will get the wrong notion about Mary.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Is there nothing we won’t nitpick?

I think I’ll go back and offer my advice to Beethoven on some notes I would have done differently. And maybe some to some of the Popes on words I would change in some of their encyclicals that are clearly vague and misleading.

Sheesh…I think we have WAY too much time on our hands.

It’s really not nitpicking. The song is troublesome in the way it implies that Mary’s baby boy will soon deliver her. That one line in the song goes against the dogma of Mary’s immaculate conception and the belief that Mary was sinless. However, I would not object to it if the lyrics were changed. The lyrics should reflect that Mary’s baby boy had once delivered her.

A music director that chooses this hymn should be aware of this but I can see how this song’s lyrics could slip past the radar - especially if the music director is not Catholic (there are some out there that aren’t). Of course, we can bring it to their attention without beating them over the head!

BTW…Has anyone ever heard a recording of this song by Christopher Parkening (classical guitar) and Kathleen Battle (soprano)? It is on their *Angel’s Glory *Christmas album. It’s wonderful to listen to, except for that one little line.

 

[ncjohn]

It’s really not nitpicking. The song is troublesome in the way it implies that Mary’s baby boy will soon deliver her. That one line in the song goes against the dogma of Mary’s immaculate conception and the belief that Mary was sinless. However, I would not object to it if the lyrics were changed. The lyrics should reflect that Mary’s baby boy had once delivered her.

I really don’t want to get into this debate, but it again goes to putting everything into OUR concept of time. In our concept of time, the deliverance does not occur until the cricifixion since without this there is no deliverance. However in God’s time it is applied backward to Mary at her own conception. As such, yes I do indeed consider this subtlety nitpicking.

 

[Morningkill]

In our concept of time, the deliverance does not occur until the cricifixion since without this there is no deliverance.

I wholeheartedly disagree - Mary’s deliverance occurs at her conception. The “power” for want of a better term for the deliverance is from the death of her Son, but the event itself is far earlier.

I have a feeling that the CCC might agree with me, but I have to rush to Mass so I can’t look it up - don’t quote me on that without checking, okay? YMMV

 

[ncjohn]

I wholeheartedly disagree - Mary’s deliverance occurs at her conception. The “power” for want of a better term for the deliverance is from the death of her Son, but the event itself is far earlier.

I agree that Mary’s deliverance comes at her conception, as I said, but it still comes as a result of an event that doesn’t occur until later and is “predated” in a sense in Mary’s case. We seem to be in agreement on that.

I think the problem here is in trying to make this an “either-or” situation when it is in fact the paradox of a “both-and” situation. Because God stands outside of time we can have it occuring “soon” and “before” at the same time. Just as we can have a “virgin” and “mother” at the same time–a “both-and”–when all the “rules” tell us these two are mutually exclusive.

We get in lots of trouble when we try to explain things that are beyond our ability. We get into even more trouble when we start trying to make judgments about others based on our assumptions on things we can’t even really understand ourselves.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I really don’t want to get into this debate, but it again goes to putting everything into OUR concept of time. In our concept of time, the deliverance does not occur until the cricifixion since without this there is no deliverance. However in God’s time it is applied backward to Mary at her own conception. As such, yes I do indeed consider this subtlety nitpicking.

I wholeheartedly disagree - Mary’s deliverance occurs at her conception. The “power” for want of a better term for the deliverance is from the death of her Son, but the event itself is far earlier.

I have a feeling that the CCC might agree with me, but I have to rush to Mass so I can’t look it up - don’t quote me on that without checking, okay? YMMV

I agree with Morningkill. Both our deliverence and Mary’s deliverence were moments that happened in history. From God’s perspective, both events could have happened simultaneously, but the song was written from our perspective of time, not God’s.

The only way the lyrics would fit with Catholic dogma as is would be if we had an additional teaching that said that after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension into heaven he went back in time to prevent original sin from affecting his mother. Since there is no teaching to that regard, I think it would be wise to just change the lyrics.

 

[TMC]

I wholeheartedly disagree - Mary’s deliverance occurs at her conception. The “power” for want of a better term for the deliverance is from the death of her Son, but the event itself is far earlier.

I have a feeling that the CCC might agree with me, but I have to rush to Mass so I can’t look it up - don’t quote me on that without checking, okay? YMMV

Mary is redeemed of original sin from the moment of her conception, but her salvation still depends on the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection. Also, although Mary remained ever faithful to God and sinless, she retained free will and could have sinned, so it is possible that she could have lost salvation. We honor her not merely because God graced her at the Immaculate Conception, but because she carried that grace stainless throughout this life. So I don’t believe she is truly delivered until she is taken up.

I agree with those that have commented on the difficulty of working out the befores and afters when some actors are acting outside of the temporal span, but there is no need to contemplate those mysteries here because Mary was assumed after the Resurrection. The Church teaches that her Assumption is her participation in the Resurrection. CCC 966. To me this means that her salvation still depended on the Resurrection. She is redeemed at conception, but her salvation occurs only after she dies and is assumed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Immaculate Conception

The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law **through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. **Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin.
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

In other words, Mary was conceived without original sin, in anticipation of the salvation that would be given through her son Jesus Christ.

Understood correctly, the hymn is in no way heretical. Mary needed the salvation of her son Jesus Christ, just as we all do.

Jim

 

[Morningkill]

The question is what does “delivered” refer to - salvation or redemption? I would argue that it refers to redemption; especially give the fact that it was written by Protestants, many sects of which do not have a grasp of the notion of a process of continuing salvation.

 

[Morningkill]

In other words, Mary was conceived without original sin, in anticipation of the salvation that would be given through her son Jesus Christ.

Understood correctly, the hymn is in no way heretical. Mary needed the salvation of her son Jesus Christ, just as we all do.

Your first point is not under debate - this is very clear. The issue is whether or not implying that the deliverance will occur AFTER Christ’s birth is heretical. The deliverance occured before - and the passage you quote does not say that the deliverance occured after; it merely says that the deliverance happened and that it is dependent on Christ.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Again, the hymn is in poetic context, as a child asking his mother,… “mommy do you see the beautiful sun rise?” Of course the mother sees it, and the child knows it, but he is expressing his joy of the event, in his question.

In the same way, the author of the hymn is asking, “Mary did you know?” Of course he knows that Mary knew, but is expressing his own awe in the revelation, by presenting the question.

Jim

 

[Morningkill]

All of which everyone appreciates - and perhaps even forgives. But the central issue - which the OP brought up - is about the fact that it says Mary’s deliverance happens AFTER Jesus’ birth. That is, as far as I and many others here are concerned, a heretical and false notion.

The question “Did you know?” is not the issue here.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

All of which everyone appreciates - and perhaps even forgives. But the central issue - which the OP brought up - is about the fact that it says Mary’s deliverance happens AFTER Jesus’ birth. That is, as far as I and many others here are concerned, a heretical and false notion.

The question “Did you know?” is not the issue here.

Mary’s deliverance(the immaculate conception) would not have come, without the birth of her son.

I don’t think the hymn is saying anything different.

Jim

 

[Morningkill]

Mary’s deliverance(the immaculate conception) would not have come, without the birth of her son.

Wholeheartedly agree.

I don’t think the hymn is saying anything different.

The hymn is NOT saying anything different with regard to that question - but that is not the question. The question is a question of TIME.

Protestant theology says that Mary was redeemed like any other human - after birth and by the sacrifice of Jesus.

Catholic theology says that she was saved BEFORE birth and by the sacrifice of Jesus.

Certainly, the hymn does not say that Mary was not saved by Jesus - but it also does not say that she was Immaculately Conceived. And, in fact, it either implies or can be infered to mean precisely the opposite.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Morningkill

Certainly, the hymn does not say that Mary was not saved by Jesus - but it also does not say that she was Immaculately Conceived.

Nor does it have to say she was immaculately conceived. Did Mary know, before that she was immaculately conceived? Not according to her magnificat.

And, in fact, it either implies or can be infered to mean precisely the opposite

.

Only according to your interpretation of the song. Catholics know what it means.

Jim

 

[st_lucy]

The thing that gets me every time I hear this song is didn’t the writer(s) read the bible. It would seem to me that if they did they would realize that she (Mary) knew who her son was when the Angel came to her to ask her permission.

It is a very annoying song, I always have to turn it off when I hear it which makes me sad because I really like Alan Jackson.

 

[Morningkill]

Only according to your interpretation of the song. Catholics know what it means.

Yes, Catholics do know what it means. I’m a Catholic - so I know what it means!

The song does not need to say that she was Immaculately Conceived - but it does need (if it is going to be played at Mass) to not imply the opposite. And many people here feel that it does imply the opposite.

Now, this might just be our interpretation. But we are Catholics, and so we should know what it means. In fact, you say we DO know what it means.

The question would be to ask the authors - what did THEY intend when they wrote it? And given the fact they are Protestants and therefore probably deny the Immaculate Conception, it is a fair bet that they did not intend to support a Catholic doctrine. The fact the lyrics say that Mary’s deliverance will happen “soon” seems to suggest that rather than merely not mentioning the Immaculate Conception they are actively denying it.

This is not a question of Mary’s salvation relying on Jesus’ death - this is a question of Mary’s deliverance happening “soon” (i.e. in the future) while she is alive. That is not Catholic doctrine and is, in fact, a heresy. That is not my opinion - that is doctrine and we are not at liberty to disbelieve it.

What is my opinion is that the intent of the (non-Catholic) authors was not to advance Catholic doctrine, and was possibly to actively advance Protestant doctrine. I think this is a resonable supposition, given the standard reading of the English suggests a Protestant meaning and the fact they are Protestants.

If you wish to disagree, that is fine - but I think that you are clutching at straws and attempting simply to suggest (as you did to Benedictgrl above) that people who don’t “get it” are lacking some intellectual understanding.

I don’t think that is the case - I think the song itself is deliberately anti-Catholic and - at the very least - is confusing and can cause confusion and, therefore, (like Amazing Grace) has no place being played at a Catholic Mass or in any other Catholic liturgical celebration.

 

[ncjohn]

Catholic theology says that she was saved BEFORE birth and by the sacrifice of Jesus.

To me, that is the whole point. She was saved before by something that didn’t happen until after. That is why I contend that it is “both/and”. She was delivered “soon”, even though it was applied to “before”.

You just can’t have one without the other. There can be no “before” here without the “soon”.

As to it being confusing to children, many things are confusing to children. And many things are also confusing to adults. They are what’s known as “teachable moments”, which are blessings to both parent and child. If our children only learn to memorize facts and never learn to discuss or discern nuance, they have far more serious problems than this song presents.

We all know that “understanding” even the Bible takes a lot more than just reading it literally. It takes a lot of work to work through the nuance. Yet we are demanding that a song be “absolutely perfect” in wording. I would ask, how many of you apply that same standard to what you teach your children? How many of you present your words to censors to have them reviewed lest you confuse your child by not saying something perfectly in a way they cannot be confused or possibly have to ask a question. I can promise that there are plenty of statements made in this thread alone which I could nitpick as to perfect wording and understanding by those who would criticize this song.

What was that saying about plucking the beam from our own eyes?

 

[Seamus_L]

Mark Lowry is an Evangelical Protestant, so there’s no need to ponder what he means. He doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception.
I've never cared for the song myself as it has no basis in Scripture or Tradition.

 

[Morningkill]

Yet we are demanding that a song be “absolutely perfect” in wording

In the immortal words of Tonto; “What’s all this ‘we’ business, paleface?”

I certainly don’t demand that a song be perfect - but I demand that it at least be attempting to be authentic. By the same argument, Catholics could use a Lutheran Catechism to teach Catholicism, treating the errors and heresies as “teachable moments”.

This song advances a non-Catholic teaching. The mere fact that we have to discuss this and you have to talk about notions such as “well, it could be confusing . . .”

A teachable moment is when people say “How can Mary be sinless because it says all have sinned in Romans?” One does not seek to use material which is confusing unless ther eis no other option. “Mary Did You Know” is not Scripture - and it is confusing. I see no compelling reason to use it during Holy Mass.

It is worth causing confusion and presenting something which (as we have determined) was written by a Protestant about a doctrine which differs from the Catholic version, merely to have a “teaching moment”? Will the value of the teaching moment really be worth it?

What we are discussing here is the validity of using a song in Mass which is written by a Protestant and advances uniquely Protestant ideas. Your attempt to suggest that Mary’s deliverance may come “soon” is simply not backed up; there is no reference which ANYONE has cited to suggest that the Catholic Church has ever suggested that - in time - Mary’s deliverance happened after Christ’s birth. The Church believes that the deliverance happened AS A RESULT OF something what happened after Christ’s birth, but it itself happened quite a while before.