The Problem With “Mary Did You Know” (The hymn that cancels Christmas)

Aletelia ^ | December 9, 2015 | FR ROBERT MCTEIGUE, SJ

[NYer]

Can a hymn cancel Christmas? Can the lyrics of a song, if true, make Christmas not true — that is to say, un-real? Oh, yes!

Now, it is a given that honorable people may disagree about which piece of music is more suitable to reverence the birth of Christ. (I myself prefer Handel’s Messiah to “The Little Drummer Boy.”) And while there are any number of “secular” Christmas songs that ignore Christ altogether, they are just distractions. What I have in mind is a song that, if taken seriously, makes impossible what Christians celebrate at Christmas. I might even call that song a “hymn” because I once heard it sung in a parish at Christmas Eve Mass. I am writing about it now for that reason, and also because I’ve heard so many Catholics speak so effusively about it, especially when it is sung at Christmas masses. I’m speaking of a song made popular by former American Idol star Clay Aiken: “Mary Did You Know?”

While the song has the merits of prompting its hearers to reflect on Mary beholding her Divine Son, lines from the very first stanza actually bring Christmas to a screeching halt. Here are the problematic lyrics:

“Did you know that your Baby Boy has come to make you new? This Child that you delivered will soon deliver you.”

Now, those lines make sense if Mary is another sinner just like us, who needs to be delivered from sin. You see, if Mary is a sinner who like us needs a savior, then the lyricist’s play on the word “deliver” (sense 1: “deliver” = “give birth”; sense 2: “deliver” = “liberate from sin”) is both clever and theologically sound. But if Mary is a sinner in need of a savior, then she cannot be the worthy vessel in whom the All-Holy God takes on human nature as the Word-Made-Flesh. In other words the lyrics depend upon the dogma of the Immaculate Conception being false. If Mary needs a Savior, then she cannot be the vessel of the Incarnation. And “No-Incarnation” = “No-Christmas.” How ironic that a song sung with so much gusto as a Christmas hymn logically precludes what it claims to celebrate!

Let’s take a look at the Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, promulgated by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, which defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Pius begins by summarizing this ancient doctrine: “From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only begotten Son a mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world.” Mary was not, and could not have been, just any woman, just any sinner, selected by God to be the mother of His Only Begotten Son.

Pius reflects on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in a way that shows that sound theology can be eloquent, even poetic:

The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom ‘the first-born of every creature’ would be conceived. They testified too that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit … she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

How much more beautiful, sublime, and awe-inspiring is the Immaculate Conception as the prelude to Christmas — far more so than the well-intentioned but erroneous sentimentality of the lyrics of “Mary Did You Know?”

Pius sums up the dogma of the Immaculate Conception with this definition:

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.

We are now in the second week of Advent. Prepared or not, we will soon find ourselves in the Christmas season. To find the truth of Christmas, to find the great gift of God which is the real “reason for the season,” we cannot avoid, forget or deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. No piece of music, not even Handel’s Messiah can express all of the wonder of Incarnation and the glory of Christmas. Silly, secular songs can distract us from Christmas. Some songs, like “Mary Did You Know,” even if very affecting in a sentimental way, actually preclude Christmas. This Christmas season, let’s give our family and friends the gift of Christmas truth. “O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!”

[metmom]

The Catholic Church has never suggested that she didn’t need a savior.

Saying she was without sin is more than suggesting that she didn't need a savior.

Only sinners need saviors. Those without sin don't.

If she didn't sin, she didn't need a savior.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The interrelated questions concerning the transmission of Original Sin, and the significance of the maternal "carne" in the Incarnation, (the seed of the woman, in Biblical terms)are largely mysterious.

What I wrote, however, is congruent with what we know from Scripture. That's why I offer even my opinions for your consideration.

Mind you, dogma is something else. It is not speculation. It rest upon of Scripture, conclusions which are inherent logical corollaries from Scripture, and reasonable inferences from converging lines of evidence, so long as they have been believed by Christian believers from earliest times, are internally coherent with revealed doctrine, and are not directly ruled out by Scripture.

I love to speculate, actually. I do try to be careful to distinguish my own speculations, from authoritative doctrine. If I have from time to time failed to do so adequately ---- well, I'll try, try again!

[metmom]

We saw clearly on another thread that the Orthodox do not believe in the immaculate conception.

For all the bragging about unity in Catholic belief, and the necessity of central leadership to prevent everyone’s own personal interpretation and each man being his own pope, seems like there are whole groups of people each calling themselves the true Catholic church, who can’t agree on something as clearly spelled out in Scripture as this.

The myth of Catholic unity.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Because your point of view favoring a "weak" or highly limited interpretation of Kecharitomene has not been convincingly proven. In fact, I would argue that it has been disproven. On the the other hand, the case for a "strong" (or extensively significant) interpretation of Kecharitomene is -- well, strong. Even from Strong's.

[metmom]

The very exhortation of the Angel Gabriel — "Hail, full of grace" - is absolutely an acknowledgement of the pure state of her soul.

Nope.

Only sinners need grace. The sinless can stand before God on their own merit; no grace is needed.

If Mary were sinless, she could never experience the grace of God.

[metmom]

Demonic apparitions do not make a good case for anything.

[metmom]

The sin nature comes through the FATHER not the mother.

Jesus was sinless, not because of who His mother was, but because of who His FATHER was.

[ealgeone]

The text explains why she was favored by God. She was chosen to give birth to Christ. She was selected out of all the Hebrew girls for this purpose. That's why she was favored by God.

Comtext explains this.

[Mrs. Don-o]

These are really interesting points! It does seem that all of Creation has been pulled into the lamentable consequences of that primordial catastrophe.

Part of the consequence of this catasrophic sin is, however, physical. We now have bodies which are weak and mortal; intellects which are darkened (and that involves brain function limitations and errors), passions that are disordered (this also includes brain chemicals, hormones, and hardwired response systems as well); wills which are vacillating, prone to confusion, and weak. All of us are "unreliable narrators" of our own stories.

So we're screwed up in the very things that makes us "human persons" (rather than "animal specimens") --- our intellect and our will. Both of these are epiphenomena of our physical constitution, at least while we are in the body.

[ealgeone]

Go read the catholic encyclopedia online about the immaculate conception. It disagrees with you and catholicism.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Go read the catholic encyclopedia online about the immaculate conception. It disagrees with you and catholicism."

The Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with Catholicism? Now, that's interesting.

Could you indicate one or two specific points?

[kinsman redeemer]

Maybe it would be better not to say she is lying.
Instead, say there is a deep deception. She’s a victim.

It’s clear that she believes what she says.

The question I ask is, “Why doesn’t the obvious truth change her mind?”

The answer is “Deception.”

The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.

[I-ambush]

I may have a “size-small intellect,” but you obviously have no awareness of the concept of irony. Even sadder, you are so consumed by your vitriol for Catholicism that you are closing your mind and heart to one of the greatest acts of God in His plan for salvation, the example of perfect Christian love and devotion presented by His mother, Mary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The text explains why she was favored by God. She was chosen to give birth to Christ. She was selected out of all the Hebrew girls for this purpose. That's why she was favored by God.

Comtext explains this. "

I agree with this 100%

[metmom]

Infancy Gospel of James

If that's what Catholics are depending on for support for their doctrines, they must be more desperate than we realized.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OTOH, consider deeply whether there might be some ways in which you have been deceived.

Humans are prone to this by nature.

[metmom]

Could it be that in an infinitesimal moment, prior to the announcement by the Angel Gabriel, Yeshua was conceived. So, when he made the exhortation, she was “full of grace”, with the presence of the infant Yeshua within her?

Pure speculation does not make sound doctrine.

[metmom]

Do you have any evidence that the events at Lourdes are false?

Wrong question.

The question should be *Do you have any evidence that the events at Lourdes are true*?

There's tremendous potential for error in demanding something be taken as true unless it be proved false.

However, considering the request that the apparition made for have a church built in the honor of Mary, and other counter Scriptural claims made, there's PLENTY of evidence that the apparition is false.

[ealgeone]

It was so important they chose not to make it part of the canon. Tells you all you need to know right there.

[kinsman redeemer]

You make a statement that “full of grace” means sinless.

It’s not in the direct meaning of the word. It’s not even implied. It’s not even the common translation of the Greek.

Yet you still insist it means “sinless” because to do otherwise would cause your sandcastle to collapse.

Now you ignore an objective, straightforward, and accurate criticism of your false claim.

This has all the hallmarks of deception.