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!”

[I_be_tc]

Regardless, this Catholic loves that song.

[justlittleoleme]

I am not a catholic. If its not found in my Bible, I don’t follow it.

What is this scripture in the Bible that you are referring to.

I guess I would say my proof is the Bible, I follow no other creed, no other man, just the Bible.

The Bible is a complete work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB)

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

---

In the previous post you refer to,
I was referring to the following linked article that I agree with but did not write. It examines the biblical basis of whether Mary was sinless.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=2658

[CA Conservative]

Perhaps a visit to Lourdes France would help you understand the words of the Blessed Mother.

That presumes that we accept the purported events at Lourdes to be both true and supported by Scripture. I think it is safe to say that neither of those statements would be true for most Protestants...

[SunshinesStormySummerSon]

Could you provide sources for this information? Thanks.

[Mrs. Don-o]

John 1:14

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Here the Only-begotten Son of God, Jesus, is called "full of grace." But He was not being frgiven for past sine.

Where did you come up with your definition "Grace is the forgiveness of past sins."? It's not Biblical.

[RaceBannon]

you lie when you say Jesus established the catholic church

[SunshinesStormySummerSon]

Could you provide sources for this information? Thanks.

[Salvation]

I am not lying. It’s right there in the Bible.

RM. I didn’t think we were allowed to tell others they were liars.

[editor-surveyor]

.
He had to be born at Tabernacles or he isn’t our savior!

His return in the spirit will be at Trumpets.

His return to the surface of the Earth to crush his enemies will be 15 days thereafter at Tabernacles again.

[SunshinesStormySummerSon]

Please provide sources; in over 60 years, I’ve never heard this taught from any pulpit. Thanks again.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Mary received her human nature from her mother, or she wasn't human and then Jesus isn't one of us."

Yes --- that IS what the Catholic Church teaches--- Mary received her human nature from her father and mother --- and this is what I believe. What gave you the impression I would disagree?

She received, however, a sinless nature, so that her Seed could be sinless. God was preparing a pure seed through the generations of the Jewish people, or one could say, through the Woman, from the time of Genesis. Think carefully about what God says about the seed of the Woman:

Genesis 3:15

"And I will put enmity between thee (the Serpent) and the Woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Where do we come across that mysterious phrase, "her seed", again Flip way over from the first ook of the Bile (Genesis) to the last (Revelation) and you can see that the enmity between the Serpent and the Woman continues even until the End of the World, as we see in Revelation 12:17

"And the dragon was wroth with the Woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

The remnant of her seed: that's us! We keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Tanakh is the source. Do you read it?

And Paul states clearly in 1Corinthians 15 that Trumpets is when he meets us “in the spirit.”

The “Watching” demanded in Revelation 3:3 is the watching for the new moon as the sun has just gone down beginning Tishri 1.

[Tax-chick]

I try to blot out the seasonal gripes and snits.

[editor-surveyor]

.
There isn’t any way for Mary to have received a sinless nature. Her father had the sin nature, so she was born in sin.

It is from our fathers that we receive the sin nature. That is why Yeshua was born without sin.

Also when the Dragon makes war with the seed of Israel is not the end of the world, it is the beginning of the Dragon’s tribulation of the saints. The world ends 1000 years later. (Rev. 20)

[metmom]

Interesting.

Mary herself called God her savior.

If she wasn’t a sinner, she didn’t need a savior.

Now, Catholics claim that the Catholic church wrote the Bible, and if that’s the case then THEY were the ones who put in there that Mary ended a savior, making her a sinner like everyone else.

God used a fallible sinful person to accomplish His will. Who would have thought?

Oh the horror......

[ADSUM]

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

It does amaze me that some accept the politically accepted position without examining the facts. It also amazes me that protestants rely only on the Scriptures for the Truth from God.

For religions that accept abortion and homosexuality, but deny the honor of the Blessed Mother of God seem to have their theology mixed up.

[kinsman redeemer]

And did you notice that NOT ONCE is "sin" or "sinless" mentioned or alluded to in the proper understanding of the words that are translated "full of grace" (in a few versions) or "favored" (in most versions)?

Did you see that?

What did you think?

How does that fact fit with your statement:
If one is 'full of grace' that means that there is no sin within them, for grace is there in its place.

Hmmm??

Can you let us know?

[SunshinesStormySummerSon]

I was not familiar with the term. A quick web search indicates that it is a translation of the Masoretic text. If that is correct, I am familiar with the OT books of the Bible (various translations) contained therein. In the NT I just reread I Corinthians 15 and Revlation 3:3 (NKJV).

Admittedly, I am not a theologian or a Biblical scholar, nor can I read Hebrew or Greek, but I simply can’t see the specificity of details you refer to. And I can’t help wondering why I haven’t encountered this information somewhere in church if it is sound doctrine. Another poster made reference to points similar to yours so I’d like to examine this more deeply.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I hate the song "Christmas Shoes".

So I don't listen to it.

I find a number of of Christmas song theologically problematical.

So I don't listen to them if I have a choice but do not have a hissy fit if they come on the radio or if they are played at someone else's house.

I suggest that those who have a problem with "Mary did you know?" should follow a similar path.

[editor-surveyor]

You can buy the JPS English translation, much of which is very close to what the KJV says, but there are some differences that do matter.

The best clue for Bible study in the KJV is to take a black pen and cross out the italicized words when you encounter them. They’re not all bad, but half of the erroneous stuff in the New Testament is in the italics. Those are words that were not in the “received text.”