In its comment on Matthew 24:36, the second edition of the The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible reads:
The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - Matthew 24:36
24:36 nor the Son, but the Father: This saying is comparable to 20:23, where Jesus says that the Father, not the Son, makes royal appointments of rank. Here also only the Father appoints the time of the Son's royal return in glory. Christ's professed ignorance of this day and hour may be understood as hyperbole (overstatement), a teaching device used by Jewish rabbis and Jesus himself (5:34; 23:9; Lk 14:26).
Tradition maintains that Jesus' apparent ignorance is not a literal statement, but a figurative expression; for the Father and the Son share everything in common, including their divine knowledge: 11:27; Jn 3:35; 10:15; 17:25. Here Jesus does not display any human knowledge of the time when the Father will send the Son to judge all nations, because this mystery lies beyond the scope of what the Father intends the Son to reveal (CCC 472-74).
Above, the Ignatius Commentary apparently interprets Jesus stating that He does not know the day or the hour of His second coming as Him saying that He will not display that knowledge, which He does in fact have, which would be in accordance with the traditional understanding of this verse, and its parallel in Mark 13:32.
The commentary states that Jesus was using "hyperbole (overstatement)" in professing that He did not know the day or the hour. However, if Jesus actually did know in His divine nature, as the traditional interpretation holds, then this would not be hyperbole. This would be Him using the term "know" in other than its normal meaning, which is different from making a hyperbolic statement. If the passage stated that "no one knows", but in reality, 10 people knew, then that would be an instance of hyperbole. Instead, Jesus is saying that He does not know, but the traditional interpretation holds that He actually does know, but essentially means "declare" when he says "know".
However, the actual passage in question prevents this type of redefinition of the word "know". There is nothing in the context to indicate that when Jesus says He does not "know" that He means anything other than "lack knowledge of", and everything in the context instead supports that it does mean "lack knowledge of". This is clearest in the account given in Mark, especially:
Mark 13:32-33
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
Here, "know" would have meant "have knowledge of" to the audience hearing the Lord speak. There is no reason to expect that they would have interpreted Jesus saying that He did not "know" to mean "He did know, but did not declare", or that "only" the Father knowing, as it says in the Matthew account, actually meant "the Father declares", or, "the Father and Son know". In context, "know" means "have knowledge of".
This passage, then, is a counterexample to the traditional doctrine which states, as the commentary says, "the Father and the Son share everything in common, including their divine knowledge". Biblically, that is not true, and this passage demonstrates that Jesus and the Father do not share the same knowledge, because they are distinct Beings.