Difficulty with the Fatima Prayer

[Blue_Horizon]

Recently a pilgrim to Fatima, I closely reflected on the associated prayers (there are 6 apparantly). I suddenly realised the theology of two of them seemed a bit strange.

Can someone perhaps explain if I have the following wrong somehow:
(1) The Angels Prayer:
“…By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary I beg the conversion of poor sinners.”

I am not aware that Mary’s perfect obedience earned “infinite merits” directly.
Obviously in aquiescing perfectly with the will of the Father she indirectly made possible the infinite merits earned by her Son. But much more than this is being said here.

(2) The Sacrifice Prayer:
“…in reparation for the offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary…”
This appears tantamount to the worship of a god. While I certainly understand and accept the devotion it does appear singularly poorly articulated at a theolofgical level. I accept that Mary is greatly pained by sins against her Son and the Church (the Body of Christ) but surely she would want us to do reparation wrt these (ie Christ) and thus releive her suffering in that way (who would not want to relieve her suffering). It does seem way over the top.

Perhaps the problem is with the translation into English?

 

[R_C]

(1) You have problems with the fact that the Immaculate Heart of Mary gains infinite merits before God? Then perhaps you don’t quite see that all the merits of the Sacred Heart of Christ flow through the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin. If the prayer disturbs you, don’t pray it; however, as far as I know, Holy Church has found it free of doctrinal error.

(2) “worship of a god”? You don’t seem to know what you are saying, or at least you don’t seem to understand the difference between latria and dulia. In short, this is yet another case of “scrupulous devotion” towards the Blessed Virgin, as defined by St. Louis Grignon de Montfort:

The Scrupulous devotees are those who fear to dishonour the Son by honouring the Mother, to abase the one in elevating the other. They are unwilling that we should speak so often of our Lady, and address ourselves so frequently to her.

These are the favourite sentences constantly in their mouths: 'To what end are so many chaplets, so many confraternities, and so many external devotions to the Blessed Virgin? There is much of ignorance in all this. It makes a mummery of our religion. Speak to us of those who are devout to Jesus Christ. We must have recourse to Jesus Christ; He is our only Mediator. We must preach Jesus Christ; this is the solid devotion.

There is some truth in what they say, but the inference they draw to prevent devotion to our Lady is very insidious. It is a subtle snare of the evil one under the pretext of promoting a greater good. For we never give more honour to Jesus than when we honour his Mother, and we honour her simply and solely to honour him all the more perfectly. We go to her only as a way leading to the goal we seek - Jesus, her Son.

The Church, with the Holy Spirit, blesses our Lady first, then Jesus, “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” Not that Mary is greater than Jesus, or even equal to him - that would be an intolerable heresy. But in order to bless Jesus more perfectly we should first bless Mary.

You perhaps do not seem to understand what it means to offend the Immaculate Heart of the Mother of Christ. Take it personally: would you be more offended if someone slaps you, or if someone slaps your mother because of you?

It makes perfect sense that God wants the Church to pray and do penance in reparation for the offences committed against Our Lady and most especially against her Immaculate Heart - for not only she is God’s mother, but she is our mother as well, since we are all members of one body, the body of Christ, the son of Mary, and we thus offend God himself when we do not honor our mother.

Surely the theological articulation can be richer and more profound. And there certainly are better writings that need to be found. However, the truth also is that the Holy Spirit reveals us new things throughout the ages, and the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is rather new, in a world (and in a Church) that is growing more and more lukewarm in her love towards Our Lady (despite the appearances).

Remember: it’s all about Christ. Each and every thing Holy Church does, each and every private revelation, each and every act of the communion of saints is “per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso”.

As far as I know, the highest tribute offered to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is the Consecration of Pope Pius XII of himself, of Holy Church, and of the whole world - renewed by himself as well as by Pope John Paul II.

Also, in 2010 Pope Benedict XVI specifically consecrated all priests to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

[edward_george]

Recently a pilgrim to Fatima, I closely reflected on the associated prayers (there are 6 apparantly). I suddenly realised the theology of two of them seemed a bit strange.

Can someone perhaps explain if I have the following wrong somehow:
(1) The Angels Prayer:
“…By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary I beg the conversion of poor sinners.”

I am not aware that Mary’s perfect obedience earned “infinite merits” directly.
Obviously in aquiescing perfectly with the will of the Father she indirectly made possible the infinite merits earned by her Son. But much more than this is being said here.

(2) The Sacrifice Prayer:
“…in reparation for the offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary…”
This appears tantamount to the worship of a god. While I certainly understand and accept the devotion it does appear singularly poorly articulated at a theolofgical level. I accept that Mary is greatly pained by sins against her Son and the Church (the Body of Christ) but surely she would want us to do reparation wrt these (ie Christ) and thus releive her suffering in that way (who would not want to relieve her suffering). It does seem way over the top.

Perhaps the problem is with the translation into English?

I must ask, if I offered to make reparation for having offended you, would you presume idolatrous worship directed toward you on my part?

-ACEGC

 

[Mark121359]

Recently a pilgrim to Fatima, I closely reflected on the associated prayers (there are 6 apparantly). I suddenly realised the theology of two of them seemed a bit strange.

Can someone perhaps explain if I have the following wrong somehow:
(1) The Angels Prayer:
“…By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary I beg the conversion of poor sinners.”

I am not aware that Mary’s perfect obedience earned “infinite merits” directly.
Obviously in aquiescing perfectly with the will of the Father she indirectly made possible the infinite merits earned by her Son. But much more than this is being said here.

(2) The Sacrifice Prayer:
“…in reparation for the offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary…”
This appears tantamount to the worship of a god. While I certainly understand and accept the devotion it does appear singularly poorly articulated at a theolofgical level. I accept that Mary is greatly pained by sins against her Son and the Church (the Body of Christ) but surely she would want us to do reparation wrt these (ie Christ) and thus releive her suffering in that way (who would not want to relieve her suffering). It does seem way over the top.

Perhaps the problem is with the translation into English?

The Church takes the investigation of apparitions very, very seriously. You can be sure that apparitions such as Lourdes and Fatima are authentic. Theologians look at every conceivable angle before they pronounce an apparition worthy of belief. This takes many, many years. I’m certain that every prayer that came from the Fatima apparition has been theologically disected six ways from Sunday to be sure that they are doctrinally sound. I would find it impossible that the Church would overlook anything let alone these prayers. Keep in mind that in the Lourdes apparition when Mary identified herself by saying “I am the Immaculate Conception” , this proclamation from the lips of the Blessed Virgin puzzled Father Peyramale the local parish priest involved in the investigation of the apparitions. How could Mary BE the Immaculate Conception, rather than just be immaculately conceived? What did this mean? And after looking carefully at it from every possible angle they concluded that The Holy Spirit designed Our Lady’s very nature in such a way that she could proclaim to St. Bernadette, “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Mary’s nature is so bound to her Immaculate Conception that it not only describes how she came into being but rather who she is in her very being… Just some thoughts.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

(1) You have problems with the fact that the Immaculate Heart of Mary gains infinite merits before God? …

Yes I believe it is difficult, theologically, to hold without qualification that a non-divine Person (i.e. a finite creature - even an Immaculate one fully responsive to the will of God) can gain infinite merit for humankind.

If this were true it would seem to destroy the logic of St Anselm’s theology of Satisfaction (an infinite offence by Adam required the infinite reparation that only the Man-God Jesus
could offer to the Father).

May I remind contributors that I have clearly stated I affirm the cultus and indeed observe it myself so would appreciate back-peddling on the indignation which sheds more heat than light.

I simply and sincerely point out that there is nominally a theological difficulty here which no one has really, to my mind, adequately explained as yet. Thanks.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Theologians look at every conceivable angle before they pronounce an apparition worthy of belief. This takes many, many years. I’m certain that every prayer that came from the Fatima apparition has been theologically disected six ways from Sunday to be sure that they are doctrinally sound. .

Thanks Mark. And I agree, of course they will have done that.
What I am asking for is not simply a reassurance of the fact (which I obviously accept) but an exposition of the theological reasoning for that conclusion - I have not found one to date. If you can offer sources I would be grateful.

… You can be sure that apparitions such as Lourdes and Fatima are authentic.

I think we need to be more nuanced here don’t we? “Worthy of belief” is not really, as far as I understand things, as strong as “authentic”. It is still private revelation not public revelation and the faithful are therefore not compelled to accept such “truths” even if they are consistent with Church Teaching.

I am trying to understand how the above is consistent with Church Teaching. I accept it is, so I am trying to find out where I am wrong (or maybe something has been “lost in translation” somewhere). Thanks.

 

[Edward_Henry]

(1) You have problems with the fact that the Immaculate Heart of Mary gains infinite merits before God? Then perhaps you don’t quite see that all the merits of the Sacred Heart of Christ flow through the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin. If the prayer disturbs you, don’t pray it; however, as far as I know, Holy Church has found it free of doctrinal error.

(2) “worship of a god”? You don’t seem to know what you are saying, or at least you don’t seem to understand the difference between latria and dulia. In short, this is yet another case of “scrupulous devotion” towards the Blessed Virgin, as defined by St. Louis Grignon de Montfort:

**The Scrupulous devotees are those who fear to dishonour the Son by honouring the Mother, to abase the one in elevating the other. They are unwilling that we should speak so often of our Lady, and address ourselves so frequently to her.

Wow, what a great answer! Yes Saint Louis DeMontfort did hit it on the nail!
Unfortunatelly, Our Lady will always be the target of the subtle attacks of ***“scupulous devotees”, ***if they are “devotees” at all.

I believe that their struggle comes from their inability to comprehend the wonderful mysterious meaning of Jesus’ words:

"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to the childlike." (Matthew 11: 25)

Devotion to His Mother is not for every one… but for the childlike

 

[Mark121359]

Wow, what a great answer! Yes Saint Louis DeMontfort did hit it on the nail!
Unfortunatelly, Our Lady will always be the target of the subtle attacks of ***“scupulous devotees”, ***if they are “devotees” at all.

I believe that their struggle comes from their inability to comprehend the wonderful mysterious meaning of Jesus’ words:

"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to the childlike." (Matthew 11: 25)

Devotion to His Mother is not for every one… but for the childlike

Amen! Well said!

 

[R_C]

Yes I believe it is difficult, theologically, to hold without qualification that a non-divine Person (i.e. a finite creature - even an Immaculate one fully responsive to the will of God) can gain infinite merit for humankind.

If this were true it would seem to destroy the logic of St Anselm’s theology of Satisfaction (an infinite offence by Adam required the infinite reparation that only the Man-God Jesus could offer to the Father).

You make a good point. I have a small anecdote: for a week or so I found an old Italian prayer card with the two prayers of the angel of Fatima, and of course yesterday night the translation caught my attention; in Italian, it reads as follows:

E per i meriti infiniti del suo Sacratissimo Cuore e per intercessione del Cuore Immacolato di Maria, ti chiedo la conversione dei poveri peccatori.

However, some sources do not have the “e per intercessione” And I cannot seem to find the original Portuguese prayer…I did find that there was some issue with the most notorious prayer, you know, the one we add to the Rosary…apparently the original prayer by Sr. Lucia would have been:

O meu Jesus, perdoai-nos e livrai-nos do fogo do inferno, levai as alminhas todas para o Ceu, principalmente aquelas que mais precisarem".

Thus a more accurate translation would read:

O my Jesus, forgive us and save us from the fire of Hell, lead all poor souls toward Heaven, especially those who are most in need.

The point here is not to say that the common translation is erroneous, but simply that we don’t quite seem to have a solid reference (Ex. on the website of the Holy See?) listing the original prayers in Portuguese and the official translations, so the prayers are not, strictly speaking, easily verifiable.

Your argument from a theological standpoint makes sense to me (then again, it’s not a great tribute I give you, since I am greatly ignorant on the topic!) so it is fairly possible that the original prayer did include the words “and through the intercession”, or at least that the infinite merits referred specifically to the Sacred Heart. However, I am still skeptical, for ultimately each and every merit that comes forth from Our Lady is only and solely through Christ. What I mean is somewhat related to the way we say that Holy Mass has an infinite value before God: although a creature, a man, celebrates it, this man acts in the person of Christ, and this is what gives the infinite value - no offering or sacrifice made by that man on his own would ever achieve such great merits before God’s eyes if it wasn’t through Christ.

But anyways I wouldn’t worry exceedingly on this topic: as I mentioned, scruples on offering “too much honor” to Mary do not do any good to the soul, though from the standpoint of someone who is serious in the study of theology they make sense in terms of understanding what is going on. I’ll see if I can find the original Portuguese prayers and maybe someone can help us with that.

 

[fred_conty]

Blue Horizon, you mentioned,
“…By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary I beg the conversion of poor sinners.”

If we turn over the miraculous medal, we will see two hearts, side by side, one of Jesus, and the other of Mary. They are together, where one is there is the other. The medal was designed and given to to St. Catherine Laboroue.

When the two hearts are combined, they are infinite because of Jesus. It doesn’t mean that Mary is infinite without her Son. But together, she has infinite merit, her son.

To be honest with you, I notice the same thing when I first read it. But then I noticed that it didn’t say that Mary had infinite merit by herself, but united with her son she has access to infinite merit.

From what the saints have said about their two hearts, I don’t know if it is possible to grasp the close union between Mary and Jesus it so bound over to love.

And so
“…in reparation for the offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary…”

What offends Mary offends Jesus. It may be that we are not as much aware of these offenses to Mary as we are to Jesus. One offense is the honor due to her is resisted or down sized or totally absent. Or hatred by some outside the church or disliked by those inside. But then this is another subject.

(the next part is not in response to you Blue Horizon, but rather just some thoughts.)
I believe that when fear overcomes our love for Jesus, this would offend him. We need to absolutely trust him in everything and anything that may come. Knowing that he only seeks and wants what is best for us. And when we don’t trust him any more when something just dosen’t suit us, that is offensive. We must trust him more than that, that his love for us goes deep and would not hurt us for anything.

Jesus sees this the same way with his mother. Why would anyone not trust Mary? Jesus loved her so very much and gave her to us as well to be our mother. And then arguements ensue. And I don’t think that sets well at all. Their hearts are one, there is no conflict of interest.

Just some thoughts to share.

 

[Mark121359]

I think we need to be more nuanced here don’t we? “Worthy of belief” is not really, as far as I understand things, as strong as “authentic”. It is still private revelation not public revelation and the faithful are therefore not compelled to accept such “truths” even if they are consistent with Church Teaching.

I’ve seen the term authentic used many times when describing Marian apparitions, by bishops and priests on EWTN and elsewhere. Just google it. The thing is, I trust the Church and her investigations. They leave no stone unturned. I trust the hierarchical authority of the Church on these apparitions just as I do on all other matters she makes pronouncements on. But I agree with you that it’s private revelation and not required by the faithful to believe. As far as Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe and a few others, I for one truly believe Our Lady did appear in these places knowing full well I’m probably not in the majority even among Catholics. We are taught to judge them by their fruits, and that’s how I treat them!.. From EWTN;…

Some Approved Marian Apparitions

The Church does not require belief in any apparition or other private revelation. However, she does exercise her maternal judgment for the protection of the faithful in declaring some apparitions to be inauthentic, others to be “worthy of belief.” Investigations into alleged apparitions are rigorous. The three which follow have been judged worthy of belief, and devotions related to them have been encouraged by the truth. Each has miracles associated with it which are unexplainable by the best scientists in the world, as testimony to its authenticity.

Lourdes

Our Lady appeared 18 times at Lourdes, in the Pyrenees mountains in southern France, in 1858, to Bernadette Soubirous, a fourteen year old peasant girl. A spring appeared there which feeds the baths at the shrine today. Many miraculous healings are reported from bathing in the waters. The fact that there is no spread of infection, even though no sanitary precautions are taken when people with all sorts of diseases take baths there, is a marvel in itself. Many miracles take place when the Blessed Sacrament passes in procession during the great pilgrimages. In passing, we notice that this fact testifies to the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist there, a Presence which only the Catholic Church has, and only the Catholic Church teaches. There is a medical bureau there, to which any qualified M. D. can come to check alleged cures. Early in this century, Dr. Alexis Carrel came to scoff, but was converted instead. The Church’s demands for checking and proof of alleged miracles are so stringent that in the more than a century since 1858 only a few more than 60 miracles have been approved. Madame Bire in 1908 came there, blind because her optic nerve was withered; she regained her sight when the Blessed Sacrament passed. But when the Doctors inspected her eyes, they found she was able to see even though the nerve was still withered–arranged, doubtless, to keep anyone from saying it was a case of suggestion. The nerve did recover within a few weeks.

Guadalupe

On December 9, 1531 an Aztec Indian, Juan Diego, saw the Virgin Mary near Mexico City. She put her image on his cloak, a cloak still to be seen in the great shrine of Guadalupe. The fiber of the cloak should have disintegrated in about 30 years, but is still sound. Scientific checks find that the process of impressing the image is nothing known to science. And there are images in the eyes of the picture of several persons, who probably were present when the image appeared. The images are threefold, just as they would be found in a living eye (following the Purkinje Sanson Law).

Fatima

Momentous for our own times is the shrine of Fatima Portugal, where Our Lady appeared 6 times to three small children, each less than 10 years of age. She asked for penance, the Rosary, and Immaculate Heart devotion, saying that on these conditions, God would keep Russia from spreading her errors throughout the world - this was said at a time when Russia was still greatly religious, under the Czar. The great miracle of the sun dancing on Oct 13, 1917 was seen by thousands, including nonbelievers. The clothing of all had been drenched from heavy rain, yet when the sun settled down again, all clothing was found to be dry. Hallucinations do not dry clothing.

 

[edward_george]

Yes I believe it is difficult, theologically, to hold without qualification that a non-divine Person (i.e. a finite creature - even an Immaculate one fully responsive to the will of God) can gain infinite merit for humankind.

If this were true it would seem to destroy the logic of St Anselm’s theology of Satisfaction (an infinite offence by Adam required the infinite reparation that only the Man-God Jesus
could offer to the Father).

May I remind contributors that I have clearly stated I affirm the cultus and indeed observe it myself** so would appreciate back-peddling on the indignation which sheds more heat than light.**

I simply and sincerely point out that there is nominally a theological difficulty here which no one has really, to my mind, adequately explained as yet. Thanks.

I apologize if my reply came off as indignant; it was meant to sound more Socratic than such.

-ACEGC

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…

However, some sources do not have the “e per intercessione” And I cannot seem to find the original Portuguese prayer…

The point here is not to say that the common translation is erroneous, but simply that we don’t quite seem to have a solid reference (Ex. on the website of the Holy See?) listing the original prayers in Portuguese and the official translations, so the prayers are not, strictly speaking, easily verifiable.

… possible that the original prayer did include the words “and through the intercession”, or at least that the infinite merits referred specifically to the Sacred Heart.

However, I am still skeptical, for ultimately each and every merit that comes forth from Our Lady is only and solely through Christ.

What I mean is somewhat related to the way we say that Holy Mass has an infinite value before God: although a creature, a man, celebrates it, this man acts in the person of Christ, and this is what gives the infinite value - no offering or sacrifice made by that man on his own would ever achieve such great merits before God’s eyes if it wasn’t through Christ.

… I’ll see if I can find the original Portuguese prayers and maybe someone can help us with that.

R_C
Thanks for this - a very sensible, balanced and insightful approach which traverses paths I have been suspecting - especially the translation one. I would be interested to hear back from you if you do discover any officially sanctioned original Portugese rendering of the prayer.

The analogy of a priest offering the sacrifice of the Mass is an interesting angle I had not considered as an implicit explanation. I am not sure how well it “ports” to Mary as Priests clearly carry out an “external” ritual action where it is somewhat obvious that they do not gain infinite merits for the People in their own person but in the Person of Christ. In the Fatima prayer the scenario is a bit different - it is hard to see it as speaking other than of Mary in her own unique personhood and life.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I apologize if my reply came off as indignant; it was meant to sound more Socratic than such.

-ACEGC

Thanks EG, no problem.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’ve seen the term authentic used many times when describing Marian apparitions, by bishops and priests on EWTN and elsewhere.

Mark I too believe those apparitions are authentic myself.

However when bishops and priests use that word (“authentic”) it seems they can only be doing so in a colloquial or personal way. The official Church, as far as my research indicates, simply does not make such positive judgments (“authentic”) regarding private revelation. “Worthy of belief” isn’t the opposite of “not authentic.” (Just as “not guilty” is not quite the same as “innocent”).