Can laity bless sacramentals?

[Jamma]

What blessings can the laity give then? Other than grace before meals and paren5s blessing children, of course.

 

[FrDavid96]

Are there any sacramentals that the laity can bless? What prayers are to be said then?

The answer to the question is “no.”

Because by the very definition of the words, a sacramental is something which has been blessed with a constitutive blessing. Only a priest (and sometimes but not always deacons) can bless sacramentals.

Can we still use objects which have not been blessed? Yes. Anyone can pick up a rosary and pray with it. Anyone can place a cross on the wall of a home. But only a cleric can bless a sacramental.

 

[Jamma]

The answer to the question is “no.”

Because by the very definition of the words, a sacramental is something which has been blessed with a constitutive blessing. Only a priest (and sometimes but not always deacons) can bless sacramentals.
.

But what I quoted in post 16…

 

[FrDavid96]

But what I quoted in post 16…

Yes. I believe I addressed that at the end of my long post from earlier today.

The key phrase in your original question is “bless sacramentals.” That makes the answer to the question “no.” If one changes the question, the answer might change.

When the Church says that laity can “preside at certain blessings” that phrase does not refer to actually blessing sacramentals.

Because baptism makes us participants in the Priesthood of Christ, anyone can use a Sacramental, for the most part (let’s not get silly here, we all know that only a prelate can use a crozier). Still, only a cleric can bless (constitutive) a sacramental.

When it comes to asking “who can bless a sacramental?” We can move to the more practical application of the question and look at the official rituals for blessing that the Church provides. When one looks at the Book of Blessings (so-called) and actually reads the individual texts, only clerics can bless sacramentals. Sometimes laity can say prayers over certain objects (a home advent wreath might be a good example here) but there is no constitutive blessing. That’s the important point: when laity preside at these prayers, there is a definite absence (intentionally removed, in fact) of a constitutive blessing.

 

[friardchips]

Lovely! Thank you for your time, Father David, for these thoughtful and clear descriptions.

So ‘blessing the Lord’ is rather ‘praising the Lord’ or a thanksgiving for the Lord’s creation from our praise to and for Him? Or it can be understood that way(?). I knew already that we don’t make God holier. But I know you were just explaining for the sake of being exacting and I have already assessed that not everyone is a Roman Catholic on this forum.

Regarding the priest’s position: is it not an authority a priest is blessed with by God at His ordination*, as opposed to being blessed with power? Because you did say that a constitutive blessing is an act that is carried out with the ‘authority of the Church’. So I would understand a priest to have no power but rather blessed with special authority, or responsibility? I would take it as being that the holier one is the more one understands oneself to be powerless but then God grants more power through the more one understands this in light of God - hence, the ultimate and holy sacrifice of a priest - taking the humblest part, being the servant of all, a slave of love - and in addition, if correct, isn’t it of paramount importance for a priest to recognise, not their ‘holiness’, but their ‘holy position’?

'When something is blessed by an invocative blessing, although we have invoked God, the object (or even person) is not permanently changed by that. On the other hand, a constitutive blessing does change it.’

However, to go a bit further in this discussion, could it be argued though that although you say something or someone is not permanently changed from a blessing invoked, if the power comes from God, then wouldn’t it be truer to say that the person or thing is not ‘guaranteed’ to be permanently changed from an invoked blessing? For example, if you were a Saint but not a priest, and you blessed someone, then, who is to say that from blessing, by invoking a blessing, this calling to God from your Saintly but not priestly heart might not stir God into permanently changing the disposition of the now-blessed person’s soul? Isn’t this what faith is? God said that if we had faith the size of a mustard seed then we could move mountains! Well, as far as I can see, it is faith in God that tells any person that their prayers will be heard. So from this reasoning don’t you think that the word ‘guaranteed’ should be inserted in the sentence written by you I quoted? (I do understand that you were stating things in the strictest sense to compare between different blessings).

Many thanks to you!*

 

[porthos11]

Thank you.

What blessings can the laity give then? Other than grace before meals and paren5s blessing children, of course.

Laity can bless people and items not particularly set aside for a holy purpose. Laity can preside over blessings of travellers, meetings, secular work equipment (farm, computers, etc.), items for daily use (cars), non-sacred places (workspaces, farms), harvest/produce, seeds, etc. In all cases, the laity does not invoke the blessing by making the sign of the Cross over the objects in the air, says prayers with hands joined and does not give clerical greetings to the people present (“The Lord be with you…” or “May the Lord bless you the Father…”).

 

[FrDavid96]

Lovely! Thank you for your time, Father David, for these thoughtful and clear descriptions.

So ‘blessing the Lord’ is rather ‘praising the Lord’ or a thanksgiving for the Lord’s creation from our praise to and for Him?

Yes. There are ample examples in Sacred Scripture where we read “Bless the Lord…”
That’s what we’re doing. We are thanking God, not making Him holy. It makes the point that “bless” has more than one meaning. That’s what we need to understand. Just because we use the word “bless” in different sentences, that does not mean that the word conveys the same meaning each time it’s used.

Regarding the priest’s position: is it not an authority a priest is blessed with by God at His ordination*, as opposed to being blessed with power*? Because you did say that a constitutive blessing is an act that is carried out with the ‘authority of the Church’. So I would understand a priest to have no power but rather blessed with special authority, or responsibility? I would take it as being that the holier one is the more one understands oneself to be powerless but then God grants more power through the more one understands this in light of God - hence, the ultimate and holy sacrifice of a priest - taking the humblest part, being the servant of all, a slave of love - and in addition, if correct, isn’t it of paramount importance for a priest to recognise, not their ‘holiness’, but their ‘holy position’?

It’s both power and authority. We don’t often like to use those words in English, but they are legitimate words. Can words like “ministry” be better sometimes? Yes. Not always.
In blessing a sacramental, the cleric acts with the authority & power of the Church, as a minister of the Church. It’s not about the personal holiness of the priest, but the holiness of the Body of Christ.

'When something is blessed by an invocative blessing, although we have invoked God, the object (or even person) is not permanently changed by that. On the other hand, a constitutive blessing does change it.

’

Yes.

However, to go a bit further in this discussion, could it be argued though that although you say something or someone is not permanently changed from a blessing invoked, if the power comes from God, then wouldn’t it be truer to say that the person or thing is not ‘guaranteed’ to be permanently changed from an invoked blessing? …

Yes. (including the part I removed just for brevity’s sake)

 

[FrDavid96]

Laity can bless people and items not particularly set aside for a holy purpose. Laity can preside over blessings of travellers, meetings, secular work equipment (farm, computers, etc.), items for daily use (cars), non-sacred places (workspaces, farms), harvest/produce, seeds, etc. In all cases, the laity does not invoke the blessing by making the sign of the Cross over the objects in the air, says prayers with hands joined and does not give clerical greetings to the people present (“The Lord be with you…” or “May the Lord bless you the Father…”).

None of these are constitutive blessings. They are rather prayers over the object (or person).

Again, we look to the rubrics in the Book of Blessings. A cleric blesses something. When the rubric describes a layperson acting, the language changes to “says the prayer.”

For example, blessing of a vehicle #868

“A minister who is a priest or deacon says the prayer of blessing with hands outstretched; a lay minister says the prayer with hands joined.”

Note the important (indeed essential) distinction there. A cleric says the “prayer of blessing” while a lay person says “the prayer.”

That’s not an accident. It’s intentional and it’s consistent throughout the Book of Blessings. When a lay person presides, it’s not a blessing (not a constitutive one), but a prayer. It is invocative, but it is not constitutive. The car is not now a “blessed car” but rather it’s a car “over which a prayer has been said.”

Can we use the word “blessing” in the most generic sense here? Yes, we can. And that’s the sense that Vatican II uses–a very general, non-specific use of the word.

 

[friardchips]

Yes. There are ample examples in Sacred Scripture where we read “Bless the Lord…”
That’s what we’re doing. We are thanking God, not making Him holy. It makes the point that “bless” has more than one meaning. That’s what we need to understand. Just because we use the word “bless” in different sentences, that does not mean that the word conveys the same meaning each time it’s used.

It’s both power and authority. We don’t often like to use those words in English, but they are legitimate words. Can words like “ministry” be better sometimes? Yes. Not always.
In blessing a sacramental, the cleric acts with the authority & power of the Church, as a minister of the Church. It’s not about the personal holiness of the priest, but the holiness of the Body of Christ.

Yes.

Yes. (including the part I removed just for brevity’s sake)

Understood! Thank you very much for your replies!

 

[porthos11]

None of these are constitutive blessings. They are rather prayers over the object (or person).

Again, we look to the rubrics in the Book of Blessings. A cleric blesses something. When the rubric describes a layperson acting, the language changes to “says the prayer.”

For example, blessing of a vehicle #868

“A minister who is a priest or deacon says the prayer of blessing with hands outstretched; a lay minister says the prayer with hands joined.”

Note the important (indeed essential) distinction there. A cleric says the “prayer of blessing” while a lay person says “the prayer.”

That’s not an accident. It’s intentional and it’s consistent throughout the Book of Blessings. When a lay person presides, it’s not a blessing (not a constitutive one), but a prayer. It is invocative, but it is not constitutive. The car is not now a “blessed car” but rather it’s a car “over which a prayer has been said.”

Can we use the word “blessing” in the most generic sense here? Yes, we can. And that’s the sense that Vatican II uses–a very general, non-specific use of the word.

And that’s the same sense I use the word “blessing”. Yes, a layman’s “blessing” is nowhere near the priestly blessing.

 

[Jamma]

Thank you, FrDavid. I have just one more question, which I will post here with7n a few days.

 

[Jamma]

This is my question.

Blessed are you, Lord, all-powerful God,who in Christ, the living water of salvation,blessed and transformed us.Grant that when we are sprinkled with this wateror make use of it,we will be refreshed inwardly by the powerof the Holy Spiritand continue to walk in the new lifewe received at Baptism.We ask this though Christ our Lord.**R. Amen

.or

Lord, holy Father,look with kindness on your childrenredeemed by your Sonand born to a new life by water and the Holy Spirit.Grant that those who are sprinkled with this watermay be renewed in body and spiritand may make a pure offering of their service to you.We ask this through Christ our Lord.R. Amen.

isnt the new rite of blessing water invocative as opposed to constitutive?

 

[FrDavid96]

This is my question.isnt the new rite of blessing water invocative as opposed to constitutive?

Can you be more specific about which rite you mean?

There’s a rite of blessing water in the Book of Blessings, and there’s a rite for the sprinkling at Mass (Penitential Rite option), and then there are the rites at the Easter Vigil, and others in the rituals of Baptism (still more in the different forms of RCIA). There are all different rites out there.

 

[Jamma]

Can you be more specific about which rite you mean?

There’s a rite of blessing water in the Book of Blessings, and there’s a rite for the sprinkling at Mass (Penitential Rite option), and then there are the rites at the Easter Vigil, and others in the rituals of Baptism (still more in the different forms of RCIA). There are all different rites out there.

The New, Latin rite, rite of blessing water outside of Mass.

For your benefit, I have quoted the prayers used in my previous post.

 

[FrDavid96]

The New, Latin rite, rite of blessing water outside of Mass.

For your benefit, I have quoted the prayers used in my previous post.

I still don’t know exactly which one you mean.

There are several rites for blessing water outside of Mass. If you tell me exactly which one you mean, I can try to answer.

 

[Jamma]

I still don’t know exactly which one you mean.

There are several rites for blessing water outside of Mass. If you tell me exactly which one you mean, I can try to answer.

The ones I quoted in post 32. Actually, the first and second ones of the three.

And would it be rude of me to ask you to post here as well,

Pax Christi and thanks in advance.

 

[FrDavid96]

The ones I quoted in post 32. Actually, the first and second ones of the three.

And would it be rude of me to ask you to post here as well,

Pax Christi and thanks in advance.

OK. Now I understand. I simply wasn’t seeing it. Post 32. I’ll look it over and post a response shortly…

 

[FrDavid96]

This is my question.isnt the new rite of blessing water invocative as opposed to constitutive?

In my opinion, there’s no blessing there.

For that reason, I don’t use that particular rite (either variation).

I’m not even sure I’d call it invocative, since it invokes nothing over the water itself.

See the Decree that I quoted in this post

A DECREE FOR THE CITY AND THE WORLD
…

In short, the Congregation admits that most of the Book of Blessings does not actually contain any blessings, and the priest (or deacon) is instructed to supply the missing blessing.

 

[Jamma]

In my opinion, there’s no blessing there.

For that reason, I don’t use that particular rite (either variation).

I’m not even sure I’d call it invocative, since it invokes nothing over the water itself.

See the Decree that I quoted in this post

In short, the Congregation admits that most of the Book of Blessings does not actually contain any blessings, and the priest (or deacon) is instructed to supply the missing blessing.

Thank you again.