Can the laity bless rosaries and holy water?

[puzzleannie]

so, parents could actually baptize their own children?

Interesting.

no only in case of emergency, a child in immediate danger of death

which is much more than a blessing with holy water

OP did not ask about baptism, or using holy water, or blessing one’s children, but specifically about blessing the water to make it holy, or blessing objects. Only a priest or deacon can do bless water to make it holy and bless sacramentals.
Lay people can do the blessings, or participate in blessings, which are proper to their state, for instance, a parent blessing a child, or participating in some of the RCIA rites.

 

[puzzleannie]

It’s interesting that as an Extraordinary Minister, I am permitted to bless the children of communicants, but not their rosaries.

this is not part of the communion rite and should not be done at all, and may not be done by lay ministers of communion.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Matthew,

I understand what you are saying. For the baptism rite to be celebrated licitly, the minister must be a priest or deacon. I also understand that, typically, the only extraordinary circumstance “of necessity” would be a near death situation (otherwise, the recipient of baptism could be brought to an ordinary minister, or the ordinary minister could be brought to the recipient). However, that is not the only circumstance.

In fact, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concillium, says the following:

1. The baptismal rite should contain variants, to be used at the discretion of the local ordinary, for occasions when a very large number are to be baptized together. Moreover, a shorter rite is to be drawn up, especially for mission lands, to be used by catechists, but also by the faithful in general when there is danger of death, and neither priest nor deacon is available.

Note that it gives two circumstances where this shorter rite is to be used:

1. 
   *]Mission lands, to be used by catechists
   *]By the faithful in general when there is danger of death, and neither priest nor deacon is available
   
   The first bullet is why chapter 4 exists in the “Rite of Baptism for Children” book:
   i.imm.io/cjRx.png
   You will, of course, note that Chapter 4 is distinct from Chapter 5 (“in danger of death”)
   
   More importantly, though, is the fact that none of the above impacts the validity of baptism. If the proper form (Trinitarian formula) and matter (water) are used. along with the proper intent, the baptism is valid, regardless of whether canon law is followed, the rite is used, or any other criteria. Else why would the Church accept baptisms by non-Catholics?

1. 
   In case of necessity refers to danger-of-death situations. I should not baptise my newly born niece. She should be baptised by a bishop, priest, or deacon and preferably by her parents’ parish priest (called pastor in North America).
   
   Of course, the Church makes provisions in missionary areas due to a shortage of sacred ministers. Likewise, in mission lands the Church delegates lay persons to assist at marriages. This is a particular provision for the circumstances of those places.
   
   In the parts of the world where there is an established hierarchy the sacred ministers are the ordinary, and usual, ministers of baptism except in near death situations.
   
   While it would be a valid baptism carried out by Muslim neighbour who had the correct intent and used the correct matter and form, the Church expects in most circumstances that the proper full liturgy of the Church is used for Her sacraments and not just the bare essentials required for validity.

 

[markomalley]

In case of necessity refers to danger-of-death situations. I should not baptise my newly born niece. She should be baptised by a bishop, priest, or deacon and preferably by her parents’ parish priest (called pastor in North America).

Of course, the Church makes provisions in missionary areas due to a shortage of sacred ministers. Likewise, in mission lands the Church delegates lay persons to assist at marriages. This is a particular provision for the circumstances of those places.

In the parts of the world where there is an established hierarchy the sacred ministers are the ordinary, and usual, ministers of baptism except in near death situations.

While it would be a valid baptism carried out by Muslim neighbour who had the correct intent and used the correct matter and form, the Church expects in most circumstances that the proper full liturgy of the Church is used for Her sacraments and not just the bare essentials required for validity.

I guess that means we’re in violent agreement.

But now that we’ve established that we agree on validity (and are distinguishing between validity and liceity), back to the original topic: laity attempting to bless physical objects to be used as sacramentals. Will we agree that such a blessing is simply invalid?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I guess that means we’re in violent agreement.

But now that we’ve established that we agree on validity (and are distinguishing between validity and liceity), back to the original topic: laity attempting to bless physical objects to be used as sacramentals. Will we agree that such a blessing is simply invalid?

Yes, I agree with you. Lay persons should not bless religious objects.

 

[Tigg]

jimrob;8632092:

It’s interesting that as an Extraordinary Minister, I am permitted to bless the children of communicants, but not their rosaries.

**Actually, as an EMHC, you are not permitted to bless anyone, nor to give the impression of giving a blessing. ** (emphasis mine)

catholicanada.com/catholic-news/priests-usa/29068-d-of-madisons-newspapers-explanation-of-emhcs-giving-blessings-as-if-they-were-priests.html

Many thanks for this link……I’d already saved the letter responding to the private query, but had not seen this particular article before. It’s fuel against my fight of this abuse which is being allowed in our parish by our pastor. What’s a good Catholic to do???

 

[thistle]

Yes?

Definitely NO!

 

[Spirithound]

so, parents could actually baptize their own children?

Well yes, but this hadn’t been addressed yet. Baptisms need not use holy water.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

so, parents could actually baptize their own children?

Could they baptise their own children as in can they physically do so. Yes, obviously, they can.

Could parents baptise their own children as in should they. No, absolutely not except in danger-of-death circumstances. Children should be baptised by a sacred minister and preferably by the parish priest (called pastor in some countries).

 

[Leon_Bloy]

In the older form (prayer) of the blessing of holy water, the priest prays in Latin that “whatever this water sprinkles in the homes of the faithful…” It was - and is - highly encouraged that lay people should take home holy water to put in fonts in their homes and to use devoutly and piously to bless themselves.

There is also a distinction between “invocative” and “constitutive” blessings. An invocative blessing asks for God’s blessing upon a person (“may God bless…”). A constitutive one makes a thing intrinsically holy, so to speak. Lay people may not perform constitutive blessings under any circumstances at all. If they tried to - as in, if they read the prayer the priest is supposed to use and made the sign of the cross over the thing, i.e. rosary - then nothing would happen.

Parents have always been able to bless their children, though. But just parents, of their own children.

The blessing a priest gives - at the end of mass, for example - is a special blessing that he is giving as if he were Christ, in the name of the Church, so it actually imparts real graces that I can’t (as a lay person) give you by simply saying “may God bless you.”

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

so, parents could actually baptize their own children?

Interesting.

Technically anyone can baptize someone in an emergency as long as they use water (doesn’t have to be holy water), the proper form, and pour the water over the person’s head while reciting the proper form.