Holy water isn't holy water unless blessed by a traditional priest?!

[DavidJoseph]

Ok, here’s something I hadn’t heard before until just the other night. I was told that in the new rite of blessing holy water, since prayers of exorcism aren’t used, then the water is really just blessed water and not holy water (strange, I thought anything blessed was, by definition, holy). The distinction was explained to me like this – when saying the blessing before meals, a priest may make the sign of the cross over the food and drink. Well, if the drink being served is water, then the water would become blessed, but that in itself wouldn’t make it holy water per se (one doesn’t drink holy water, after all). Of course, I realize there’s actually a special prayer for blessing holy water in the new rite (and not just merely making the sign of the cross over it), but I guess that’s beside the point right now. Anyway, I was also told that if exorcisms of people are performed, then even the most liberal bishops have been known to contact FSSP or other traditional priests in order to obtain “true” holy water to use during the course of the exorcisms.

So now I’m confused. I really have a hard time believing that, if I go to a Novus Ordo parish, that the water I dip my fingers in and cross myself with is somehow less holy than that blessed in a TLM parish. Also, the last time I refilled my holy water bottle, it was at a Novus Ordo parish. So the stuff in my holy water bottle isn’t all that holy???

I find these claims impossible to swallow, and some (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated. But please, I need EVIDENCE here and not glib statements like, “That’s just traditionalist propaganda.”

 

[redrosetea]

Its hogwash as far as I am concerned

 

[scriabin]

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Father_X.html

 

[scylla]

Its hogwash as far as I am concerned

Umm…

That is the same as saying
“That’s just traditionalist propaganda”
,it did make me smile

…
I do not have a response and I will read the article posted, yet I do believe the blessing a Priest would say over a meal is different from his blessing over water to make it Holy Water.

Yet it is an interesting thing to think about and look into. It is not like the formula is an infallible thing and they could have made a mistake, maybe the old formula is better, maybe the new one is. I will like to have some more posts as this is interesting to think about. Anyone who is more informed than I am, please post in this thread.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[scriabin]

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=298197&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=holy+water&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Check out the last two paragraphs of the priest’s answer.

 

[scriabin]

whoops, the last post said a priest replied-- it was one of EWTN’s respondents, not a priest.

Here’s what he said about different types/degrees of blessed objects:

A blessing is a conferral of good on a person or thing. In the natural order it is natural goods, thus Thanksgiving celebrates the bounty of the earth, a natural blessing of God for man. In the supernatural order it is a spiritual good. **The “good” or “blessing” received by an object is that its end or purpose is elevated. **Blessed objects are set apart from common use to sacred use (churches, bells, stone tables (i.e. altars), vessels paintings, statues, medals etc.). This is done by God and the Church, through the authority he gave the Church to act in His name. Christ came to redeem mankind, AND creation, from the power of the enemy. A blessing, like a baptism, sets something apart for the Kingdom of God.
Are there degrees of blessing? The Church recognizes two, simply blessings and solemn blessings (also called consecrations). Devotional objects receive a s(name removed by moderator)le blessing, objects such as churches and, in certain situations, people, are said to be consecrated (e.g. religious vows). All of these blessings are “sacramentals” (sacrament-like). In sacraments grace is conferred by virtue of a valid minister performing the sacramental rite with the proper intention. **In sacramentals, the reliance is on the prayer of the Church to God to do this or that. If the minister of the blessing speaks in the name of the Church, as a priest does when he blesses an object, then we can be also be certain that it is blessed. **We now use the object in our personal spiritual life, and the piety with which we do so “blesses” us in turn. The sacramental object becomes the occasion of our growth in devotion, and thus in grace.

Do the various formularies matter? There is a common appreciation (a sensus fidelium, if your will) among Catholics, including clergy, which I do not think can be totally dismissed. The Church has not ruled in the matter. However, **I think it can be considered on two levels - the authority **of the blessing and the content of the blessing. Since the authority of a valid blessing is the authority of the Church, exercised through the power of the keys, I do not beleive that there is an essential difference between blessings of a more simple and more elaborate character. An object is or is not set apart for spiritual purposes. So, the elaborateness would not seem to matter on that score. An object blessed simply with the sign of the Cross is still blessed. In that respect, as well, the blessing of any priest or bishop or pope is equivalent.

However, on secondary grounds, **what the praying Church asks of God to do with this object **beyond setting it apart (e.g. banish Satan or other specific intercessions), there would indeed seem to be a difference. God’s desires our specific prayers, as the whole history of spiritual theology teaches us. **What you don’t ask for you often do not get. **So, I think there is probably a benefit in a more elaborate ritual, as the common opinion that water blessed at the Easter Vigil is more powerful than Three Kings Water (water blessed on the Epiphany) is more powerful than ordinary holy water suggests.

It would seem that if the Church does not specifically ask for the benefits of exorcism while blessing an object, then the object in question would indeed be blessed-- but not necessarily with something the Church didn’t specifically ask for, in this case, exorcising power.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The water IS blessed
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[puzzleannie]

Ok, here’s something I hadn’t heard before until just the other night. I was told that in the new rite ."

blah blah blah

told by whom? if his name does not begin with B and end with 16, ignore him. by what authority does he claim to speak for the Catholic Church and decide what is a valid blessing and what is not.

 

[scylla]

It would seem that if the Church does not specifically ask for the benefits of exorcism while blessing an object, then the object in question would indeed be blessed-- but not necessarily with something the Church didn’t specifically ask for, in this case, exorcising power.

That does make sense, it would be blessed but not necessarily for the purpose of exorcism or so since the Priest did not ask for it we did not receive it.
Kind of like a Priest leaving out the words during the Mass and not consecrating the bread and wine, but just asking them to be Blessed.

I am not sure the Pope really comes into this unless he changes the prayer (decides to make an infallible pronouncement) as it is not an infallible decision to change the prayer over the water.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[catharina]

blah blah blah

told by whom? if his name does not begin with B and end with 16, ignore him. by what authority does he claim to speak for the Catholic Church and decide what is a valid blessing and what is not.

pa, as you do so often you’ve given a perfect response!

 

[AlexV]

Of course this problem might not arise if the new Benedictional didn’t work overtime to avoid saying “I bless” in almost all the new blessing prayers.

The Benedictional of 1984 is one of the most disastrous liturgical books ever published. However it does recommend singing a song for car blessings.

 

[moosears]

It is my understanding that the traditional blessing of holy water requires that salt that has been exorcised by a priest must be sprinkled into the water while the prayers of blessing are being said. I could be mistaken in this, but I have witnessed the blessing of holy water by a traditional priest many times and that seems to be standard procedure.

Of course the person who told you this should have provided some kind of solid evidence to prove his point. Without that I would not lose any sleep over it.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Once again, all together, say after me.

If the water is blessed by as deacon, priest or bishop, it it holy water.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[John_Higgins]

Deacons too, huh? I didn’t realize you could do it. Good.

John

 

[catharina]

Once again, all together, say after me.

If the water is blessed by as deacon, priest or bishop, it it holy water.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thank you, of course.

(Why do people decide to invest in imaginary “problems?”
Rumors breed rumors breed rumors, etc. - and who cares?)

 

[Dauphin]

Wouldn’t holy water that hasn’t been exorcised lack the power to “put to flight all the power of the enemy, and be able to root out and supplant that enemy and his apostate angels”?

If holy water isn’t exorcised in the new rite, it’s clearly lacking an important power.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Deacons too, huh? I didn’t realize you could do it. Good.

John

Anyone who is ordained can give a church blessing.

 

[scylla]

Once again, all together, say after me.

If the water is blessed by as deacon, priest or bishop, it it holy water.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I think we are all agree that it is blessed, I would certainly say it is blessed. I believe all faithful Catholics agree that it is blessed.
But, it is blessed differently.

I think the question is, does the difference matter and I have not seen any logical response against that. I have seen some very compelling points bringing up that there is a significant difference between the blessings and one seems clearly better than the other.

The comments brought up by the original poster now seem a little off, I would reject completely that the water isn’t blessed. Of course it is blessed but it is blessed differently, does that difference matter?

Scylla

 

[scriabin]

Originally Posted by Deacon Ed B
Once again, all together, say after me.

If the water is blessed by as deacon, priest or bishop, it it holy water.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

You are absolutely right, of course.

But the original post went further to imply that holy water–validly blessed by a deacon, priest, or bishop–**does not have **an exorcising power because the words of the blessing simply **does not ask for **that power.

A clearer title for his OP could have read: Does Holy Water still have exorcising power even though the current words of blessing doesn’t even ask for this power?

His title asks a questiion, his post asks another.

Since we all agree with you Deacon Ed that water validly blessed is Holy Water (the title question), could you go further and give us
your opinion (with reasons) on the post’s question–whether Holy water has a power which is not asked for in the words of blessing?

 

[scriabin]

(Why do people decide to invest in imaginary “problems?”
Rumors breed rumors breed rumors, etc. - and who cares?)

I couldn’t agree more. It seems this site has filled up with the most petty, ridiculous gnat straining; and I find myself coming here less and less often.

The title of the OP was silly. *Of course *water validly blessed by any priest, deacon, or bishop (traditional or not) becomes Holy Water; but the post was more nuanced than the title implied.

I’m sure you’d agree that a priest has the power and authority to say and do things that we as laypeople do not.

When a priest says these words in the sacrament of reconciliation–“Your sins are forgiven” then our sins are really, truly forgiven. The priest’s words have a spiritual authority and power to effect a spiritual reality.

At the end of Mass when the priest blesses us, we are truly spiritually blessed--it’s not some insipid platitude, although some priests say it as such.

If a priest blesses water using words that give it a power of exorcism—**then that water becomes Holy Water which has an ability to supernaturally (not superstitiously) protect us **from demons.

Why wouldn’t the converse be also true?

I don’t know, but I would like to hear reasons (pro and con) to this question.