New book of blessings

[moderate_trad]

I’ve recently read on Fr. Z.'s blog that the new book of blessings is badly written; in fact he recommends that when having one’s Rosary blessed that the priest use the old blessing (the current book has an option for the old blessing). I’m a little concerned by this. What is the difference between the blessings in the old and the new books? When I’ve had an OF priest bless my Rosary he’s usually made the sign of the cross over it or touched it and said something to the effect of: “May the Lord bless this Rosary and all who use it with true devotion.” I’ve also had this done for a Miraculous Medal. How does this differ from the old rite? I’m also a little concerned b/c I’d like to have my apartment blessed, but I’d like the priest to bless my apartment in the old rite.

 

[FrDavid96]

First of all, we need to put things into context. Let’s stick with only non-liturgical blessings–that is, those that are not part of the public liturgy of the Church. By that I mean, blessing persons or things, but outside of the Mass, other Sacraments, and what we might call other “official” blessings (new church building, church bell, chalices, etc); Since what you’re asking about are non-liturgical blessings. Liturgical blessings must follow the rite that the Church provides.

A priest can always compose his own prayer of blessing in non-liturgical circumstances, and indeed priests always have. The Roman Ritual contains many such blessings which had been gathered from various sources around the world, and over the centuries these were compiled into that book, along with liturgical blessings, Even the blessings in the Roman Ritual could be taken as “suggested texts” and sometimes these varried from one printing to another, or were translated differently from the original language–which was not always Latin. Let’s say that a priest wanted a blessing of widgets. The Roman Ritual might contain 3 options for “blessing of widgets” One from a monastery in Spain, another from a cathedral in Germany, and another for use on the feast day of the patron saint of widgets, which was traditionally used in Poland. All of these were composed locally and eventually found their way into the Roman Ritual. Hopefully, that will put things into context: Non-liturgical blessings could be, and were, composed locally. The “form” of the Church had to be used, but the words could be composed. See this link sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/47a-blessings-and-other-sacramentals-general-rules.html

Saying that a priest may compose his own words is, naturally, not the same as saying “anything goes” or “anything suffices.” A blessing should sound like a blessing.

The “Roman Ritual” has been replaced by the “Book of Blessings” and the many “Rites” books. The Roman Ritual always had the words “…bless this widget…” That may sound painfully obvious, but please read on.

Here is one of the many options in the Roman Ritual for blessing a rosary:
To the honor and glory of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and in memory of the mysteries of the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, may these rosaries be blessed and hallowed +; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/60-blessings-formerly-reserved-to-religious-orders.html #36
Note the words “may these rosaries be blessed and hallowed”

The reason why the new “Book of Blessings” is so often controversial is elementary: The words of blessing have been omitted. That’s right, you read that correctly, the words of blessing have been omitted; at least when it comes to blessing objects (as opposed to people).

I cannot say that I have read every page of the book, but every blessing which I have seen lacks an actual blessing. When I was first ordained, I often used this book when asked to bless something. I kept thinking to myself “the blessing is here somewhere” or “I can’t be finished yet, because I haven’t blessed the thing”. It took me a while to finally understand that it wasn’t the fact that I had missed something, but that something wasn’t there in the text.

The typical words “…bless this…” were replaced with “…bless those who look/use this widget…” in the new Book of Blessings. In other words, there is no invocation which actually blesses the thing to be blessed (and after all, that is the whole point of having something blessed, no?). In the Book of Blessings, there is apparently an option in number 1462 which does say “may this…and the one who uses it be blessed” (source: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3206121&postcount=5)

I cannot look up the blessing of a rosary in the new BB, because I simply have stopped using it. I have a copy in the sacristy “just in case” but since the Roman Ritual is available both online and it’s been re-printed and readily available, I use that Ritual exclusively for blessings.

If the priest did what you described in your post, the rosaries and medals were indeed blessed.

As for blessing your home, since this is what you want (after all, that’s what you said), I would suggest that you either print-out the blessing of a home from the Roman Ritual ( sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/51-blessings-of-places-not-designated-for-sacred-purposes.html ), or ask the priest to do so using the actual Roman Ritual. If he doesn’t have a copy, and there is none at the church, well, they make great gifts! (sorry, had to get that in there!)

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The priest who blessed our home did use a book (no idea which one) and followed the prayers in it. I know he actually blessed the house, because I heard him say things like “bless this bedroom and those who will rest here”. This was almost 20 years ago so I can’t tell you exactly what he said (and actually since we ate the top of the wedding cake and drank champagne right after the bessing, I probably couldn’t have told you then either! )

When I’ve had objects blessed–rosaries, crucifixes, etc. The priest just made up the blessing on the spot or had something memorized because no books were involved. The only exception has been our scapulars, because the priest followed the prayers for enrolling us.

 

[moderate_trad]

Thank you for your answers. Another couple of questions, if anyone can answer them for me: a) Does there have to be holy water sprinkled on and/or a sign of the cross made over the object for it to be truly blessed (one time a priest said the blessing over a Rosary and then told me to dip it in the holy water font); b) is there anything controversial about the new scapular/Miraculous Medal enrollment?; I received my 1st Holy Communion in 1983 and am wondering about the enrollment done for me.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Fr. David,

Do you think the shift in theology on blessings was motivated by a spirit of ecumenism?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David,

Do you think the shift in theology on blessings was motivated by a spirit of ecumenism?

Wow! Well, that’s a question that I’m going to approach with extreme caution, because I’m in no position to judge the motivation of those who composed the prayers.

Without attempting to determine anyone’s motivation, I can make some observations.

Yes, I do think that the end result is more “ecumenical” in the sense that the prayers are more generic, and have certainly lost much of the Catholic “character” of the blessings. There is a certain sense of sacramentality which has been lost. The older blessings say things like “bless this creature, widget, the work of your hands…” There is, without any doubt, more of a sense of understanding that physical objects can and do become holy things, and they are a gift from God.

In the Roman Ritual, we see much more of an emphasis on Salvation History, especially references to biblical events (Old and New Testaments). The blessing of boats for example recalls Noah and Peter. While we do indeed see these references in the new book, they just aren’t emphasised the way they are in the RR.

The RR invokes the protection of the angels and saints more often than the BB. The RR speaks much more of protecting the object and persons from the wiles of the devil and her minions–we don’t see much of that in the new BB–although I will admit that sometimes the RR does a little too much of this.

In contrast, what we see in the new BB is much more emphasis on people. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that in itself–of course not. What I mean is that as I browse the book (and again, I don’t have one handy here), I notice that there is more emphasis on the “introductions” which is a sort of mini-homily on what is happening. Often, these introductions are actually longer than the prayer of “blessing” itself. It does put more emphasis on the “preaching” aspect, and less on the ritual, so in that sense, it has become less “Catholic” because it is less sacramental. Ritual and sacramentality are after all, part of what defines the Catholic faith, and distinguishes Catholicism from many other forms of Christianity.

As I said in the earlier post, most of these “blessings” of objects put more emphasis on the persons who will be using or seeing the thing, and less on the thing-to-be-blessed. The words “bless this…” simply are not there in the text, and there’s no getting around that part. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with asking God’s blessings upon the people who will use something (the RR certainly does a lot of that), but still the total absence of words to bless the object is a little too obvious, in my opinion, and I’m not alone in that. Was someone trying to say that we can’t have blessed objects? I don’t know, but I do think that would be stretching things just a little too much, so I doubt that this was the intention. Regardless of intention, though, the effect is still there.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Father.

I’m glad there are Priests who use the Roman RItual in lieu of the Book of Blessings.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Some extracts from the Decree at the front of the Book of Blessings:
“… In ordering the reform of sacramentals, Vatican Council II decreed that in their celebration special attention should be given to the full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful and that any elements should be eliminated that in the course of time had obscured the true nature and purpose of sacramentals. …
Complying with the conciliar decrees, this Congregation for Divine Worship has prepared a new title for the Roman Ritual, which, by apostolic authority, John Paul II has approved and ordered to be published.
Therefore by order of the Pope the Congregation now publishes the Book of Blessings. The Latin edition becomes effective as soon as it is published. Once the conference of bishops has prepared a vernacular edition and the translation has been reviewed by the Apostolic See, this edition becomes effective on the date to be decreed by the conference of bishops.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Congregation for Divine Worship, 31 May 1984. …”
(Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8, page xxi).

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Some extracts from the Decree at the front of the Book of Blessings:
“… In ordering the reform of sacramentals, Vatican Council II decreed that in their celebration special attention should be given to the full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful and that any elements should be eliminated that in the course of time had obscured the true nature and purpose of sacramentals. …
Complying with the conciliar decrees, this Congregation for Divine Worship has prepared a new title for the Roman Ritual, which, by apostolic authority, John Paul II has approved and ordered to be published.
Therefore by order of the Pope the Congregation now publishes the Book of Blessings. The Latin edition becomes effective as soon as it is published. Once the conference of bishops has prepared a vernacular edition and the translation has been reviewed by the Apostolic See, this edition becomes effective on the date to be decreed by the conference of bishops.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Congregation for Divine Worship, 31 May 1984. …”
(Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8, page xxi).

So is the Book of Blessing suppose to take the place of the RR? Or does this just mean it’s effective as of '84 and you can use either? I know there’s quite a few Priests who opt to use the RR - and these aren’t TLM-only Priests.

Edited: Just took a look at Fr. Z’s blog - Summorum Pontificum allows it.

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/quaeritur-use-of-the-traditional-rituale-romanum/

 

[FrDavid96]

So is the Book of Blessing suppose to take the place of the RR? Or does this just mean it’s effective as of '84 and you can use either? I know there’s quite a few Priests who opt to use the RR - and these aren’t TLM-only Priests.

Edited: Just took a look at Fr. Z’s blog - Summorum Pontificum allows it.

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/quaeritur-use-of-the-traditional-rituale-romanum/

In one sense, yes. In another sense, no.

The Roman Ritual contains both liturgical rituals (sacraments, and “official” blessings as I explained earlier) and non-liturgical blessings. The Sacraments themselves were replaced by the various Sacrament Rite books; individual books for the sacraments, and also the “big orange” Rites books. So in this sense, these books replaced the Roman Ritual. In other words, one book (actually one 4-volume book) was officially replaced by several different books. That’s a very important point because the Book of Blessings contains mostly blessings that can be composed on a local level. Those that cannot be changed have been “moved” to other books.

On the other hand, for non-liturgical blessings, such as an informal blessing of a rosary, or the blessing of a car, or the blessing of a home, yes, the Book of Blessings replaced what was found in the Roman Ritual as the official texts for these blessings. The key word is “official.” There is (and never was) any outright requirement to use the new BB. Even the BB allows for the texts to be changed as pastoral circumstances suggest. Many of the “blessings” in the book say “these or similar words” which clearly indicates that the words may be changed. If a priest chooses to change the words (as the official book clearly allows) to the words which were already approved for the Church’s use, there is nothing wrong with that.

There is no doubt that the new Book of Blessings is the official ritual book for blessings. The point to be remembered however is that for most of these blessings, the texts themselves are optional. They are suggestions. In some cases, using the Roman Ritual would not be allowed. Examples of this would include the Sacraments. For the subject at hand however, the blessing of a rosary, there is and never was any requirement that the text in the BB must be used. Keep in mind that such a requirement did not even exist when the Roman Ritual was the single official text for blessings.

Of course, with regard to the Sacraments, this changed under Pope Benedict. As we all know, he has granted the use of the older ritual for most of the Sacraments (offhand, I think ordination might be the one exception, but I’m not certain). So therefore, the Roman Ritual is once again restored as the official text of the Church with regard to these Sacraments. I make generous use of the Pope’s permission and I use the Roman Ritual for Unction exclusively–and my parishioners are very grateful for that fact. I only did one baptism, and that was a unique circumstance because I was covering another parish and didn’t know that the pastor expected me to do a baptism when I was covering his Mass. He left me a note, but no ritual book, so I went to my car and all I had was the RR.

Use of the Roman Ritual is not always appropriate. There is an entire volume of exorcisms, which the average priest is no longer permitted to perform. I suppose that other more solemn blessings, like the consecration of a Church would also be completely replaced by the Book of Blessings. I suppose that if a bishop wanted to use the older text, he would first consult Rome, and I would not be surprised if they replied by saying that it could be used–but that’s just speculation.

It really depends upon the circumstances and just what/who is being blessed. The Book of Blessings is the official text, but that’s not the same as saying that it must always be used.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Fr. David,

Thank you for taking the time to post the information you did. I appreciate your insight.