Old Rite/New Rite Blessings Question

[jtodisco]

Is it ok for me to request that my parish priest use blessings from the old rite to bless some sacramentals of mine?

I know that whether the priest uses the old or the new rite blessings that these objects will be blessed, but I would prefer it if the old blessings were used. I have printed out copies of the blessings to make things more convenient for him if he agrees to use them.

 

[YoungTradCath]

If you want and the priest agrees, certainly this can 100% be done.

 

[FrDavid96]

Is it ok for me to request that my parish priest use blessings from the old rite to bless some sacramentals of mine?

I know that whether the priest uses the old or the new rite blessings that these objects will be blessed, but I would prefer it if the old blessings were used. I have printed out copies of the blessings to make things more convenient for him if he agrees to use them.

Good question.

If the blessing itself is a reserved blessing—meaning one that only certain priests could give (such as one reserved to priests of a given religious order), it’s ambiguous because the lifting of such reservations took effect after 1962. According to Ecclesia Dei, the Roman Ritual may be used, but only (and very specifically) following the rubrics as they existed in 1962. Strictly speaking, if a blessing was reserved in 1962, it remains so today----in the Extraordinary Form. Keep reading, please…
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

However, according to the present discipline (namely the Book of Blessings of 1989) a priest can almost always use “these or similar words” in a blessing. Therefore, if the priest were to act from the perspective of performing an Ordinary Form blessing using “similar words” and those words just happen to be read from the 1962 Roman Ritual, then it would be perfectly legitimate.

Given that we’ve had 35 years of the Book of Blessings (so called, even though there are scant few actual blessings in the book, as even the Congregation for Divine Worship admits openly in a 2002 Decree notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/pdf/aas-2002-684-684.pdf) and in those 35 years (see Canon 26), it has become more than customary for priests to say just about whatever they like when performing a blessing, it is perfectly reasonable for a priest in the Ordinary Form to bless sacramentals using the words printed in the 1962 Roman Ritual.

 

[tawny]

Is it ok for me to request that my parish priest use blessings from the old rite to bless some sacramentals of mine?

I know that whether the priest uses the old or the new rite blessings that these objects will be blessed, but I would prefer it if the old blessings were used. I have printed out copies of the blessings to make things more convenient for him if he agrees to use them.

There is no harm in asking. If he agrees, all the better.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m re-thinking the earlier post.

While I have no doubt that the priest could use the words of the 1962 Roman Missal, I’m re-considering the “reserved blessings” part.

The lifting of those reservations was a disciplinary matter, not a matter of rubrics or of the words of the rites. Summorum Pontificum states that the rubrics and words of 1962 apply, but the discipline of the 1983 Code still applies to the Extraordinary Form (for example, at an Extraordinary Form Mass, the Communion fast is 1-hour, not the earlier 3-hour or from-midnight).

So, the actual faculties to bless would apply because the 1983 Code allows priests to bless anything unless reserved to the Pope or bishops.

Can. 1169 §1. Those marked with the episcopal character and presbyters permitted by law or legitimate grant can perform consecrations and dedications validly.
§2. Any presbyter can impart blessings except those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or bishops.
§3. A deacon can impart only those blessings expressly permitted by law.

So, the blessings themselves would be legitimate, even if they were previously reserved ones.

HOWEVER, the priest would still have to look at the actual individual blessing to determine if he can do it, because the words and the rubrics of 1962 still apply. Here’s what I mean by that:
There are some blessings that obviously require the priest to have some particular status in order to perform them. My book isn’t handy right now, but I’m thinking of some blessings that have the words “by virtue of my office as chaplain in the society of such-and-such” or other words like those. In cases like that, it’s the specific rubrics and/or specific words of that blessing which would preclude just “any priest” from doing them.

So, there’s no short answer to your question.

The priest will have to look at each individual blessing beforehand just to be safe.

 

[jtodisco]

Thanks for all of your responses.

To be more specific I was referring to blessings from the 1964 Rituale Romanum that were “formerly reserved to religious orders”. So I don’t think there is an issue regarding a diocesan priest needing special permission to use these particular blessings.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for all of your responses.

To be more specific I was referring to blessings from the 1964 Rituale Romanum that were “formerly reserved to religious orders”. So I don’t think there is an issue regarding a diocesan priest needing special permission to use these particular blessings.

That’s what I mean by the end of the last post. I think it’s important to look at the individual blessing. As I said, I don’t have the book handy right now, but if the blessing says something like “as chaplain for the order, I hereby invest you with such-and-such” I think that would not be appropriate for just “any priest.” I’m just suggesting that you look at the actual words for each blessing (not just the titles) and read them through to see if there’s something that might not apply.

The one I’m thinking about is the scapular of Mt Carmel (I have the pocket version of the Ritual in front of me, but not the more complete printings). That blessing and investiture has specific words that the priest says “By the power granted to me, I admit you…” into the Confraternity of OL Mount Carmel. There is no rubric (again, pocket version), but it seems to me that a priest would have to have some kind of actual authority to admit someone into the Confraternity before doing that specific blessing. Personally, I wouldn’t do that blessing unless I was certain that the Carmelites would allow me to, otherwise, I’d be speaking an untruth when I say “by the power granted to me…”. What power? What faculties? I don’t have them, because I don’t represent the Carmelites. See what I mean?

For something like a blessing of a home or automobile, or telegraph (had to write it), sure, any priest could do it. But look at each one to be sure.

 

[jtodisco]

Here is the direct link to the page that I got the prayers from: sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/60-blessings-formerly-reserved-to-religious-orders.html The page was created by the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius in light of Pope Benedict’s Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

The blessings I was looking at in particular were the blessing for rosaries and for Saint Benedict medals. Both say at the beginning of the blessing “formerly reserved to the Order of _____” (the Orders being the Dominicans and the Benedictines respectively).

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Is it ok for me to request that my parish priest use blessings from the old rite to bless some sacramentals of mine?

I know that whether the priest uses the old or the new rite blessings that these objects will be blessed, but I would prefer it if the old blessings were used. I have printed out copies of the blessings to make things more convenient for him if he agrees to use them.

Yes, assuming he has a copy of the Roman Ritual. Our priest encourages us together our stuff blessed using the Roman Ritual.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I’m re-thinking the earlier post.

While I have no doubt that the priest could use the words of the 1962 Roman Missal, I’m re-considering the “reserved blessings” part.

The lifting of those reservations was a disciplinary matter, not a matter of rubrics or of the words of the rites. Summorum Pontificum states that the rubrics and words of 1962 apply, but the discipline of the 1983 Code still applies to the Extraordinary Form (for example, at an Extraordinary Form Mass, the Communion fast is 1-hour, not the earlier 3-hour or from-midnight).

So, the actual faculties to bless would apply because the 1983 Code allows priests to bless anything unless reserved to the Pope or bishops.

Can. 1169 §1. Those marked with the episcopal character and presbyters permitted by law or legitimate grant can perform consecrations and dedications validly.
§2. Any presbyter can impart blessings except those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or bishops.
§3. A deacon can impart only those blessings expressly permitted by law.

So, the blessings themselves would be legitimate, even if they were previously reserved ones.

HOWEVER, the priest would still have to look at the actual individual blessing to determine if he can do it, because the words and the rubrics of 1962 still apply. Here’s what I mean by that:
There are some blessings that obviously require the priest to have some particular status in order to perform them. My book isn’t handy right now, but I’m thinking of some blessings that have the words “by virtue of my office as chaplain in the society of such-and-such” or other words like those. In cases like that, it’s the specific rubrics and/or specific words of that blessing which would preclude just “any priest” from doing them.

So, there’s no short answer to your question.

The priest will have to look at each individual blessing beforehand just to be safe.

Yes, this is correct. Our FSSP priests had to get the VG to bless our new vestments since it is a reserved blessing. The VG did it according to the Roman Ritual, and did it in Latin to boot.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here is the direct link to the page that I got the prayers from: sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/60-blessings-formerly-reserved-to-religious-orders.html The page was created by the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius in light of Pope Benedict’s Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

The blessings I was looking at in particular were the blessing for rosaries and for Saint Benedict medals. Both say at the beginning of the blessing “formerly reserved to the Order of _____” (the Orders being the Dominicans and the Benedictines respectively).

I know the site. It’s a great resource!

I don’t see any issue with those. I would only hesitate (or not-do) anything involving an investiture if it contained words that would not apply, as I wrote earlier “by the power vested in me as a representative of such-and-such.” I don’t see any of that in either blessing. I use that particular rosary blessing all the time myself.

The St Benedict medal blessing is more what I was thinking about. There’s nothing in the blessing where the priest actually says that he (ie the priest) is a member of a Benedictine order, so there should be no problems with these at all. There might be such words in an earlier text—but that’s academic.

 

[jtodisco]

I know the site. It’s a great resource!

I don’t see any issue with those. I would only hesitate (or not-do) anything involving an investiture if it contained words that would not apply, as I wrote earlier “by the power vested in me as a representative of such-and-such.” I don’t see any of that in either blessing. I use that particular rosary blessing all the time myself.

The St Benedict medal blessing is more what I was thinking about. There’s nothing in the blessing where the priest actually says that he (ie the priest) is a member of a Benedictine order, so there should be no problems with these at all. There might be such words in an earlier text—but that’s academic.

Sounds good. Now the real question is will my priest actually agree to use these blessings or not? I guess I’ll find out in a few days.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I’m re-thinking the earlier post.

While I have no doubt that the priest could use the words of the 1962 Roman Missal, I’m re-considering the “reserved blessings” part.

The lifting of those reservations was a disciplinary matter, not a matter of rubrics or of the words of the rites. Summorum Pontificum states that the rubrics and words of 1962 apply, but the discipline of the 1983 Code still applies to the Extraordinary Form (for example, at an Extraordinary Form Mass, the Communion fast is 1-hour, not the earlier 3-hour or from-midnight).

So, the actual faculties to bless would apply because the 1983 Code allows priests to bless anything unless reserved to the Pope or bishops.

Can. 1169 §1. Those marked with the episcopal character and presbyters permitted by law or legitimate grant can perform consecrations and dedications validly.
§2. Any presbyter can impart blessings except those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or bishops.
§3. A deacon can impart only those blessings expressly permitted by law.

So, the blessings themselves would be legitimate, even if they were previously reserved ones.

HOWEVER, the priest would still have to look at the actual individual blessing to determine if he can do it, because the words and the rubrics of 1962 still apply. Here’s what I mean by that:
There are some blessings that obviously require the priest to have some particular status in order to perform them. My book isn’t handy right now, but I’m thinking of some blessings that have the words “by virtue of my office as chaplain in the society of such-and-such” or other words like those. In cases like that, it’s the specific rubrics and/or specific words of that blessing which would preclude just “any priest” from doing them.

So, there’s no short answer to your question.

The priest will have to look at each individual blessing beforehand just to be safe.

Where is to be found the list of specific blessings contemplated in §3 (“only those blessings expressly permitted by law” to the deacon)? And does that list vary between the OF liturgical environment and the EF liturgical environment?

 

[FrDavid96]

Where is to be found the list of specific blessings contemplated in §3 (“only those blessings expressly permitted by law” to the deacon)?

There is no single list. The usual solution is to look at the particular blessing in the Book of Blessings (1989) as read the rubrics. If it says “the deacon can perform this blessing” (or something like that) then he can. Some of them vary by circumstances. For example, some blessings deacons can give, but only if they’re done outside the context of Mass. Deacons are permitted most of the Blessings in the BB. A deacon could (almost always) use a generic blessing for “any thing.” But sometimes, like the blessing of a chalice (for obvious reasons) he can never do. It comes down to looking at the specific rubrics for each blessing.

And does that list vary between the OF liturgical environment and the EF liturgical environment?

Most definitely yes. Most of the Extraordinary Form blessings the deacon cannot do.

An alternative is that he could use the actual words of the EF blessing, but do so in the context of the Ordinary Form, by virtue of the fact that the OF usually says “these or similar words.” But blessings that are particularly priestly in nature he cannot do in the EF.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

There is no single list. The usual solution is to look at the particular blessing in the Book of Blessings (1989) as read the rubrics. If it says “the deacon can perform this blessing” (or something like that) then he can. Some of them vary by circumstances. For example, some blessings deacons can give, but only if they’re done outside the context of Mass. Deacons are permitted most of the Blessings in the BB. A deacon could (almost always) use a generic blessing for “any thing.” But sometimes, like the blessing of a chalice (for obvious reasons) he can never do. It comes down to looking at the specific rubrics for each blessing.

Most definitely yes. Most of the Extraordinary Form blessings the deacon cannot do.

An alternative is that he could use the actual words of the EF blessing, but do so in the context of the Ordinary Form, by virtue of the fact that the OF usually says “these or similar words.” But blessings that are particularly priestly in nature he cannot do in the EF.

Thanks, Father. If I could be permitted a follow-up question:

My daughter’s apartment was blessed by a deacon using the older Roman Ritual as found in the “Weller book.” His reason for doing so (I know him well) was that he feels (as do seemingly many others) that the blessing formulas in the Book of Blessings are vague, unspecific, and lack clarity as far as the actual words of blessing. It was also pointed out to me that the Book of Blessing does specifically state that a house blessing can be done by a deacon. So your earlier answer has me wondering whether my daughter’s apartment was actually blessed at all, given the circumstances as I’ve described. Thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks, Father. If I could be permitted a follow-up question:

My daughter’s apartment was blessed by a deacon using the older Roman Ritual as found in the “Weller book.” His reason for doing so (I know him well) was that he feels (as do seemingly many others) that the blessing formulas in the Book of Blessings are vague, unspecific, and lack clarity as far as the actual words of blessing. It was also pointed out to me that the Book of Blessing does specifically state that a house blessing can be done by a deacon. So your earlier answer has me wondering whether my daughter’s apartment was actually blessed at all, given the circumstances as I’ve described. Thank you.

At first, I was going to look it up, but then as I kept reading, I noticed that you already provided the answer. Since the Roman Ritual (the “Weller”) says that a deacon can do the house blessing in that book, then there’s no question that he can do it. No hesitation.

It’s not just you and the deacon who feel that way about the Book of Blessings (1989). The Holy See does as well. That’s why the Congregation for Divine Worship issued this Decree (which has the force of law) as a kind of “remedy.”
notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/pdf/aas-2002-684-684.pdf

oops. I just noticed it’s in Latin only. Probably not very helpful.

Here’s the translation:
A DECREE FOR THE CITY AND THE WORLD

On always making use of the sign of the holy Cross in blessings

Since, from the established usage, the liturgical custom has always been in force that in the rites of blessing the sign of the cross is employed by being traced by the celebrant with the right hand over the persons or things for whom mercy is implored, this Congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments, in order to dispel any doubts, has established that, even if the text of the part of the Roman ritual entitled “The Book of Blessings” remains silent about the sign itself or lacks an express mention of the appropriate time for this action, nevertheless the sacred ministers should adopt the aforementioned sign of the cross as necessary when carrying out any blessing.

Without a mention, however, the appropriate time should be regarded as when the text of the blessing uses the words blessing, to bless, or similar or, lacking these words, when the prayer of blessing itself is concluded.

Anything to the contrary not withstanding.

From the office of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, on 14 September, 2002, the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

GEORGE A. card. MEDINA ESTEVEZ, Prefect

✠ Francesco Pio Tamburrino
Archbishop Secretary

An unofficial one, provided here
notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/

It’s a start, at least.

I cannot help but notice the careful way that the Decree is worded to say “if the blessing lacks a blessing…”

 

[ProVobis]

oops. I just noticed it’s in Latin only. Probably not very helpful.

Every little bit helps, especially the Latin.