S
Shea96
Guest
Under the old rite/EF, are Deacons authorized to bless wedding rings? I know they are limited, to I think rosaries and other religious objects, but not sure about everything else.
Thanks!
Thanks!
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, I think there is explicit authority to do so. I don’t have a Book of Blessings handy, but as I recall, the blessing of a couple on their anniversary (which includes the option to bless the rings they exchanged at their marriage) is explicitly permitted to be performed by a deacon.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
With regard to the Extraordinary Form: the rules for deacons are the same as they were in 1962. The reason is that the -]disciplinary norms/-] liturgical norms (rubrics) as they existed at the time have force-of-law today (again, in the E.F.)
The result is that a deacon who picks up a copy of the 1962/64 (for example) Roman Ritual would follow exactly what that book says—without making any references to current liturgical norms (that is, the Ordinary Form rules). To put that another way, if the service is in the Extraordinary Form, the new “Book of Blessings” is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the BB says—it only matters what is printed in the Roman Ritual.
As I understand it (I do have to check this) a deacon could officiate at a wedding in 1962. In fact, I recall that a sub-deacon could also do so. My Roman Ritual is not handy right now, so I’ll have to verify that later. If it’s true, then he could do the ring-blessing. (I’m just not in the mood right now to check the 1917 Canon Law, but someone else might be.)
There is another option here:
In the new “Book of Blessings” the rubric “these or similar words” is often present. In that case, the deacon could always bless the rings in the Ordinary Form using “similar words” which, by happy coincidence, just happen to be the same words from the 1962 Roman Ritual
The result is that a deacon who picks up a copy of the 1962/64 (for example) Roman Ritual would follow exactly what that book says—without making any references to current liturgical norms (that is, the Ordinary Form rules). To put that another way, if the service is in the Extraordinary Form, the new “Book of Blessings” is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the BB says—it only matters what is printed in the Roman Ritual.
As I understand it (I do have to check this) a deacon could officiate at a wedding in 1962. In fact, I recall that a sub-deacon could also do so. My Roman Ritual is not handy right now, so I’ll have to verify that later. If it’s true, then he could do the ring-blessing. (I’m just not in the mood right now to check the 1917 Canon Law, but someone else might be.)
There is another option here:
In the new “Book of Blessings” the rubric “these or similar words” is often present. In that case, the deacon could always bless the rings in the Ordinary Form using “similar words” which, by happy coincidence, just happen to be the same words from the 1962 Roman Ritual
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That one is rather easy. In Canon Law, “whatever pertains to the whole pertains to the part.” Since a deacon can do the whole of the marriage ceremony, then he can certainly do the part (bless the rings).
S
Shea96
Guest
Great, thanks all! 
C
Chatter163
Guest
Not challenging anything that has been said, but I am pointing out that the understanding of diaconal functioning has changed somewhat as a result of the restoration of the permanent diaconate. Deacons are now ordinary ministers of holy communion, but in the pre-V2 era, deacons were listed as extraordinary ministers of holy communion. Granted, because there was no permanent diaconate, there were not as many deacons. However, they were only used to distribute communion in very rare circumstances, unlike today, when this is routine.
M
malphono
Guest
There was, for better or worse, a surfeit of priests for some years in the pre-cinciliar era, so the fact that deacons were rarely used as ministers of Holy Communion is quite understandable.
N
Neofight
Guest
In regards to blessings of only “rosaries and other religious objects” (especially outside the Mass) The EF and the OF are merely forms of the Mass of the same Roman Rite. While the Form of the Mass may vary, we are still One Holy, catholic, and apostolic Church…there is no EF Catechism, EF Canon Law, EF bible, etc.
Therefore, a Deacon can bless any sacramental object, as any other ordained member of the Holy Orders could, outside the liturgical setting.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No. That’s not the case.
The Extraordinary Form is not just a form of the Mass. The form also includes other sacraments and sacramentals. There are EF forms for baptism, confession, ordination, confirmation, funerals, (yes, weddings, the topic of the thread), etc.
When following the Extraordinary form (with regard to the other sacraments and sacramentals) the rubrics and liturgical norms of that form apply–just as when Mass is celebrated in the EF, the EF rubrics apply.
There is an EF ritual book for blessings The Roman Ritual and it is distinct from the OF ritual book for blessings, the Book of Blessings.
Further, deacons cannot bless “any sacramental object.” Deacons can only perform those blessings specifically permitted to them.
D
Deo_Gratias42
Guest
OF vs EF matters sometimes. For example, when a deacon baptizes according to the rites in the EF, he doesn’t have the priestly authority to exorcise water and salt, so the water and salt he uses has to be blessed and exorcized by a priest prior. Since holy water according to the current blessing doesn’t have the exorcism or use exorcised salt so a deacon can bless water according to the current blessing.
S
Shea96
Guest
This is what I was thinking…and why I asked
My husband gave me a new wedding band set many years after we were married. I had the rings blessed by a deacon at our parish - at which time we were attending a Novus Ordo parish. I’m not sure now what started the conversation of my rings, but my husband said I should have my rings blessed by our pastor. I said they had already been blessed and need not be re-blessed. Thus began the thread! 
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Baptism is very particular. In the EF, even a priest must use specifically the Baptismal Water, which has its own unique blessing–he cannot use the “everyday” (so to speak) Holy Water. Of course, that doesn’t apply in an emergency.
Actually, the new blessing of Holy Water has the option of adding blessed salt. It just does not have the exorcism & blessing of the salt incorporated into the rite. Even the older rite permitted using previously-blessed salt.
- Status