stumped

[z_0101]

Being a convert, I’ve used and have heard a good number of different questions and explanations of the faith that I have found were sometimes outright wrong, or at least not the entire truth.

However, I was asked a question a few days ago that I didn’t have a good answer for so I took it to our Pastor, one of our Oldest Deacons, and our associate Pastor was there too…
This question even stumped them as well.

So I’ll try to lay it out as best as I can in text and summarize the conversation - keep in mind, this discussion went on between myself and the querent for close to an hour and each of the standard positions he really shot down quite readily.

Premise: Genesis 27
Isaac is on his death bed and sends Esau to hunt game and prepare Esau’s favorite meal, after which Isaac will give Esau a special blessing. Instead, Jacob, by way of deceit, is given this blessing by Esau; thus, receiving Esau’s inheritance. Isaac has nothing with which to bless Esau. In the DR translation, Isaac says so that his soul may bless Esau, and it is Isaac’s soul that blesses Jacob.

The question put to me goes along the lines, that blessings given by a Priest or by laity in the explicitly in the name of God (i.e. “God Bless You” when someone sneezes or coughs) are, by their virtue, infinite and do not diminish the person giving such a blessing. However, as with Isaac, the laity (and Priest when not acting in Persona Christi) only have so much “mojo” in that when they bless people without specifically invoking God’s name (in any form) such a blessing, as in the case of Isaac and Esau, diminishes the individual giving the blessing - as it is given by that person’s soul, as in the DR translation of the Gen27 between Isaac and Jacob.

Of course, the implication is that once you have given away all of your allotted blessings… you place yourself in mortal danger. We never got to that explicit statement; however, the querent did equate the “allotted blessings” with “luck” something I tried to point out in the CCC we don’t believe in per say as Catholics (i.e. rabbit’s foots, four leaf clovers, etc…).

I did get the querent to concede that a simple blessing such as after someone sneezes consisting of a simple “Bless You” might not detract from the “allotted blessings/mojo” when the intent was to say “God Bless You.” However, the querent would not budge on the position that the intent had to be the invocation of God’s blessing and God’s name was simply omitted by custom - otherwise, without the intent to invoke God’s name/blessing, then the blessing comes from the soul of the person giving the blessing therefor diminishing the blessing.

My other argument was that simply attending a Mass, properly disposed of course, and receiving communion would “refill” the “mojo;” therefore negating any such “diminishing” and the querent went right back to Gen27:35-40 wherein Isaac had nothing more to give to Esau as Jacob had “carried off” Esau’s blessing.

as I said, this conversation lasted over an hour and I’ve omitted a considerable amount of the discussion between the querent and myself. My conversation with the Two Fathers and the Deacon went on for easily an hour as we tried to dance around each of the querent’s counters to the standard that all of out Blessing’s come from and thru our Lord. That passage in Gen27:35-40 just hammers us.

 

[Vico]

Being a convert, I’ve used and have heard a good number of different questions and explanations of the faith that I have found were sometimes outright wrong, or at least not the entire truth.

However, I was asked a question a few days ago that I didn’t have a good answer for so I took it to our Pastor, one of our Oldest Deacons, and our associate Pastor was there too…
This question even stumped them as well.

So I’ll try to lay it out as best as I can in text and summarize the conversation - keep in mind, this discussion went on between myself and the querent for close to an hour and each of the standard positions he really shot down quite readily.

Premise: Genesis 27
Isaac is on his death bed and sends Esau to hunt game and prepare Esau’s favorite meal, after which Isaac will give Esau a special blessing. Instead, Jacob, by way of deceit, is given this blessing by Esau; thus, receiving Esau’s inheritance. Isaac has nothing with which to bless Esau. In the DR translation, Isaac says so that his soul may bless Esau, and it is Isaac’s soul that blesses Jacob.

The question put to me goes along the lines, that blessings given by a Priest or by laity in the explicitly in the name of God (i.e. “God Bless You” when someone sneezes or coughs) are, by their virtue, infinite and do not diminish the person giving such a blessing. However, as with Isaac, the laity (and Priest when not acting in Persona Christi) only have so much “mojo” in that when they bless people without specifically invoking God’s name (in any form) such a blessing, as in the case of Isaac and Esau, diminishes the individual giving the blessing - as it is given by that person’s soul, as in the DR translation of the Gen27 between Isaac and Jacob.

Of course, the implication is that once you have given away all of your allotted blessings… you place yourself in mortal danger. We never got to that explicit statement; however, the querent did equate the “allotted blessings” with “luck” something I tried to point out in the CCC we don’t believe in per say as Catholics (i.e. rabbit’s foots, four leaf clovers, etc…).

I did get the querent to concede that a simple blessing such as after someone sneezes consisting of a simple “Bless You” might not detract from the “allotted blessings/mojo” when the intent was to say “God Bless You.” However, the querent would not budge on the position that the intent had to be the invocation of God’s blessing and God’s name was simply omitted by custom - otherwise, without the intent to invoke God’s name/blessing, then the blessing comes from the soul of the person giving the blessing therefor diminishing the blessing.

My other argument was that simply attending a Mass, properly disposed of course, and receiving communion would “refill” the “mojo;” therefore negating any such “diminishing” and the querent went right back to Gen27:35-40 wherein Isaac had nothing more to give to Esau as Jacob had “carried off” Esau’s blessing.

as I said, this conversation lasted over an hour and I’ve omitted a considerable amount of the discussion between the querent and myself. My conversation with the Two Fathers and the Deacon went on for easily an hour as we tried to dance around each of the querent’s counters to the standard that all of out Blessing’s come from and thru our Lord. That passage in Gen27:35-40 just hammers us.

Don’t miss the message of this story, commented on in Hebrews 12, which is that Esau was unworthy of the blessing. Later, after Jacob shows humility to Esau, Jacob gets the name Israel.

15 See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled; 16 that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

Catholics reject superstitions.

Catholic Dictionary states about blessings that:

“…the value of a blessing given by a private person in his own name will be commensurate with his acceptableness before God by reason of his individual merits and sanctity.”
Morrisroe, P. (1907). Blessing. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm

 

[Trident_H]

My take on this? Back in Isaac’s day there were no priests or other channels for God’s grace. Everything had to be won by sacrifices. And Isaac was too old at that point to go on out and do a ritual sacrifice to get that power back up to full.

So no sacrifice. And no sacraments. And no priests to mediate. And no Christ to act as a constant flow of grace. I mean remember the gates to heaven were locked still. So grace was in limited supply. It was still given out in doses. Based on earning it. But you couldn’t just stand out in the sunshine and just get it back.

I don’t know if that helps.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[pianistclare]

The notion of allotment of blessings sounds like a person believes that God sets your life up like a stack of dominoes and it’s one way. No options for betterment, repentance or a different path.
Catholics always come down on the side of hope, mercy, and blessing. Lots of them.

 

[1ke]

The question put to me goes along the lines, that blessings given by a Priest or by laity in the explicitly in the name of God (i.e. “God Bless You” when someone sneezes or coughs) are, by their virtue, infinite and do not diminish the person giving such a blessing. However, as with Isaac, the laity (and Priest when not acting in Persona Christi) only have so much “mojo” in that when they bless people without specifically invoking God’s name (in any form) such a blessing, as in the case of Isaac and Esau, diminishes the individual giving the blessing - as it is given by that person’s soul, as in the DR translation of the Gen27 between Isaac and Jacob.

Of course, the implication is that once you have given away all of your allotted blessings… you place yourself in mortal danger. We never got to that explicit statement; however, the querent did equate the “allotted blessings” with “luck” something I tried to point out in the CCC we don’t believe in per say as Catholics (i.e. rabbit’s foots, four leaf clovers, etc…).

Well the problem is that your friend just made this idea up out of thin air and you are busy trying to prove a negative. Prove something he made up doesn’t exist. Well, he should prove it does, and the Genesis passage does not do that.

 

[St_Francis]

First, not everyone can bless everyone. One needs some authority: parents can bless children, but not the other way around. Aside from that, the *full *meaning of “God bless you” is *“May *God bless you.” The word may is understood.

You wrote:

Of course, the implication is that once you have given away all of your allotted blessings… you place yourself in mortal danger. We never got to that explicit statement; however, the querent did equate the “allotted blessings” with “luck” something I tried to point out in the CCC we don’t believe in per say as Catholics (i.e. rabbit’s foots, four leaf clovers, etc…).
Since one has onlt one oldest child, one can only bless one child as the oldest. Isaac blessed Jacob as the oldest; he could not also bles Esau as the oldest.

I would say “from my soul” is used more like we use “from the bottom of my heart” rather than as literally as your friend interprets it.​

 

[AmbroseSJ]

St Francis:

First, not everyone can bless everyone. One needs some authority: parents can bless children, but not the other way around. Aside from that, the full meaning of “God bless you” is “May God bless you.” The word may is understood.

I would have to firmly disagree with that. Certainly Balaam had no authority over Israel, yet his blessing was important and prophetic. There are also many instances of Saints, who in their humility begged the blessing of those who had no authority over them.

It is entirely proper for children to bless their parents.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . you are busy trying to prove a negative. . . .

I concur with this. There is no indication in the text that Isaac had a limited supply of blessings of which he ran short. St. Augustine, as quoted in Haydock, comments:

“Isaac was wrapt into an ecstasy exceedingly great” (LXX); during which God explained to him the meaning of what had happened, that he might not think of revoking his blessing.

In other words, Isaac could have changed his mind and blessed Essau instead; but he didn’t because that wasn’t God’s plan.

 

[fred_conty]

A simple blessing is just a way of saying “my prayers and God go with you”.
It is a prayer for that person that God will protect them and help them. And the holier the person giving the blessing, the better, for it is written that God hears the prayers of a holy man.

In the case of Esau, the blessing was of tradition meant for the oldest male…the first born…giving him the right to carry on as head of the family. And so since Jacob had already given this right to Issac, he couldn’t give it to Esau.

As far as an individual being diminished by giving a blessing in the O T, there would have to be something about this in the O T. And tho I certainly am not that familiar with the O T, but still I don’t remember reading anything like this.

The only reason for any kind of diminishing would seem to be that when Jacob gave his son the blessing to carry on as head of the family, then Jacob would be diminished in the sense that he himself no longer is the head of the family.

But any blessing whether in OT or NT is a prayer and would not seem to diminsh anyone since we may pray as often as we like and we know prayer does not dimish us, but quite the opposite.

 

[Gorgias]

I would have to firmly disagree with that. Certainly Balaam had no authority over Israel, yet his blessing was important and prophetic.

“Balaam’s” blessing was really God’s blessing – as a prophet, Balaam was merely relating the word of God as it was given to him.

Isaac’s blessing was from him alone, though, as a father blesses a son.

It is entirely proper for children to bless their parents.

But it’s even more proper for a parent to bless his child.

 

[Gorgias]

Well the problem is that your friend just made this idea up out of thin air and you are busy trying to prove a negative. Prove something he made up doesn’t exist. Well, he should prove it does, and the Genesis passage does not do that.

Precisely.
Ad Orientem:

I concur with this. There is no indication in the text that Isaac had a limited supply of blessings of which he ran short.

Well… yes and no. Remember – the OP’s friend isn’t talking about a “limited supply of blessings” but a “limited supply of blessing-energy”. There’s nothing to suggest that Isaac needed to “power up” again before blessing. (After all, he does bless Esau!)

The OP’s friend has made this up wholecloth, and is asserting it without any substance or justification.

Moreover, he misunderstands what Isaac was “out of” – it’s not mojo, it’s fatherly blessing, as is made clear later in the passage: “[Esau] said to his father: ‘Hast thou not reserved me also a blessing?’ Isaac answered: ‘I have appointed him thy lord, and have made all his brethren his servants: I have established him with corn and wine, and after this, what shall I do more for thee, my son?’”

It’s not that Isaac ran out of juice… it’s that he already gave the blessing to Jacob. Oaths and blessings were sacred things: Isaac could no more give the same blessing to Esau than he could take it away again from Isaac. Once given, it was given – period.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

“Balaam’s” blessing was really God’s blessing – as a prophet, Balaam was merely relating the word of God as it was given to him.

All blessings are from God ultimately. The point where I disagreed was that authority over the person was required to bless that person.

Still, the example of Balaam is apropos to the question. He is presumably an enemy of Israel, but instead, moved by the Holy Spirit, he blesses and prophecies in favor of Israel. He had no standing within Israel whatsoever.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Well… yes and no. Remember – the OP’s friend isn’t talking about a “limited supply of blessings” but a “limited supply of blessing-energy”.

Thank you for the clarification; “blessing-energy” is what I meant. To me that concept evokes a role playing game. (I picture a digital Patriarch, a status bar at the bottom labeled “blessing-energy,” and a running score which increases with each successful blessing.)

Still I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that blessing others (in some way) costs us something. Our Lord paid the greatest price to redeem us, and he calls us to “fill up what is lacking.”

 

[Vico]

Thank you for the clarification; “blessing-energy” is what I meant. To me that concept evokes a role playing game. (I picture a digital Patriarch, a status bar at the bottom labeled “blessing-energy,” and a running score which increases with each successful blessing.)

Still I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that blessing others (in some way) costs us something. Our Lord paid the greatest price to redeem us, and he calls us to “fill up what is lacking.”

There is the Treasury of Merit (Indulgentarium Doctrina, Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, His Holiness Pope Paul VI, Promulgated on January 1, 1967)

Following in the footsteps of Christ,[16] the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in His sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.[17] This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints,[18] whereby the life of each individual son of God in Christ and through Christ is joined by a wonderful link to the life of all his other Christian brothers in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ till, as it were, a single mystical person is formed.[19]

Thus is explained the “treasury of the Church”[20] which should certainly not be imagined as the sum total of material goods accumulated in the course of the centuries, but the infinite and inexhaustible value the expiation and the merits of Christ Our Lord have before God, offered as they were so that all of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. It is Christ the Redeemer Himself in whom the satisfactions and merits of His redemption exist and find their force.[21] This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.

“For all who are in Christ, having His spirit, form one Church and cleave together in Him” (Eph. 4:16). Therefore the union of the wayfarers with the brethren who have gone to sleep in the peace of Christ is not in the least weakened or interrupted, but on the contrary, according to the perpetual faith of the Church, is strengthened by a communication of spiritual goods. For by reason of the fact that those in heaven are more closely united with Christ, they establish the whole Church more firmly in holiness, lend nobility to the worship which the Church offers to God here on earth and in many ways contribute to building it up evermore (I Cor. 12: 12-27). For after they have been received into their heavenly home and are present to the Lord (11 Cor. 5:8), through Him and with Him and in Him they do not cease to intervene with the Father for us, showing forth the merits which they have won on earth through the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (I Tim. 2:5), by serving God in all things and filling up in their flesh those things which are lacking of the sufferings of Christ for His Body which is the Church (Col. 1:24). Thus by their brotherly interest our weakness is greatly strengthened.[22]

newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm

 

[guanophore]

My take on this? Back in Isaac’s day there were no priests or other channels for God’s grace. Everything had to be won by sacrifices. And Isaac was too old at that point to go on out and do a ritual sacrifice to get that power back up to full.

So no sacrifice. And no sacraments. And no priests to mediate. And no Christ to act as a constant flow of grace. I mean remember the gates to heaven were locked still. So grace was in limited supply. It was still given out in doses. Based on earning it. But you couldn’t just stand out in the sunshine and just get it back.

I don’t know if that helps.

Peace.

-Trident

I don’t think that God’s grace can be earned, not then, and not now. I don’t think the nature of salvation has changed at all. Back then, people were saved by grace, through faith.

It is true that faith was expressed through sacrifice, but it is the attitude of the heart that was different. Even Cain and Abel made sacrifices with a different attitude of the heart.

And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell (Genesis 4:4,5).

Abel made a blood sacrifice and Cain gave plants.

 

[Ignatius]

Being a convert, I’ve used and have heard a good number of different questions and explanations of the faith that I have found were sometimes outright wrong, or at least not the entire truth.

Get the book “Essential Catholic Survival Guide”, It will provide the Authentic Catholic answers to such questions.