Wholly Water. Thanks 60s Synod.

 

The Order for Blessing Water:

Past and Present

DANIEL G. VAN SLYKE

This essay compares and contrasts the current

Order for Blessing Water Outside of Mass and

its immediate predecessor, with a view to

outlining the wider changes that have been made to

the blessings of the Roman Rite following the call for

liturgical renewal issued by the Second Vatican Council.

Because of its previous preeminence among the

blessings of the Ritual, the Order for Blessing Water

provides a key point of entry for studying the structural and theological differences between the current blessings and those in use before the Second Vatican Council.

Blessings in Roman Liturgical Books after the Council of Trent

Following the directives of the Council of Trent,

the Roman Ritual (Rituale Romanum) was revised and promulgated by Pope Paul V on 17 June 1614. 

The revised Ritual contained only 18 non-reserved blessings – that is, blessings that could be administered by any priest or bishop. The first of these was the Ordo ad faciendam aquam benedictam or Order for Blessing Water.

Eleven blessings reserved for the bishop followed the

non-reserved blessings,  for a total of 29 blessings.

A brief but very important set of general rules

opened Title VII, the section of the Ritual on blessings, and therefore immediately preceded the Order for Blessing Water. The rules stipulated that each blessing should begin with the following dialogue of versicles and responses:

V. Our help is in the name of the Lord

(Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini).

R. Who made heaven and earth

(Qui fecit coelum et terram).

V. The Lord be with you (Dominus vobiscum).

R. And with your spirit (Et cum spiritu tuo).

Then, the general rules continued, the prayer or prayers proper for the thing to be blessed should be said. Each blessing ended with the sprinkling of the object being blessed with holy water and, where indicated, incensation; both of these were done in silence.

Thus the post-Tridentine blessings were quite streamlined, consisting of two parts following the opening dialogue:

(1) prayer or prayers of blessing, and (2) sprinkling

with holy water. Indeed, these parts constituted the

entirety of each non-reserved blessing in the Ritual,

with the exception of the first, which is under

consideration here. The Order for Blessing Water did not end with a sprinkling of holy water on the water being blessed. It was also more complex because salt was used in it, as will be discussed further below.

Because holy water was necessary for every other blessing, the Order for Blessing Water was preeminent among the blessings of the Roman Ritual. It consistently occupied the first place within the section on blessings in the various editions of the Ritual until the Second Vatican Council.

Water blessed according to this Order also was reserved at the entrances of churches and sprinkled during pastoral visitations to the sick and at funerals. As the rubrics specifically indicated, the faithful could take it home for sprinkling on sick family and friends, on homes, fields, vines, etc., and for sprinkling themselves daily. 

The priest also sprinkled this water on the altar, the clergy, and the people while the Asperges (or, during Easter, the Vidi aquam) was intoned before High Mass.

 Hence it occupied an important place not only in the Ritual, but also in the Roman Missal, where it immediately followed the calendar in the very first printed editions.

The 29 blessings in the Ritual of 1614 were too

few to meet the pastoral exigencies of all communities; hence the need to add more blessings arose rather quickly. An edition of Paul V’s Ritual published in 1688 was augmented by a formula for blessing the people and their fields. It was not placed among the other blessings in the Ritual, but rather at the end of the book, following the rite of exorcism. Benedict XIV followed such precedents when he promulgated a new edition of the Ritual on 25 March 1752. An appendix contained a great number of additional blessings, eventually doubling the length of the original post- Tridentine Ritual. For ease of use, the blessings wereoften extracted from the Ritual and published separately in benedictionals or books of blessing. 

Local diocesan rituals and benedictionals developed, especially in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century France, which gathered blessings absent from the Roman Ritual but deemed fitting for the pastoral needs of the local faithful. These rituals and benedictionals also opened with the Order for Blessing Water.

Pius XI promulgated another edition of the Roman

Ritual in 1925. It contained a large appendix of 71

non-reserved blessings and 79 reserved blessings. Fifty two of these reserved blessings were for the use of particular religious orders. Pius XII promulgated the final edition of the Ritual in 1952, in which the

additional blessings were moved from the appendix tTitle IX, the section on blessings (benedictionibus).

Although the blessings were substantially re-arrange for ease of use, the Order for Blessing Water remained the first. The Ritual of 1952 contained 179 blessings,95 of which were reserved.11

The Previous Order

The Order for Blessing Water in Paul V’s Ritual

remained the same through the various revisions of

the Ritual, including that of 1952. It began with an

exorcism of salt, followed by a prayer invoking God’s blessing and sanctification upon the exorcized salt.

For the sake of brevity, analysis of the exorcism and

blessing of salt will be omitted from this study. The

water itself was subject to one exorcism and one prayer of blessing. Then the salt was mixed with the water, and a final blessing was pronounced over the resulting solution.

The exorcism of water took the following form:

I exorcize you, creature of water, in the name

of God + the Father almighty, in the name of

Jesus + Christ his Son our Lord, and in the

power of the Holy + Spirit: that you may be

water exorcized for putting all strength of the

enemy to flight, and that you may be empowered to uproot and cast out the enemy himself with his apostate angels, by the power of the same Jesus Christ our Lord: Who shall come to judge the living and the dead, and the world by fire. R. Amen.12

The exorcism addresses the water itself, or the “creature of water,” which recalls God’s act of creation. One might explain this as parallel to the manner in which inanimate objects are sometimes called to praise God in scripture e.g., Dn 3:60).The priest first exorcizes the water in the name of the Trinity, then offers a prayer that Christ might empower the water to drive out the enemy, his fallen angels, and all of his strength or jurisdiction (potestas). The power (virtus) of Christ is mentioned, along with his second coming and the final judgment, which strike terror in the enemy and his angels. It is important to note that this formula, assuming its efficacy, not merely exorcizes the water, but also empowers it to be an instrument of exorcism, in the sense of driving out the enemy, his companions, and his influence.

The prayer over the water continues this theme,

invoking God’s blessing upon the water so that it may become an instrument for driving away a multitude of evils:

O God, who for the salvation of the human

race have founded all the greatest mysteries

(sacramenta) in the substance of water: be

favorable to our prayers, and pour forth the

power of your blessing + upon this element

prepared with manifold purifications: so that

your creature, serving your mysteries, may take

up the effect of divine grace for expelling

demons and driving away diseases; so that

whatsoever this water sprinkles in the homes

or places of the faithful, may be freed from all

uncleanness, and delivered from harm: may

the pestilential spirit not remain there, nor

destroying air: may all snares of the hidden

enemy depart; and if there be anything that is

hostile towards either the safety or the repose

of the inhabitants, let it flee with the sprinkling

of this water: so that the well-being asked

through the invocation of your holy name may

be defended from all that attacks it. Through

our Lord Jesus Christ your Son: who with you

lives and reigns in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

God for ever and ever. R. Amen.

The prayer does not merely ask that the water be

blessed, but rather that the water be infused with God’s power of blessing. The purpose of this power is once again apotropaic; it is for driving away demons and their snares, disease and all other evils. Expelling evil, however, does not appear as an end in itself: the prayer also requests that safety, repose, and general well-being fill the homes and places of the faithful sprinkled with this water.

The priest next mixes the exorcized and blessed

salt into the water three times in the pattern of a cross, saying, “May this salt and water be mixed together, in the name of the Father + and of the Son + and of the Holy + Spirit,” to which the response is “Amen.” The versicle beginning “The Lord be with you . . .” is repeated, and then the priest utters the last prayer of the rite, the prayer over the mixture of salt and water:

O God, source of invincible strength and king

of insuperable dominion, and ever magnificent

triumphant one: you who restrain the force of

the adversary’s dominion: you who overcome

the savagery of the raging enemy: you who

powerfully defeat hostile influences: trembling

and prostrate we humbly beseech and implore

you, Lord: that you may look kindly upon this

creature of salt and water, graciously illumine

and sanctify it with the dew of your mercy: that

wherever it shall be sprinkled, through the

invocation of your holy name, every infestation

of the unclean spirit may be banished: and the

terror of the venomous serpent may be driven

afar: and may the presence of the Holy Spirit

deign to be everywhere with us, who ask your

mercy. Through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son:

who lives and reigns in the unity of the same

Holy Spirit, God for ever and ever. R. Amen.

This final prayer asks the unconquerable God – for whom the devil is no threat whatsoever – to illumine and sanctify this creature of salt and water. Once again the desired effect is to drive away the infestation of every impure spirit, along with the terror and venom of the ancient serpent. Yet this blessing goes far beyond the apotropaic, by requesting that God grant the presence of the Holy Spirit wherever the solution might be sprinkled. Expulsion of evil influences, then, appears as a sort of necessary preamble to the fuller realization of divine power – and a striking demonstration of the priestly munus (office/duty) of sanctifying.

Note that this prayer implores God that evil spirits may flee and God’s Spirit may dwell “wherever” thesolution is sprinkled. The previous prayer, over the water alone, more specifically refers to the homes and places of the faithful. In this way the Order for Blessing Water indicates a primary use to which this holy water was expected to be put: the lay faithful would take it for sprinkling their homes, barns, fields, shops, etc.

This was an eminent mode of actual or active participation in the blessings of the Middle Ages and the Tridentine era, even though some might characterize it as private devotion. The use of the same holy water in every other blessing, as well as at the beginning of the Mass, kept it firmly within the framework of liturgy. Thus, in a remarkable way, holy water linked the official public worship of the Church with the daily lives of the faithful.

Blessings in Roman Liturgical Books after

the Second Vatican Council

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council,

considering blessings under the category of

sacramentals, commanded that they undergo a revision aimed above all at fostering intelligent, actual, and easy participation on the part of the faithful (conscia, actuosa et facili participatione fidelium). They also ordered that the reserved blessings should be reduced to only a few, and that limited provision be made for the administration of some sacramentals at the hands of qualified lay persons.

In 1965, the Sacred Congregation of Rites allowed all priests to bestow the majority of blessings, thereby implementing one of the Council’s mandates by quickly eliminating the reservation of certain blessings to particular religious orders and congregations. The work of actually revising the texts of the blessings was entrusted to Study Group (Coetus) 23 of the Consilium for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Consilium ad exsequendam constitutionem de sacra liturgia), headed byPierre-Marie Gy, O.P.20

Commentators divide the subsequent process of

revising the blessings into two phases. The first,

extending from 1970 to 1974, was preparatory. During this phase, the doctrinal and practical principles that would guide the actual revision of the texts of the blessings were set forth.

In addition to the concerns specifically noted in Sacrosanctum concilium, three more of these principles proved particularly momentous.

First, the Study Group defined blessing primarily as thanksgiving and praise, as is evident in an internal communication of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship dated 23 February 1972: Blessings . . . have, above all and perhaps in the first place, an element of thanksgiving and of blessing towards God, a very beautiful example of which is found in the formulae over the bread and wine at the offertory of the restored rite of the Mass: “Blessed are you Lord God of the universe, because from your goodness we have received bread . . . wine . . .”

The special theological importance of blessing

rests in this, that it recognizes and proclaims

the goodness of created things and the

providence of the Creator. In the various

circumstances of his life, man, made to the

image of God, giving thanks recognizes and

confesses that all created things come forth

from the hands of God

From this perspective, blessing serves primarily as a sort of creedal statement on God’s creative activity. As in this passage, influential liturgists of the post-conciliar period frequently claim that the Eucharist provides a model for prayers of blessing, often relying heavily upon the evidence offered by the problematic ancient Christian text known as the Apostolic Tradition.

As a second momentous working principle, the

Study Group posited that blessings are invoked

primarily on people and their activity, and only

secondarily on the things and places that they use. 

This stress on the primacy of human thanksgiving and praise towards God is also evident throughout the writings of Catholic theologians who worked on blessings in the post-Vatican II period.

In light of the final product of the Study Group’s work, one can summarize these principles by describing rites of blessing as opportunities to help the faithful, particularly through their activity in the world, give thanksgiving and praise to God for the goods of creation.

The Study Group’s final principle is expressed as

follows: “in blessings the element of invocation against diabolic powers can be allowed: nevertheless, vigilance is necessary lest blessings become just as ‘amulets’ or ‘talismans’. . .”

Apotropaic invocations or prayers aimed at counteracting diabolic influence, then, are dispensable if they conflict with the overriding demand to discourage superstition. Exorcisms, if only by omission, do not appear to be allowed at all: they are addressed to the demon or to the creature and so cannot be qualified as invocations, which are addressed to God.

This third principle, however timidly expressed, could potentially justify – as the finished product of the Study Group’s labors attests – the complete elimination of a predominant feature of pre-Vatican II blessings.

The second phase began at the end of 1974 with

the constitution of a second Study Group, which was

subsequently dissolved and whose work was then taken up by a third Study Group. The new book of blessings was not completed until Pope John Paul II promulgated it under the title De benedictionibus on 31 May 1984.

This current book of blessings contains a “General

Introduction” (praenotanda generalia) providing a

theological explanation of blessings along with practical norms for their celebration. The introduction stresses that blessings, as part of the Church’s liturgy, should be celebrated communally. It then indicates that the typical rite of blessing is comprised of two parts: first, the proclamation of the word of God; second, praise of divine goodness and petition for heavenly help.

The first part can contain several elements, including introductory rites (song, sign of the cross, greeting, along with an introductory instruction to explain the meaningof the blessing), a reading from scripture, and intercessions. While other elements of the blessing may be omitted, the reading from scripture, which is considered fundamental, may not be. The second part of the typical current rite of blessing is limited to the formula of blessing or the prayer itself, along with any sign belonging to the rite – such as the sign of the cross or a sprinkling with water, which appears in several of the rites.

One immediately notes a radical change in the

structure of blessings. First, a ‘liturgy of the word,’ has been added to the prayer of blessing that constituted the fundamental core of most blessings in the previous Roman Ritual. Second, holy water is no longer central to the rites of blessing. Accordingly, the Order for Blessing Water, that once occupied the place of honor, now occupies the relative obscurity of chapter 33

In 1987, ICEL completed its translation and

adaptation of De benedictionibus, entitled Book of Blessings, “for study and comment” as well as “for interim use.”

The Holy See approved the Book of Blessings on 27 January 1989, for use in the United States ad interim.  From 3 December 1989, the first Sunday of Advent, the USCCB declared, “the use of the Book of Blessings is mandatory in the dioceses of the United States of America.

 From that day forward no other English version may be used.”33 The Book of Blessings contains translations of orders and prayers of blessing from De benedictionibus, along with 42 orders and prayers composed by the NCCB’s Committee on the Liturgy or added from other liturgical books. The numbering and ordering of material differs from that of the Latin typical edition.

Chapter 41 of the Book of Blessings contains the

“Order for the Blessing of Holy Water Outside Mass.” It can be characterized as a translation of De benedictionibus chapter 33. Nonetheless the typical edition De benedictionibus provides the sole basis for the analysis that follows. The translations, which are my own, strive for a literal rendering of the original Latin.

The Present Order

The current Order for Blessing Water Outside the

Celebration of Mass (Ordo ad faciendam aquam benedictam extra missae celebrationem) is reserved for the clergy – whether bishop, priest or deacon. This Order is, by virtue of its context, the immediate successor of the Order for Blessing Water in the pre-Vatican II Ritual. 

The previous  Order was never used within the Mass, but rather in the sacristy or in the church before Mass began. The current Missal contains a distinct Order for Blessing Water within the Mass, which may be used in lieu of the penitential rite, but this shall be discussed briefly for comparative purposes only.

The Order for Blessing Water outside the

Celebration of Mass in De benedictionibus of 1984 begins with the sign of the cross in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The introductory rites continue as the celebrant greets those gathered for the blessing with the following words, or with other suitable words from Scripture: “May God, who from water and the Holy Spirit has regenerated us in Christ, be with all.”

This constitutes a kind of versicle, to which all are to

reply, “And with your spirit,” or some other suitable

response. Then the celebrant, if it is appropriate (pro

opportunitate), prepares those gathered for the

celebration of the blessing with the following words, or something similar:

With this blessing of water, we recall Christ

the living water and the sacrament of baptism,

in which we have been reborn in water and the

Holy Spirit. Whenever, therefore, we are

sprinkled with this water, or upon entering a

church or staying at home we use it with the

sign of the cross, we will give thanks to God

for his indescribable gift, and implore his help,

in order that we might by living hold on to

what we have received by faith.

The use of water assumed by the rites is twofold: it is

sprinkled on “us” – that is, we who are present for the celebration – or we sign ourselves with it upon entering a church or even at home. By using it in these ways, we recall Christ and our baptism, give thanks to God, and implore his aid in living the sacrament that we have received in faith. At the outset, then, the rite is framed as a memorial of the participants’ baptism marked by thanksgiving.

The reading from scripture follows. The Order

provides the full text of John 7:37-39, and then indicates six other possible scriptural readings.

The prayer of blessing comes next. Here there are

three options, but no indication that the celebrant can use “similar words.” The celebrant chooses from one of the three, reciting it with hands outstretched. The first follows: Blessed are you, Lord, all-powerful God, who (qui) in Christ, the living water of our salvation, have deigned to bless and inwardly reform us:grant that we who by the sprinkling of this water or by its use are strengthened may, with renewed youth of the soul through the power of the Holy Spirit, continually walk in newness of life. through Christ our Lord. R. Amen. 

The qui clause characterizes God as having reformed us inwardly by baptism. The petition seeks that we might be helped by the sprinkling or use of this water, in order to walk continually in newness of life. The prayer requests the renewal of “us” who are present for the celebration. It does not allow that any thing or place might benefit from the water. Furthermore, the prayer neither blesses nor exorcizes the water. In fact, the status of the water does not appear to change at all. These same comments stand for the second oration provided in the current Order:

Lord, holy Father, look upon us, who (qui), redeemed by your Son, have been reborn through Baptism in water and the Holy Spirit: grant, we beseech you, that those who will be sprinkled with this water, may be renewed in body and in mindand may render pure service to you. Through Christ our Lord. R. Amen.38

This formula invokes renewal in body and mind upon

those who will be sprinkled with this water, in order

that they may render pure service to the Father. In

this case the qui clause does not describe God, but “us” who have been redeemed and reborn in baptism. Once again baptism is recalled, and the water itself is not actually blessed – only the people to be sprinkled with it. The third and final option for a prayer of blessing also brings to mind the sacrament of baptism. 

Threefold in structure, each part attributes a specific act to one Person in the Trinity by means of a qui clause, and asks that Person to bless and purify the Church: God creator of all things, who (qui) in water and the Spirit have given form and image to man and to the universe.

R. Bless and purify your Church.Christ, who (qui) from the side pierced on the cross have made the sacraments of salvation flow forth.

R. Bless and purify your Church. Holy Spirit, who (qui) from the baptismal bosom of the Church, in the bath of regeneration, have made us new creatures.

R. Bless and purify your Church. 

This blessing refers to the water of creation, the water that flowed from Christ’s side, and the water of baptism.

The water of the Order, however, is not specifically mentioned. So while this formula presents a tidy summary of water’s role in salvation history, it does not request that the water of the Order be blessed. 

The petition, contained in the response of the congregation, asks instead that the Church be blessed and purified.

At the end of the Order, the celebrant sprinkles

those present with holy water and says the following:

“May this water be a memorial of baptism received,

and may it recall Christ, who has redeemed us by his

Passion and Resurrection. R. Amen.” 

When appropriate (pro opportunitate), those present sing a fitting song. 

Thus the theme of baptism opens the

Order, closes it, and is prominent throughout. The fundamental point of the Order is to aid the faithful in recalling their baptism and the work of Christ in the economy of salvation.

At this point numerous theological questions arise.

For instance, at the completion of this Order, is the water used therein blessed? Does it differ from any other water? Can one answer “yes” to these questions when the Ordo itself provides no justification for an affirmative answer?

 Are the members of Christ’s faithful deceived who believe the water in their churches’ fonts is blessed? Will the farmer who sprinkles such water on his failing crops only benefit to the extent that it helps him recall his salvation? If a mother sprinkles it on her sick infant, does the infant who has not yet the use of reason – and so cannot “recall Christ” – benefit? For whom is the blessing intended – the mother or the infant? Indeed, if the purpose of blessing is primarily praise and thanksgiving, can anyone who is absent from the liturgical celebration of the Order participate in the blessing? The implications of this radical shift in the euchology of blessings have yet to be considered.

A radical shift it is. The above analysis

demonstrates that the present Order is in no way

derived from the previous Order; it is not a revision, but an entirely new work. 

This is in fact typical of the current De benedictionibus. Only five of the more than 100 formulae that appear in the book are directly inspired by the Ritual of 1952. Nor are the prayers drawn from ancient liturgical books, as is the case with many orations in the revised Missal. 

Pierre Jounel explains the grounds for constructing the blessings of the Ritual ex nihilo as follows: “The eucharistic conception of blessing having been lost since the distant times of the Apostolic Constitutions, the medieval sacramentaries and more recent rituals could not be of any great help.”

With this statement, Jounel effectively discards the Church’s entire patrimony of written blessings. Moreover, his reference to such an ancient and obscure text betrays the extent to which

the work of revising the blessings was dependent upon a particular interpretation of the history of blessings –an interpretation which smacks of archeologism and might not withstand critical examination.

By contrast, the 1952 Order for Blessing Water

descended directly from a tradition that can be

definitively traced to the origins of liturgical books. 

The Romano-Germanic Pontifical, compiled at Mainz in the mid-tenth century, contains the very same exorcisms and prayers of blessing for both salt and water that are found in the Ritual of 1952.43 Earlier still, they are found in their integrity in the Gregorian sacramentary.

In turn, the redactor of the Gregorian sacramentary

adapted, with only a few minor variations, the prayer over the water in the Blessing of Water to be Sprinkled in a Home (Benedictio aquae spargendae in domo) found in the Old Gelasian sacramentary. The Gelasian is, owing to its antiquity and the completeness of the manuscript, a privileged witness of early Roman liturgy;copied at Chelles around 750, the manuscript contains earlier material originally compiled in southern Italy.45

A number of verbal parallels also link the exorcisms of salt and water in the Gelasian with those in the Gregorian, and therefore with the Order for Blessing

Water found in the 1952 Roman Ritual.

Another contrast is evident in the Order for Blessing

Water within Mass, which constitutes the second

appendix of the latest Roman Missal. This Order offers three prayers of blessing which are more consistent with the tradition of blessing water in several ways.

First, they in fact beseech God to bless the water. Second, they mention apotropaic effects of the holy water – even if that reference is somewhat muted and the ancient enemy in not named. Third, they at least allow, where it is customary, the mixing of the water with\salt. Striking in their absence from De benedictionibus, that the devil possesses the thing or person in the sense of indwelling, but in the sense of having some claim, jurisdiction, or power over it by virtue of the Fall.

Such a view is, perhaps, somewhat pessimistic

regarding the state of creation after the Fall. Yet it is

in keeping with a biblical understanding of the state of creation, as indicated for example in Romans 8:19-21:

“For creation awaits with eager expectation the

revelation of the children of God; for creation was

subject to futility . . . in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.” On the other hand, any view that discounts the influence of evil in favor of an insistence on the goodness of creation can be accused of an optimism that verges on naïveté.58

Perhaps such optimistic views betray a privileged first world bias in their facile dismissal of the radicalconsequences of sin on the created world: “Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life” (Gn 3:17). 

Certainly God created all things good; but we no longer live in the Garden of Eden.

Nevertheless, such optimistic views culminate in a

reinterpretation of exorcism, which exerts considerable influence over the current Order for Blessing Water.

Achille M. Triacca articulates a new understanding that justifies the transformation evident in the blessings of the Ritual. In his view, “the most authentic” (le plus authentique) liturgical and ecclesiastical view of exorcism is characterized by “the optimistic vision” (la vision optimiste) that encompasses all of salvation history and the orientation of all creation towards redemption.

Hence Triacca highlights the importance of anamnesis (understood as a memorial of salvation history) in the euchology of exorcisms. He goes on to argue that in its most authentic form, exorcism is nothing other than an epiclesis of the Holy Spirit.59 Triacca’s criteria for authenticity are somewhat obscure, as is the logic of his argument. 

As noted in the above discussion of the

previous Order, the expulsion of evil influences appeared as a prerequisite for the fuller realization of divine power in the object to be blessed, rather than as an end in itself. Yet by no means should exorcism be conflated with epiclesis.

Nonetheless, each of the three formulae of blessing

in the present Order for Blessing Water Outside of Mass mentions the Holy Spirit, and anamnesis or remembrance of salvation history – especially of one’s own baptismal entrance into the economy of salvation – is the dominant theme. 

For those who see the connection, these elements are all that remains of the apotropaic themes that predominated the previous Order for Blessing Water. Those who cannot admit that anamnesis and epiclesis are equivalent with exorcism, or that praise, thanksgiving, and recollection of one’s baptism are equivalent with blessing water, may wonder if the radical changes in the Church’s blessings faithfully reflect the Second Vatican Council’s mandate that sacramentalia recognoscantur, that is, that the sacramentals be “revised.”

+++++++++++++++++

I am going to post one section of this study out of order so it can be considered by faithful men and then, likely, be seen for what it is - a radical rupture within the Catholic Church that Traditional Orders reject entirely:

the presence of these elements in the Missal betrays

some theological disparity between those responsible

for the respective liturgical books.

Why the Contrast?

The above examination of the differences between

the previous and the present Order for Blessing Water Outside of Mass provides a vivid illustration of the fact that the De benedictionibus promulgated in 1984 is no mere revision of the blessings from the pre-Vatican II Roman Ritual. It is rather a completely different work, which appears to be undergirt by a radically different understanding of the nature of blessing and exorcism, an understanding that is in part characterized by the practical principles of revision set forth by Study Group 23 and discussed above.

What theological shifts, it may be asked, led to the

new understanding that entailed the wholesale rewriting of the Ritual’s blessings? David Stosur reasons that, in the absence of sustained attention given to blessings in and of themselves, “a contemporary theology of blessings . . . must simply be extrapolated from approaches that theologians since Vatican II have aken to the sacraments and to the liturgy in general.”

He proceeds to do this, appealing particularly to

reflections on the liturgy by Otto Semmelroth, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Karl Rahner. Particularly worthy of note is the following passage, in which Stosur weaves together some of Rahner’s comments on the liturgy:

The very “conceptual model” of sacramentality

therefore shifts according to the way God’s

relationship to the world is understood – in

Rahner’s terms, from one “based on the implicit

assumption that grace can be an unmerited gift

of God only if it becomes present in a secular

and sinful world to which it is mostly denied,”

to one which “starts out from the assumption

that the secular world from the outset is always

encompassed and permeated with the grace of

the divine self-communication”: “The

sacraments accordingly are not really to be

understood as successive individual incursions

of God into a secular world, but as ‘outbursts’

. . . of the innermost, ever present gracious

endowment of the world with God himself into

history. The material things of creation, as

necessary components of the “liturgy of the

world,” are by that very fact valuable. The value

of material creation is in turn understood and

acknowledged in sacramental celebrations,

where these things are utilized for the purpose

of symbolizing this “primordial” liturgy.

This notion of the “liturgy of the world,” whether rightly or wrongly attributed to Rahner, could go a long way towards explaining why the current Order for Blessing Water Outside of Mass does not explicitly bless or exorcize the water, and moreover, why things (rather than people) generally are not blessed or exorcized in De benedictionibus. Although the notion is specifically invoked rather infrequently, the “liturgy of the world” could shed light on the general consensus articulated by many theologians writing on blessings in the post- Conciliar period: God’s creatures are blessed from their creation; liturgical blessings are opportunities to praise and thank God for this, and, from the pastoral

perspective, to edify those present by recalling it.

One scholar of holy water, writing before Vatican

II, expressed quite a different view of the state of

creation in the following passage: “By the fall of our first parents, the spirit of evil obtained influence not only over man, but also over inanimate nature, whence he is called in Scripture ‘the prince of this world’” (Jn

12:31, 14:30, 16:11). For this reason, when the Church exorcizes some thing, “the curse put upon it is removed, and Satan’s power over it either destroyed entirely, or at least diminished.”

The same commentator articulated what he claimed to be the consensus regarding holy water as follows:

Nearly all theologians teach that Holy Water,

used with the proper intention and disposition,

confers actual graces, remits venial sin, restrains

the power of Satan, and secures temporal

blessings, for example, bodily health and

protection against temporal evils. When

preparing Holy Water, the officiating minister

in the name of the whole Church prays for these

divine favors in particular. Surely, then, the

pious use of this “permanent sacramental” is a

most helpful means of salvation.

Hence blessing or consecrating a thing in general or water in particular entailed breaking Satan’s influence over it, so that it could no longer serve as an instrument of his hate. Then, by the power of Christ entrusted to the Church, the thing blessed could be used as an efficacious instrument for good – assuming the proper disposition of the person who benefits from the use of the item. This type of exorcism is frequently found in ancient rituals, including, for example, rites of baptism. It is prefatory in nature; if something or someone is to become an instrument of blessing, then, logically, that person or thing must be free from demonic influence.