Concerning the origins of the dreadful “Book of Blessings” (De Benedictionibus), which ironically doesn’t bless anything.
I thought there was one prayer which truly blessed, an option for a rosary with the traditional version they ported in, but they changed it to bless the person who would use it, not the rosary itself. Their aim was to destroy the distinction between invocative and constitutive blessings.
Matthew Hazell has for years been doing yeoman’s work in exposing the process, discussions, move and maneuvers to produce the Novus Ordo (in all its ramifications). We owe him a debt a gratitude for bringing these items to light.
It should be noted that the reformers even questioned the suitability of the word “bless” in the Book of Blessings: “in certain circumstances, it can be questioned whether the verb ‘bless’ is to be used or not… this way of speaking sometimes gives rise to superstition…” (!!) https://t.co/zBJ9N4HOs8 pic.twitter.com/kO62qm8XBg
— Matthew Hazell (@M_P_Hazell) August 30, 2025
I have more to say about this, below.
On a different but related note…
No, Dietrich, it is not a lie.
“They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.” -Cardinal Baum 1967 https://t.co/363cgfrl3h pic.twitter.com/tnhFiBqsmI
— ? ????? ? ????® (@0remvs) August 31, 2025
A little more about the blessings issue.
There is a difference between an invocative blessing, that calls a blessing down on people or critters, and a constitutive blessing or consecration, that results in a lasting state.
We can bless or consecrate some things and places and some people (in the case of religious, priests) such that they are sacred things, places or persons.
Somethings for sacred use are important enough to be exorcized before being blessed. In, for example, the blessing of water, salt, oil, etc., the exorcism removes these things from the realm of the Prince of this world (the Enemy). They are then blessed or consecrated, constituted as blessed things, so that they can be of use in putting to flight demons and to help the state of our bodies and souls. To do that, they first need to be exorcised. Then they are blessed with a constitutive blessing.
This is important for, for example, Holy Water. In the execrable BoB, there is no blessing that blesses the water. Instead, the prayers call down a blessing on someone who might use it. We might think about this sort of water as “Nice Water” or “Happy Water” (or probably Just Plain Water). That said, in the Novus Ordo Missale Romanum there is a blessing for water to be used on Sunday which explicitly aims to bless the water with an optional blessing of salt. It doesn’t (if memory serves) have an exorcism of the water first, and it is much impoverished compared to the traditional rite in the Rituale Romanum. Yet, it blesses the water.
For example:
“… dignare, quaesumus, hanc aquam + benedicere… deign, we implore, to bless + this water… “
The second option (aren’t there always options in the Novus Ordo?) has:
“…hanc aquam, te quaesumus, + benedicas... we implore You that You + bless this water… “
This link will take you to the English of the execrable BoB for the Nice Watery prayers. HERE Note how every rite in the Novus Ordo has to look like Mass? Readings… homily… blah blah blah… of course with multiple readings options!
The difference between what is in the Novus Ordo Missal and the BoB demonstrates how incoherent the BoB is.
Another quick point. In the execrable BoB the options for making Nice Water speak to the reason for making water, for example, that people who use it will be “refreshed inwardly” or “renewed in body and spirit”.
In the older, traditional rite, when the priest exorcizes the salt (to be added to the water) he says it is for the “health of soul and body” and for the expelling of demons. When he blesses the salt, after the exorcism, it is again for “health of mind and body” and also for freeing whatever, person or thing, “all uncleanness and every attack of spiritual evil”. Are you sensing a theme? When the priest exorcises the water, he says that it is “purified to escape all the strength of the enemy and able to root out and displace the enemy himself with his apostate angels, through the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ”. When he blessed the exorcised water, he says:
“Let us pray. O God, for man’s salvation You have established the greatest mysteries in the substance of water, be favorable to our petitions and pour out the power of Your blessing + upon this element prepared by many purifications. May this Your creature, which serves Your mysteries, receive the efficacy of divine grace to expel devils and banish disease. In the homes of the faithful and in all other places may anything sprinkled with this water be free from every uncleanness and safe from harm. Let no pestilent spirit or corrupting air dwell therein. May all the hidden snares of the enemy depart. By the sprinkling of this water may anything hostile to the safety and peace of those who dwell therein be banished. And may the well being sought by the invocation of Your Holy Name be protected from all attack. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.
Now THAT’s true Happy Water!
But wait, there’s more. Then the blessed salt is poured into the water and the combined salty water solution is prayed over:
“O God, author of unconquered strength and King of an unconquerable empire, forever the glorious conqueror, You restrain the power of the devil, overcome the cruelty of the roaring enemy, attack all hostile wickedness with power. Fearful and humble, we beg and beseech You, Lord, look upon this creature of salt and water with kindness, honor it and make it holy with the dew of Your goodness. Wherever it is sprinkled, may every infection of the unclean spirit cease through the invocation of Your Holy Name, may the terror of the poisonous serpent be driven out, and may the presence of the Holy Spirit be everywhere with us who ask Your mercy. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ Your Son, Who lives and reigns with You in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, forever, and ever. Amen.”
I can do more about Holy Water in another post, if you wish. Let’s stop lest this be too long.
Finally, one is forced to ask: Did the people who did this to us even believe in the Devil?
Let’s have a poll. Anyone can vote, but to comment you must be registered and approved.
Loading ...
A question for Fr Z
A deacon can bless water using the BoB. Can a deacon bless water using the
Rituale Romanum?
At the beginning of Titulus IX entitled De benedictionibus in the Rituale Romanum you will find the general rules. Rule 1 says, “Deacons and lectors may confer only those blessings which are expressly allowed them by law, in so far as both validity and liceity are concerned.” However, just try to find them.
What does the present Code say? Deacons may give invocative blessings, and bless some few things, in accordance with liturgical books (can. 1169 §1). A deacon “can impart only those blessings which are expressly permitted to him by law” (can. 1169 §3). For example, a deacons can give blessings at all the rites at which they preside (Liturgy of the Hours, Communion outside Mass, etc.).
The truly dreadful BoB, which should be abolished as soon as possible, lists 21 “blessings” that deacons may give. They include, medals, small crucifixes statues or pictures that will be displayed elsewhere than in a church or chapel, scapulars, rosaries, or other articles used in religious devotions. Deacons may also “bless” holy water, with the Novus Ordo rite, but only outside the context of Holy Mass (obviously at Mass a priest is present). Deacons may “bless” private homes. NB the “”. I don’t think the texts of the BoB really bless things, because they are not constitutive, but only invocative..
The old rite for blessing Holy Water, with the Rituale, speaks about the sacerdos, which means bishop or priest. It does not mean deacon. A sacerdos is necessary because the blessings include the exorcism of salt and of water, before they are blessed. When you tangle with the Enemy, you want the ontological character of sacramental priesthood. If a rare deacon would baptize in the older rite, he would use salt and water that had been blessed already.
I surmise that deacons cannot bless Holy Water with the older form, even though the newer books may let them do so (BoB, De Benedictionibus 1087).
The reason why deacons can “bless” the water in the new book is because, so far as I can tell from a close reading of the Latin text, at no point does the celebrant actually bless the water. He talks about the blessings God could give people who use it, but the rite does not actually specify that the water be blessed.
If someone can show me that I am wrong, can point to the word or gesture I am missing, I will happily be corrected.
Even from just an aesthetic perspective, the “BoB” falls flat. We’ve always gotten our cars blessed, and it was so fun to hear the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned. The new blessing ends before it starts, and has some clunky line about the car being used for “pleasure or work” or something similar.
When we have our kid’s Baptist friends over for dinner, they beg me to ask them Bible trivia questions – I am happy to comply, because my kids always win! And one story they know the Baptists don’t is St. Phillip and then eunuch!
It also seems as if many of the N.O. priests don’t really believe that a blessing does anything anyway. It’s all for show. Example: when I was growing up, the Nativity Set was blessed once – at the Midnight Mass (which was held at …. MIDNIGHT!). It was assumed that this blessing “held” for the entire season until the Nativity Set was “broken” by being taken apart and put away. Now, it apparently lasts only a few hours since the blessing is repeated at every Mass on Christmas Day.
Happily I will, if spared, receive a sprinkling with holy water next Sunday which has blessed salt in it. Our priest having used the Missal text which translates –
“Præsta, Dómine, qu?sumus,
ut, ubicúmque hæc salis et aquæ commíxtio
fúerit aspérsa,
omni impugnatióne inimíci depúlsa,
præséntia Sancti tui Spíritus nos iúgiter custódiat.”
This is why I have a 30 year (possibly indefinite if I keep adding a small amount of regular water) supply of Epiphany water.
Deacons and lectors may confer only those blessings which are expressly allowed them by law,
So this raises the question regarding lectors conferring blessings given the changes to whom can be a lector.
“All make the following or some other suitable reply”.
“… some other suitable reply”. They’ve kept the red, but they’ve done away with the black.
“Some other suitable reply”. Dear God! Could be anything – they don’t actually care, it seems. Yadda, yadda…
Years ago, I printed down and framed the “De benedictione cervisiae” from the Rituale, and put it above the drink-cabinet in the house. Yep ?
thirteen months ago the then rector of the Cathedral (my then parish) came to my house, exorcised and blessed it, and left me with a good supply of holy water blessed according to the pre-conciliar form. that holy water is now near its end. i am confident that the pastor of my new parish will replenish it without resorting to the goofy BoB form.
Fr. Z,
Firstly, I would like to see a longer post explaining the aspects of the Holy Water. So you have my vote for an additional post.
Secondly, when and if that second post happens, it would be most informative and interesting if you including a brief history of the use of Holy Water, where is came from, how it was used, etcetera.
Thank you! Sincerely,
TradCathMale
Hello fr, I have a question, sorry for my ignorance.
What is the status of the “old” books?
Since TC, I cannot celebrate the Holy Mass with a Missal that is not the “novus ordo” without permission.
I understand that to fulfill my obligation to recite the Breviary, I have to use also the new Liturgy of the Hours, not the Roman Breviary. Am I right or wrong?
What about the Rituale Romanum?
Thank you very much
Oh Father, between your “news” about the Protestantism of the Mass, and the discussion of the blessings, my heart is sad that so much has been stolen from us. Maybe one had to grow up before the Novus Ordo, as I did, to appreciate what has been done to us. I’ll never forget the first Mass with changes.
I saw the heading, “The execrable BoB…” and thought “What can he have against Band of Brothers?”
And then there’s Epiphany water, even better right? Every year I get enough of that to last until the next Epiphany.
I am blessed to be at a parish with an exceptional priest who uses the old Rite of blessings and also uses exorcised blessed holy water. I was at a previous parish where the priest would wave his hand and actually say “Whatever whatever” for the ‘blessing’.
I’m very sympathetic to the concerns regarding the current edition of the BoB (especially given the apparent instruction from Rome some years ago (around the middle of the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, as I recall) regarding putting the required sign of the cross into blessings in the BoB that don’t have them printed within the formula – Fr. Z, as I recall you once posted this letter from Rome, could you re-post it if you still have it?). However, the BoB short form of the blessing formula provided for most sacramentals (rosaries, scapulars, medals, crucifixes, small statues, et c.) that can now be used by a deacon or a priest does in fact make the blessing explicit, and does include a printed sign of the cross (it’s the same one as the short form for rosaries). It can also be done in Latin – just sayin’. ;):
“May this (name of article) and the one who uses
it be blessed,
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and
of the Holy Spirit.
R. Amen.
Do bishops claim the authority to prevent priests from using the old form of blessings?