I “made” some Holy Water this morning, and I confess, I did it in the old rite. The modern rite talks about water as being a reminder of baptism and baptism being source of salvation, the blessing of salt, which may be added, refers to Elijah casting salt on the waters, the water and salt casting out evil and cleansing. Depending on which option you choose it mentions the forgiveness of sins, saving from illness and the power of evil
The amazing thing about the old Holy Water is that it is all about entering in conflict with evil and disease. There are no exorcisms in the new rites of blessings whilst in the old rite more or less everything first has to be claimed for Christ before it can be raised to the higher dignity of being blessed. The exorcism for the salt in the old rite ends, “…where you are sprinkled may all evil fantasies depart, and all wickedness, and all diabolic frauds and evil spirits flee…”. Similar words are said over the water “…to drive out devils … to ward of disease … may no breath of contagion linger there, no taint of contagion … if anything threatens the safety or peace … may it be banished”.
What is so significant is the change in theology, the modern rite is sparse, clean cut, and doesn’t really say a lot. The old rite is full of Apocalyptic imagery, well it gives you the feeling of wanting to say, “Tremble, Satan” or “Come on you demons if you think you are tough enough”. With a phial of Holy Water you could conquer the world or at least the Underworld!
The amazing thing about the old Holy Water is that it is all about entering in conflict with evil and disease. There are no exorcisms in the new rites of blessings whilst in the old rite more or less everything first has to be claimed for Christ before it can be raised to the higher dignity of being blessed. The exorcism for the salt in the old rite ends, “…where you are sprinkled may all evil fantasies depart, and all wickedness, and all diabolic frauds and evil spirits flee…”. Similar words are said over the water “…to drive out devils … to ward of disease … may no breath of contagion linger there, no taint of contagion … if anything threatens the safety or peace … may it be banished”.
What is so significant is the change in theology, the modern rite is sparse, clean cut, and doesn’t really say a lot. The old rite is full of Apocalyptic imagery, well it gives you the feeling of wanting to say, “Tremble, Satan” or “Come on you demons if you think you are tough enough”. With a phial of Holy Water you could conquer the world or at least the Underworld!
19 comments:
Indeed, Father.
The devil does exist and does take hold of people.
I am sure that I have seen it.
Years ago I was with a group of people 'praying over' a woman after she had asked us to do....I was a Charismatic then... and she began to writhe,squirm and call out vulgarities. Way back, I had received Minor Orders, and I was sure that this was possession. I called out to the Spirit to come out of her, in the name of Jesus Christ. She slumped, eventually came round and left peacefully.
I can't say any more.
JARay
I agree - many of the newer blessings seem to lack the spiritual 'punch' of the old versions...'dumbing down'on a grand scale!
Fr. Ray,
You beg the $64,000 question – does the meatier language of the Old Rite formula mean that holy water thus blessed is more effective and potent than water blessed using the “watered-down” vernacular version?
Certainly St. Teresa of Avila considered Holy Water to be one of the most powerful defenses against the devil... something I didn't quite understand until I was fortunate enough to see some being blessed according to the Old Rite! And it makes far more sense: get rid of the old before welcoming in the new...
Exorcizo te, creatura aquae ..
A most fascinating post, and I can't resist commenting.
I would point out there are no exorcisms in the new rite of blessings, but Fr. Ray has already made the point, forcefully and very convincingly.
If we are to believe in the power of "Holy Water", then I don't understand the removal of the exorcisms : the driving out of devils and of evil spirits and wickedness ( and they are all real enough ! ) from the salt.
Tremble, o earth, before the Lord, indeed !
I find Francis's question unanswerable :
Is Holy Water less potent when it is "watered down" ? !
Is new rite holy water less potent -umm?
I was called to bless a house which was apparently haunted - for a non-Catholic as is normal- in the case of hauntings and things. I said the prayers and sprinkled everywhere. The lights were low, there was a dark coloured sofa - with a dark coloured fun fur cushion, which as soon as it was sprinkled came to life - yelled with an ungodly cry and leapt through the window.
For some reason the family cat went missing and didn't return for four days!
The water I used was blessed with the new rite.
A friend of mine called at a local monastery to have his new car blessed on its first trip out and this was done by a very elderly and shortsighted father. Once he had blessed the car he lent into the back seat and blessed an object there. My friend asked him what he was doing, and he said, I just thought I'd bless your doggie while I was about it. My friend thanked him very much and didn't tell him it was not his dog but a vacumn cleaner. He tells me he has never had any problems with the vacumn cleaner which was a Henry. When he did get a dog he called it Henry in memory.
Francis, yes, I'd say Holy Water is Holy Water no matter how it comes about. But I would agree with Fr. Ray that the older prayers are infinitely preferable to the relatively insipid version given more recently. Sometimes those so-called liturgists didn't know when to leave well enough alone.
It's Shakespeare as opposed to "See spot run."
How can two approved rites of the Church be stronger or weaker than the other, considering that it is Christ who blesses through the priest? There seems to be superstition at work here.
All sacraments and sacraments, come into being through their celebration providing there is valid matter and form.
However their fruitfullnes depends on the openness of the recipient to the grace they provide, above all by being in a fit spiritual state. Other factors also should be taken into account such as the psychological disposition or even the aesthetic environment in which they are celebrated.
In this sense the liturgical setting of the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals has always been considered important.
The New and Older forms of Mass produces an equally valid sacrament, one however may dispose someone to recieve Holy Communion in a more fruitful way than the other.
A priest friend of mine who confects holy water with the old ritual received comments that 'his' holy water was really good! He hadn't told them he had used the old ritual, but it seems the exorcisms had had a very reall effect. I shall use it in future! I am finding great riches in the old rituale romanum.
When you are next at Wonersh, have a look at this article:
Van Slyke, D. “The Order for Blessing Water: Past and Present” Antiphon 8:2 (2003) 12-23
It is an excellent analysis of the question.
(Have used the older blessing myself for a while.)
Speaking of blessings. . . it was just recently that a priest pointed out to me that every person and/or thing that is blessed is blessed so as to draw it to Christ. The priest pointed me to Eph 1:9-10 "For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth." Seems obvious but just another one of those beautiful aspects of the Faith that I never knew/realized previously.
I believe that Fr Gabriel Amorth commented that the new rite of exorcism, in his experience, is far less efficacious than the older rite.
My reason for posting the story re the blessing of the car was to work out what exactly are the mechanics of sacramentals. How does the holy water work? Is it by being blessed imbued with power or is it ever partly a matter of channelling our own faith? Our Lord repeatedly told those he had cured that it was their faith or belief which has made them well again. It just has me wondering.
This bizarre emphasis on different strengths credited to old and new forms: old strong, new weak, surely borders on heresy? Presumably Fr Blake, Fr Boyle and Fr Finnegan were ordained in the new form of ordinal? Pope John Paul II was ordained priest and bishop under the old form. Pope Benedict XVI was ordained priest under the old form but bishop under the new. Does this mean that these three priests achieve weaker results and that Pope Benedict is half the man than Pope John Paul? Or does it also mean that the Host consecrated under the old rite is more infused with grace than one consecrated under the new and Christ more fully given in Holy Communion? The answer, of course, is no but this rot about differing strengths of holy water achieved by different forms leads to a reductio ad absurdem. However, if it does not, holy water blessed by Pope John Paul using the old ritual would be the strongest, the same blessed by Pope Benedict less strong, and water blessed by this triumvirate of clerical bloggers weaker still, but hardly existent if they used the new ritual. Perhaps they had better be conditionally re-ordained under the old ordinal to make sure that they achieve the stongest brew. Satan, watch out!
Gretel,
I would refer you to my previous comment above, regarding fruitfullness.
As for myself I am not convinced that "old" is always better, and certainly not more effective, but as far as the blessing of Holy Water is concerned, I think it is more evocative.
One of things the Motu Proprio calls us to do, by its presence, as much as by what it says, is to re-evaluate the traditional forms.
I am rather enjoying doing this, throughout my time in the seminary it was almost a constant refrain that new is good: old is bad. I am some what euphoric that both old and new can be equally good, or even equally bad.
As a seminarian the one thing we were almost forbidden to study were the older forms, that is those which formed and santified previous generaltions. Examining them now, I feel like someone who has finally got the key to a secret room, I find the contents fascinating, because they give us an insight into a theology that is truly ancient.
And yes, those things which have developed over centuries are actually richer than those which were made up by a particular committee of experts over one decade in the 2oth century.
There is a general attitude now that "holiness" is evenly distributed amongst everything that exists. An older Catholic friend expressed this recently when she said that "everything is holy". I demurred and pointed out the existence of relics and, of course, the Real Presence in the Tabernacle.
Fr Gabriel Amorth based his comments on the relative lack of efficacy of the modern rite of exorcism on his observations of the effect of the modern and the traditional rites on people who were possessed.
But, of course, if one doesn't believe that blessings have a tangible effect then one can only judge the relative value of one rite over an other by what it means to oneself as a symbol. Another example of this mindset is regarding Baptism where it is now largely seen as a symbolic act and not possessing any efficacy in itself.
I too use the old Roman Ritual for the exorcism and blessing of water. The particular efficacy of any given liturgical formula is objectively related to that for which the Church asks by means of it. The question then is not about old vs. new. It is, rather, "For what grace or graces does the Church ask in this particular formula?" One needs to look closely at the texts.
With regard to Holy Water and the Church's ongoing battle against the powers of darkness there is a marvelous chapter in Dom Vaggagini's book, "Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy."
Recently, I had occasion to bless a "haunted" monastery of enclosed nuns. I blessed water according to the Old Rite first, and then went into every nook and cranny of the house, sprinkling Holy Water while a Sister read the Seven Penitential Psalms with an "Eternal rest" at the end of each. The blessing was followed by nine consecutive Masses for the suffering souls.
Post a Comment