So, the addition of an exorcism prayer over the holy water has no additional value, whatever that may be, when compared to holy water that did not receive such prayer?

Well, naming exorcists doesn’t matter here, as one eccentric idea form them destroys all credibility. I might be able to find an impeccable exorcist, free from all error, but that could prove difficult. Their testimony, and their claims to their colleague’s testimony, which agrees with them, is apparently a moot point. If you trust them, then it is verifiable by their work in casting out demons.

However, we have also seen other exorcists disagree and say that holy water is holy water regardless of blessing.

Another potential piece of verification is that when we ask something in prayer, God may respond in accordance with what we ask (if it’s His will, etc). But, in the realm of spiritual warfare, exorcists (unless there is disagreement with this, but I have never seen it) will state that it is very legalistic and demons will respond to certain exorcism prayers – the words must be correct, more so than in general prayer.

Now, one could argue traditional holy water is better suited towards spiritual warfare because due to what the Church considers an exorcism prayer.

The basic prayer of exorcism is asking God to remove and evil spirit. This is even seen in the new rite of exorcism and especially the old. [Side note, our discredited exorcist will actually state some prayers in the new ritual are more effective, if that is worth anything to anyone]

So, one could argue – or at least have evidence - that the church’s standard prayers for exorcism have a very general rule, regardless of their effectiveness. This rule is that there must be some pleading with God to remove an evil spirit. Again, this is even seen in the new ritual for exorcism.

Or in other words, in both the traditional Roman Ritual and the new one, something that is classified for exorcism always has prayers asking God to cast out a demon (perhaps I am wrong about this?).

Now, do we have such prayers in the new rite for holy water? No.

Do we have that in the old rite? Yes.

Therefore, it would seem the Extraordinary Form prayers for holy water are better for spiritual warfare.

Consider another argument: would removing all prayers form either rite of exorcism which commanded an evil entity in the name of God to leave, adversely affect the rite? If so, then there is value the power to those prayers, and hence it must have some sort of beneficial effect when used on Holy water. Otherwise, why were they there in the first place for centuries?

At the very least, if none of us are 100% sure, then it would be safer to simply use the traditional formula – it was there for centuries for a reason. All those Popes and saints who retained and used it were not fools. Or in other words, these prayers appear to add something to the Holy water that the standard blessing did not do – which is why they are there in the first place, they’re there for a reason; all of those men appeared to consider them important enough to retain for such a long time.





Paul VI can be concerned all he wants. No Pope is immune from mistakes and imprudence. They are not divine beings.

Haven't read the entire thread yet, so forgive me if this has been pointed out, but personal opinions by exorcists aside, we know that holy water is a sacramental, and it works ex opere operantis. Meaning, according to Fr. Hardon SJ's Catholic Dictionary:

"any subjective factor that at least partially determines the amount of grace obtained by a person who performs some act of piety. Thus in the use of sacramentals or in the gaining of indulgences, the blessings received depend largely on the faith and love of God with which a sacramental is employed or an indulgenced prayer or good work is performed."

So its efficacy is largely based on the subjective degree of faith and charity that you possess. In other words, you can have very little faith and charity, and despite all of the more traditional and solemn prayers said over those sacramentals, it wouldn't be very efficacious.

You haven't shown that it does, no.

I have done so in two ways: the first is exorcist testimony. But, that was no good since they make errors and are not impeccable enough for our tastes. The second is by the very fact that exorcism requires prayers of deliverance from an evil entity (demonstrated in both the new and old roman rituals), which is absent in the new holy water prayers.



But, since you said "no" does that mean the exorcism prayer in and of itself has no value?

If no, then it adds value to the Holy Water.

If yes, then these type of prayers of exorcism are useless and they can be expunged from the Roman Ritual without negative consequence.

Additionally, if the Holy Water already has these properties of exorcism without said prayer, then the additional prayer is useless and we are left wondering why the Church retained something for so many centuries - and adding exorcised salt to the water as well. Or in other words, the tradition was a "useless repetition" and all of those men for centuries were doing additional useless things until the enlightenment of the 20th century.

Alternatively, because their testimony is contradicted by the testimony of others.

Does it? If Holy Water is truly holy, then it is inimical to evil entities whether or not it's specifically stated.

Are you familiar with the controversy over the matter of Holy Orders? For centuries the much more common theological opinion was that it was the handing over of the instruments (traditio instrumentorum). But the laying on of hands was retained. Now, Ott labels it (correctly, IMHO) sent. fidei proxima that the matter is the laying on of hands and that the traditio is not necessary for validity (Eastern Rites have never practiced it).

But the traditio is still part of the ordination rite.

So the fact that something is retained in a rite for an extended period does not mean that it is necessary for the efficaciousness of the rite. It doesn't mean that it should be stripped away, and I'm glad that the traditio hasn't been and sorry that the exorcism of Holy Water has been, but the end result is that this particular argument doesn't go anywhere useful.

I note also that you're still using the "varieties of Holy Water" argument.

BTW, another possible explanation is that Holy Water blessed without an exorcism really is less effective for Fr. Ripperger and others, but it's less effective because they are sceptical of its full effectiveness. Remember (as mentioned above) that sacramentals work ex opere operantis, and thus are more susceptible to the thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, etc. of the people involved than sacraments are.

I want to be clear that in no way am I intending to impugn Fr. Ripperger's integrity. From all that I know of him, I believe he is a good man, committed to the service of Christ and His holy people.

I want to backtrack a little because the Book of Blessings has been mentioned several times. I know very few priests who use the BoB formula for blessing holy water because it doesn't actually bless the water--a problem throughout the BoB. The people who put it together had a positive horror of "superstition", and to guard against it, they pulled out all the constitutive blessings.

An invocative blessing blesses the use of a thing; the prayer before meals is along these lines. The food itself does not become a sacred object, so it's perfectly fine to throw away leftovers. A constitutive blessing sets the thing blessed apart for sacred use, and that's what we think of when we think of the blessings of holy water, rosaries, medals, scapulars, etc. And none of those things are blessed by the BoB blessings as written.

I'm not making this up. The Holy See issued a directive a few years ago that clergy can (and I think should) insert an actual blessing of the thing being blessed into the prayers.

So if Fr. Ripperger et al. are concerned over the efficacy of Holy Water blessed with that rite, well, I'm right there with them.

What formula do they usually use to bless the water? Is it this one?

Edit: I found this YouTube video of a priest using the old rite of blessing in English. Didn't know that was allowed. I might actually print it out and ask my priest if he could use it to bless salt and water for me.

Those are the prayers from the Book of Blessings. Look at the actual blessing prayers, towards the bottom of the page, and note that neither one says a word about blessing the water itself.

Edit in response to the edit: I'm referring to the prayers on the web page, not in the video.

So I offer my communion for XXXXXX [insert personal intention].

A priest offers his communion for XXXXXXX [insert his intention].

Who’s would be more effacious?

A priest is not necessarily holier than you are.

The answer is whoever places fewer obstacles in the way of the graces the sacrament offers him.

Got it. Thanks.

However, I would hope in general that priests are more holy than the average Joe Catholic. I get that’s a huge burden for them...that people even make that assumption about their priest. But hey, its what they signed up for and people tend to rise to the expectations placed on them.

Universal call to holiness in the Church, remember?

He mentions this, but states that new rite holy water is indeed holy water "because of the blessing" (the correct one as you mentioned) - but then he says the traditional rite receives both "a blessing and and exorcism."

Just wondering: how many others have tested it and say it doesn't matter?






Then all sacraments and sacramentals are exorcisms. Everything holy can indeed be fight against evil – but two things 1. there is in fact items that can be called exorcism vs other items that are not, both being holy 2. I am not arguing that new rite holy water can't be effective, I am arguing that because the old rite has specific prayers attached to it, it renders it superior for spiritual warfare. If we are going to play with words, then you can say it's all a really broad exorcism - but it's clear that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about real prayers of exorcism. Exorcists know this themselves, I have seen no disagree at least with this; one must at the very least ask God for deliverance from an evil entity.





That's not a good comparison because I am talking about two different things being affected with the water: the creation of the sacramental itself vs the creation of the sacramental with exorcism attached. Mentioning it as a tradition is to simply bolster the argument and I am well aware of other items that have been expunged over the years. Exorcising holy water is one that is at least 1700 years old from the given evidence, and that means it could be even older. That is quite the tradition and the traditio instrumentorum pales in comparison.





I never intended to stop using it. Or perhaps "varieties of holy water" can be interpreted in a few different ways.

What I have been trying to argue is that a prayer over a sacramental actually endows it with a different purpose depending on the prayers – this is just common sense. Prayer begets what it signifies.


Holy Water is a sacramental. We already have an example of a sacramental of the same type – medals – that can have additional purposes.
 
For example: the St. Benedict Medal. The medal itself has inscriptions against the devil, it’s blessing also contains exorcism prayers.
 
If the words on the medal are removed and the words of exorcism removed from the blessing, is it the same? No.
 
This is why the faithful seek out the St. Benedict medal specifically for spiritual warfare and it is recommend by many priests and exorcists for protection (you have done so yourself in these forums).
 
Take another medal – St. Christopher medal. Which is better for spiritual warfare? They are both good for it, but because the St. Benedict medal is endowed with specific prayers of exorcism, it is logically better suited towards spiritual warfare.
 
So, here we have two medals, which after receiving a blessing, are true sacramentals – but one is better for spiritual warfare; the St. Benedict medal. Why? Because of the prayers and inscriptions.
 

Both rituals for holy water actually produce the sacramental holy water, but since the prayer was different in the traditional rite, it is therefore superior for spiritual warfare -just like the St. Christopher medal vs the St. Benedict medal.




But, sacramentals also work ex opere operantis Ecclesiae.

Since I am thoroughly unpersuaded by the varieties of Holy Water argument, I don't know what else to tell you.

I can see it now. Some demon is angrily packing his bags, getting ready to be cast out, hoping to find a pig (or a cat if . . . hello, Denzel) to hop into, when suddenly, a huge smile crosses its face. The exorcist pronounced a word wrong! The specific word was said in the wrong way. IT DOESN'T COUNT! The water isn't holy enough, the prayer not powerful enough. Somewhere (Everywhere! Everywhen!!) God is throwing up His hands yelling at the screen the way I did when the Bulldogs lost it against Alabama in the final seconds of the SEC championship game just a couple of yards from the end zone. The father was SOOOOOOOOOOOO close. But alas, he uttered the wrong word and just the wrong time.

But it's okay. We'll get 'em next year.

------------------------

So yeah, this is why I don't contribute to these threads.

Understood. But I was wonder what do they use then (I mean the priests who you know who don't use the BoB). Do they use some other official post-vatican II blessing in some other book (if so, what's it called; the book or volume I mean)?

Speaking personally, I can count on probably one hand the number of times I've had priests bless stuff - so my experience is limited here. And to my recollection, they all used an invocative blessing (asking God to bless the object). I have never heard a priest actually declare that he was blessing something . And I think once or twice the priest ad lipped his own prayers and just made the sign of the cross over the things I had blessed..

So yeah, I'm curious so I can ask my priest to do a constitutive blessing, if it exists in some other up to date approved form.