Talk:Blessing

Catholic blessing
I don't know about what the Orthodox, Lutheran or Anglicans believe but in the Catholic faith only Priests and bishops can bless. Deacons don't have the power to bless, they can ask God to bless but they cannot bless the person themselves. I will try to find some proof to back me up. BennyK95 16:34, 21 September 2009

Got it! ''Since, then, blessings, in the sense in which they are being considered, are entirely of ecclesiastical institution, the Church has the power to determine who shall have the right and duty to confer them. This she has done by entrusting their administration to those who are in sacerdotal orders. The solitary case in which one inferior to a priest is empowered to bless, is where the deacon blesses the paschal candle in the ceremonies of Holy Saturday. This exception is more apparent than real. For in the instance referred to the deacon acts by way of a deputy and, moreover, employs the grains of incense already blessed by the celebrant. Priests, then, are the ordinary ministers of blessings, and this is only in the fitness of things since they are ordained. '' Subscript text taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm

I am going to change the part on the page, I will make a new category BennyK95 16:45, 21 September 2009

Question on the blessings, marks bestowed by God. I have this simular markings on my hand. Ojffej (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary?
This seems more like a dictionary entry. —DIV 128.250.204.118 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Eh, I must question the Etymology of the word Bless.

"To bless (from Anglo-Saxon blēdsian or blētsian, Common Germanic blōdisōjan) originally meant "to sprinkle with blood" during the pagan sacrifices called "Blót" (reference: AHD)."

As, I have read norwegian scientists claiming the source of the word to be the Norse verb "ble(t)za", which means "to blow", as in when god blew the spirit of life into Adam. Which would explain why the Icelandic language also contains the word "blessa" meaning "to bless", as Icelandic is based on Norse, not Anglo-Saxon. - This article seems to me to be too religion-focused. Blessing doesn't always have to have a religious attachment, as seen in the usage of the word amongst today's generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.163 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lord's Blessing Wording
I've seen the second line written as such: The Lord make his face to shine upon you. Does anyone know the proper wording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.188.70 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Whose blessing?
Seems to me this particular magic spell is structured to be used in an interesting way. When a lower-ranking person 'blesses' someone, the implication is that the blessor is expressing the wish that a deity will confer the actual beneficence - so that the implied full phrase is "(I pray/wish that God etc. will) bless you, my child".

But when the blessor has sufficient status - a pope, a witchdoctor/shaman/evangelist or high-ranking celebrity - the strong implication is that the blessing itself comes directly from that blessor.

This appears to work officially for things like 'holy water', buildings and sites without much argument - ranking priests simply have to repeat a spell and the thing is blessed. Blessing people directly appears to be more covert, and I suspect an evangelist preacher might claim if pressed that he's just a conduit for divine power. But the implication is that the blessor is able to wield the power directly: "bless you all for coming/helping/listening etc." as if divine permission is a foregone conclusion or, more specifically, need not be sought.

Anyone know of any research on this? --Cdavis999 (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about witchdoctors or shaman, but for bishops and priests there certainly are two kinds of blessings, invocative and constitutive. The distinction is explained here. Constitutive blessings are indeed limited to clergy; their efficacy comes from the sacrament of Holy Orders.


 * There is nothing, however, furtive about a clerical invocative blessings. The example you give, "bless you all for coming", is an informal, or even phatic, blessing more likely to be invoked by a layman. A clergyman is unlikely to leave the word "God" implicit; he would always make it explicit. Certainly in the Rituale Romanum, all blessings, constitutive as well as invocative, make God's role explicit. Rwflammang (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Christianity Section
I see some quality problems in the "Christianity" section, affecting the encyclopedic quality of this article as a whole. It is important for the text to deal with theological subjects without theological bias; therefore, generally, the text should not promote that certain theological ideas are better founded than others (or none at all). Instead the text should deal DISPASSIONATELY by explaining the basis for theological ideas. It should explain, when possible, the origin (ie: the person or movement or whatever) of such basis/justification, and go to great lengths not to promote that particular theological idea. 67.186.226.117 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problematic part of our text begins right away: "The New Testament commands Christians to bless and not to curse", and cited are three bible verses. Well, the context of these verses and "commands" aren't apparent though many people are trained to take them at face value. An alternate to this would be some text which would state an explanation that there's a consensus among mainstream Christians (of blessing and not cursing) which uses certain new testament verses as a support. It's a POV to declare a theological tenet is supported by particular bible verses; thus just stating that point of view straight-out as is done now I feel is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. In summary: is Wikipedia really supposed to tell readers what the bible does and does not "COMMAND" everyone to do?! (of course not) 67.186.226.117 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Even WORSE is the second sentence: "This supports the Christian doctrine that God is a God of love and mercy and that the Bible teaches that cursing and anger should be left to God - not us (in the sense that He will judge our works).". Well, again, this text reads like an apologetic work (which an encyclopedia is NOT). The first part of the sentence is yet again piling on POV without context and without explaining why the POV is notable; the term "this supports" isn't hardly ever appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic work. The next phrase "...that God is a God of love and mercy" continues with the same kind of bad quality. A dispassionate reader unfamiliar with Christianity would have little clue as to what the christian notion of "love and mercy" means. The belief in an existence of a christian-like God (or at least an intimate familiarity with this concept of god) is crucial for even understanding what this sentence means, so that makes it a problematic sentence even if you ignore the issues I point out with it's POV.67.186.226.117 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph is out of whack: "This formula has been introduced into Christian worship as well. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus pronounces blessings on the poor, the humble, and the persecuted in the Beatitudes at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount.".... First sentence seems like it is a leftover of some previous rewrite, it is summing something up... what FORMULA? The existence of any kind of "formula", even a metaphoric one, is not obvious in the previous paragraph. Then it says "as well" but there's not any discussion of any other object to which the formula was applied (Christian worship was discussed in the previous paragraph). But I feel the text of the 2nd sentence is on the right track, more or less dispassionate and more or less just giving relevant information. Just this statement needs to be put in the midst of proper build-up/context and it will be fine.67.186.226.117 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to include any mention of "curses" at all, because this is an article about blessings, and the citations in the bible about blessings are relevant, not the fact that "curses" are purported to be disallowed by Christians. We could have a theological discussion about if curses are indeed "disallowed" or and what constitutes "a curse" in the first place? We could also discuss the true meaning of the bible verses in question, if it's been translated properly, etc etc. But those are all things that are done in OTHER PLACES.... theological venues, apologetic works, worship services, seminaries. To can sum up what I see as the main obstacle to this section's achieving better quality: it's the treatment regarding "curses".67.186.226.117 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I apologize for the major anon. edits; I was not logged in, also the above statements were from me. Retran (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect position of fingers in illustration
The photograph shows that the thumbs being held next to the fore-fingers. This position is incorrect and in other illustrations of this kind there is always a gap made between the 2 thumbs and the first fingers. This applies to both hands which when spread. Held together it makes a total of 6 groups of fingers (and thumbs), which is a number which has several symbolic meanings both in the Bible and in Jewish mysticism. Macrocompassion (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Blessing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721180724/http://www.siddhayoga.org.in/glossary.html to http://www.siddhayoga.org.in/glossary.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

POV dispute
This article is clearly written from the perspective of a believer, where religious beliefs are declared as statements rather than opinions, and the existence of God, a highly controversial topic, is assumed as self-evident. One example is the sentence "Blessings therefore are directly associated with God and come from God" - and, in particular, the phrase "come from God", but there are many throughout the article. This clearly violates the WP:POV policy. I suggest the article be rewritten entirely. O l J a 18:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Oldstone James. Just curious.  I have always been of the understanding, regardless of any belief or disbelief in any form of divinity or "all powerful concept", that a "blessing" by axiomatic definition comes from or is facilitated by such.  Hence, if a blessing does not "come from [a] god", where does it come from ?   Regards.  Eno Lirpa (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true what you are saying, but I suggest the axiomatic nature of the article be made clearer; for example, instead of writing "come from God", we may write "are believed to come from God", or we may introduce the section with "in some Christian beliefs,...". Let's imagine the article on Santa Claus was written in the same manner: "Christmas presents are, therefore, directly associated with, and are delivered by, Santa Claus". How neutral would that sound? I do see your point, but I still think that the article is either actually biased or, as you suggest, comes across as such. O l J a 18:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot of the article is written from a contextual perspective, so it has a soft POV, but I do not believe it is pushing [a hard] POV. I would support you being BOLD and just changing it accordingly as you suggest.  Eno Lirpa (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * PS You do need to be a bit careful about how you reword it, to not contextually POV the other way. You presumably will believe Santa Claus delivers presents if you believe in Santa Claus.  But you can get presents if you do not believe in Santa Claus.  However, can you get a blessing if you do not believe in a god?  Regards.  Eno Lirpa (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is more of a philosophical discussion. What people believe are blessings may actually be (actually, most certainly are) placebos - and these can be very powerful if one passionately believes in, and always seeks to reassure themselves in the effect of, blessings. Anyway, I will just do as you suggested; it won't be anything crucial - just, perhaps, a couple of doubt words and a few "as it is believed" here and there. O l J a  17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

What happened. It’s like some Me controlling my webpage.
Need help. Ojffej (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)