Hierarchy of Liturgical Rules

[SMHW]

In a liturgical music workshop I attended several years ago, the liturgist made the observation that directives should be examined with a view to their hierarchical importance.

Certain phrases such as 'preferred that…", “should be…”, “must never be…”, “It is forbidden that…” etc, carry different weights. Now, in this case the liturgist was referring to ‘Music In Catholic Worship’ which I know has been of questionable authority. But the statement of this liturgist raised what I consider to be an interesting topic. I have also seen this issue come up in this forum in regard to Redemptionis Sacramentum.

This issue is this: What are the guidelines that determine which liturgical ‘rules’ have the highest level of precedence if there is an actual or apparent conflict? What are the various levels of rules?

This issue is further complicated by the fact that there must be rules to decide the relative importance of other rules. Where does the highest authority lie? In a written document? In words from the pope? At the national level? At the Vatican level?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

You ask a very difficult question for which there is a simple answer and a complex answer. Let’s go for the simple answer first: the highest liturgical authority is the pope himself. He is the chief liturgist for the Latin Church. To assist him he has a congregation that is currently headed by Cardinal Arinze (Sacraments and Worship). They are, in general, responsible for the GIRM which is the next highest level of liturgical authority.

RS is an instruction which seeks to clarify the rules and regulations that have been laid down elsewhere. It does not make law. Instructions carry varying degrees of weight. In so far as they are generally authentic interpretations of the rules, they carry great weight. When they simply provide guidelines, they carrry little weight.

Within the general rules there are certain aspects of liturgical praxis that have been delegated to the national conference of bishops. The can establish particular law for their country. They can, however, delegate that function to the diocesan bishop who can establish particular law within his own diocese. Each of these cases, however, requires that they act within the scope of what has been delegated to them. The bishop of a diocese is the chief liturgist within his own diocese.

When, however, there is a conflict between the varying levels of authoritative statements, the bishops must seek clarification. Let me provide one such area for example. The Church has ruled that in Western countries liturgical dance is not appropriate and, therefore, not to be used. Yet, in non-western countries it may be permitted if the culture has traditionally seen dance as an integral part of expressing worship or reverence. Where the conflict comes in is simple: what happens when you have a “national parish” (ethnic parish) where the people are from a non-western country that uses dance as part of their worship but who now reside in a western country. May liturgical dance be used? The answer is, yes, it may. What Rome decided was that for westerners dance was not a sacred function and, therefore, not suitable for liturgical use.

Does this help?

Deacon Ed

 

[SMHW]

Thanks. This is a start. (It was your comments in the some of the other threads that inspired me to start this thread.) I know I asked a difficult question.