Prescriptive v. proscriptive liturgical law

[sinner]

Years ago, when I first began to listen to Catholic Answers Live, Karl Keating used to refer to liturgical law as “prescriptive” meaning that it told what was permissible in the liturgy, rather than “proscriptive” or describing what was forbidden. Does anyone know of a reputable source which describes this difference,especially as it relates to the celebration of the Mass. I’ve not heard this distinction made on CAL for several years.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

sinner:

Years ago, when I first began to listen to Catholic Answers Live, Karl Keating used to refer to liturgical law as “prescriptive” meaning that it told what was permissible in the liturgy, rather than “proscriptive” or describing what was forbidden. Does anyone know of a reputable source which describes this difference,especially as it relates to the celebration of the Mass. I’ve not heard this distinction made on CAL for several years.

The distinction is valid and still exists. While I know of no formal text which defines this clearly, it comes from a study of both canon and liturgical law. Canon law states that the clergy are bound to follow without change the rituals found in the liturgical books (canon 846). Thus, we have a proscription against change. When one looks at the GIRM one sees that it describes what to do, and virtually never tells the priest not to do something. Thus, we have prescriptive law.

Deacon Ed

 

[chicago]

It’s basically the difference between historical systems of viewing law in various cultures and how these particular legal systems were derived. In America we are used to looking at things in the “prosciptive”; in Rome the “presciptive”.