Many Catholics and non-Catholics are alike in their mistaken belief that everything the pope says bears the mark of infallibility. In the same way, many believe erroneously that every document that originates from the Vatican requires instant, complete and universal obedience. Mix these misconceptions up with the power of the media to overreact to documents from Rome along with the speed of the internet to disseminate such information, and the result can be chaos. Interpretation becomes a free-for-all and implementation becomes a matter of individual preference.

Rush to judgment

An example of this was the reaction to the summary of the 2000 revision of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) published on the website (http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) of the USCCB Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, which immediately appeared in the popular press, in diocesan newsletters and elsewhere. This statement hit the pews before almost anyone who might respond to it appropriately could obtain a copy — even an unofficial translation of the actual document (the website carried the Latin version, but an English version had to be obtained by mail). Within days, liturgical changes were made at the parish level based on a summary of a document that few had seen. The changes often resulted in arguments, misunderstandings and just poor liturgy. This response is not what the church intends, and it is not how the people of God should form their worship practice.

How should we make liturgical decisions?

We make liturgical decisions by using informed reason, pastoral judgment, discernment and patience. Using informed reason means that we make a logical decision based on knowledge of the intent of the church and the context of any document in question. In making an appropriate response to any liturgical document of the church, it is essential to have an understanding of what comprises liturgical law. Ask these questions first:

• What is the origin of the document? What is its weight?
• Who should interpret it and how?
• If appropriate, how and by whom should any change be implemented?

Liturgical law is part of canon law, dealing with the ways in which we celebrate, with the actions we use to give life to those celebrations and with the design and environment of the space in which we celebrate. “The principal sources of the general law governing Catholic worship are the liturgical service books that are formally and officially approved, together with papal and curial documents that supplement the books themselves. Particular liturgical law, especially at the national level, has parallel sources in particular service books and in ancillary decrees or the like” (McManus 402).

Within those books can be found the “rules” for how we celebrate communally as a Catholic people. These rules are the foundation on which interpretation is built and the roots from which liturgy that reflects the unique identity of a particular community grows. “Most of the praenotanda (the introductory norms of the various rites) and all the rubrics within the rites are true ecclesiastical laws, subject to the same rules of interpretation as the canons of the Code of Canon Law. Indeed there are far more liturgical laws than there are canons of the Code, and far more laws governing the liturgy than any other area of ecclesial life” (Johnson 118). Quite obviously, liturgical law is something that we as church take quite seriously. And not surprisingly, it requires serious study. A few minutes on the internet does not a liturgist make.

What is its weight?

Recognizing the primacy of liturgical law, knowing that it is the yardstick against which documents of lesser weight are measured, and determining the origin of the document will establish how much legal weight it carries. Different statements in particular documents may carry different weights. “Some may be statements of dogma to which the assent of faith is required; others may be statements of doctrine that, while not proclaimed by the magisterium to be divinely revealed, are ‘connected’ to divine revelation and must be definitively held; others may be statements at a third level of doctrines that are not definitive but are standard magisterial teachings that are to be given obsequium religiousum” (Johnson 121). Try bringing that up at your next cocktail party.

The concept of differential weight seems to be foreign to most people. People sometimes think that if they read it in the newspaper it must be true, and if they read it in the diocesan newsletter it must have come from the pope himself. Providing information without the background and context that will make the information useful is simply irresponsible. It is comparable to a physician explaining the chemistry behind the action of a particular drug and leaving the patient to decide when and in what dosage to take the medication. Such information might be helpful, but it is more likely to be harmful or even deadly.

Proper understanding of church documents requires an understanding not only of the content and context but an understanding of the type of acts they represent. “Some documents are easily identified by their very form as acts of the papal magisterium. These are the apostolic letter (litterae apostolicae or epistula apostolica), encyclical letter (litterae encyclicae or epistula encyclica), decretal letter, post-synodal apostolic exhortation, and apostolic exhortation. The use of any of these forms immediately tells the reader that the document in question is not juridical …” (Johnson 119). This means that although these acts of the papal magisterium merit serious study and consideration, they do not constitute law. “These many documents are issued by authorities at different levels, are published in a variety of forms and have varying levels of juridical value or weight. Whether promulgation occurs by a decree of the congregation or an apostolic constitution of the pope, the highest juridical value is given to the norms in the liturgical books. The disciplinary praenotanda and rubrics of the liturgical books have the same weight as other universal laws, including the canons of the Code of Canon Law. Since the norms in the liturgical books have the status of papal law, all documents issued by the Roman curia, and by diocesan bishops and conferences of bishops, may not be contrary to any norm in the liturgical books, notwithstanding legitimate adaptations made by the conferences of bishops for their own territories” (Johnson 125). These are complex issues and it should come as no surprise that confusion results and errors are made. Here’s where the question of interpretation comes in.

Who should interpret?

The liturgist, acting in a mode similar to the canonist, is an interpreter of these texts; most of the liturgical documents are integral parts of Roman Catholic canon law. The liturgist described here is a person formed and schooled in liturgy, who understands both the theology and the art of worship. The term “liturgist” has been used in recent years to describe anyone who had anything to do with liturgy at any level. People who plan one prayer service a year have identified themselves as liturgists. These are not the people who should be interpreting liturgical documents for others (though they should certainly be studying them). In other words, if you have a medical problem, ask a physician; if you have a liturgical question, ask a liturgist. And do not assume that with ordination comes knowledge of all things liturgical. There are many priests who are fine liturgists but there are far more who are not. There are many qualified lay people who rightly bear the title of liturgist. (This is not a criticism of the ordained; liturgical vision is gift and grace, calling individuals to the study and practice of liturgy, and this call is certainly not limited to priests.)

How to interpret?

“[T]he canons are always to be understood in the light of the Vatican II conciliar documents and their spirit, not vice versa. The same principle works for liturgical laws as well, for example, those found in the liturgical books or in postconciliar documents: these too are to be understood in the light of Vatican II’s decisions, not vice versa” (McManus 411; Sacrae Disciplinae Leges). This means that the person interpreting a document must have a knowledge and understanding of the sense of the church, of the spirit and intent of Vatican II. This is the context of interpretation, and it is the foundation of implementation.

“The purpose of interpretation is to enable the Christian, affected by or bound to observe church law, to uncover the genuine meaning of a law” (McManus 411; Worship 55 [1981]: 218–37). Uncovering the “genuine meaning” is the key to interpretation: “[I]f the weight of a document is not known or mistaken, it is not possible to understand fully its nature and purpose and to give it the response it deserves. To assess correctly the weight of an ecclesiastical document, the interpreter must seek the answer to four questions: 1) Is the document theological or juridical in nature? 2) Who is the authority that has issued the document? 3) To whom is the document addressed? 4) Is the document juridically binding?” (Johnson 118).

The document Liturgiam Authenticam is another example of a document that caused an uproar even before it was interpreted in context.

Liturgiam authenticam is an instruction, an act of executive power. The pope approved it only in general form (in forma communi), which does not give it the force of law (lex). The congregations of the Roman Curia are executive authorities. Only the pope and the college of bishops have legislative power for the universal church. The congregations of the Roman Curia do not have legislative power unless this has been delegated by the pope, which was not done in this case. Consequently, Liturgiam authenticam must be read together with the universal law on the liturgy, not in opposition to it. The principal sources of universal law are the Code of Canon Law and the laws contained in the liturgical books. According to canon 34 of the Code of Canon Law, instructions clarify laws, elaborate on them and determine the methods to be followed in the observance of laws. Instructions may not be contrary to the law in any way. If any norm in an instruction is contrary to the law, it lacks all force (canon 34 §2) (Huels, Canonical Observations 12).

How and by whom should any change be implemented?

“[N]o other person [other than the Roman pontiff, the diocesan bishop, or a conference of bishops — in accord with SC 22, paragraphs 1–2], even if a priest [sacerdos], may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on that person’s own authority” (SC 22). The above words should be engraved in every sacristy and meeting room in every Catholic church. This suggestion is not meant as a legalistic restriction but rather as a way of preventing purely personal preferences from creeping into the universal liturgy. The liturgical style of any community of faith is and should be unique, but at the same time it should be recognizable as the liturgy shared by the church throughout the world. “The overall purpose of canon law is to provide harmony and unity in the external life of the church as a reflection of its Spirit-guided inner unity. Liturgical law shares in this purpose by ensuring the unity and authenticity of the Catholic liturgy within and among the local churches and the communities that comprise them” (Huels, New General Instruction” 487–488).

If a change in worship practice is indicated, that change should be preceded by catechesis, so that those who will be impacted by a change will have an opportunity to understand and embrace it. The timing of a change is critical, and this is where pastoral judgment and patience are essential. “A postconciliar phenomenon called ‘new law, new spirit’ demands that directly pastoral (and spiritual) dimensions be considered, such as the vast diversity among the assemblies where the liturgy is celebrated. Or it may be questions of the need for authenticity of celebration, distinctions between what is essential or truly necessary and what is worthwhile but not necessary and the new ecclesiological insights of Vatican II, from collegiality to subsidiarity” (McManus 401). For example, if a document specifies a mandatory implementation date of a particular practice, pastorally the change should not be introduced the week before it is to be implemented.

Catechesis means much more than throwing information at people and forcing them to comply. As Christians, our battle cry should never be “Resistance is futile!” as we assimilate confused worshipers into the “proper way” of shared prayer. Catechesis means studying the documents for the genuine meaning, communicating that understanding in charity and then implementing change with pastoral sensitivity.

Liturgy is poetry, dance, music and art in its purest form. Liturgy is life and death, memory and present action, promise, fulfillment and future. Liturgy is the living identity derived from the experience of the assembly, of the people of God in passionate, intimate dialogue with their creator and redeemer with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Liturgy is mystery and understanding that goes beyond words. Liturgy is contrast and unity, humanity and divinity. Liturgy is dynamic, always evolving, always integrated into the paschal mystery. Liturgy impacts every sense; it has a look and a feel, sound, smell and taste. It connects with the senses of the heart that derive from faith. The way to that experience is in responding to the invitation to “taste and see” and in discovering “that the Lord is good” (1 Pt 2:3). Though we are bound by law, the liturgy itself transcends the law, for it is the active experience of love that by the art of ritual action unifies the human and divine by engaging the paschal mystery, exceeding the limits of time and human senses as it challenges the community of believers to encounter and embrace the holy.

Bibliography

Flannery OP, Austin, Ed. Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC). Vatican Collection Volume 1: Vatican Council II. The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Rev. ed. New York. Costello Publishing Co., 1988. 1–270.

Fleming, Austin.Preparing for Liturgy: A Theology and Spirituality.  Washington, D.C.: Pastoral Press, 1985.

Huels, John M., OSM. “Liturgiam authenticam: Canonical Observations.” Rite 32, no. 6 (2001):12–13.

Huels, John M., OSM.The New General Instruction of the Roman Missal: Subsidiarity or Uniformity. Worship 75, no. 6 (2001):482–511.

Johnson, Maxwell E. “Assessing the Weight of Documents on the Liturgy.” Worship. 74, no. 2 (2000): 117–135.

McManus, Frederick R. “Liturgical Law.” Handbook for Liturgical Studies I. Ed. A. J. Chupungco. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1997. 399–420.