Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Bishop as a Concelebrant
ROME, MAY 18, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
A Canadian canonist sent me the following clarifying note: "In response to your 4 May 2010 column, 'Bishop as Concelebrant,' I would like to offer the following clarification. The responses to proposed doubts (Responsa ad dubia proposita) published in Notitiae are not authentic interpretations of the law. Authentic interpretations are treated in c. 16 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. What distinguishes an authentic interpretation of law from, say, a private reply is the following: (1) laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator or the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting; (2) an authentic interpretation has the same force as the law itself; (3) authentic interpretations put forth in the form of law must be promulgated. The legislator has not, as far as I am aware, entrusted the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments with the power to authentically interpret laws. This is reserved to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (Pastor bonus, arts. 154-155). What is published in Notitiae is effectively an interpretation in the form of an administrative act in a particular matter. Names and particulars have been removed before publication. Consequently, it does not possess the force of law and it binds only those for whom and affects the matters for which it was given (c. 16, ยง3). Responses to proposed doubts should not be dismissed on account of this distinction. In publishing them in Notitiae, the CDWDS is revealing the praxis Curiae (cf. c. 19) and suggesting that the response has a more general interest and application. It is not, however, an authentic interpretation of the law."
I am very grateful to our reader for this note. As I have mentioned on other occasions, I am not a trained canonist and so can easily err with regard to the technical meanings of words.
At the same time, I am inclined to doubt that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments has no authority to interpret liturgical law. My reasoning is the following:
-- Canon 2 specifically states: "For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code." This canon affirms the existence of a true body of law that falls outside the aegis of the Code. This law is at the same time narrower in scope and more extensive in volume than the Code of Canon Law. This law is still found in multiple sources and has not been formally codified.
-- It would seem strange that such a vast body of law has no official interpretative authority. The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts does not appear to be the appropriate body. Although it has made several authentic interpretations regarding liturgical matters, all of them refer exclusively to the Code. It has so far never issued an interpretation regarding liturgical matters not found in the Code.
-- Since the Congregation for Divine Worship officially issues almost all liturgical law, it is the most likely official organism for its interpretation. It would be something of an anomaly that it could not interpret its own laws.
-- When this congregation interprets liturgical law it does so in several ways. Sometimes it publishes private replies without any name, and this is certainly an example of the administrative act and the praxis curiae mentioned above by our reader. On the other hand, when it issues a "Response to a doubt," it adopts a technical Latin language format similar to that used by the Council for Legislative Texts when this body issues authentic interpretations. At the very least it has the appearance of the legislator's will to issue a definitive interpretation of a doubtful point of liturgical law.
For these reasons, although perhaps the expression "authentic interpretation" is not correct, I do believe that the Congregation for Divine Worship has the authority to interpret those liturgical laws not found in the Code of Canon Law.
A Canadian canonist sent me the following clarifying note: "In response to your 4 May 2010 column, 'Bishop as Concelebrant,' I would like to offer the following clarification. The responses to proposed doubts (Responsa ad dubia proposita) published in Notitiae are not authentic interpretations of the law. Authentic interpretations are treated in c. 16 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. What distinguishes an authentic interpretation of law from, say, a private reply is the following: (1) laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator or the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting; (2) an authentic interpretation has the same force as the law itself; (3) authentic interpretations put forth in the form of law must be promulgated. The legislator has not, as far as I am aware, entrusted the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments with the power to authentically interpret laws. This is reserved to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (Pastor bonus, arts. 154-155). What is published in Notitiae is effectively an interpretation in the form of an administrative act in a particular matter. Names and particulars have been removed before publication. Consequently, it does not possess the force of law and it binds only those for whom and affects the matters for which it was given (c. 16, ยง3). Responses to proposed doubts should not be dismissed on account of this distinction. In publishing them in Notitiae, the CDWDS is revealing the praxis Curiae (cf. c. 19) and suggesting that the response has a more general interest and application. It is not, however, an authentic interpretation of the law."
I am very grateful to our reader for this note. As I have mentioned on other occasions, I am not a trained canonist and so can easily err with regard to the technical meanings of words.
At the same time, I am inclined to doubt that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments has no authority to interpret liturgical law. My reasoning is the following:
-- Canon 2 specifically states: "For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code." This canon affirms the existence of a true body of law that falls outside the aegis of the Code. This law is at the same time narrower in scope and more extensive in volume than the Code of Canon Law. This law is still found in multiple sources and has not been formally codified.
-- It would seem strange that such a vast body of law has no official interpretative authority. The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts does not appear to be the appropriate body. Although it has made several authentic interpretations regarding liturgical matters, all of them refer exclusively to the Code. It has so far never issued an interpretation regarding liturgical matters not found in the Code.
-- Since the Congregation for Divine Worship officially issues almost all liturgical law, it is the most likely official organism for its interpretation. It would be something of an anomaly that it could not interpret its own laws.
-- When this congregation interprets liturgical law it does so in several ways. Sometimes it publishes private replies without any name, and this is certainly an example of the administrative act and the praxis curiae mentioned above by our reader. On the other hand, when it issues a "Response to a doubt," it adopts a technical Latin language format similar to that used by the Council for Legislative Texts when this body issues authentic interpretations. At the very least it has the appearance of the legislator's will to issue a definitive interpretation of a doubtful point of liturgical law.
For these reasons, although perhaps the expression "authentic interpretation" is not correct, I do believe that the Congregation for Divine Worship has the authority to interpret those liturgical laws not found in the Code of Canon Law.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
10:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home