CONTACTUS NOMINALIS
időszakosan megjelenő
online tudományos folyóirat
Kiadó:
Brenner János Hittudományi Főiskola
Főszerkesztő:
Dr. Maróti Gábor
HU ISSN 3003 - 9819
2026/ 2. szám
***
Maróti Gábor
A methodological framework for legal philosophy: Hermeneutic analysis, liturgical law, and the application of semiotics
Our normative
roots, the beginning of our sacred legal order, are functionally ritual
discipline, value preservation, liturgical discipline, the starting point of
which is the mutual synthesis of the institution and the deposit of faith.
The
sacred liturgy of the Church consists of acts, words and instruments, which
liturgical science calls a system of instrumental elements. Canon law places
this system within a normative framework with the general principles of law
(universality, externality, imperative character, sanctionedness),
the classical name of which is ius liturgicum (liturgical law). The codes of
law of the codified regulation in force contain liturgical legal material, but
this is not the primary source of the performance of sacred acts, but rather
the liturgical books containing the textual sources and implementation rules
for the celebration of the sacramental order.
The concept of rite denotes the sequence of acts that contains the sources of
descriptions and provisions aimed at the empirical appearance of the given
liturgical family.
The
liturgical law is not the same as the codified protective norms found in the
codified sources, but rather the textual provision of the specific liturgical
form itself, which includes the gesticulations prescribed for the performance
of the act,
the instruments used and the prayers recited; all of this in a way that is tied
to a specific person – role. The most important liturgical books are: Missale
Romanum, Liturgia horarum, Rituale Romanum, Caeremoniale Episcoporum, as well
as the books containing the texts of the sacraments, sacraments and blessings.
Before
I describe the circumstances and characteristics of the codex promulgated in
1917 and the regulations in force, as well as the liturgical law after the
Second Vatican Council, I will briefly present the ancient textual history of
liturgical provisions.
The
common ancestor of all early disciplinary writings is the Didache, which is
updated around specific issues justified by local problems.
This document deals with the election of bishops and the service of widows in
Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopian Coptic versions. It mentions the institution of
lectors.
The
„Diatagai ton hagion apostolon”
(Latin/ Constitutiones Apostolorum), a pseudoepigraph, a document of apostolic
authority (referring to Clement), has the following themes: encouragement to
infant baptism, questions of the validity of heretical baptism, and the
prescription of a 40-day fast. This document deals with sub-priests, ostiarius,
and singers. It provides a specific liturgical disciplinary framework regarding
the orientation of the sanctuary, the construction of churches, and the
placement of the two pastophoria (on the right and left). Book 6 of the
document contains the funeral order, and Book 7 contains a detailed explanation
of the rules of the earlier Didache. Here appears the great doxology
recommended for the morning prayer. Book 8 ("Charisms") ordinations,
episcopal ordination mass: this is the earliest surviving complete mass text.
The
document entitled “The Testament of Our
Lord Jesus Christ”, originally written in Greek but only surviving in
Syriac, Coptic and Arabic translations, did not intend to act with apostolic,
but directly Christian authority. It contains liturgical prescriptions. The
legend is that before his ascension, Jesus gives his followers apocalyptic
information about signs, church organization and moral issues.
The second book of this is interesting from a liturgical history and
disciplinary point of view, as it provides an extremely detailed account of the
details of the Eucharistic rite.
Lajos Dolhai (2001) refers to a 5th-century Monophysite Syrian author.
Two
things can be established as a fact from these early examples: 1) the
performance of liturgical acts was bound to authority, 2) there was a normative
and knowable order. The forums of later liturgical legislation, the
sacramentaries, the ordines romani
series and the resolutions of the ecumenical councils are primarily liturgical
history issues, so I will continue with the specific codified legal material.
DISCIPLINE
Liturgical
discipline does not mean solutions to external frameworks and the limited
ability to act between frameworks. This approach would assume an automatism
incapable of unfolding,
which at most performs something, but in no way can autonomous and authentic
communication be expected from it. The disciplinary structure is not “outside”
in the same way that our body is not alien to our personality; we
limit our time and adapt to its operating principles, but we accept that we do
not live with our body, but identify with it. This liturgical discipline does
not protect the liturgical event from the interventions of the rite subject,
but the integrity of the faith from changes that would violate the unity of the
church and the liturgy, as well as the realization and creation of the
liturgical event. The disciplinary character of liturgical law neither takes
away nor adds to the liturgy: it ends the content of tradition in the normative
framework structures of the authority that arises in the institution.
The
ius liturgicum was included in the CIC 1917 primarily in Book III (De rebus):
the sections between canons 731–1258 contained the complete legal regulation of
the sacraments, sacramentals, holy times and holy places. This formed the
starting point of modern liturgical law, which the liturgical reform of the
Second Vatican Council (1963, Sacrosanctum Concilium) and the 1983 code have
already placed on new foundations. The text of the CIC1983 has a more
pronounced theological approach, specifically seeking and indicating the
patterns of unity of the lex orandi – lex credendi, and retaining shorter and
fewer detailed rules. The regulation of the liturgy is not found in
quantitative but in methodological interpretation, in liturgical books and in
the documentation of the Holy See. In this implementation system, the Code
promulgated in 1983 can in no way be considered a ritual code, but rather the framework
law of the ius liturgicum.
Short linguistic interpretative analysis,
(SC Apostolic constitution 1963)
“Therefore nothing else happens in this
sacred liturgy, except that the work of our redemption may be carried out…”
(nothing else happens in this sacred liturgy, except that the work of our
redemption may be carried out in practice). The syntactic meaning of the two
passive constructions (agitur – happens, takes place; and exercetur: to
exercise, to be carried out) is imperative,
that is: nothing else should happen in this sacred liturgy except what is
necessary for the practical realization of the work of our redemption! More
emphatically: “Nothing else should happen
in this sacred liturgy except what is necessary for the practical realization
of the work of our redemption!”
Disciplinary
consequences:
The
conceptual category of the sacred liturgy is not characterized by, but rather a
condition for, the performance of a pure event free from exclusionary factors
(the normative emphasis of the act included in the interpretation: – “do not happen”). The
work of our salvation (the founding reason and purpose of the Church) is in
practice (act – necessary) closely related to the lawful realization of the
sacred liturgy. “Do not let anything
happen!” (exclusionary, emphatic, disciplinary method) So: everything that
is contrary to this, or does not fully realize this, violates the existence and
purpose of the Church.
This discipline is the basis of liturgical law. Everything else can be traced
back to this basic principle.Later,
the textual adaptations taken from the instructions for the implementation of
the liturgical provisions and the introductory provisions of the liturgical
books formed the basis of the canon which, as a rule for the fulfillment of the
sanctifying task, emphasizes the institutional character of the performance of
the liturgy: “Munus sanctificandi Ecclesia perculiari modo adimplet per sacram
liturgiam” (Cf. CIC Can. 834. - §1.), i.e. – namely - the mission is carried
out in a manner established in the legal order.
Later, the Code of Canon Law also specifies the hierarchical structure of
authority.
From
a disciplinary point of view, an interesting argument in favor of the authority
structure is contained in point 12 of the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum,
which interprets the danger of breaking the liturgical act from tradition and
the illegality of attempts at appropriation: RS 12: “the liturgy should never seem to be anyone’s private property”
(neither to the celebrant nor to the community celebrating the mysteries). We
find a similar exclusionary method among the canons that specify the
sanctifying task of the Church (cf. CIC 838.k. §1): “moderatio … unice pendet” The direction depends exclusively, in a
unique way, irreplaceably, and unchangeably on the “Ecclesiae auctoritate” (ecclesiae authority). The source does not
use an institutional historical concept, denoting a current governmental
structure, but an ecclesiological one. This theological emphasis connects the
institutional act of the liturgical event as a legal category, i.e., a category
framing regulation, to the essence that constitutes the existence of the
Church. The logical conclusion of this connection is that liturgical law is not
administration, but the conceptual search for the defining and decisive
criteria of the possibility of contact with objective reality:
relationship building.
Now
a deep linguistic analysis of a sentence of RS11 will be carried out
The sentence:
Mysterium Eucharistiae maius est quam ut quisquam sibi
permittat proprio id arbitratu tractare.
Mysterium: noun, singular,
neuter gender, nominative case (secret) / Eucharistiae:
noun, feminine, singular possessive case (of something..) together: The mystery
of the Eucharist; this is the subject of the sentence. / maius est: the adjective magnus (great) middle, neuter gender,
singular, nominative case (agreed with mysterium) meaning: “greater” /est: verb to be (esse) 3rd person,
singular, present tense (is) together: “greater than..” / quam (as) combined with „ut” which
is a conjunction expressing a goal, result, intention: this is a construction
that starts a comparative adverbial clause, / quisquam: a pronoun often used in a negative sentence (someone,
anyone) in this case: the subject of the clause, / sibi: the participial form of the reflexive pronoun se (“to
oneself”) when combined: „quisquam sibi permittat” (“someone allows oneself
something”) / permittat: allows,
permits. Structurally: subjunctive mood (due to the conjunction ut), 3rd person
singular, (“so that someone allows oneself”) / proprio arbitratu: proprius (own) possessive adjective
masculine/neuter singular ablative / arbitratu:
(arbitratum noun – discretion, decision) masculine singular, ablative form (“at
one’s own discretion/pleasure”) ablative modi: shows how to do something, / id: demonstrative pronoun, neuter,
singular, objective (that) Here: refers back to the mystery of the Eucharist,
(points to) what the subject wants to do at his own discretion, / tractare: nominative participle (to
handle, deal with, deal with) Here: dependent on the verb permittat (“to allow
to handle”).
Adapted:
The mystery of the Eucharist is greater than anyone
allowing themselves to treat it as they see fit. From
a disciplinary perspective, this analyzed proposition does not primarily argue
for the possibility of sanction or the burden of invalidity.
It starts from the fact that the Eucharistic faith and its objective content
must in themselves be a normative force that determines all those who submit
themselves to the law
(“the community to which the law can be
given”) and voluntarily engage in the sacrificial act.
The conscientious category of the voluntary search for value leads later to the
liturgical legal aspect of creativity.
Further
conclusions based on the definition of the proposition: (in the text of the
document RS11, content summary) whoever acts contrary to this violates the
unity of the Roman rite, the action does not correspond at all to the thirst
for God of the man of the time, is not an authentic pastoral activity, does not
serve the correct renewal of the liturgy, but: deprives the faithful of the
heritage that is theirs. ("it is
therefore necessary that ... the liturgy should not seem to be anyone's private
property” /RS 12) I will illustrate my position on the natural relationship
between the practice, science, and method of liturgical law and the Latin
language with a short quote (the cited source is found in paragraph 3 of Pope
Francis’s motu proprio Magnum principium, issued in 2017): “(…) the vernacular languages were often only able to gradually
become liturgical languages that did not differ from liturgical Latin in
terms of the elegance of their style and the precision of their concepts
intended to nourish the faith; (…) The
Latin Church was aware of the sacrifice awaiting it, that it would partially
lose its own liturgical language, which it had used throughout the world for
centuries, yet it gladly opened the door so that translations, as parts of the
rites themselves, could become, together with the Latin language, the voice of
the Church celebrating the divine mysteries.”
From
a pastoral point of view, I naturally consider vernacular communication to be
essential and practical, which is the basic condition of prarticipatio actuosa,
but referring to the above quote, I consider it possible to state that the
functionality of the liturgical law of the Latin rite clearly uses Latin as the
primary linguistic medium in the methodology of text interpretation
and creativity. One of the
characteristics of the liturgical legal approach of the period after 2000 has
become the publication of materials aimed at establishing responsibility and
the presence and avoidance of extremes or abuses. By way of comparison: Liturgiam autenthicam drew attention in
detail to conceptual accuracy, textual fidelity, and literality as conditions
for recognitio, while the instruction Redemptionis
Sacramentum, a few years later, explicitly establishes misunderstandings
and even abuses with a disciplinary purpose. The document is characterized by
its effort to concretize correct practice.
In
addition to the central intention to avoid abuses, one example of a legislative
measure arguing for practicality, i.e. the feasibility and practical reality of
liturgical discipline in particular churches, is the Magnum Principium motu
proprio. With this document, Pope Francis modified the text of Canon 838 of the
CIC, as a result of which the responsibility and autonomy of the local
particular church in the preparation, revision and approval of translations of
liturgical books is saturated with new necessary content. Representatives of
certain schools understood decentralization in the decision, however, it can be
understood with the logic of common sense that the liturgical reform process
following the Second Vatican Council, half a century after the revision and
basic translation of the liturgical books into the vernacular,
is no longer where it was in 1970! No phonetic or comprehensive syntactic
decisions are expected from the particular church jurisdictions, but rather a
linguistic and theological actualization of the meaning-enriching and
clarifying semiological and colloquial interpretation set.
If the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council is treated and accepted
not only as the fixing of a position, but as a convergent process of changing
perspectives; similar liturgical legal changes are evaluated not as
decentralization, but as development.
CREATIVITY
The category of
the ius liturgicum and the discipline is the methodology of “how”. The essence
of creativity is the “why” (not the search for another “how”). The secret has
an unpossessable aspect that cannot be placed within conceptual frameworks.
Creativity is by no means a polemical and deviant separation or a new path. The
protective function of canon law for the integrity of the liturgy belongs to
the disciplinary layer. The forum of creativity is the internal logic beyond
the text, which can be matched to the operation of the action. The process and
content of creativity: interpretation and the conclusions arising from it.
Categories of interpretation:
autotextuality
(the semiotic consequence is the same as the text and its content), this is a
closed reading, a concept that strongly strives for authenticity, preserving
values
ideotextuality
(the semiotic consequence also validates social or psychological
“behind-the-text” contents) in this reading the liturgy concept deals with
ritual theories (e.g. the principle of participatio actuosa) the
“behind-the-text” is real and functional
intertextuality
(the semiotic consequence validates content outside the text but within the
rubric) in this reading the liturgy concept deals with regulated but optional
elements of creativity (e.g. folk piety, regional liturgical custom, or in
certain cases “speech” outside the homily)
If
liturgy is an act, text, signifying process, gesture, material and
architecture, liturgical law is the normative framework defining the
textualities of liturgy.
There are two basic types of creativity possibilities regarding the sign
system: discursive (e.g. text) and representative (e.g. visuality). All signs
serve the process of perception. The deterministic logic of emphasis of
liturgical law is primarily directed towards discursiveness, but it also
categorically adapts the mental and real appearance of representative
perception. In the signifying processes of visual and verbal perception, the “window to supernatural reality” opens
(this is an explanation of the “why” of liturgical law, which excludes
arbitrariness).
Three
examples: text – vestment – language/regulation
If the regulated
appearance of the liturgy is directed towards a signifying process, the essence
of the legal character protects the integrity of the sign application.
a)
The signifying function of the text
protects the content validity of the concept (e.g. in the case of a validity
condition), while the metaphorical and associative interpretation of the words
(from the recipient's point of view) is unverifiable and unregulated. (Every
individual reading is a metaphor).
b)
The semiotic function of the vestment:
a stylized world, the experiential medium of the ritual event. Its essence is
metamorphosis, the perception of the assumed role meaning. In the liturgical
signifying process, liturgical law regulates the type of vestment with
conceptual methods (e.g. "chasuble and not a cloak") but less, if at
all, the concrete geometric structures of the form. In this process of
signification, liturgical law, which protects the essence of the liturgy, does
not standardize, but excludes improvisation. This would be contrary to all
three semiotic categories of creativity.
c)
The conceptual mediating function of language
partly signifies, but in the central elements of the liturgy, in the
realizations of the sacramental order, language is not only a signifying, but
also a constitutive medium: the deepest functional framework of the conceptual
implementation of the text. In the interpretation of the principle of
participatio actuosa, the Latin language does not interpret, it is not a
signifying medium for the faithful; therefore, the subject of regulation
becomes the vernacular and translation, which are the autotextual and
intertextual regulatory forums of creativity
in a single act.
The
appearance of the action and active participation bring the ritual subject into
the “here and now” situation, therefore, autotextuality, in contrast to ideo- and intertextuality (in relation to the execution of the action), is
most capable of uniting the meaning of the participatory action with the
receptive subject. This is why the liturgical rules aimed at action must be
interpreted as precisely as possible. Creativity does not exclude the elevation
of the individual visual world into the action, but in the absence of authentic
and faithful execution of specific actions, the liturgical event itself is
damaged.
The
extremes of creativity and following the norm can result in typical
misunderstandings. The robotic execution structure, which is never spontaneous,
surreally measured, almost psychedelically ordered, violates the signifying
functions of rituality just as much as the system-skeptical boundlessness
without a formal canon.
One
of the irregular consequences (to be avoided or sanctioned) of the incorrect
conception of creativity is self-referentiality.
The ritual element factors (gesture, sound, color, form, person, role) are not
autonomous abstractions, but elements of the structure of the signifying
process, in harmony with each other and with the essence of the liturgy. If
these become independent planes of meaning that are separated from the process
(e.g. the movement is only vectorial, but its representation is not at all
discursive), it becomes less of a liturgical act, but only self-reference: a
mechanically implemented fixation. Normatypical textual factors in individual
concrete cases provide less opportunity for this as a “disciplinary”
regulation;
therefore, liturgical creativity as the application layer of liturgical law is
in a sense a category beyond canon law, yet part of the sacred order.
Reception
– inner freedom as a layer of creativity
The appearance of
the liturgy is a unified semiotic system, in these 3 factors (unity, interpretation, order) creativity
is given the opportunity. The implementation of the liturgy is a process
through the application of signs. Every participant in the celebration is both
a servant and a receiver. The “behind” of the signs becomes accessible through
the interpretation of the symbols. The error of self-referentiality empties the
gifts of the liturgy because in this implementation the sign is directed only
at itself, while the conciliar principle of participatio actuosa requires
active “and conscious” participation; therefore, personal and precise
understanding (interpretation of symbols). In this sense, reception is on the
one hand perceptual, insofar as the receptive ritual subject comes into contact
with the perceived and empirically experienced instrumental elements; on the
other hand, it is hermeneutical, insofar as all this (symbolic interpretation) signifying process prompts and assists the
subject in thinking and understanding within the conceptual framework. From the
point of view of creativity, one of the richest possibilities for this
hermeneutic element interpretation is silentium
sacrum.
Creativity
and Variations
Actions in some
cases contribute as illustrative tools to the perception and understanding of
the essence. Within the framework of liturgical law, these emerging functions
are not manipulative tools, but rather signs administered in the hermeneutic
process, which purposefully influence
and serve perception.
Heimerl, H. – Pree, H., Kirchenrecht, Allgemeine Normen und
Ehenrecht, Wien – New York, 1983. 11.
May, G. - Egler, A., Einführung in die kirchenrechtliche Methode,
Regensburg, 1986. 29.
Bydlinski, F., Juristische Methodenlehre und Rechtsbegriff,
Wien – New York Springer Verlag, 1996. 212.
Savigny, E., Argumentation in der Literaturwissenschaft,
München, 1976. 179.
Soeteman, J. T. A., Logic in Law, Dordrecht Kluwer, 1989.
29.
May, G. - Egler, A., Einführung in die kirchenrechtliche Methode,
Regensburg, 1986. 146.
Heimerl, H. – Pree, H., Kirchenrecht, Allgemeine Normen und
Ehenrecht, Wien – New York, 1983. 92.
Schapp, J., Hauptprobleme der juristischen Methodenlehre,
Tübingen, 1983. 101.
Tebaldeschi, I., Rechtwissenschaftals Modellwissenschaft,
Wien – New York, Springer, 1979. 87.
Savigny, E., Argumentation in der Literaturwissenschaft,
München, 1976. 191.
Winkler, G., Theorie und Methode in der Rechtwissenschaft,
Wien – New York Springer, 1989. Ziembinski, Z., Practical logic, Dordrecht – Boston, Reidel Publishing, 1976. 44.
Heimerl, H. – Pree, H., Kirchenrecht, Allgemeine Normen und
Ehenrecht, Wien – New York, 1983. 93.
May, G. - Egler, A., Einführung in die kirchenrechtliche Methode,
Regensburg, 1986. 78.
Savigny, E., Argumentation in der Literaturwissenschaft,
München, 1976. 203.
Bydlinski, F., Juristische
Methodenlehre und Rechtsbegriff, Wien – New York Springer Verlag, 1996. 77.
Simmonds, N. E., The Decline of Juridical Reason, Doctrine
and Theory in the Legal Order,
Manchester University Press, 1984. 7.
Sherman, B., Hermeneutics in Law, 51 Modern Law
Review (1988) 487-499. 496.
May, G. - Egler, A., Einführung in die kirchenrechtliche Methode,
Regensburg, 1986. 37.
Searle, J. R., The Philosophy of Language, Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 1979. 210.
May, G. - Egler, A., Einführung in die kirchenrechtliche Methode,
Regensburg, 1986. 79.
Savigny, E., Argumentation in der Literaturwissenschaft,
München, 1976. 160.
May, G. - Egler, A., Einführung in die kirchenrechtliche Methode,
Regensburg, 1986. 36.
Betti, E., Die Problematik der Auslegung in der
Rechtwissenschaft, In: Bockelmann, P., - Kauffmann, A., - Klug, U.,
Festschrift für Karl Engisch, München, 1992. 76.
Wróblewski, J., The Judicial Application of Law,
Dordrecht Kluwer, 1992. 11.
