PRECEDENCE. — It is the right to precede other persons and thus to occupy the most noble place in public assemblies and manifestations. Its foundation rests in the respect owed to persons who hold a higher rank in the hierarchy.
The Code of Canon Law, following provisions confirmed by centuries of experience, outlines the fundamental rules of precedence in can. 106; from it, it is clear that first of all, the special norms governing certain ecclesiastical persons must be applied (cf. can. 239, nn. 1 and 21; 280; 347; 450, etc.). When there are no specific norms, the following principles apply: 1) in precedence, differences of rite have no juridical relevance. 2) Representation has its foundation of precedence in the person represented, since the representative is clothed with the personality of the one in whose place he acts: evidently in this case the right of precedence is subordinate to that of those who participate personally in the assembly.
Having established these two negative principles, the Code of Canon Law formulates the positive principles, which are based on authority. 1) He who is invested with authority also obtains the right of precedence over physical or moral persons subject to him. 2) If, instead, it is a question of persons among whom one does not have authority over the other, then for precedence one must consider the rank each of them holds; if they are of the same rank, precedence is based solely on the Order; if they are of the same rank and in the same Order, precedence belongs to him who has priority of appointment in the same rank; if this occurred on the same day, precedence goes to the older in ordination, except in the case where the younger was ordained by the pope; if they received ordination on the same day, only age is to be considered. In the case of twins, there would be no point of distinction, and recourse would have to be made to the Holy See. By the word “Order” is understood the various powers of the sacred Order, and by the word “rank” the hierarchical offices in the broadest sense of the term. 3) For moral persons, the rules proper to each Institute apply; if, instead, the question concerns different moral persons, precedence belongs to that which is in peaceful quasi-possession of precedence; if this right is not clear, precedence belongs to that which first established itself in the place.
The Ordinary is the judge of any controversy that may arise regarding precedence: against his decisions, only a devolutive appeal is admitted.
From the norms cited, the following order of precedence may be derived: cardinal legate a latere (can. 239, 1 and 21); cardinal dean and subdean (can. 237, 1 and 2); cardinals of the episcopal, presbyteral, and diaconal Orders (can. 231, 1); legates of the Roman Pontiff (can. 269, 2); patriarchs (can. 280); primates (can. 280); metropolitans and archbishops within their own province (can. 272, 280); bishops within their own diocese (can. 347); archbishops and bishops outside their own province (can. 280); abbots, prelates *nullius*, vicars and prefects apostolic (can. 213, 3); apostolic administrator, capitular vicar, and vicar general (can. 370, 1); canons: dignities, titular canons, honorary canons, and beneficiaries (can. 408, 1); dean of the chapter (can. 450, 2); parish priest (can. 478, 1); substitute vicars and coadjutors; assistant vicars (can. 478, 2).