To your last paragraph I would say that Redemptionis Sacramentum states that it is the RIGHT of the laity that the Liturgy should truly be as the Church wishes. This would mean that instruction from the Holy See is in fact what the Church truly wishes. It is not simply OK to assume that our parish Priest knows best. Redemptionis Sacramentum suggests that it is in fact the duty of the laity to raise the matter of abuses of the Liturgy (i.e. actions not in line with the document) with our priests, then bishops and then if necessary by lodged a complaint with the Congregation For Divine Worship.
[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
This is not a case of the laity being told to follow the lead of their Parish Priest and accept that he knows best
[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms.
As regarding the Bishop and his role, it also states
[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.
So we, as laity, have a right that our Bishop also prevents abuses in discipline. Nowhere does it say, "accept the decision of your bishop".
Other paragraphs include:
[42.]The community that gathers for the celebration of the Eucharist absolutely requires an ordained Priest, who presides over it so that it may truly be a eucharistic convocation.
[166.] Likewise, especially if Holy Communion is distributed during such celebrations, the diocesan Bishop, to whose exclusive competence this matter pertains, must not easily grant permission for such celebrations to be held on weekdays, especially in places where it was possible or would be possible to have the celebration of Mass on the preceding or the following Sunday. Priests are therefore earnestly requested to celebrate Mass daily for the people in one of the churches entrusted to their care.
The paragraph above is clear that such services should only take place on weekdays in extreme circumstances, and not if there has been a Mass either on the Sunday before or the Sunday after (which in effect rules out all weekday Eucharistic Services without a priest present, in places like England).
The following paragraph puts the onus on the clergy to ensure that they have respected the rights of the laity, in their right to demand that the Litirgy is carried out according to the wishes of the Church (i.e. as laid out in Redemptionis Sacramentum).
[186.] Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ’s faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfill for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the sacred Liturgy at Christ’s command.
As to it merely being 'instruction' and not binding., the final paragraph of the document makes it very clear.
"This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned."
It says that it should be OBSERVED IMMEDIATELY BY ALL CONCERNED. That doesn't seem like a statement that gives leaway to clergy to take frtom it the bits they like and leave out the bits they don't (in a sort of pick and mix attitude).
I would suggest that the above shows that adhering to Redemptionis Sacramentum is NOT optional, either for priests or bishops; that the laity have a right to demand that it is adhered to in their parish; that the clergy are obliged to respect that right and that the laity have a right to complain to the Congregation for Divine Worship if it is not adhered to.
I think that the subservient attitude of, "we must have faith and be loyal to our priests, and accept that they know what they are doing" has caused a lot of harm within our Church over recent years. The laity have brains and can read, and such documents from the Holy See are readily available to us in order that we can understand what our Holy Church wants. If priests are not adhering to what Rome has stated as our right then we are entitled to expect our priest to adhere to this.
I wouldn't for an instance suggest we go about nailing copies of such documents to church doors, but we ought to insist that our rights (in terms of liturgy etc) as Catholics belonging to a universal Church be respected by our clergy. Redemptionis Sacramentum was created in order to stamp out abuses of the Liturgy that had become commonplace in parishes. If the Holy See gives instruction telling all concerned that this should be observed immediately, then we as members of the Church are failing in our duty if we turn a blind eye to abuses and take the attitude that, "it is not our place to question 'policy', our priest knows best". The instruction is to us also.