Questions about liturgy: Bell Ringing at the Consecration
Father Edward McNamara explains that the shift from one bell ring to three distinct rings during the elevation of the elements reflects a change in the liturgical norm to emphasize the distinct elements of the Eucharist. He notes that the new practice aligns with the 2007 liturgical guidelines and the 2020 revision of the Roman Missal, making it a universal, rather than local, norm. The article clarifies that the practice is encouraged for clarity and reverence, but it is not mandatory for all parishes. McNamara references relevant liturgical texts and the bishop’s decree that may govern its implementation. The Q&A highlights the importance of distinguishing local customs from universal liturgical directives.
3 months ago
The article explains that the ringing of bells at the consecration is governed by local custom rather than strict liturgical law, allowing pastors to decide how many rings are used, provided the practice does not become excessive or conflict with other liturgical norms. 1
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) § 150 states that a server may ring a bell “a little before the Consecration” and, “according to local custom,” also at the showing of the host and chalice. The phrase “according to local custom” gives parishes flexibility in both the presence of a bell and the manner of ringing it. 1
These developments show that bell ringing has always been a pastoral aid rather than a doctrinal requirement. 1
Bishop Peter J. Elliott’s manual outlines three typical uses:
He advises that hand‑bells should be managed so the server can keep his eye on the priest, that the sound be brief (warning bell) or longer (elevation), and that volume be appropriate to the size of the church. 1
Because the rubrics leave the practice to “local custom,” a pastor may choose a single ring or multiple rings. However, any change should be justified and communicated to the faithful to avoid confusion. The article notes that simply stating “Father wants it that way” does not reflect the spirit of synodality promoted by Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV. 1
Examine how universal liturgical norms shape local Eucharistic practices
Universal liturgical norms are meant to protect what is most fragile in the Eucharist: its identity as the action of the one universal Church, not the private project of a community or celebrant. At the same time, the Church does not forbid legitimate local expression; rather, it channels it so that local Eucharistic practice truly remains accommodated to persons and circumstances without becoming an unauthorized innovation.
John Paul II frames liturgical norms as more than external rules. They are “a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist,” because every Mass, even when celebrated in one place, belongs to the Church as a whole.
This is why he laments that, after the post–Vatican II liturgical reform, some treated liturgical “forms” as non-binding and introduced innovations “often completely inappropriate.”
He states the principle in striking terms:
“Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated.”
In other words, universal norms shape local practice by defining what counts as the same Eucharist being celebrated everywhere—so that local liturgy does not drift into a different “type” of worship (different in substance, intelligibility, and ecclesial meaning), even when it is celebrated with good intentions.
Universal norms do not apply mechanically; they are administered through a hierarchy of authority. The Church teaches that adaptation can occur, but always within legally defined boundaries.
Redemptionis Sacramentum explains the diocesan bishop’s role: he may set liturgical norms “within the limits of his competence,” and “all are bound” by them—yet he must ensure that this does not remove the liberty foreseen by the liturgical books, which allow “intelligent” adaptation to the church building, the group of the faithful, or pastoral circumstances—so that the universal rite is “truly accommodated” to human understanding.
John Paul II’s warning complements this juridical structure: unauthorized changes emerge from “a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation,” sometimes explained as a “reaction against ‘formalism.’” His corrective is not hostility to adaptation, but insistence on fidelity: priests are urgently to observe liturgical norms “with great fidelity.”
So universal norms shape local practice by:
The Church’s own liturgical scholarship explains that local Eucharistic forms can develop within a shared unity, and it also warns against over-localization. It notes how forms once varied by locality and how prayer could reflect historical events, and it recognizes that popular customs can be Christianized—yet the key is that this happens within the Church’s bounds.
A related principle is stated in the liturgical handbook: local liturgies may differ in languages, musical forms, and symbols, but one should still recognize “a particular celebration as the action of the universal Church gathered here and now.”
This is why localization is permitted only when the nature and purpose of the Eucharistic celebration—defined by the authority of the Church—are preserved.
In practice, then, universal norms shape local Eucharistic practice by ensuring that:
The General Roman Calendar and its “universal norms” illustrate how universal and local dimensions interact.
Paul VI states that principles apply broadly, but practical norms apply specifically to the Roman Rite (with exceptions “by their very nature” affecting other rites).
He then explains a carefully balanced calendar structure:
Moreover, Paul VI insists on preeminence: in particular calendars, the Proper of Time must “always be kept intact and enjoy its rightful pre-eminence over particular celebrations.”
He also governs how additional local saints may be celebrated without distorting universal priorities. For example:
Finally, Paul VI provides explicit accommodation to regional needs, such as the ability of episcopal conferences to arrange the time and manner of Rogation Days and Ember Days so they can be adapted to “different regions and different needs.”
This calendar legislation shows the Church’s method: universal norms preserve the center (the Paschal Mystery and universal saints), while particular law allows regional and pastoral expression without replacing the universal framework.
While your question focuses on Eucharistic practice, it also helps to see how the Church thinks about “universal vs particular” in non-Latin traditions.
The Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches explains that Eastern liturgical law includes both universal and particular prescriptions, and that both have the force of law; competent Eastern authority is not merely advisory.
It also insists that particular norms are not “minor” or expendable. The reference to particular law does not imply lesser importance; removing parts risks impoverishing the coherent framework enabling fuller knowledge of the Eucharistic mystery. It even quotes the requirement that the faithful “are to observe faithfully” the norms of the Church sui iuris not only within territorial boundaries but “everywhere, inasmuch as it is possible.”
At the same time, particular law is meant to protect the “specificity and diversity” of authentic traditions and their “proper physiognomy and authenticity.”
So the Church’s logic is consistent: universal Eucharistic identity is protected by binding norms; diversity is legitimate only insofar as it remains authentically ecclesial and within competent authority.
Universal liturgical norms shape local Eucharistic practices by establishing the Eucharist’s ecclesial identity and ensuring that every local celebration is recognizably the action of the one universal Church. They do this through (1) binding principles that liturgy is not private property, (2) a hierarchy where bishops and competent authorities may regulate and adapt only within lawful bounds, and (3) a structured balance in the liturgical year where local emphases (calendars, particular saints, certain regional days) are integrated without displacing the universal center—especially the Paschal Mystery.