A Bishop’s Authority Over the Liturgy
Date: October 4, 2025
Author: Fr. Edward McNamara, LC
Question: I was wondering what is the extent of the bishop's authority regarding the liturgy? For example, could he forbid the distribution of Communion under both species? Could he forbid celebrating Mass ad orientem? Can he forbid the Novus Ordo from being celebrated in Latin? — M.L., Missouri, USA
Answer: The question is more canonical than liturgical, and I speak as one who lacks formal training in canon law.
No one doubts that the bishop has the right and duty of supervising the liturgy within his diocese. The Code of Canon Law states:
"Canon 838.1 — The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.
"Canon 839.2 — Local ordinaries are to see to it that the prayers and other pious and sacred exercises of the Christian people are fully in harmony with the norms of the Church."
The rule of thumb regarding a bishop's authority is that he should not forbid what the universal law permits, nor permit what the universal law forbids. To this we could add a corollary that he may not legally introduce novel liturgical practices or official texts.
Like all general norms, there may be legitimate exceptions that would justify going against these notions in specific cases.
According to a response from the liturgy office of the U.S. bishops' conference, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal grants bishops specific authority to regulate liturgy of the Mass in the following areas:
"The publication of norms on concelebration (GIRM, No. 202), service at the altar (GIRM, No. 107), Holy Communion under both kinds (GIRM, Nos. 282-283), the construction and renovation of church Buildings (GIRM, Nos. 291 and 315), posture (GIRM, No. 43.3), liturgical music (GIRM, Nos. 48, 87), and the establishment of days of prayer (GIRM, No. 373)."
Other documents mention the bishop's right to make norms regarding "The regulation of Masses on radio, television and via the internet, and his responsibility to establish a diocesan calendar." He would also have the authority to issue norms, regulations and guidelines regarding the other sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and popular piety.
Thus, the principle that the bishop should not "forbid what is permitted" would mean that he should not "allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted" (cf. instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 21).
A bishop could not normally forbid, for example, the use of Eucharistic Prayer III nor mandate that it be always used for funerals.
Not permitting what is forbidden means that, in general terms, a bishop cannot contravene a clear norm of the liturgical books. For example, a bishop would not normally have the authority to allow no kneeling whatsoever in his diocese, since kneeling is expressly foreseen in the books, at least during the consecration.
That said, however, it must be recognized that bishops have wide powers of dispensation and may permit some exceptions to universal liturgical law for a just cause.
For example, if a few churches in the diocese have no kneelers, and their eventual installation is technically very difficult or economically not feasible in the short term, a bishop could allow those parishes to omit kneeling to favor a unified posture at Mass, at least until a solution is found.
Not introducing novelties means just that — no individual bishop has the authority to introduce any new liturgical practice or amend the liturgical books. The above-mentioned response of the U.S. bishops’ comments:
"With the exception of these and other modifications of the law explicitly assigned to the Diocesan Bishop, no additional changes to liturgical law may be introduced to Diocesan liturgical practice without the specific prior approval of the Holy See."
If an individual bishop believes that a concrete initiative in the liturgical field would be of benefit to the faithful, he may not introduce it on his own authority since this is not a prerogative of the diocesan bishop.
He is not bereft of any hope of introducing possibly useful pastoral initiatives since liturgical law already provides a process through which a bishop can make proposal to the bishop’s conference, which is the proper organ to propose permanent adaptations to postures and texts of the liturgical books.
Such adaptations require a two-thirds majority of the bishops’ conference and the subsequent approval of the Holy See before these changes can be mandated as particular law for that country.
Although elaborate and unwieldy, the necessity of persuading two-thirds of fellow bishops, and the Holy See, of the merits of a pastoral-liturgical initiative gives that initiative much greater value; it means that it has been weighed and pondered from the theological, historical and pastoral points of view.
Also, if approved, it may set an example for other countries to follow and make a positive contribution to the organic development of the liturgy.
For example, about five years ago the Italian bishops introduced two new prefaces for “Doctors of the Church” that were suitable for both male and female doctors. This initiative has since been taken up by other bishop’s conferences and may eventually find its way into a new edition of the Latin Missal.
The bishop must also ensure that any liturgical abuses are eliminated — if necessary, through the use of canonical penalties.
We offer some examples so as to also answer our correspondent’s concrete questions.
Could the bishop forbid the distribution of Communion under both species? Since this is one of the areas that falls directly under his supervision, he can regulate the practice as he considers best for the pastoral situation of the diocese even to the point of restricting its use.
Could he forbid celebrating Mass ad orientem? Can he forbid the Novus Ordo from being celebrated in Latin? Since both of these practices are permitted under universal law, as a general principle, the bishop should not attempt to forbid them with a general decree. In a recent interview, Pope Leo XIV specifically stated that the current missal may always be celebrated in Latin.
It could well happen, though, that a particular situation arises in a diocese which would allow a bishop to make such a determination for serious pastoral reasons. This decision would be binding as an act of obedience, but it would probably not acquire the force of stable particular law; its effects would be necessarily tied to the pastoral situation that motivated the decision and persist as long as the situation lasted.
An example of such a situation occurred some years ago in the United States. A bishop forbade the celebration of Mass toward the apse (ad orientem) in his diocese. It was a response to certain theological arguments which seemed to present this position as being somehow more orthodox than celebrating facing the people.
The bishop consulted with the Holy See, which responded: "As regards the position of the celebrating priest at the altar during Holy Mass, it is true as Your Excellency indicates that the rubrics of the Roman Missal, and in particular the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, foresee that the priest will face the body of people in the nave while leaving open the possibility of his celebrating towards the apse. These two options carry with them no theological or disciplinary stigma of any kind. It is therefore incorrect and indeed quite unacceptable that anyone affirm, as Your Excellency sums up this view, that to celebrate towards the apse 'is a theologically preferable or more orthodox choice for a priest who wishes to be true to the Church's authentic tradition.'"
Although I am unaware if the bishop later withdrew the decree, I suppose that it fell by the wayside once the underlying theological and pastoral question had been resolved and clarified by the Holy See.
While the possibility of celebrating toward the apse for the Eucharistic Prayer is a legitimate option offered by the Roman Missal, it is understandable that a bishop would wish to coordinate with priests who desire to use this option at parish Masses so as to ensure that the faithful understand the reasons behind a practice which most of them would not have experienced before. For this reason, I would say that a bishop could determine that the practice is not introduced in a spontaneous or haphazard way, or he could order that its implementation be delayed for a certain time.
Something similar could be said regarding the celebration in Latin either the whole Mass or just the common texts. Although it is always possible, a bishop could regulate the matter with respect to Masses for the faithful so that it constitutes a pastoral benefit for the faithful who desire to attend and avoids any ideological positions.
It is doubtful, however, that in the above cases he would have the authority to make a formal and permanent ban on an option offered by the Roman Missal and universal liturgical law.
As far as I am aware, neither the above two situations, nor other recent decrees by some bishops attempting to limit aspects of universal liturgical law, have been legally tested by a canonical appeal to the Holy See disputing a bishop’s decree.
On several occasions the Holy See has intervened in ways that illustrates that the bishop’s regulatory authority has limits. For example, a bishop or major religious superior cannot oblige a priest to concelebrate if he prefers to celebrate on his own.
A bishop should give confirmation to a child who is sufficiently prepared and spontaneously requests the sacrament, even if diocesan policy requires an older age.
Even if Communion is generally received standing and in the hand, it is forbidden to deny Communion to a member of the faithful who prefers to kneel and/or to receive Communion on the tongue (with exceptions in times of pandemic).
* * *
Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word "Liturgy" in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.