Maybe a little of both.
It is my understanding of “traditionalist” Catholics that if something is not in the rubrics then it should not be done, if it is done then it is an abuse.
Can you tell me where and how “local custom” comes into this.
I am really interest in knowing and am not trying to “stir the pot”.
Generally, custom is of 3 types, though some rubrical or canonical authors will use different enumeration - secundum legem, praeter legem and contra legem. The first one is usually easy and comes into play when interpreting a contested rubric. For example, before the missal of 1920, there was some doubt as to whether when the celebrant descended from the altar at a certain point at the beginning of the Mass, he should bow to the cross simply, profoundly or not at all. Here custom secundum legem would establish the proper procedure - and usually, the custom par excellence was the custom of Rome.
More difficult are the customs praeter legem and the customs contra legem and determining which one a particular custom belongs to. For example, if the celebrant was ordered to raise his hands and join them, but for some reason he did not according to custom, that would be a clear custom contra legem, and rubricists would be inclined to disallow it because the actions of the celebrant are described minutely.
On the other hand, a modern rubrical problem is the custom of bowing to the Cross at the Holy Name. Now, in many places the 1961/2 missal suppressed the words "caput Crucem inclinat"and so virtually all rubrical writers of the period regarded it as “contra legem” to bow to the Cross, when the former rubric was explicitly altered. However, it seems in the modern day that many Traditional priests are taught this - one supposes under the assumption that bowing to the Cross is a custom only “praeter legem” or even “secundum legem” (personally, I think that this is actually harder to maintain. But no one asked me.
)
Bell ringing is also not clear, especially since it is the domain of the lesser ministers, whose actions are not really treated in the rubrics in detail. The rubrics do not say that the minister should *not *ring it, nor have the rubrics suppressed a previous injunction that the minister *should *ring it. So the question arises as to whether it a custom alongside the law or opposed to it. There is evidence on both sides, but at certain points of the Mass in the 1850’s bell ringing was declared “tolerated” so the question is moot for those points (which are now incorporated into the 1962 rubrics). In general though, as a pious custom that is non-offensive and non-disruptive, it could probably be admitted.
A question possibly arises in the modern day for other things like “Can the congregation use the orans position during the Our Father”? My guess would be that this would be disallowed on the grounds that while it may be a pious custom, the orans has become somewhat of a priestly gesture. Now, could the congregation all pull out little bells from their pockets and ring it at the elevation? Possibly, but that would probably be disallowed for the sake of good order.
