The Cardinal defends the alleged Mayan ritual and... falsifies the past of Holy Mass

Mexican Cardinal Felipe Arizmendi Esquivel, chief promoter of the alleged Mayan ritual, defends liturgical changes for Indians. It refers to the... false past of Holy Mass.

On 8 November 2024, the Dicastery for God's Culture and Discipline of Sacraments approved the alleged Mayan Rituary. It is simply a full group of “lithurgical adaptations” which are to adapt the Holy Mass to the expectations of the Indian population in part of Mexico.
As the bishops of Mexico explained in a peculiar message which was to respond to criticism, it is not formally about the "rit", but only about the "adaptations" of the Roman Mass.

The problem is that Cardinal Arizmendi himself, who is the main promoter of the full case, wrote in a comprehensive text announced after the Vatican's decision was taken that it was a ritual. He even pointed out that it was only the second time in the past of the Church after the Second Vatican Council, erstwhile the Vatican approved a new, separate rit – previously specified a situation afraid the Zaire ritual in the Congo.

As part of the “adaptation”, a fresh office was introduced. It is secular, which, among another things, conducts any prayers during the liturgy. In addition, there was a fresh ministry for the secular ones who were clearing the altar. In Mayan conditions they are mainly women. The “adaptations” do not include approval to build peculiar Mayan floral altars on earth or on Mayan liturgical dances, but from many sources it is known that specified things happen informally anyway. In total, the May Mass is very different from the regular Mass held by the Mass of Rome. most likely that's why Cardinal Arizmendi – judging a thing not as to the letter of the law, but de facto – wrote about the Mayan engraving.

Now the main perpetrator of the confusion, the cardinal himself, responded to the criticism put forward at “adaptation”. In an article published in the Mexican church paper “Desde la fe” he defended change. The problem is, he utilized the false past of Holy Mass.

“Traditionalists would like nothing to change in Holy Mass. To make the Roman rite look like before the Second Vatican Council. But neither Jesus nor the apostles celebrated according to the Trident Mass. This Mass dates back to the 16th century," he wrote.

He besides stated that Jesus utilized many judaic rituals. "This is the best example for inculturation," he said.

He besides pointed out the issue of language: "He did not establish the Eucharist in Latin, but in Aramaic, in the language of those with whom he lived," he added.

In his opinion, it is besides impossible to compare the bread that Jesus utilized with modern - day hosts.

Without entering into a discussion on the appropriateness of the Mayan ritual – we have already written about it in PCh24.pl elsewhere – it is crucial to point out the alarming ignorance of facts by the cardinal who deals with liturgy.

First, though it is actual that Pius V published the Roman Mass in 1570, The Holy Mass is not from the 16th century. The alleged “traditionalists” frequently call it “the Mass of the All-Times” and do rightly, as Pius V's mass has been celebrated for centuries, and its essential part, the Roman Canon, has an apparent ancient origin.

Secondly, it is not actual that the alleged "traditionalists" do not want to accept any changes in the Mass. specified changes were made many times, but they never violated the essence of the liturgy. The subject substance of the dispute is precisely this: the degree of the changes, due to the fact that the very fact of the anticipation of making any changes nobody questions.

Thirdly, it is entirely absurd to claim that the Lord Jesus "inculcated" the Eucharist, utilizing judaic rituals. Christ is the Messiah foretold by the judaic prophets. He is the 1 to whom judaic worship has always been directed. The rituals that Christ utilized to establish the Eucharist were not rituals of any random culture, but, to say so, his own rituals.

Fourthly, the alleged "traditionalists" know perfectly well that the Lord Jesus did not talk Latin. The issue of language is highly crucial and Latin should supply a decent place in the liturgy, for many reasons. Again, there are fewer who put the substance on the edge of the knife; more crucial than the language utilized is what is expressed in it – and this is what concerns the discussion of changes in the post-sobor liturgy.

Fifthly, it is simply a superficial simplification to say that it is impossible to compare the bread that Christ broke with the hosts utilized today. The bread that Christ utilized was wheat bread, that is, unleavened. Hosts are besides made of wheat flour without acid. So substance is precisely the same.

As you can see, liturgical innovators inactive repent myths about Holy Mass – myths that consequence from complete ignorance of past and Catholic liturgical tradition. It is no wonder that in specified areas there are ideas of creating Mayan or Amazonian rituals. Where there is no light of reason, it is possible to make various absurdities...

Source: PCh24.pl

Pache