Responding to the Predictable Schlock About the "Mayan Rite"

The big news this week is the Vatican approval of what is being referred to as the "Mayan rite" of the Mass. Traditionalists reacted with dismay, while the usual suspects were quick to leap into action with their "nothing to see here" takes. Where Peter Is, for example, published a piece entitled "Traditionalist Lies: Addressing Malicious 'Mayan Rite' Rumors" (Nov. 17, 2024) fawning over the new adaptations and accusing Traditionalists of "lying" about the new rite.

The WPI piece is, predictably, a counter-point to Traditionalist critiques, essentially arguing that, per usual, Trads are making a mountain out of a molehill and that there is really nothing objectionable about the new adaptations. WPI's criticisms boil down to four points:

(1) The very phrase "Mayan rite" is a Traditionalist dogwhistle, a misnomer that carries racist overtones
(2) Traditionalists are wrong to present these adaptations as pagan
(3) The adaptations are quite modest, not the radical departure from tradition that Trads are saying
(4) If you dislike these adaptations, you are just wrong

This article will not be about the Mayan rite itself, about which, so far, we know little (and LifeSite has frustratingly not released the text of the rite it claims to have) and which has already been covered in great depth elsewhere. Rather, we will be focusing on WPI's accusations that Trads are "lying" about the Mayan rite and examine the details of WPI's criticisms.

My apologies in advance, for this will be quite a long piece in which I will, at times, drill down into autistic levels of detail to make the point, but I think it will be worth it.

I. San Cristóbal de las Casas and Chiapas

These adaptations are being implemented for a specific ecclesial region, namely, the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas in Mexico, a south Mexican diocese which straddles the border with Guatemala and is roughly (though not entirely) contiguous with the Mexican state of Chiapas:

The Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas 

Though the liturgy has been formulated with these peoples in mind, it is foreseen that its usage will spread beyond this diocese into other regions of Mexico and Central America (Honduras is often cited as another region where the new Mayan rite might be utilized).

The WPI article says that the reason for the Mayan rite's existence is linguistic, not borne out of a desire to paganize the liturgy, but merely to offer a variant of the reformed Roman rite in a language understandable to the inhabitants. Up until recently, the WPI article states, "the liturgy in the Mexican diocese of San Cristóbal de Las Casas was conducted only in Spanish, even though a large number of the people living there are not proficient in Spanish. That year [2013], Pope Francis gave approval for the liturgy to be celebrated in their native languages."

This was the first place my bullshit detector started to go off. Are the inhabitants of this region truly non-proficient in Spanish? If so, how many? And do those numbers justify these adaptations?

Teasing this out is difficult, as I was not able to find statistics on the linguistic demographics of the Diocese of San Cristóbal de Las Casas specifically. I was, however, able to find demographics on the state of Chiapas, with which the diocese is roughly contiguous. According to a 2016 study from the Council of Henispheric Affairs (COHA), an NGO dedicated to the study and protection of Latin American indigenous culture, about 27% of the people of Chiapas speak and indigenous dialect as their first language. There are five major indigneous languages which collectively are part of a family known as Tzeltalan, which is classified as part of the Mayan language family. Given the population of Chiapas is 5.54 million, this amounts to around 1.5 million in the region whose first language is one of the Tzeltalan tongues.

But just because their first language is indigenous does not mean they do not speak Spanish, as a great number are bilingual. The question then becomes how many of this 1.5 million are also considered non-proficient in Spanish? The COHA study estimates that 34% of this 1.5 million are unable to speak Spanish (though it dates from 2005 the Enciclopedia de los Municipos Delegaciones de Mexico's entry for Chiapas also estimates around 30% of indigenous speakers do not know Spanish, so one third appears correct). If we take 34% of 1.5 million, that gives us 510,000 people in Chiapas who have no working knowledge of Spanish. Recalling that the population of Chiapas is 5.54 million, this amounts to 9% of the population.

A 9% percent demographic is not huge, but it's not inconsequential either. But is this 9% trending upward or downward? The COHA report reveals that the prevalence of non-Spanish speaking indigenous in Chiapas is heavily skewered towards the elderly. If we look at the youth, COHA estimates that only 6% of teenagers' first language is Tzeltalan, and of that 6%, only 8% cannot speak Spanish. To get an idea of how small these numbers are, the 2020 Mexican demographics report for Chiapas says there are 665,366 teenagers age 12-17 in Chiapas. So if 6% of this 665,366 are native indigenous speakers, this would amount to 39,921. Of that 39,921, 8% cannot speak Spanish at all, which is a paltry 3,193 persons. Taken as a part of the whole, this represents .0006 percent of the people of Chiapas, six hundreths of one percent.

Clearly the linguistic future of Chiapas is Spanish, not Tzeltalan. 

What we have, then, with the "Mayan rite" is a novelty whose justification is supposed to be that "a large number of the people living there are not proficient in Spanish." That "large number" ends up being a mere 9% of the population as a whole (most of whom are elderly), a number which is trending downward precipitously among the youth.

I understand there is a bit of imprecision here in that these numberd are for Chiapas as a whole and not the Diocese of San Cristóbal de Las Casas specifically, which is smaller. And I grant that there are more indigenous speakers clustered in this diocese than in Chiapas as a whole, which does seem to be the case based on this map of language groups in Chiapas, which shows most native indigenous speakers are concentrated in the north:

That being said, I can't believe they are so far off as to reflect entirely opposing trends from the state as a whole.

Secondarily, why does the presence of a minority of non-Spanish speakers necessitate a different "rite"? If the problem is linguistics, as WPI infers, why not just say the existing Missal in one of the vernacular Tzeltalan tongues? How is adding ingidgenous customs to the liturgy relevant to the linguistic problem?

The takeaway: The assertion that "a large number of the people living there are not proficient in Spanish" seems to be an incredible exaggeration at best. It seems that around 9% (heavily concenrated among the elderly) cannot speak Spanish. And even if these demographics justified occasional Masses in Tzeltalan, this is no reason to introduce indigenous adaptations to the existing liturgy. How are Trads lying about this in any sense? 

II. The Term "Mayan Rite"

The WPI article objects to the name "Mayan rite" to designate these new adaptations, implying that  Trads are using the term as a means of smearing the liturgy. The article says:

First of all, the term “Mayan rite” is a fabrication, and it is seemingly being used to imply that this liturgy incorporates elements of pre-Christian Mayan religion. In fact, the term “Mayan” in this case refers to a group of indigenous ethnic groups and the languages spoken in parts of Mexico and Honduras, such as Tzotzil and Tzeltal.

First, this is a strange defense. He points out that "Mayan" doesn't refer to a religion, but to a language group. I am not aware of any Traditionalists denying that Mayan is a language group. This is a dumb straw man. 

I will grant that "Mayan rite" is not the official name of the new liturgy; in fact, it does not seem to have a name, being referred to simply as the "indigenous liturgical adaptations." Even so, the term "Mayan rite" is certainly not a "fabrication" of Traditionalists. The term originated with the secular Spanish language media covering the story. The earliest uses I could find of the term were in the Spanish language new site El Debate  and the Argentine website Infobae, both from March 2023, and both which ran the headline "Mexican bishops ask the Pope to include Mayan rites in Catholic masses." This phraseology did not originate with Traditionalists but with the media covering the story. While WPI might squabble over its accuracy and import, we should also note that in the 19 months since this story broke, no ecclesiastical authority has objected to the name "Mayan rites" as a descriptor for these adaptations. 

The takeaway: Whether the new rite incorporates elements of pagan religion or not, I don't think any Trads are denying that "Mayan" refers to a language group. At any rate, Trads did not coin the phrase "Mayan rite"; the Spanish language media did. No Trad lies detected.

III. Trad Objections are Racist

For good measure, the WPI piece throws in an accusation of "rank racism" against Lifesite's Vatican correspondent Michael Haynes:

On November 15, Lifesite’s Vatican correspondent Michael Haynes posted on X that the Vatican had approved a “Mayan rite” of the liturgy.In his accompanying story (and frankly, my disgust at his rank racism and lies is difficult to contain), Haynes writes of “the underlying pagan theology” of this alleged “Mayan rite” and describes it as a “pagan-based rite.” Lifesite has long been trumping up fear and panic directed towards indigenous Catholics but this attack on indigenous Mayans may be their most egregious calumny to date because the idea that it is “pagan” in any way is an intentional and absurd violation of the Eighth Commandment.

The "rank racism" is in reference to the November 15 article "Vatican approves Mayan rite with ritual dance, female incensors, and lay leadership of Mass parts" by Michael Haynes on Lifesite. It is hard to see what WPI thinks is so racist about Haynes' piece. It consists of little but quotations from Cardinal Felipe Arizmendi Esquivel, bishop emeritus of the San Cristobal de Las Casas and one of the promoters of the new rite. Nothing in the article even approximates to an "attack on indigenous Mayans." Perhaps it is the accusations of "pagan" influence that WPI finds racist—which, if so, WPI needs to get a dictionary and look up the actual definition of racism. As for the pagan nature of these practices, we cannot seriously maintain that merely questioning the appropriateness of certain expressions of popular piety is racist or even wrong. Cardinal Arizmendi himself admits that some indigenous practices are "deviations" from the truth that are in need of purification. "If there are deviations in some indigenous customs," the cardinal said, "we can help them to reach their fullness in Christ and in his Church.” And if we go back to the International Theological Commission's 1988 document "Faith and Inculturation" (which was meant to be the definitive post-Conciliar exposition of the Church's understanding of inculturation) we see a warning that certain expressions of popular piety can constitute real "deformations of religion, even of superstitions" and signify a culture "without true adhesion to the faith":

The limits of popular piety have often been condemned. They stem from a certain naivete [and] are a source of various deformations of religion, even of superstitions. One remains at the level of cultural manifestations without a true adhesion to faith at the level where this is expressed in service of one's neighbor. Badly directed, popular piety can even lead to the formation of sects and thus place true ecclesial unity in danger. It also risks being manipulated, be it by political powers or by religious forces foreign to the Christian faith. ("Faith and Inculturation, III:6)

It is not wrong or racist to raise concerns that certain indigenous expressions could be "deformations of religion" or "deviations," which even Cardinal Arizmendi admits exist. Now to be fair, Arizmendi's position is that the customs that have been adopted are not deviant and that they should not be viewed with suspicion, but this is irrelevant. If the cardinal admits it is possible for certain indigenous customs to be deviations from the Gospel, then how could it be racist to simply question if a given custom is such a deviation? Once you admit that some Xs are Ys, it is not unreasonable to investigate whether your particular X might in fact be a Y.

The takeaway: There is nothing here that Trads are "lying" about. These adaptations are Mayan, nothing about the term or the critiques are racist, and Trads did not even coin the phrase "Mayan"—a word which, by the way, a cursory word-search will show that even Arizmendi uses to describe the rite.

IV. Are the Adaptations Pagan?

To begin with, the question of whether something is "pagan" can mean a multitude of things. Are we speaking of a custom that once was pagan but has long since lost its pagan connotations? Or do we mean something that is currently practiced by pagans but is innocuous enough to be utilized in a Christian context? Or are we talking about something that is irredeemably pagan and constitutes full-blown pagan worship? I find a lot of the discussion on these matters frustrating because people seldom stop to sort out what they mean when they say something is "pagan"; more often than not, the word is simply thrown around without much distinction.

The WPI article scoffs at the notion that these adaptations are pagan, but doesn't define what it means by that, and also offers no evidence that they are not pagan. It strangely responds to this criticism by simply pointing out that the adaptations have been approved by Pope Francis and cites the Zaire Use as a precedent. I don't follow the line of logic here; I suppose it is a Roma locuta est argument? Even so, Roma locuta est would not be an argument that the adaptations were not of pagan origin; at most it would be an argument that their pagan genesis was not deemed to be incompatible with the Gospel—but that is an entirely different argument. Essentially, WPI says, "How dare Trads say these adaptations are pagan. The Vatican has approved them!" It's a logical bait and switch.

As to whether they are pagan, the WPI article takes the strange position of insisting that they are not while simultaneously lauding them as examples of indigenous inculturation. I realize that just because a custom is "indigenous" does not mean it is pagan, because not every custom is of a religious nature. For example, the adaptation of having a layman serve as a "principal" with a special role in the liturgy reflects the social organization of the indigenous peoples of Chiapas, not any religious ideal (this is not unlike how, in medieval Europe, special liturgical accomodations were made for the lord or patron of a parish, who might be permitted to sit within the chancel and was given a privileged place in the celebration). 

That being said, other adaptations certainly are pagan in origin (the female incensor, for example). We are told it is the traditional custom for women to offer incense, and this should therefore be incorporated into the Mass. Since we are talking about bringing this into the Mass, it is thereby inferred that this used to happen outside the Mass. I wonder upon what other sorts of occasions, then, women were offering incense? 

The pagan origin of these adaptations is more clearly evident in the adaptation of the prayers facing the four cardinal directions. This one is undeniable, as Arizmendi himself refers to it as a traditional way of "caressing the face of Mother Earth" with one's feet. This practice is well-attested among many indigenous peoples of Central America, Mexico, and the American southwest. For those who want a deep dive into this, there is a Mesoamerican religion thread on Reddit that ties a lot of these customs together across different Mesoamerican groups, explaining their symbolic and religious meanings in their traditional pagan context. 

Because of this, the best the Reason and Theology episode linked by WPI can do on this question is point out that the four directions "aren't being worshiped." It cannot be denied that they are pagan in origin; all that can be affirmed is that the directions aren't being worshiped. This is, of course, the bait and switch I refered to earlier. Whether the prayers are pagan and whether the directions are being worshiped are two different matters. I think WPI is arguing that these are not pagan in the sense that they are not pagan worship. But I don't see Trads arguing that the prayers in the four directions constitute a "worship" of the four cardinal points. I do see Trads pointing out that the pedigree of this practice is pagan, which is undeniable. In the same Reason and Theology video, at 27:54, it is also admitted that the so-called "Mayan offering" likely has pagan roots as well.

The takeaway: In terms of their genesis, there is no question that some of these adaptations are of pagan origin. This is undeniable. The real question is whether they can suitably be incorporated into the liturgy, sufficiently shorn of their pagan connotations. WPI skirts this question, deferring instead to what appears to be a Roma locuta est argument to end discussion. Of course, Rome approving these adaptations is not equivalent to saying they are not pagan in nature, but this is a discussion WPI does not wish to have. What is certain is that Trads are not lying to point out these adaptations are pagan; what needs to be discusses is in what sense are they pagan, and do they belong in the liturgy (spoilers: they don't).

V. The "Modest" Nature of the Adaptations

We will also find the argument that these adaptations are relatively modest; that they are "no big deal." The Reason and Theology discussion on the subject takes this approach, playing videos of the Mayan rite Mass and opining that the changes are actually quite modest, nothing to get worked up about and scarecly worthy of being deemed a separate "rite." Rather, the adaptations are no greater than many of the other options the GIRM allows within the Novus Ordo.

I am actually going to grant this point, but with a caveat. I concur that these adaptations are not that great for the Novus Ordo, especially in light of the wild variations we are used to seeing in the Pauline liturgy. It is a relative argument; compared to the NO this isn't a big deal, but relative to the standard of the Traditional Roman Rite, these are huge innovations—the creation of two entirely fabricated liturgical offices (incensor and principal), the inclusion of new liturgical gestures with absolutely no precedent in any Western liturgical family, the institutionalization of women in a liturgical function, an omnidirectional prayer instead of an ad orientem prayer, ritual dances, and so on. We should also note that Masses in Chiapas have included deacon's wives in a quasi-ministerial role, treating them as "co-ordained" with their husband, which brought a rebuke from Cardinal Arinze in 2007. Despite this, to this day deacons in these Masses process into the sanctuary side-by-side with their wives, as if their wives have a liturgical function. "Upon arrival at the altar," says Arizmendi, "it is kissed by the celebrant and, if present, by the deacons and his wife" (see my related piece, "Stop Trying to Make Deacons' Wives a Thing," USC, June 2, 2022).

From the perspective of the Traditional Roman Rite, these are huge innovations. The fact that these adaptations can be presented as not a big deal only signifies the degree to which the mindset of the Novus Ordo has numbed some people to recognizing novelty.

In case anyone wants to see the ritual dance that WPI thinks is no big deal, there is a video of it being performed in a Mass in Mexico City in the following video, beginning around 1:30:16-1:40:25. 

(Cardinal Arizmendi says it takes place “at the offertory, in the prayer of the faithful or in the thanksgiving after communion.” But in the video above, you can clearly say it takes place following the consecration, immediately after the Memorial Acclamation. As far as I know, the approved text has moved this dance to one of the three places mentioned by Arizmendi).

The takeaway: the adaptations of the new Mayan rite might not be huge from the perspective of the Novus Ordo, but from the perspective of the Church's entire liturgical history they are unprecedented, and Trads are not "lying" to say so. That this rite's defenders can see this as "no big deal" testifies to how jaded their liturgical sensibility has become. 

VI. If You Have A Problem With Any of This, You're Wrong

I actually found the above video linked in the WPI article, which speaks approvingly of this sort of thing. And don't you know it, if you have a issue with it, you're the problem. The article ends with this rejoinder:

If you are offended by humble indigenous Mexican Catholics shaking maracas, swaying, and bopping a little to the music of an out-of-tune guitar or a group of boys playing the violin in thanksgiving for the Eucharist and in honor of Our Lady, I think it’s safe to say you are doing it wrong.

This is sentimental schlock. Basically he's saying I can't object to anything inserted into the liturgy so long as it is done for sincerely good purposes. I beg to differ.

Humble? Irrelevant. Indigenous? Irrelevant. Mexicans? Irrelevant. In thanksgiving for the Eucharist and in honor of Our Lady? Irrelevant; there's lots of things I could do in thanksgiving for the Eucharist that would not be appropriate after the consecration (for example, shouting for joy or jumping up and down). But shaking maracas, swaying, and bopping a little to the music of an out-of-tune guitar immediately after the elevation of the chalice? Yeah. Huge problem with that. These things have no place in the Roman rite. They are not expressions of the Roman rite. They have no historical incidence in the Roman rite. And it's not about race or ethnicity; I would oppose this is the instruments were accordions and we were talking about Poles and not Mexicans. The issue is that this stuff doesn't belong in the Mass and it's ridiculous that this should have to be argued.

In an interview with ACI Prensa, Cardinal Arizmendi explained: 

[These adaptations have] the objective of advancing the march of inculturation of the Church in the native peoples and of taking responsibility for the celebration of the Holy Mass in some elements of these cultures...It is not about creating a new indigenous rite, but rather about incorporating into the liturgy various ways of relating to God that these people have, and which manifest the same thing as the Roman rite, but in their own cultural form.

I can see that Cardinal Arizmendi thinks he is staving off objections with this last sentence, but in actuality it reveals troubling shortcomings in his perception of what the liturgy even is. He says that the indigenous adaptations are not "a new indigenous rite," but rather the incorporation of elements which "manifest the same thing as the Roman rite, but in their own cultural form." We are supposed to be satisfied with this—the adaptations communicate the same message as the Roman rite, so it's all good? In what world is that an acceptable line of reasoning? We can see that Cardinal Arizmendi does not view the Roman rite as having any objective structure; the forms of the rite are just ad hoc vessels for delivering a message, forms which can be amended, added to, or discarded according to time and place. The idea of the liturgy as an objective body of actions and prayers handed down in concrete form and safeguarded by tradition is entirely foreign to him. Indeed, his attempt at justifying this rather exemplifies how deficient a view of the liturgy is prevalent among our highest prelates. In liturgy, the form and message are highly intertwined; in some respect, the form is the message. To talk of doing things completely differently but somehow expecting them to manifest the same thing is chimerical. 

I also have to ask....if all this is just another modification of the Roman rite, does this not undermine the Church's desire to have single expression of the Roman rite, as expressed in Traditiones custodes?

The takeaway: WPI is dumb.

VII. Pope Gregory to Mellitus

To wrap this up, I want to discuss a famous letter from Pope St. Gregory the Great to the Abbot Mellitus, who was on his way to join St. Augustine of Canterbury in the English mission in the year 597. In this letter, Pope St. Gregory addresses to what degree pagan customs and structures can be converted to the worship of God. 
 

Tell Augustine that he should be no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he has purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgement and worship of the true God. Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the feast of the martyrs whose relics are preserved in them, build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any more as an offering to the devil, but for the glory of God to whom, as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satiated. Thus, if they are not deprived of all exterior joys, they will more easily taste the interior ones. For surely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds...Mention this to our brother the bishop, that he may dispose of the matter as he sees fit according to the conditions of time and place. (Epistola 76, To Mellitus)

As we can see, the question of what can and cannot be retained from paganism has never been black and white. There is always a level of discretion, and letters like this throughout Church history reveal a very prudent, considerate attitude towards the question, whether we consider Pope Gregory's directives to Augustine, Pope Nicholas's letter to the Bulgarians, or the accommodations the Spanish made to native custom as found in documents like the Laws of Burgos. The latter document even strictly charges Spanish encomenderos to allow Native Americans to continue to do their ancestral pagan dances—just without the idols—because they recognized that these dances gave great joy to the people. You see a lot of this sort of thing throughout Church history. But what you never see is any directive to bring it into the liturgy itself. While there was always give and take on what customs can exist in Chrisian society, this discussion stopped at the doors of the liturgy. "Hitherto thou shalt come, and thou shalt go no further" (Job 38:11).

The problem, ultimately, isn't whether Tzeltalan speaking Mexicans want to pray facing a certain direction or have their women offer incense at their prayers; it's whether these gestures belong in the liturgy, and to that, the answer is a resounding no.