Cardinal  Felipe Arizmendi , Bishop Emeritus of San Cristóbal de Las Casas and responsible for the Doctrine of the Faith at the  Mexican Episcopal Conference (CEM) , offers Exaudi readers his article.

FACTS

As Rector of the Toluca Seminary, I had to expel, in accordance with the Formation Team, a student who was not suitable for the priesthood. But since he was determined to become a priest at any cost, he asked to be admitted to the Tapachula Seminary, without requesting the required preliminary information from us. When, on February 7, 1991, it was announced that I was going to be bishop of that diocese, several people told him that this was a clear sign from God that the priesthood was not his vocation. When I arrived there on March 7, 1991, he didn’t even introduce himself and left. But stubbornly clinging to his desire, he created a supposedly orthodox church in Mexico City, of which he was the founder, and celebrated sacraments as if he were a genuine sacramental minister. Many people asked him for religious services, given all the conveniences he offered, even though he charged them a considerable amount of money. But our good people, longing for a sacrament, and not even knowing their own parish, accepted it naively. He has since passed away, and may the Lord have mercy on him, as He has on us.

Thus, false priests spring up everywhere, whether they were validly ordained but later expelled from the priesthood for some serious offense, or were seminarians expelled from their seminary, or for other reasons; they are false priests. They have nothing to do with the Lefebvrists, but in many ways they are similar.

Therefore, I will continue clarifying some of the Lefebvrists’ statements in their  Catholic Profession of Faith.  I have  italicized  their assertions and included my personal commentary in regular Word format.

LIGHTNING

102. I profess that those who govern society should submit to the wholesome influence of the Church.

The Church offers the light of Revelation to civil authorities and to all of society, but it cannot impose it. Submission to the Church should not be demanded, because that would be an attack on religious freedom, which must always be respected.

103. I reject political and religious liberalism: that which, in the name of human dignity and a false religious freedom, attributes to each person the right to act publicly according to their conscience without being hindered by civil authority, even when that conscience is erroneous and opposes the common good or the true religion.

We do not condone public or private licentiousness, but we cannot prevent anyone from acting according to their conscience, even if we believe it to be wrong. God himself respects the freedom of the sinner. Our service is to preach God’s morality, to insist on it, and to strive for its practice in society, but we cannot impose it.

106. I reject assigning to the Church the mission of defending the dignity of the human person and establishing a universal fraternity founded on this supposedly common dignity of the human race, without making distinctions.

We promote universal fraternity, beloved by God, for we are all brothers, but we always make a distinction between the universal Kingdom of Christ and other conceptions; we strive for Him to reign in all, but we respect those who think and live differently.

109. We profess that it is necessary to restore everything in Christ, who is the only Holy One and, through his mystical Body, the only sanctifier of souls and peoples.

We too profess this faith, but without imposing it on everyone or on society. Our Church strives for Christ to reign in all things and in everyone, but without imposing it. To verify the centrality of Christ in the Church, one need only carefully read all the documents of the Council and the Popes. Fidelity to Christ and his centrality are fundamental. But it is precisely Christ who projects us to others.

124. I profess that the traditional Roman Mass, celebrated according to the rite in use prior to the reform of the Novus Ordo Missae, expresses with unparalleled clarity the Catholic doctrine of sacrifice, priesthood, and the Real Presence. But I note with sorrow that contemporary liturgical reforms have departed considerably from the traditional liturgy, both in its entirety and in its details; in doing so, they have obscured the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, fostering a democratic conception of worship, bringing Catholic liturgical expression closer to Protestant conceptions, and thus contributing significantly to the loss of the sense of the sacred, the corruption of the Christian spirit, the decline in vocations, and the general weakening of the faith.

The reforms made by the Second Vatican Council regarding the manner of celebrating Mass do not weaken the faith nor alter its nature. Jesus Christ did not celebrate the Eucharist in Latin, but in Aramaic. The Gospels transmit to us in Greek how Mass was celebrated in apostolic times. I celebrated my first Masses in Latin, and I like it, but we celebrate for the people, who do not know this language. Latin was imposed on the entire Church after the Council of Trent (1545-1563) for certain historical reasons, now superseded. Currently, in some very specific cases, the bishop can grant permission to celebrate Mass in Latin. What is most important is not so much the language, but the conscious and full participation of the people.

ACTIONS

I repeat what I’ve suggested: get to know and frequent the parish where you live, and if you don’t personally know someone claiming to be a priest, ask them to show you written authorization from your parish priest or bishop. Don’t accept religious services from just anyone, because they could deceive and defraud you.