Rites, Question of the

RITES, QUESTION OF. - The q. of the r. deals with those acts of veneration toward Confucius, the ancestors and the imperial family, in use in China and Japan, and also with certain usages and customs in India. The adaptation of Catholics to these rites gave rise to long discussions that go under the name of the q. of the r. Chinese (I), Japanese r. (II) and Malabar r. (III).

I. CHINESE RITES

After many futile attempts made by the Portuguese and the Spanish to begin missions in China, the Jesuits Ruggieri and Ricci succeeded in 1583 in establishing the first station at Shihing, in the province of Kwangtung. Then, in 1601, Ricci was able to take up permanent residence in Peking, the capital of the Empire. From the very beginning Ricci sought to adapt himself to Chinese usages and customs, not only in external matters such as dress — first dressing as a bonze, then from 1594 as a man of letters — but also in the terminology of the holy names and in the rites toward Confucius and the ancestors.

The first great difficulty was represented by the translation into Chinese of Christian terms, especially of God, Spirit, Soul. Ricci was of the opinion that the Chinese terms T'ien-Chu (Dominus coeli) or else Shang-Ti (Dominus supremus) or T'ien (Caelum) sufficiently rendered the Christian content of the word God, as T'ien-Cheng did that of Spirit and Ling-hua that of Soul. In a conference of the Jesuit missionaries at Macao in 1600, this terminology was approved, and likewise in the two conferences of 1603 and 1605 convoked by Fr. Valignano (v.) the adaptation to Chinese usages in honor of Confucius and of the ancestors was approved.

As for the name of God, an opposition soon formed among the Jesuits themselves, led by Fr. Longobardi against the terms T'ien and Shang-Ti. After Ricci's death in 1610, Longobardi, having become superior of the Chinese mission, was charged by the visitor Francesco Pasio to examine anew the question of the names of God. All the missionaries and some Christian men of letters gave their opinion, which, however, was not uniform. After a new examination in 1612 or 1613 the use of the word Shang-Ti was forbidden, without however achieving uniformity among the missionaries. Pro and contra the terms Shang-Ti and T'ien continued to be discussed, especially at Kiating in 1629. In 1629 the visitor Palmeiro once again forbade the use of T'ien and Shang-Ti; but the general of the Jesuits, Muzio Vitelleschi, revoked the order. Opposition also arose against the name T'ien-Chu, and some missionaries, among them Longobardi, proposed using the Latin word Deus. In the end, however, the name T'ien-Chu prevailed.

More serious difficulties arose after the Dominicans (1631) and the Spanish Franciscans (1633) arrived in the Chinese mission, especially with regard to the rites in honor of Confucius and of the ancestors. These were ceremonies performed in the little temples in honor of Confucius by government officials and men of letters; and usages and rites for venerating the forebears on the occasion of funerals, or at the tombs, or, at home, before the tablets of the ancestors. Ricci and the Jesuits considered these ceremonies as purely civil manifestations, of courtesy and gratitude toward Confucius and the ancestors, and they appealed to the old Chinese writings and to the opinion of the men of letters of the time, probably all Neo-Confucianists, who attributed no religious meaning to those rites. The Dominicans and Franciscans, on the other hand, saw in these ceremonies superstitious customs, basing themselves on the attitude of the people during those rites, and they forbade their Christians to attend them.

Without wishing to give an in-depth critical examination of the rites and ceremonies in question, an attempt will be made to set forth briefly the vicissitudes of the long question.

In 1635 some Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans held a meeting at Prochow on the missionary method, where the ceremonies in honor of Confucius and of the ancestors were discussed. Then at Tingtu, Dominicans and Franciscans initiated two informative processes on the dispute with the Jesuits. The acts were sent to Manila. They contained 15 doubts submitted to the archbishop of Manila, Hernando Guerrero, who sent them to Rome. The Historia de la provincia del S. Rosario de la Orden de Predicadores, by Fr. Diego Aduarte (Manila 1640), made the dispute in question public. From Manila Fr. Morales O. P., banished from China, was sent to Rome, where he arrived in Feb. 1643, and proposed 17 doubts on the missionary method in China. For the examination of these the Holy Office appointed seven qualifiers who reached a decision, published with a decree of Propaganda of 12 Sept. 1645. The answers relating to articles no. 6 to 13, concerning the assistance of Christians at the ceremonies in honor of the spirits of Confucius and of the forebears, were negative. Observance of the decisions was made obligatory for all the Chinese missionaries. The Jesuits of China, however, did not agree with the Roman decisions and sent to Rome Fr. Martino de Martinis, who arrived in 1654 to propose to the Holy Office 4 doubts, of which the 3rd and the 4th concerned the ceremonies in honor of Confucius and of the ancestors. The ceremonies were presented as acts of pure courtesy and the Holy Office on 13 March 1656 permitted them to Christians. The controversy, however, did not come to an end, because the question immediately arose whether the decree of 1656 had abrogated that of 1645. By another decree the Holy Office on 13 Nov. 1669 decided that both decrees had to be observed « iuxta quaesita, circumstantias et omnia in dictis dubia expressa ».

In the meantime, that is in 1665, the Christian religion had been forbidden in China and almost all the missionaries, with the exception of some Jesuits who remained at the imperial Court and of some missionaries who managed to hide in the provinces, had been transported to Canton in 1666, where they were held prisoners in the residence of the Jesuits. There were 21 Jesuits, 3 Dominicans and 1 Franciscan, who in 1667 and 1668 held several conferences. Forty-two decisions were taken and the 41st had as its subject the ceremonies in honor of Confucius and of the ancestors, and was based on the decision of the Holy Office of 1656. The Acta Cantonensis were signed by the Jesuits and by the Dominicans, but not by the Franciscan Antonio Caballero. The Dominican Fernandez Navarrete also, after a long correspondence with the Jesuits, withdrew his signature. He fled from the prison of Canton and arrived in 1672 in Rome where he proposed to Propaganda 119 doubts, of which 21 concerned the ceremonies in honor of Confucius and 25 the veneration of the forebears. Propaganda appointed some consultors for the examination of Navarrete's doubts, but published no new decree, so that the decrees of 1645 and of 1656 remained in force, and the missionaries, having returned in 1671 to the missions, followed the double practice in the places where they could work. In the years 1676-79 Navarrete published the two volumes of Tratados históricos políticos, éticos y religiosos de la Monarchia de China, and in the second he spoke of the question of the rites. The Spanish Inquisition, however, immediately confiscated this second volume.

With the arrival of the missionaries of the Seminary of Paris in China in 1684, the question of the rites was taken up again. In 1687 Charles Maigrot was named vicar apostolic of Fukien. In order to obtain the necessary unity in the practice of the missionaries of the various institutes, he issued on 26 March 1693 a Mandate, in which in 7 articles he condemned the terms T'ien and Shang-Ti and forbade the ceremonies of the forebears, declaring them superstitious. Maigrot sent to Rome as procurator Nicolas Charmot, who delivered the Mandate to Innocent XII. The Pope appointed a special Congregation of 4 cardinals, which formulated the « quaesita et rationes dubitandi » to serve as a basis for the votes of the consultors and of the cardinals and for the decision of the Holy Office. The trusted man for the « quaesito facti » was the Chinese missionary Gianfrancesco de Nicolais da Leonessa O. F. M., who was in Rome. The questions corresponded to the 7 points of Maigrot's Mandate. The following were appointed qualifiers: Fr. G. M. Gabrielli, Nicolao Serrano O.E.S.A., Filippo di S. Nicola O.C.D. and Carlo Francesco Varese O.F.M. Fr. Gabrielli was made a cardinal and did not take part in the vote. The votes of the other theologians, submitted in the autumn of 1700, were partly favorable to the Jesuits, partly to Maigrot: Serrano was fully for Maigrot, Varese in favor of the Jesuits, Philip on the Jesuits' side in the question of the names of God and on Maigrot's side in the other questions. After the death of Innocent XII the discussions continued under Clement XI until 1704.

On Nov. 20, 1704, a rigorous decree was issued against the rites. Since it is not possible to translate and express the Latin word Deus suitably in Chinese terms, the word T'ien-Chu, that is, Lord of Heaven, long used by the missionaries in China and by the Christians, shall be adopted. The terms T'ien (Caelum) and Shang-Ti (Dominus supremus) are abolished; for the future the tablets with the Chinese inscription King-T'ien, that is, Venerate Heaven, to be hung or already hung in churches, are forbidden; Christians were furthermore forbidden to attend and take part in the solemn oblations or sacrifices that were offered twice a year to Confucius and to deceased ancestors, because they were tainted with superstition; as also in those that were performed in the little temples of Confucius during the full moons of the individual months by magistrates and men of letters before entering office. The same ceremonies, rites and oblations were forbidden to Christians in private houses before the tablets of deceased ancestors, at funerals, at the grave, whether alone or in the company of pagans. These rites, which after mature reflection had been considered as inseparable from superstition, could not be practiced by Christians even if they had first made a public protest to declare that they were acting not with a religious meaning but only a civil and political one. However, simple material and occasional presence at the said ceremonies was not condemned, especially in order to avoid hatreds or enmities and possibly after first making a declaration of faith, always avoiding any danger of perversion. The imposition to remove from private houses every kind of tablet of the dead indicating the throne, the seat of the spirit, the name of the soul, etc., remained categorical. The only tolerance expressly admitted by the decree was a tablet marked with the sole name of the deceased, with a declaration of the Christians toward the dead and of the piety of children toward parents, in such a way as to convince the pagans that such a tablet was quite different in meaning from theirs. Other practices, which were simply civil and political, were not forbidden, but their determination was left exclusively to the authority of the commissioner or apostolic visitor, to the bishops and apostolic vicars, who in the meantime were obliged to introduce into their respective missions those pious practices and religious rites that the Catholic Church prescribes to its faithful, out of respect for and in suffrage of the dead.

In the meantime the discussion on the rites received unusual publicity through numerous writings (cf. Streit, Bibl., V and VII). The Sorbonne too took part in the discussion with the censure of 29 propositions, of which 21 had been taken from the Quaesita sent by Charmot to the archbishop of Paris, Msgr. de Noailles; and it further censured 5 propositions taken from the books of the Jesuits Le Comte and Le Gobien. The decision itself of Nov. 20, 1704, remained secret until it was published at Nanking on Jan. 25, 1707, by the apostolic legate Carlo Tommaso Maillard de Tournon.

In China, on Nov. 30, 1700, the Jesuits presented a memorandum to the emperor K'ang-Hsi, who in 1692 had granted freedom to preach the Gospel in his kingdom. In this memorandum the ceremonies in honor of Confucius and of the ancestors were declared political and civil acts of courtesy, and the Emperor fully approved it. It was sent to Rome and in 1701, together with the opinion of other mandarins and men of letters, it was printed.

When the apostolic legate De Tournon arrived in Peking in 1705, K'ang-Hsi had received him well, but having ascertained his opposition to the content of the memorandum, he issued a decree in 1706, obliging all missionaries to the Piao, that is, to ask the Emperor for permission to preach the Gospel in China, which permission was granted only to missionaries who had promised to observe the Chinese rites. On Jan. 25, 1707, the pontifical decree of 1704 was published at Nanking and subsequently De Tournon was taken to Canton and then to Macao, where he was held in custody by the Portuguese. He was later made a cardinal by Clement XI and died at Macao in 1710.

Against the publication of the pontifical decree the majority of the Jesuits, and some other missionaries who had accepted the Piao, appealed to the Pope. The emperor K'ang-Hsi himself sent as his own legates the Jesuits Provana and Arso to Rome, to obtain the revocation of the decree of 1704. The missionaries who did not accept the Piao were banished from China, among them the apostolic vicar Maigrot. Clement XI rejected all the protests and on Sept. 25, 1710, confirmed the decisions of 1704 and the decree of De Tournon of 1707. At the same time he forbade any publication on the question of the rites "sine expressa et speciali licentia a Sanctitate Sua obtinenda." In order to put an end to all subterfuges and pretexts for delaying the strict observance of the decree, Clement XI on March 19, 1715, published the constitution Ex illa die, confirming in solemn form the decisions of the earlier decrees and imposing on all missionaries an oath of observance. The Constitution was published in China in 1716; all the missionaries took the prescribed oath, but, especially the Jesuits of the imperial Court, abstained from any missionary activity, until the father general Michelangelo Tamburini on Apr. 9, 1718, ordered them to resume it. Of the Christians many did not submit and retained the rites. The emperor K'ang-Hsi signed in 1717 the sentence of the Tribunal of Rites of Peking, which exiled all missionaries, forbade the Christian religion, thus obliging all Christians to apostasy. This sentence, while K'ang-Hsi was alive, was not carried out, but it gave occasion for future persecutions.

To carry out in China the constitution Ex illa die of 1715, Clement XI appointed on Sept. 18, 1719, a new legate, Carlo Ambrogio Mezzabarba (v.), who arrived in China in 1720 and published on Nov. 7, 1721, eight permissions of the following tenor:

1. Chinese Christians are permitted to use in private homes the tablets of the deceased with only their names, adding to the side of the same tablet a due protestation and omitting any superstition in the composition and avoiding every scandal. 2. All the civil ceremonies of the Chinese nation toward the deceased that are not superstitious or suspect are permitted. 3. That cult of Confucius which is civil is permitted, along with the use of his tablets purged of superstitious letters and inscriptions, with the addition of a due declaration. Before his tablet it is permitted to light candles, burn incense and prepare foods. 4. For the use and expenses of funerals it is permitted to offer candles and incense, adding however a due declaration on the card. 5. The reverence of genuflection and prostration toward the corrected tablet is permitted, as also toward the bier of the deceased. 6. Where there is the corrected tablet, with the due declaration and every superstition omitted, it is permitted to prepare tables with sweets, fruit, meat and usual foods around or before the bier, by reason of a certain propriety and respect toward the deceased. 7. In the Chinese New Year, as also at other times, the so-called Ko-t'ou reverence is permitted before the corrected tablet. 8. Before the tablets, duly corrected and with the due precautions, it is permitted to light and burn incense, as also around the tumulus, before which foods may be prepared with the due precautions, as has been said above. Mezzabarba imposed a most prudent use of these permissions, under penalty of excommunication for anyone who had translated them into Chinese or published them.

But even this attempt to establish harmony among the missionaries foundered. The Jesuits, especially those of Peking, made wide use of the permissions; the others, on the other hand, particularly the Franciscans, scrupulously observed the constitution Ex illa die; indeed, Monsignor Francesco Saraceni da Conca, apostolic vicar of Shansi-Shensi, went further, forbidding in a pastoral letter of 1730 "as superstitious all the tablets of the dead, even the corrected ones." The simple image of the deceased was permitted, but without incense, candles and flowers, and still less adoration. Also forbidden was the table with foods and drinks around the tumulus or before the image. Thereby was prohibited as much as the Ex illa die and Mezzabarba had conceded. This pastoral letter provoked a reaction in Peking. In two pastoral letters of 11 July and 23 December 1733 the bishop of Peking, Francisco da Purificação, O.E.S.A., ordered all missionaries under penalty of suspension "ut observant et observant praecipent constitutionem Ex illa die iuxta permissiones." By a brief of 25 September 1735 Clement XII revoked and annulled the two pastoral letters of the bishop of Peking. The question of the permissions was submitted to a new examination by the Holy Office. This examination, for which some missionaries from China and some Chinese students were summoned, lasted until 1742. On 11 July 1742 Benedict XIV published the constitution Ex quo singulari, pronouncing the definitive sentence. He declared that Mezzabarba's permissions had never been approved by the Holy See, that indeed they were contrary to its decisions; he disapproved them, annulled them and condemned their use by missionaries. He reconfirmed the prohibitions established in Clement XI's constitution Ex illa die and prescribed a new formula of oath for missionaries.

In this way the Chinese question of the rites was definitively decided by Rome. In later times various questions were discussed relating to one or another ceremony; first of all the Ko-t'ou, that is the prostration before the corpse or the bier or the tablet of the ancestors, was the object of doubts. It is true that it had been formally forbidden by the constitution Ex quo singulari with the condemnation of Mezzabarba's permissions, but according to the opinion of many missionaries the Ko-t'ou was a purely civil ceremony. In 1753 Propaganda issued an instruction in response to various doubts proposed by the apostolic vicar of eastern Tonkin, again condemning Mezzabarba's permissions, especially those relating to funerals. In 1757 and 1773 the Holy Office published a decree to condemn also the simple Ko-t'ou before the bier. In 1769 Propaganda intimated to the bishop of Nanking the instruction of 1753. In 1777 the Holy Office issued a universal decree by which the Ko-t'ou was again forbidden under all forms as superstitious.

In 1932 in Manchuria the new state of Manchukuo was erected under the tutelage of the Japanese, who promoted the cult of Confucius, requiring that all citizens take part in it. Monsignor Agostino Gaspais, apostolic vicar of Kirin (northern Manchuria), informed the cardinal prefect of Propaganda of the difficulties arising for Catholics from this new situation. He was answered that the Ordinaries of Manchuria should study the question in order to provide Propaganda with the elements for practical directives. On 27 February 1935 Monsignor Gaspais asked the Government Directorate of Cults of Manchukuo whether the honors rendered to Confucius in the schools and in the little temples were considered as a religious cult, or rather "a purely civil homage to a great man and a philosopher, because of the value of his doctrines and their importance for the moral formation of the nation." The government's answer was that the ceremonies had no religious character, but intended only to honor his doctrine, the basis of morality and of government, so that all citizens were obliged to take part in them. On the basis of this official declaration the episcopate of Manchuria held a meeting at Hsinking on 12 March 1935 and compiled a long questionnaire on how, in concrete cases, Christians could take part in the ceremonies in honor of Confucius. The questions and answers concerned: the honor rendered to images of Confucius in the schools; the visit in procession of schoolchildren, soldiers, employees to the pagodas; financial contributions for the construction and restoration of the pagodas for Confucius or of other temples; attendance at pagan funerals. In a letter of 28 May 1935 to Monsignor Gaspais, Propaganda gave the following answer: "Because of the particular importance of the subject this Sacred Congregation, after having studied and caused to be studied accurately the question, has deemed it opportune to refer it to the Holy Father. In the audience of the 16th of the current month His Holiness, having taken cognizance of Your Excellency's report and of the written vote of His Excellency Monsignor Celso Costantini, expressed the thought: 1) that the Ordinaries of Manchukuo, to avoid every possible reason for scandal, should make known, with the necessary prudence suggested by circumstances, the letter with which the Directorate of Cults of Manchukuo recently assured Your Excellency that the ceremonies in honor of Confucius have absolutely no religious character; 2) that the same Ordinaries should regulate themselves, in giving their norms to the faithful, according to such official declaration; 3) that the priests, after having taken the prescribed oath on the Chinese rites, should adhere to the instructions of the Ordinaries, avoiding questions and controversies. This Congregation believes, for its part, that the Ordinaries, in giving their norms to the faithful, may conform to the decisions taken by them in common at their meeting at Hsin-King. These have seemed prudent and well pondered" (Sylloge de Prop. Fide, n. 192, pp. 479-82; see below Japanese rites, article by P. D'Eha).

As for Manchukuo, so also for China, in an instruction of Propaganda of 8 December 1939 the question of the rites received a new regulation:

1) Since the Chinese government has several times and explicitly proclaimed that all are free to profess whatever religion they prefer, and it is foreign to its intention to issue laws or ordinances on religious matters; and that therefore the ceremonies, whether performed or commanded by the public authorities in honor of Confucius, are not done with the intent of rendering religious worship, but solely for the purpose of promoting and expressing fitting honor to so distinguished a personage and the due respect owed to the traditions of the fathers: it is lawful for Catholics to take part in the acts of honor performed before the image or the tablet of Confucius, in Confucian monuments and in schools. 2) It is therefore not to be considered unlawful that in Catholic schools there be placed, especially if the authorities so command, the image of Confucius or even the tablet with his name written on it; nor that one greet it with a bow of the head. If there should ever be reason to fear scandal, let the right intention of Catholics be declared. 3) It is to be tolerated that Catholic magistrates and pupils, if they are commanded to be present at public ceremonies, even if these bear the appearance of superstition, take part in them, provided however that, in accordance with can. 1258, they attend them passively and associate themselves only with that homage which can with good reason be held to be purely civil; declaring, as above, their intention when it appears necessary in order to avoid false interpretations of their acts. 4) Bows of the head and other manifestations of civil respect before the dead or their images, and also before those tablets of the deceased on which the simple name is written, are to be considered lawful and fitting. Furthermore the Eminent Fathers, considering: that the oath concerning the Chinese rites, ordered by Benedict XIV with the constitution Ex quo singulari of 11 July 1742 for all priests "in the Chinese Empire and in the adjacent kingdoms and provinces both bordering and nearby," does not accord in all things with the recent norms given by this Sacred Congregation; and that, moreover, that oath in our times has become, as a disciplinary means, absolutely superfluous, since it is known that the ancient controversies over the Chinese rites have by now ceased, and, in any case, the missionaries and other priests have no need of the constraint of an oath in order to render prompt and filial obedience to the Holy See: they judged that that oath should no longer be made obligatory, wherever, in China or elsewhere, it was in use; the other prescriptions of the supreme pontiff Benedict XIV nevertheless remaining intact, insofar as the instructions of recent times have not brought changes to them, and especially the prohibition against stirring up controversies over the Chinese rites. In the audience of 7 Dec. 1939 these deliberations were approved by the Holy Father Pius XII.

This instruction does not contain a condemnation of the decision of 1742 on the Chinese rites. The conditions and the situation had changed, all the more so since already in 1914 the Chinese government had officially declared that the honors of the cult of Confucius were purely civil, having nothing to do with religion — and therefore a new arrangement was called for. Not all the difficulties were resolved, but in order to avoid new discussions, Propaganda in a letter of 28 Febr. 1941 to the apostolic delegate Msgr. Zanin gave the following directives: "Absolute evitando est compositio elenchi caeremoniarum permissarum vel prohibitarum, ne oriatur periculum reincidendi in discusiones casuisticas, quae sub alia forma renasci facerent querelas antiquas. - Quando necessitas postulet, Ordinarii dare quidem possunt regulas et normas generales; respectu tamen habito ad hoc, quod in tempore versamur transtorio, ne nimis descendant ad specificationes singulas, et relinquant etiam sacerdotibus et bonis christianis laicia, in casibus particularibus, se dirigere secundum suam conscientiam".

II. RITES CIAPPONESI

St. Francis Xavier, like the other first missionaries of Japan, at first preached the truths about God, the soul, heaven and hell using Japanese Buddhist terms. But they soon realized that the Japanese words did not perfectly render the Christian content, and therefore they began to express Christian concepts in terms taken from Latin and Portuguese. This reform was the work of Fr. Baldassarre Gago, S.J., and in 1557 it was approved by the visitor Melchiorre Nuñez, S.J., together with his catechism Niju-go Kwagyo. The erroneous Buddhist expressions of St. Francis Xavier and of his co-workers in preaching the Gospel had to give way to the new Latin and Portuguese terms. This terminology was adopted, with few variations, also by the missionaries of the other religious Orders who arrived later in that mission field, as, for example, can be seen from the grammar of the Dominican Diego Collado (Rome 1632).

With the resumption of missionary activity in the 19th century, following the discovery of the Christians descended from the ancient mission, the problem of Christian terminology arose again. Fr. Bernardo Petitjean, M.E.P., found among these Christians numerous manuscripts of prayers, hymns, and calendars with the Latin-Portuguese terminology. Thus he composed a catechism and a book of prayers with this Kirishitan terminology, both published in 1868. In the meantime, however, the missionaries of Yokohama and the surrounding area, where there were no Christians descended from the first Christian communities, had already in 1865 published a catechism, composed by Fr. Mounicou, M.E.P., based on the Chinese text of the Szechwan mission, where the Chinese Christian terminology was used. Until 1875 the two terminologies were used in parallel in publications. From that date the number of books with terminology based on the Chinese increased, while the Kirishitan terminology diminished, to disappear completely in 1883.

Great difficulties were caused to Japanese Catholics by the obligation prescribed by the government to attend the ceremonies in the Jinja in honor of the Emperor, of heroes and of fallen soldiers, and the funeral ceremonies. Already in the Synod of Nagasaki of 1890 general rules had been prescribed concerning pagan customs; however, the condemnable customs had not been enumerated in particular, and "cooperatio" or "assistentia mere materialis" had not been clearly defined. The ceremonies in the Jinja and the funeral ceremonies were generally considered superstitious, and therefore attendance had to be forbidden to Christians. On various occasions the Japanese government had declared that the ceremonies in the Jinja were purely civil and not religious acts. Following an explicit request of the Archbishop of Tokyo, the government again confirmed its view on 22 Sept. 1932. To remove the difficulties for Catholics, Propaganda on 26 May 1936 in the "Instruction to H.E. Msgr. Paolo Marella, Archbishop of Dioclea, Apostolic Delegate in Japan, on the duties of citizens toward the fatherland" established the following practical norms: 1) the Ordinaries of the territories of the Japanese Empire are to instruct the faithful that the ceremonies customarily held at the Jinja administered civilly by the government are attributed by the civil authorities (as is evident from repeated and explicit declarations) and also by the common opinion of persons of certain culture solely a meaning of love of country, that is, of filial reverence toward the imperial family and the benefactors of the fatherland; and that therefore, since such ceremonies have by now taken on a purely civil value, it is lawful for Catholics to participate in them and to behave like other citizens, explaining however clearly their own intention, when this appears necessary to avoid false interpretations of their act; 2) the same Ordinaries may permit the faithful, when they attend funerals, marriages and other private rites in use in Japanese social life, to participate like the others (declaring, if necessary, their intention as stated above) in all those ceremonies which, although perhaps of religious origin, nevertheless by the circumstances of places and persons and by the common opinion of today show that they no longer have any meaning other than that of courtesy and mutual affection; 3) concerning the oath on the rites, wherever it is customary to administer it in Japan, priests are to put into practice docilely what is established in the present instructions of the S. Congreg. of Propaganda, abstaining from any controversy.

III. MALABAR RITES

According to the missionary method in use in India in the 16th century, neophytes adopted Portuguese customs and manners, dress and even names. In this way they made themselves little acceptable to the Hindus, who called them Pranguis. Robert de Nobili S.J. (v.), however, introduced the method of adaptation at the beginning of the 17th century in the Madura mission. He took the habit of the Saniassi (penitents) and lived their life. After a thorough study of the customs and manners of the Brahmins and Hindus, he permitted his disciples and the neophytes the following usages, which he considered indifferent and therefore lawful: 1. the kudumi (tuft), the distinctive mark of caste; 2. the santal (mark on the forehead); 3. the cord, also a mark of caste; 4. the usual ablutions. With this method of adaptation De Nobili was the first to have a certain success among the Brahmins, but very soon other Brahmins, fearing his influence, began to create difficulties of every kind for him.

Greater still, however, were the difficulties created for him by some of his confreres. De Nobili defended himself and obtained the approval of the Father General of the Jesuits, Acquaviva. The Archbishop of Goa, Msgr. De Sa, also ranged himself against his method, and cited De Nobili before his tribunal and that of the Inquisition of Goa. Of the two inquisitors, one approved De Nobili's method, the other abstained from voting. In a Synod convoked in 1619 the Archbishop of Goa, the Dominicans, the Franciscans and the secular priests, including native ones, were against De Nobili; instead the inquisitor D'Almeida, the Archbishop of Cranganore, Fr. Roz S.J. and all the Jesuits voted in his favor. The case was sent to Rome and to the Grand Inquisitor of Lisbon. The latter, Ferhao Mascarenhas, in 1621 and Gregory XV in 1623 in the bull Romanae Sedis pronounced in favor of De Nobili. Thus for the moment De Nobili's method had won, and the Jesuits used it, dividing into two groups: Saniassi priests for the higher castes, Fondara Swami for the lower castes and the pariahs. In Madura, Mysore, Trichinopoly, Marava and other regions the successes were relatively good; in Madura in 1704 the number of Christians was 90,000. In the course of the century other concessions were added to those of De Nobili.

New difficulties arose on the part of the Capuchins, who from 1677 worked in the recent French colony of Pondichéry. In 1687 French Jesuits also went there, collaborating in the Madura mission, and created a mission of their own in Carnate following De Nobili's method. Soon accusations were sent to Rome against the Jesuits, and to support them the Capuchin François Marie De Tours returned in 1703 to submit to Propaganda 36 questions relating to the Malabar rites, so called because they were in use in the Malabar province of the Society of Jesus. These, however, have no connection with the Malabar rite of the so-called Christians of St. Thomas.

In the meantime Clement XI had charged the legate for China, Tommaso Maillard de Tournon, to examine also the rites and customs of southern India. He arrived at Pondichéry on 6 Nov. 1703, remaining there until July 1704. He gathered information on the usages in question, especially also from the Jesuits Boucher and Bertoldi. On 23 June 1704 he signed a decree, condemning in 16 points several usages permitted by the Jesuits. Tournon's decree was confirmed by the Holy Office on 7 Jan. 1706, and at the same time a consultor was appointed for the further examination of the question. The Jesuits Boucher and Laynez went to Rome. The latter in 1707 published the Defensio Indicarum Missionum Madurensis... which he also disseminated in India after his appointment as bishop of Meliapore in 1708. Appealing to an «oraculum vivae vocis» of Clement XI, the Jesuits continued their method. Clement XI instead renewed on 1 Sept. 1712 the decree of the Holy Office of 1706, and the brief of 17 Sept. 1712 reproached Msgr. Laynez for not having intervened against the Malabar rites and for not having executed Tournon's decree. On 24 July 1715 the cardinal prefect of Propaganda, Sacripante, sent to the apostolic vicar of Kweichow, Claude Visdelou S.J., who was at Pondichéry, the brief for Msgr. Laynez, who had died in the meantime on 11 June 1715, together with the decree of 1706, charging him to have Tournon's decisions on the Malabar rites executed. Visdelou promulgated the documents on 11 Jan. 1716. The Jesuits protested and sent Frs. Pierre Martin and Broglia Brandolini to Rome, which again examined the Malabar rites. Innocent XIII (1721-24) appointed a particular Congregation, whose secretary was Prospero Lambertini, later Benedict XIV. Brandolini published a justification, to which Fr. Lucino O.P., commissary general of the Holy Office, replied.

The examination by the particular Congregation continued also under Benedict XIII (1724-30) and Clement XII (1730-40). Benedict XIII by a brief of 12 Dec. 1727 confirmed Tournon's decree. In 1733 the decisions of Tournon's decree, formulated in 16 doubts, were again examined by the Holy Office, and the answers were confirmed in the brief of Clement XII Comperium exploratumque of 1734. Even with these decisions the question did not come to an end, because some missionaries tried to evade the brief. For this reason Clement XII with the brief Concredita nobis of 13 May 1739 insisted and imposed an oath of observance. The definitive word was spoken by Benedict XIV with the constitution Omnium sollicitudinum of 12 Sept. 1744, which decided the question of the Malabar rites in the sense of the decree of 1734 and obliged the missionaries of Madura, Mysore and Carnate to take the oath.

The oath is summarized in these points: 1) the obligation to use the sacramentals, especially saliva and insufflations, in the administration of Baptism; 2) the obligation to impose, in Baptism, the name of a saint from the Roman Martyrology, excluding the names of idols or pagan holy men; 3) the use of the Latin language alone or a translation into an Indian language, but with perfect adherence to the meaning of the names of the Holy Cross, of the saints and of sacred things; 4) the obligation to hasten the administration of Baptism to newborn infants; 5) the prohibition of early marriages and of the imposition of the nuptial necklace called taly, bearing the image of an idol; 6) the prohibition for married Christian women to wear the taly; 7) the prohibition of using the cord composed of 108 threads and dyed red, used by pagan women to hold the taly; 8) the prohibition of using the superstitious ceremonies of pagan marriages, such as the circular cutting of the hair on the heads of the spouses «ad tollenda maleficia», the use of the tree branch called aracismara, etc.; 9) the prohibition of following the marriage rite consisting in breaking the coconut to draw superstitious omens from it; 10) the prohibition of keeping from Confession women «menstruali morbo laborantes, non attenta diebus purificationis iuxta morem Gentilium»; 11) the prohibition of following the pagan custom of celebrating «virginem prima vice menstruali morbo laborantem»; 12) the obligation for missionaries to assist the pariahs religiously even in their homes; 13) the prohibition for singers and musicians to participate in the ceremonies of pagan temples; 14) permission to use bodily washings, excluding any superstitious circumstance of time and manner; and the prohibition for missionaries to use bodily ablutions except for natural needs, excluding any other purpose «etiam ad effectum ut existimentur Sanias seu Brachmanes»; 15) the prohibition of marking the forehead with ashes of cow dung and of using other distinctive marks of white or red color, according to superstitious pagan usages, and the obligation to adhere to the sign of the Cross and the imposition of the sacred ashes; 16) the prohibition of reading the superstitious books of the gentiles, under penalty of excommunication.

The Jesuits all submitted, but they were permitted to assign some missionaries exclusively to the pariahs. This provision disappeared with the suppression of the Society of Jesus. The successors of the Jesuits in the mission of southern India, especially the missionaries of the Seminary of Paris, were able to verify that the decisions concerning the Malabar rites had been carried out. Until the whole of the 19th century no difficulties arose in the matter. After the oath concerning the Chinese rites was abolished on 8 Dec. 1939, on 9 Apr. 1940 the missionaries of India too were dispensed from the oath concerning the Malabar rites, "it being understood that the obligation remains to observe in all other respects the prescriptions of Benedict XIV insofar as they have not been modified by the Holy See." - See plate I.III.