Rites, Chinese Rites Question — Family prayer before the household altar holds a privileged place in the home, adorned with flowers and candles; the worshippers beat a kind of small drum with a stick — Tokyo.
Returning to the tomb or before an image. With this was forbidden what Ex illa die and Mezzabarba had permitted. This pastoral 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 pain of suspension “to observe and to ensure the observance of the permission granted in Ex illa die.” With 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 in China and some Chinese students were summoned, lasted until 1742. On 11 July 1742, Benedict XIV published the constitution Ex quo singulari, delivering the definitive sentence. He declared that the permissions of Mezzabarba had never been approved by the Holy See, that indeed they were contrary to its decisions, disapproved them, annulled them, and condemned their use by missionaries. He reconfirmed the prohibitions established in the constitution Ex illa die of Clement XI and prescribed a new formula of oath for missionaries.
In this way the question of the Chinese rites was definitively decided by Rome. In later times various questions relating to one or another ceremony were discussed; first of all the Ko-'tou, that is, prostration before a corpse or coffin or the ancestral tablet, was a matter of doubt. 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-'tou was a purely civil ceremony. In 1753 Propaganda issued an instruction in response to various doubts raised by the Apostolic Vicar of Eastern Tonkin, again condemning Mezzabarba’s permissions, especially those relating to funerals. In 1757 and 1773 the Holy Office issued a decree condemning even the simple Ko-'tou before a coffin. In 1769 Propaganda instructed the Bishop of Nanking to follow the instruction of 1753. In 1777 the Holy Office issued a universal decree again forbidding Ko-'tou in all its forms as superstitious.
In 1932 in Manchuria the new state of Manchukuo was erected under Japanese tutelage, and the Japanese promoted the cult of Confucius, requiring all citizens to participate. Msgr. Agostino Gaspas, Apostolic Vicar of Kirin (Northern Manchuria), informed the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda of the difficulties facing Catholics in this new situation. He was told that the Ordinaries of Manchuria should study the question in order to provide Propaganda with the elements for practical directives. On 27 February 1935, Msgr. Gaspas asked the Government Directorate of Religious Affairs of Manchukuo whether the honours rendered to Confucius in schools and temples were to be regarded as religious worship or as “a purely civil homage to a great man and philosopher, on account of the value of his doctrine and its importance for the moral formation of the nation.” The government’s reply was that the ceremonies were not religious in character but intended only to honour his doctrine, the foundation of morality and government, so that all citizens were obliged to participate. On the basis of this official declaration, the episcopate of Manchuria held a meeting in Hsinking on 12 March 1935 and drew up a lengthy questionnaire on how, in concrete cases, Christians might participate in ceremonies in honour of Confucius. The questions and answers concerned: the honour paid to images of Confucius in schools; the visits in groups of pupils, soldiers, and officials to pagodas; financial contributions for the construction and restoration of pagodas for Confucius or other temples; attendance at pagan funerals. In a letter of 28 May 1935 to Msgr. Gaspas, Propaganda gave the following reply: “On account of the particular importance of the subject, this Sacred Congregation, after carefully studying and having the question studied, has deemed it opportune to refer it to the Holy Father. At the audience of the 16th of this month, His Holiness, having taken cognizance of Your Excellency’s statement and the written opinion of His Excellency Msgr. Celso Costantini, expressed the following view: 1) that the Ordinaries of Manchukuo, to avoid any possible cause of scandal, should make known, with the necessary prudence suggested by circumstances, the letter in which the Directorate of Religious Affairs of Manchukuo recently assured Your Excellency that the ceremonies in honour of Confucius have absolutely no religious character; 2) that the same Ordinaries should regulate themselves, in giving their norms to the faithful, according to this official declaration; 3) that priests, after taking the prescribed oath on the Chinese rites, should adhere to the instructions of the Ordinaries, avoiding questions and controversies. This Congregation, for its part, believes that the Ordinaries, in giving their norms to the faithful, may conform to the decisions they took together at their meeting in Hsin-King. These have seemed prudent and well-considered” (Sylloge de Prop. Fide, no. 192, pp. 479–82; see below under Japanese rites, article by Fr. D’Elia).
As in Manchukuo, so in China, in an instruction of Propaganda of 8 December 1939, the question of the rites received new regulation:
1) since the Chinese government has repeatedly and explicitly proclaimed that all are free to profess any religion they prefer, and it is foreign to its intention to issue laws or ordinances on religious matters; and since therefore the ceremonies, whether performed or commanded by public authorities in honour of Confucius, are not done with the intent of rendering religious worship, but solely to promote and express fitting honour to so eminent a person and due respect for the traditions of the fathers: it is lawful for Catholics to attend acts of honour performed before the image or tablet of Confucius, in Confucian shrines and in schools. 2) It is therefore not to be considered illicit if in Catholic schools there is placed, especially if the authorities command it, the image of Confucius or even a tablet with his name written on it; nor if one greets it with a bow of the head. If, however, scandal is to be feared, the just intention of Catholics should be declared. 3) It is to be tolerated that magistrates and Catholic pupils, if commanded to be present at public ceremonies, even if these show signs of superstition, should attend, provided that, in accordance with canon 1258, they do so passively and associate themselves only with that homage which may reasonably be considered purely civil; declaring, as above, their intention when necessary to avoid false interpretations of their actions. 4) Bowing the head and other manifestations of civil respect before the dead
or even before those tablets of the deceased where only the simple name is written, are to be considered licit and fitting. Moreover, the Eminent Fathers, considering that the oath on 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 entirely accord with the recent norms given by this Sacred Congregation; and that, furthermore, that oath in our times has become, as a disciplinary measure, absolutely superfluous—inasmuch as it is known that the ancient controversies over the Chinese rites have now ceased, and, in any case, missionaries and other priests have no need of the constraint of an oath to render prompt and filial obedience to the Holy See—judged that that oath should no longer be required, wherever it may be in use, whether in China or elsewhere; while, however, the other prescriptions of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV remain intact, insofar as the instructions of recent times have not introduced changes, and especially the prohibition against stirring up controversies over the Chinese rites. In the audience of 7 December 1939, these deliberations were approved by the Supreme Pontiff 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 in 1914 the Chinese government had officially declared that the honours of the Confucian cult were purely civil, having nothing to do with religion—and thus a new arrangement was required. Not all difficulties were resolved, but to avoid new disputes, Propaganda in a letter of 28 February 1941 to the Apostolic Delegate Monsignor Zanin gave the following directives: «Absolute evitando est composito elenchi caeremoniarum permissarum vel prohibitarum, ne oriatur periculum reincidendi in discussionem casuisticam, quae sub alia forma renasci facerent querelas antiquas. — Quando necessitas postulet, Ordini dare quidem possunt regulas et normas generales; respectu tamen habito ad hoc, quod in tempore versamur transitorio, ne nimis descendant ad specificaciones singulas, et relinquant etiam sacerdotibus et bonis christianis laicis, in casibus particularibus, se dirigere secundum suam conscientiam».
II. JAPANESE RITES
St Francis Xavier, like the other early missionaries to Japan, at first preached the truths of God, the soul, heaven, and hell using Japanese Buddhist terms. But soon they realized that the Japanese words did not perfectly convey Christian content, and so they began to express Christian concepts in terms borrowed from Latin and Portuguese. This reform was the work of Fr. Baltasar Gago, S.J., and in 1557 it was approved by the Visitor Melchior Núñez, S.J., together with his catechism *Niju-go Kwagyo*. The erroneous Buddhist expressions of St Francis Xavier and his co-workers in preaching the Gospel had to give way to the new Latin and Portuguese terminology. This terminology was adopted, with few variations, even by the missionaries of other religious Orders who later arrived in that mission field, as, for example, is seen in the grammar of the Dominican Diego Collado (Rome 1632).
With the resumption of missionary activity in the 19th century, following the discovery of Christians descended from the ancient mission, the problem of Christian terminology arose again. Fr. Bernard Petitjean, M.E.P., found among these Christians numerous manuscripts of prayers, hymns, and calendars with the Latin-Portuguese terminology. Thus a catechism and a prayer book with this Kirishitan terminology appeared, both published in 1868. Meanwhile, however, the missionaries of Yokohama and its surroundings, where there were no Christians descended from the early 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 Chinese Christian terminology was used. Until 1875 the two terminologies were used side by side in publications. From that date the number of books with terminology based on the Chinese increased, while the Kirishitan terminology disappeared completely in 1883.
Great difficulties were caused for Japanese Catholics by the obligation prescribed by the government to attend ceremonies at the *Jinja* in honour of the Emperor, heroes, and fallen soldiers, and at funeral ceremonies. Already at the Synod of Nagasaki in 1890 general rules had been prescribed regarding pagan usages; however, the objectionable usages had not been enumerated in detail, and the distinction between *cooperatio* or «material assistance» had not been clearly defined. The ceremonies at the *Jinja* and funeral ceremonies were generally considered superstitious, and therefore attendance was to be forbidden to Christians. On several occasions the Japanese government had declared that the ceremonies at the *Jinja* were purely civil and not religious. Following an explicit request by the Archbishop of Tokyo, the government confirmed this view again on 22 September 1932. To remove the difficulties for Catholics, Propaganda on 26 May 1936 issued the «Instruction to His Excellency Monsignor Paolo Marella, Archbishop of Dioclea, Apostolic Delegate in Japan, on the duties of citizens towards their country», establishing the following practical norms: 1) the Ordinaries of the territories of the Japanese Empire shall instruct the faithful that at the customary ceremonies held at the *Jinja*, which are administered civilly by the government (as is clear from repeated and explicit declarations) and also according to the common opinion of persons of a certain culture, are attributed solely a meaning of patriotic love, that is, of filial reverence towards the imperial family and the benefactors of the country; and that therefore, since these ceremonies have now taken on a purely civil character, it is lawful for Catholics to participate in them and to behave like other citizens, while clearly explaining their intention, when this appears necessary to avoid false interpretations of their act; 2) the same Ordinaries may permit the faithful, when they attend funerals, weddings, and other private rites in use in Japanese social life, to participate like others (declaring, if necessary, their intention as stated above) in all those ceremonies which, although perhaps of religious origin, nevertheless, given the circumstances of place and persons and the common opinion of today, show that they have no more than a meaning of courtesy and mutual affection; 3) regarding the oath on the rites, wherever it is customary to take it in Japan, priests shall docilely put into practice what has been established in the present instructions of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, refraining from any controversy.
III. R. MALABARICI. — According to the missionary method in use in India during the 16th century, neophytes adopted Portuguese customs, dress, and even names. In this way, they became little liked by the Hindus, who called them *Pranguis*. Roberto de Nobili, S.J. (v.), however, introduced at the beginning of the 17th century into the Madura mission the method of adaptation. He took on the habit of the *Saniasi* (penitents) and lived their life. After a thorough study of the customs and usages of the Brahmins and Hindus, he permitted his disciples and neophytes the following practices, which he considered indifferent and therefore licit: 1. the *kudumi* (tuft), a distinctive mark of caste; 2. the *santal* (mark on the forehead); 3. the sacred thread, also a mark of caste; 4. the usual ablutions. With this method of adaptation, De Nobili initially achieved some success among the Brahmins, but soon other Brahmins, fearing his influence, began to create all kinds of difficulties for him.
Greater difficulties, however, were created by some of his own confreres. De Nobili defended himself and obtained the approval of the Jesuit Father General Acquaviva. Against his method, the Archbishop of Goa, Monsignor De Sa, also took action, summoning De Nobili before his tribunal and that of the Inquisition of Goa. Of the two inquisitors, one approved De Nobili’s method, while the other abstained from voting. At a Synod convened in 1619, the Archbishop of Goa, the Dominicans, the Franciscans, and the secular clergy—including indigenous priests—were opposed to De Nobili; instead, Inquisitor D’Almeida, the Archbishop of Cranganore, Father Roz, S.J., and all the Jesuits voted in his favor. The matter was referred to Rome and to the Grand Inquisitor of Lisbon. The latter, Fernão Mascarenhas, in 1621, and Gregory XV in 1623, in the bull *Romana Sedis*, ruled in favor of De Nobili. Thus, for the time being, De Nobili’s method had triumphed, and the Jesuits adopted it, dividing themselves into two groups: *Saniasi* priests for the higher castes and *Pandara Swami* for the lower castes and pariahs. In Madura, Mysore, Trichinopoly, Marava, and other regions, the successes were relatively good; in Madura, by 1704, the number of Christians had reached 90,000. Over the course of the century, additional concessions were made beyond those initially granted by De Nobili.
New difficulties arose from the Capuchins, who, since 1677, had been working in the recently established French colony of Pondichéry. In 1687, French Jesuits also arrived, collaborating in the Madura mission and establishing their own mission in the Carnatic, 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 36 questions regarding the *ritus malabarici* to the Propaganda Fide. These, however, have no connection with the *ritus malabaricus* of the so-called Christians of St. Thomas.
Meanwhile, Clement XI had tasked the legate for China, Tommaso Maillard de Tournon, with examining the rites and customs of southern India as well. He arrived in Pondichéry on November 6, 1703, remaining there until July 1704. He gathered information on these usages, particularly from the Jesuits Boucher and Bertoldi. On June 23, 1704, he issued a decree condemning, in 16 points, many of the usages permitted by the Jesuits. Tournon’s decree was confirmed by the Holy Office on January 7, 1706, and at the same time, a consultor was appointed for the further examination of the issue. The Jesuits Boucher and Laynez traveled to Rome. The latter, in 1707, published the *Defensio Indicarum Missionum Madurensis*..., which he also disseminated in India after his appointment as Bishop of Meliapur in 1708. Appealing to an *oraculum vivae vocis* of Clement XI, the Jesuits continued their method. Clement XI, however, renewed on September 1, 1712, the decree of the Holy Office from 1706, and the brief of September 17, 1712, reproached Bishop Laynez for not intervening against the *ritus malabarici* and for not enforcing Tournon’s decree. On July 24, 1715, Cardinal Prefect Sacripante of the Propaganda Fide sent to the Vicar Apostolic of Kweichow, Father Claudio Visdelou, S.J., who was in Pondichéry, the brief for Bishop Laynez—who had died on June 11, 1715—along with the decree of 1706, instructing him to enforce Tournon’s decisions regarding the *ritus malabarici*. Visdelou promulgated the documents on January 11, 1716. The Jesuits protested and sent Fathers Pierre Martin and Broglia Brandolini to Rome, where the *ritus malabarici* were again examined. Innocent XIII (1721–24) appointed a special Congregation, of which Prospero Lambertini—later Benedict XIV—served as secretary. Brandolini published a justification, to which Father Lucio, O.P., Commissary General of the Holy Office, replied.
The examination of the special Congregation continued under Benedict XIII (1724–30) and Clement XII (1730–40). Benedict XIII, with a brief dated December 12, 1727, confirmed Tournon’s decree. In 1733, the decisions of the 1704 decree, formulated in 16 doubts, were again examined by the Holy Office, and the responses were confirmed in Clement XII’s brief *Conpertum exploratumque* of 1734. Even with these decisions, the matter was not concluded, as some missionaries attempted to circumvent the brief. For this reason, Clement XII, with the brief *Concordia nobis* of May 13, 1739, insisted and imposed an oath of observance. The definitive word was spoken by Benedict XIV in the constitution *Omnium sollicitudinum* of September 12, 1744, which resolved the issue of the *ritus malabarici* in accordance with the 1734 decree and obliged missionaries in Madura, Mysore, and the Carnatic to take the oath.
The oath is summarized in the following points: 1) the obligation to use sacramentalia, especially saliva and insufflations, in the administration of Baptism; 2)
The obligation to impose, at Baptism, the name of a Roman martyr saint, excluding the names of pagan idols or holy men; 3) use of the Latin language alone or translation into the Indian language, provided there is perfect adherence to the meaning of the names of the Holy Cross, the saints, and sacred things; 4) the obligation to hasten the administration of Baptism to infants; 5) prohibition of early marriages and of the imposition of the nuptial necklace called *taly*, bearing the image of an idol; 6) prohibition for Christian married women to wear the *taly*; 7) prohibition of the use of the cord composed of 108 red threads, employed by pagan women to hold the *taly*; 8) prohibition of the superstitious marriage ceremonies of the pagans, such as the circular cutting of the hair on the heads of the spouses or *ad tollenda maleficia*, the use of the tree branch called *arascio-mara*, etc.; 9) prohibition of following the superstitious marriage rite consisting in breaking the coconut to draw omens; 10) prohibition of barring women suffering from menstrual disorders from Confession, provided they are not afflicted by serious impurity but only by a minor one; 11) prohibition of following the pagan custom of celebrating *vintigrem* before the woman suffering from menstrual disorders is purified; 12) obligation for missionaries to assist the pariahs religiously even in their homes; 13) prohibition for singers and musicians to participate in the ceremonies of pagan temples; 14) permission to use bodily washings, excluding any superstitious circumstances of time and manner; and prohibition for missionaries to use bodily ablutions except for natural needs, excluding any other purpose—even for what is believed to bring health or to be a Brahminical practice; 15) prohibition of marking the forehead with ashes of cow dung and of using other distinguishing marks of white or red color according to pagan superstitious customs, and obligation to adhere to the sign of the Cross and the imposition of sacred ashes; 16) prohibition of reading the superstitious books of the gentiles, under penalty of excommunication.
The Jesuits all submitted to these, but they were permitted to assign some missionaries exclusively for the use of the pariahs. This provision ceased with the suppression of the Society of Jesus. The successors of the Jesuits in the mission of southern India, especially the missionaries of the Paris Seminary, were able to ascertain that the decisions regarding the Malabar rites had been carried out. Until the end of the 19th century, no difficulties arose in this matter. After 8 December 1939, when the oath regarding the Chinese rites had been abolished, on 9 April 1940 the missionaries in India were also dispensed from the oath regarding the Malabar rites, while remaining bound to observe the rest of the prescriptions of Benedict XIV insofar as they had not been modified by the Holy See. — See pl. LIII.