Rites, Question of the
The question of the rites concerns those acts of veneration toward Confucius, the ancestors, and the imperial family, practiced in China and Japan, as well as certain usages and customs in India. The adaptation of Catholics to these rites has given rise to lengthy discussions known as the question of the Chinese rites (I), the Japanese rites (II), and the Malabar rites (III).
### I. Chinese Rites
After many unsuccessful attempts by the Portuguese and Spanish to initiate missions in China, the Jesuits Michele Ruggieri and Matteo Ricci succeeded in 1583 in establishing the first station at Shiuhing, in the province of Kwangtung. In 1601, Ricci was able to take up permanent residence in Peking, the capital of the empire. From the outset, Ricci sought to adapt himself to Chinese customs and usages, not only in external matters such as dress—first wearing the habit of a Buddhist monk and then, from 1594, that of a scholar—but also in the terminology of sacred names and in the rites toward Confucius and ancestors.
The first major difficulty was the translation into Chinese of Christian terms, especially those for God, Spirit, and Soul. Ricci was of the opinion that the Chinese terms *T'ien-Chu* (Lord of Heaven) or *Shang-Ti* (Supreme Lord) or *T'ien* (Heaven) adequately conveyed the Christian meaning of the word "God," just as *T'ien-Chu* conveyed "Spirit" and *Ling-hun* "Soul." At a conference of Jesuit missionaries in Macao in 1600, this terminology was approved, and at two further conferences in 1603 and 1605, convened by Fr. Valignano (v.), the adaptation to Chinese usages in honor of Confucius and ancestors was also approved.
As for the name of God, opposition soon arose among the Jesuits themselves, led by Fr. Niccolò Longobardi against the terms *T'ien* and *Shang-Ti*. After Ricci’s death in 1610, Longobardi, who had become superior of the Chinese mission, was tasked by the Visitor Francesco Paisio with re-examining the question of the names of God. All the missionaries and some Christian scholars gave their opinions, but these were not uniform. After a further examination in 1612 or 1613, the use of the word *Shang-Ti* was prohibited, though uniformity among the missionaries was not achieved. The debate for and against the terms *Shang-Ti* and *T'ien* continued, particularly at Kiating in 1629. In 1629, the Visitor Palmiero again prohibited the use of *T'ien* and *Shang-Ti*, but the Superior General of the Jesuits, Muzio Vitelleschi, revoked the order. Opposition also arose against the name *T'ien-Chu*, and some missionaries, including Longobardi, proposed using the Latin word *Deus*. Ultimately, 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, particularly regarding the rites in honor of Confucius and ancestors. These were ceremonies performed in small temples in honor of Confucius by government officials and scholars, as well as usages and rites for venerating ancestors on the occasion of funerals, at tombs, or in the home before ancestral tablets. Ricci and the Jesuits regarded these ceremonies as purely civil acts of courtesy and gratitude toward Confucius and ancestors, appealing to ancient Chinese writings and the opinions of contemporary scholars—likely all Neo-Confucianists—who attributed no religious significance to these rites. The Dominicans and Franciscans, however, saw these ceremonies as superstitious customs, basing their judgment on the behavior of the people during these rites, and forbade their Christians from attending them.
Without attempting a thorough critical examination of the rites and ceremonies in question, we shall briefly recount the events of this long controversy.
In 1635, some Jesuits, Franciscans, and Dominicans held a conference in Foochow to discuss missionary methods, where the ceremonies in honor of Confucius and ancestors were debated. At Tingzhou, the Dominicans and Franciscans then initiated two investigative proceedings against the Jesuits. The records were sent to Manila and contained 15 doubts submitted to the Archbishop of Manila, Hernando Guerrero, who forwarded 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 public. From Manila, Fr. Morales, O.P., who had been banished from China, was sent to Rome, arriving in February 1643, and presented 17 doubts on the Chinese missionary method. For their examination, the Holy Office appointed seven qualified theologians who issued a decision, published by the decree of the Propaganda Fide on September 12, 1645. The responses to articles 6 through 13, concerning the attendance of Christians at ceremonies in honor of the spirits of Confucius and ancestors, were negative. Compliance with the decisions was made obligatory for all missionaries in China. The Jesuits in China, however, disagreed with the Roman decisions and sent Fr. Martino de Martini to Rome, who arrived in 1654 to present four doubts to the Holy Office, the third and fourth of which concerned the ceremonies in honor of Confucius and ancestors. The ceremonies were presented as acts of pure courtesy, and on March 13, 1656, the Holy Office permitted them to Christians. The controversy, however, did not end, for the question immediately arose whether the decree of 1656 had abrogated that of 1645. With another decree on November 13, 1669, the Holy Office ruled that both decrees were to be observed “according to the queries, circumstances, and all that was expressed in the said doubts.”
Meanwhile, in 1665, the Christian religion had been prohibited in China, and nearly all missionaries, except for some Jesuits who remained at the imperial court and a few who had managed to hide in the provinces, were transported to Canton in 1666, where they were detained as prisoners in the residence of the Jesuits. There were 21 Jesuits, 3 Dominicans, and 1 Franciscan, who held several conferences in 1667 and 1668. Forty-two decisions were made, and the 41st concerned the ceremonies in honor of Confucius and ancestors, based on the Holy Office’s decision of 1656. The *Acta Cantonensia* were signed by the Jesuits and Dominicans but not by the Franciscan Antonio Caballero. The Dominican Fr. Fernández Navarrete, after lengthy correspondence with the Jesuits, later withdrew his signature. He escaped from the prison in Canton and arrived in Rome in 1672, where he presented 119 doubts to the Propaganda Fide, including 21 on the ceremonies in honor of Confucius and 25 on the veneration of ancestors. The Propaganda appointed several consultants to examine Navarrete’s doubts but issued no new decree, so that the decrees of 1645 and 1656 remained in force. Missionaries who returned to their posts in 1671 followed a dual practice in places where they could work. Between 1676 and 1679, Navarrete published the two volumes of *Tratados históricos, políticos, éticos y religiosos de la Monarchia de China*, and in the second volume he discussed the fourth of the rites. The Spanish Inquisition, however, immediately condemned this second volume.
With the arrival in China in 1684 of the missionaries of the Paris Seminary, the question of the rites was resumed. In 1687 Carlo Maigrot was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Fukien. To secure the necessary unity in the practice of the missionaries of the various institutes, he issued on 26 March 1693 a Mandate, in seven articles, in which he condemned the terms T'ien and Shang-ti and forbade ancestor ceremonies as superstitious. Maigrot sent to Rome as his procurator Nicola Charmot, who delivered the Mandate to Innocent XII. The Pope appointed a special Congregation of four cardinals, which drew up the “quaesita et rationes dubitandi” to serve as the basis for the votes of the consultors and cardinals and for the decision of the Holy Office. For the “quaestio facti” the trusted man was the Chinese missionary Gianfrancesco de Nicolais da Leonessa O.F.M., who was in Rome. The questions corresponded to the seven points of Maigrot’s Mandate. The following were appointed as 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 created cardinal and did not take part in the voting. The votes of the other theologians, presented in the autumn of 1700, were partly favorable to the Jesuits and partly to Maigrot: Serrano was fully for Maigrot, Varese in favor of the Jesuits, Filippo in the question of the names of God for the Jesuits and in the other questions for Maigrot. After the death of Innocent XII the discussions continued under Clement XI until 1704.
On 20 Nov. 1704 a rigorous decree was issued against the rites. Since it is not possible to translate and express conveniently in Chinese the Latin word Deus, the word T’ien-chu, i.e., Lord of Heaven, long used by missionaries in China and by Christians, was to be adopted. The term T’ien (Caelum) and Shang-ti (Dominus supremus) were to be abolished; in future, tablets with the Chinese inscription King-t’ien, i.e., “Venerate Heaven,” to be hung or already hanging in churches, were to be forbidden; Christians were also forbidden to attend or take part in the solemn offerings or sacrifices that were made twice a year to Confucius, to deceased ancestors, because they were infected with superstition; likewise, those that were practiced in Confucius’ temples during the full moons of the individual months by officials and scholars before entering office. The same ceremonies, rites, and offerings were forbidden to Christians in private houses before the tablets of deceased ancestors, at funerals, at burials, whether alone or in company with pagans. These rites, which after mature reflection had been considered 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 religious but only with civil and political intent. However, simple material and occasional presence at the said ceremonies was not condemned, especially to avoid hatred or enmity and if possible after first making a declaration of faith, always avoiding any danger of perversion. The strict imposition remained to remove from private houses all kinds of tablets of the dead indicating the throne, the seat of the spirit, the name of the soul, etc. The only tolerance expressly admitted by the decree was a tablet marked only with the name of the deceased, with a declaration by the Christians regarding the dead and the piety of children toward parents, so as to convince pagans that such a tablet was quite different in meaning from theirs. Other practices that were merely civil and political were not forbidden, but their determination was left exclusively to the authority of the Apostolic Commissioner or Visitor, the bishops, and Vicars Apostolic, who in the meantime were obliged to introduce into their respective missions those pious practices and religious rites that the Catholic Church prescribes for its faithful, for the respect and suffrage of the dead.
Meanwhile the discussion on the rites had an unusual publicity through numerous writings (cf. Streit, Bibl., V and VII). The Sorbonne also 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, Mons. de Noailles; and it also censured five propositions taken from the books of the Jesuits Le Comte and Le Gobien. The decision itself of 20 Nov. 1704 remained secret until it was published at Nanking on 25 Jan. 1707 by the Apostolic Legate Carlo Tommaso Maillard de Tournon.
In China on 30 Nov. 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 ancestors were declared political and civil acts of courtesy, and the Emperor fully approved them. It was sent to Rome and in 1701, together with the opinions of other mandarins and scholars, it was printed.
When the Apostolic Legate De Tournon arrived at Peking in 1705, K’ang-hsi had received him well, but when he realized that De Tournon opposed the content of the memorandum, in 1706 he issued a decree obliging all missionaries to the Piao, i.e., to ask the Emperor for permission to preach the Gospel in China, which permission was granted only to missionaries who promised to observe the Chinese rites. On 25 Jan. 1707 the papal 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 created a cardinal by Clement XI and died at Macao in 1710.
Against the publication of the papal 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 legates the Jesuits Provane and Arxo to Rome to obtain the revocation of the decree of 1704. Missionaries who did not accept the Piao were banished from China, including the Vicar Apostolic Maigrot. Clement XI rejected all protests and on 25 Sept. 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.” To put an end to all subterfuges and pretexts for delaying strict observance of the decree, Clement XI on 19 March 1715 published the constitution Ex illa die, solemnly confirming 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 presented the prescribed oath, but especially the Jesuits of the Imperial Court abstained from any missionary activity until Father General Michelangelo Tamburini on 9 April 1718 ordered them to resume II. Many Christians did not submit and kept the rites. Emperor K’ang-hsi in 1717 signed the sentence of the Board of Rites at Peking, which exiled all missionaries and forbade the Christian religion, thus forcing all Christians to apostasy. This sentence, while K’ang-hsi was still alive, was not carried out, but it gave occasion for future persecutions.
To execute in China the constitution Ex illa die of 1715, Clement XI on 18 Sept. 1719 appointed a new legate, Mezzabarba (v.), who arrived in China in 1720 and on 7 Nov. 1721 published eight permissions of the following tenor:
Christians in China are permitted to use in private homes tablets inscribed only with the names of the deceased, provided that a suitable protest is added beside the tablet and that no superstitious elements are included in its composition and no scandal is occasioned.
All civil ceremonies of the Chinese nation towards the deceased that are not superstitious or suspect are permitted.
The civil cult of Confucius is permitted, as is the use of his tablets purged of superstitious inscriptions and letters, with the addition of a suitable declaration. In front of his tablet it is permitted to light candles, burn incense, and prepare food.
For the use and expenses of funerals it is permitted to offer candles and incense, provided that a suitable declaration is added to the record.
The practice of kneeling, prostrating oneself before the corrected tablet, and also before the bier of the deceased, is permitted. Where there is a corrected tablet, with the suitable declaration and all superstition omitted, it is permitted to prepare tables with sweets, fruit, meat, and ordinary foods around or in front of the bier, for reasons of a certain propriety and respect towards the deceased.
In the Chinese New Year, as well as at other times, the so-called Ko-t'ou reverence before the corrected tablet is permitted.
Before the tablets, duly corrected and with due caution, it is permitted to light and burn incense, as well as around the tomb, before which food may be prepared with due caution, as stated above.
Mezzabarba imposed the most prudent use of these permissions, under pain of excommunication for anyone who should translate them into Chinese or publish them.
Yet even this attempt to establish harmony among missionaries failed. The Jesuits, especially those in Peking, made wide use of the permissions, while others, particularly the Franciscans, observed the constitution Ex illa die scrupulously. Indeed, Monsignor Francesco Saraceni da Conca, Vicar Apostolic of Shansi-Shensi, went so far as to forbid in a pastoral letter of 1730, as superstitious, all tablets of the dead, even the corrected ones. Only the simple image of the deceased was permitted, but without incense, candles, or flowers, and still less was adoration permitted. The table with food and drink was also forbidden.