The liturgical and sacramental riches of the Orthodox Church have for centuries helped Christians draw closer to God, and provided comfort and succor to countless faithful.  They helped shape the cultures of the Orthodox nations.  Now that Orthodoxy is strengthening its missionary efforts in traditionally non-Christian lands, it is coming to grips with very different cultural patterns and practices.  The cultures of some peoples in our Metropolitanate are among the oldest and most respected in the world, yet  they differ profoundly from traditional Orthodox culture.  How will the Orthodox Church deal with issues arising from new missionary situations?  For example, what kind of pastoral advice will an Orthodox missionary give Chinese converts, when Clean Monday happens to coincide with the greatest of the Chinese festivals, Lunar New Year’s Day?

Undoubtedly in time, the Church will find her true course.  Meanwhile, it might be useful to compare notes with historical patterns in the missionary host countries, particularly at their adaptive behavior upon the influx of external culture.  The “Rites Controversy” of the Roman Catholic missionary effort in China, whose last ripples were not settled until 1939, may be a particularly useful object lesson to look at.

Known as “l’Affaire chinoise” in France, the Rites Controversy started in the mid-17th Century and festered for more than a hundred years, more than encompassing the reign of the great Manchu (Qing Dynasty) Emperor Kangxi (Kang Hsi).  Theological debate and struggles among Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans eventually developed into conflict between the Kangxi Court and the Vatican.  The Controversy may be divided into 3 parts:
 
(I)  Debate over the translation for the name of the “Most High”;
(II)  The Issue of the veneration of Confucius and ancestors;
(III)  Conflict between the Kangxi Court and the Vatican.

The Name of the Most High

The Jesuit Matteo Ricci, who was instrumental in the planting of an unbroken Catholic tradition in China and who built up his mission from 1580 to his death in 1606 (toward the last decades of  the Ming Dynasty), favored the terms Tian (Heaven), Shangdi (Sovereign on High) and Tianzhu (Lord of Heaven and Earth) to denote God.  (In Chinese societies today, Shangdi remains the term used by most Protestants for God, while Catholics uniformly use Tianzhu.)  The first two, Tian and Shangdi,  are venerable Confucianist terms of ancient derivation, with which the Chinese felt familiar and comfortable.  Tianzhu was coined to replace transliterated sounds in earlier use in China (such as  tu-si for the Latin “Deus” and, much earlier, a-luo-he for the Assyrian [Nestorian] “Allah”) which were not proper Chinese words.  All three terms favored by Ricci, therefore, represented movements forward from other, earlier usage.

In 1607, Ricci’s successor Nicolo Longobardi, raised objections to the use of the Confucianist terms Tian and Shangdi.  The influential neo-Confucianist thinking of the philosopher Zhu Xi had swept across the Confucianist lands, and Longobardi received reports from Jesuit missionaries in Japan that the Catholic catechism was being seen through the prism of the Neo-Confucianist understanding of Tian and Shangdi, an understanding deemed inadequate for the Almighty.  Jesuit theologians divided into two camps to debate the pros and cons of the two terms, and the matter was brought to the attention of Jesuit headquarters in Rome in 1614, where a group of prominent theologians came down in favor of the Ricci usage.  The issue was not settled, however, as Longobardi and other leading Jesuits such as Sabbatino de Ursis persisted in their objections.  After the publication of de Ursis’ De Vera Cognitione Dei Apud Litteratos Sinenses in 1618, Longobardi suggested that Tian, Shangdi and Tianzhu be dropped altogether and that transliterations of Latin terms be substituted instead.  The Jesuit Order refused and the debate continued.

In an attempt to dampen the controversy, a meeting was convened in 1628 in the Chinese city of Jiading by the then-Jesuit inspector-general in China, Andreas Palmieiro.  Thirty items were on the agenda, mostly concerning the Chinese veneration of ancestors, and translation of the Divine Name and terminology.  The meeting decided that the Ricci formulation and practice regarding the veneration of Confucius and of ancestors would be followed.  This meant this sort of veneration was not regarded as pagan superstition. In the approach toward terminology translation, the Longobardi view prevailed.  The terms Tian and Shangdi were banned.

Exercising due caution, Palmieiro took the Jiading decisions to the imperial capital of Beijing and discussed them with the Jesuits in the service of the Emperor.  After canvassing their views, the Jesuit Order in China issued an instruction in 1629 formally prohibiting the use of the terms Tian and Shangdi.

The dispute within the Jesuit Order did not end there.  Longobardi was not satisfied with the ban on Tian and Shangdi; he wanted Tianzhu also banned, and for transliterations from the Latin (e.g. tu-si for Deus) to be substituted instead.  A former inspector-general in China, Manoel Diaz, took exception to Longobardi’s views and wrote to Superior-General Vitelleschi of the Society of Jesus in 1630, advocating that Tian and Tianzhu were appropriate terms for God.  In 1633 the Jesuits again convened on this issue.  This time it was decided that traditional practice would be maintained.  Manoel Diaz resumed his position as Inspector-General in China, and freedom was given to believers to again use the terms Tian and Shangdi.

No sooner did the arguments on the Divine Name die down among the Jesuits than the affair acquired a wider purview.  After 1632, the Dominicans and the Franciscans became active in mission work in China.  Theologically from the outset, these religious orders could not accept the term Shangdi, believing it too closely identified with the traditional Chinese pantheon. They viewed Tian as a term for something not necessarily animate. Pastorally, they viewed the Jesuits’ inclusive attitude toward Chinese terms and customs (such as the veneration of ancestors),  as “compromise” and “appeasement”, an attitude lacking in purity.  And politically they envied the Jesuits’ success in China.

It was therefore inevitable that the controversy involving the translation of terms became expanded to include issues of rites and theology, whose importance eventually caused the papacy to be embroiled.

The Issue of Rites: The Divine Name, Confucius, and the Veneration of Ancestors

It was Matteo Ricci’s policy to preach “Catholicism with Chinese characteristics”, to assimilate Chinese civilization with Catholicism wherever possible.  Traditional Chinese virtues such as courtesy, filial piety and industriousness were not discouraged, but were taught to be consonant with, and part of, Catholic doctrine.  Ricci permitted Chinese converts to retain their filial devotion to their seniors and forbears, and to symbolize this in the display and veneration of ancestral tablets (oblong wooden tablets on which are written the names of deceased ancestors - these may still be seen in Hong Kong, inside ancestral halls which may be found in the New Territories).  Traditional rites commemorating ancestors, including the use of incense (joss sticks), were permitted.  Converts - who had given up the traditional Chinese religions such as Buddhism and Taoism - were allowed to participate in the festival commemorations and veneration of Confucius in Confucian temples.

In the post-Ricci era, the issue of rites came to the fore in Catholic debates on China.  Ricci’s followers and supporters, who included most of the Jesuits, took the view that Confucianist practices were part of the fabric and continuity of Chinese civilization, that rites springing from them had a primarily cultural, not religious, orientation.  Opponents of this view, who included most of the Franciscans and Dominicans, believed the Jesuits’ early successes were achieved on the basis of compromise with traditional customs and practice, some of which included quasi-religious elements, or at least elements of folk religion.  They pointed to invocations to deceased ancestors for protection and blessings, and to the use of sacrificed animals in the rites venerating Confucius, as being typical acts of religious ritual.  Rivalry between different Catholic religious orders also came into play, and the Rites Controversy erupted with even greater force than before.

The Dominican missionary Juan Morales left for Rome in 1643 to seek a ruling on the China question.   His report to Rome explained the highly respected position occupied by Confucius in Chinese society, in respect of scholarship, literature, ethical teachings and social structure; he also described the typical rituals commemorating Confucius in temples dedicated to him.  The rituals included the offering of sacrificed animals and wine, as well as the use of incense (joss sticks), candles and flowers.

Pope Urban VIII referred the matter to seven theologians, who completed their work in 1644, the year in which the Ming Dynasty was replaced by the Qing (Manchu) Dynasty.  Urban VIII died in July of the same year.  His successor, Innocent X, upon convening a panel of cardinals to study the theologians’ report, upheld the decisions made under Urban VIII.  In September 1645, Rome decreed that Catholics may not take part in Confucianist rites venerating ancestors or Confucius.

This caused great disquiet among the Jesuits, who dispatched Martinus de Martinis, a Jesuit missionary in China, to Rome to plead their cause.  De Martinis reported to the Holy Office in some detail regarding filial piety and the veneration of ancestors, including the Chinese treatment of corpses, burials, the annual “Sweeping of the Graves” (the Qing Ming festival, still universally observed by Chinese today), and ancestral tablets and ancestral halls.  He did not describe the use of incense and invocations and sacrifices relating to ancestors, but made the point that scholars who became Catholic may also be bestowed their Chinese scholarly rank and magisterial titles in Confucian temples, in ceremonies which were civil rather than religious.  There was no question of idol worship in such ceremonies.

Pope Alexander VII accepted the Jesuit characterization of the practices as being cultural rather than religious.  In 1656, he decreed that Catholics may participate in rites venerating Confucius and ancestors, but made no reference to the 1645 order of Innocent X.

As a result, two different sets of practices were followed by Catholics in China, depending on which decree was observed by their missionary pastors.

In 1669, Pope Clement IX tried to reconcile the rulings of his predecessors by issuing a clarificatory decree, which stated that the 1645 order was not nullified by that of 1656, but that Catholics should adhere to the guidance provided by the orders in accordance with the circumstances addressed by the orders.

As more Catholic religious and mission societies engaged in work in China, however, tension on the issue of rites mounted.  The absence of a conclusive settlement left room for differences to become an increasing problem.  Missionaries of different nationalities and orders fought for their positions to be recognized by Rome.
 

In 1693, Bishop Carolus Maigrot, a Chinese-speaking missionary of the Societe des Missions Etrangeres de Paris (M. E. P.), issued pastoral guidelines in his Fujian diocese banning the use of the terms tu-si, Tian and Shangdi, and specifying the use of Tianzhu.  He also suspended the allowances provided by the 1636 decree of Alexander VII based on the Jesuit representations, and prohibited the ritualistic veneration of Confucius and ancestors.

Pope Clement XI tried to bring a unitary, conclusive ruling to the issue of rites during his reign (1700 - 1721).  He convoked a panel of cardinals to meet on the issue.  With due care, he also summoned representatives from the different mission societies and requested position papers from them.  Artus de Lyonne of the M. E. P. arrived in Rome in March 1702 and presented Bishop Maigrot’s pastoral guidelines.  The Jesuit representatives Franciscus Noel and Kaspar Kastmer arrived the same year and presented a rebuttal.  The missionary Philippus Maria Grimaldi of the Society of Jesus obtained a signed statement from 17 officials in China’s Imperial Astronomical Office (a traditional stronghold of Catholic missionaries in the Emperor’s service) certifying the cultural and civil significance of the veneration of Confucius and of ancestors, as being distinct from superstitious belief.  This and other supporting documents were rushed to Rome.

The matter came up for decision in November 1704.  A total of 12 cardinals voted in the Holy Office’s deliberations, which were approved by Clement XI on the same day.  The Maigrot position prevailed.  The terms Tian and Shangdi were banned.  Ritual veneration of Confucius and of ancestors was also banned.

The decisions were strictly upheld.  They were once again formally defined in 1715 in Clement XI’s now famous encyclical “Ex Illa Die” (“From the Day of [Our] Enthronement”).  The encyclical’s major stipulations were:

A. The term tu-si, transliteration of the Latin Deus, does not constitute a Chinese word, hence the term Tianzhu, incorporating the sense “Lord of Heaven and Earth and All Creation”, was put together.  This term had been in use for some time and was not to be changed.  The terms Tian and Shangdi, which are of ancient Confucianist derivation, were not to be used and were to be expunged from any existing usage.

B. The spring and autumn rites honoring Confucius and ancestors were out of bounds to Catholics.  A Catholic could not serve as the main official at such rituals, nor could he serve as an assistant official at the rituals.  Converts were not to even attend such rituals, as they were tantamount to heresy.

C.  Scholars and imperial officials who became Catholic were not to enter the Temple of Confucius on the first and fifteenth day of each month according to custom to honor Confucius ritualistically.  Newly appointed or newly promoted scholars and officials were not to enter the Temple of Confucius to participate in rituals pertaining to their elevation.

D.  Catholics were not to participate in any ceremonies in family ancestral halls.

E.  Catholics were not to participate in traditional rituals honoring ancestors, either at home, or in the cemetery, or at funerals.  They were not to engage in these rites when they were with their own co-religionists.  They were not to do so jointly with non-Catholics.  They were not to do so even when they verbally profess that their intention was merely to honor ancestor and not to invoke spirits, as the rituals were tantamount to heresy.

F.  Catholics were permitted, in the interests of avoiding controversy, to stand on the side when such rituals were taking place.

G.  Converts were not to maintain ancestral tablets at home, according to Chinese custom.  Traditionally such tablets bear the inscription “the spirit (or soul) of (the name of the deceased)”, implying that the spirit is present.  If tablets were to be maintained, they could only bear the names of the deceased, without reference to their spirit.  Alongside such tablets were to be inscribed Catholic teachings on honoring one’s father and mother.

******END OF the 3rd Part….Continue below
 
 

Conflict Between the Qing (Manchu) Court and the Vatican

In 1705 Monsignor Carlo Tommaso Maillard de Tournon arrived in China.  His mission was to explain and enforce the Vatican decisions.  The China-based Jesuits, foreseeing conflict, cautioned him against presenting his case as the official papal representative.  However, upon learning that the Kangxi Emperor wanted to appoint the Jesuit Thomas Pereira as overall chief of Roman Catholic missions in China, Maillard de Tournon sought an audience with the Emperor.  He could not accept the Emperor’s intervention in missionary work.

Maillard de Tournon avoided mentioning the Vatican decisions in the first audience, which took place on December 31, 1705.  He voiced the Vatican’s intention to appoint a new archbishop for China, whereupon the Emperor stated that the appointee must be a long-time resident in China, preferably well-versed in court affairs.  The Kangxi Emperor had scant regard for missionaries who did not understand Chinese matters, and showed a certain dissatisfaction with Westerners who formulated opinions and comments about China after having been there only for a short time.  He was well-disposed, however, towards the missionaries as a whole, and wanted to mediate between the rival factions, among them:

“For those who arrived the year before, and will leave next year, it is better that they do not stay and live (in China).  These are like bystanders before one’s door, who discuss the affairs of one’s household inside.  They cannot command respect, and are often troublemakers...

“Why should there be differences between the (missionaries’) various nationalities and various religious institutes and communities, when they are worshippers of the same Deity?  If they live and work together they will not compete as rivals.”

Emperor Kangxi received Maillard de Tournon a second time in audience in June 1706.  The Emperor explained the significance of the veneration of ancestors, a tradition of more than 2,000 years enshrined in the scholarship of Confucius and Mencius.  He observed that for about a hundred years, from the time of Matteo Ricci’s work in China, Catholic missionaries had abided by China’s rules and laws, and received imperial protection.  The Emperor made it clear that if, in the future, some missionaries came out against the veneration of ancestors and of Confucius they would not be allowed to stay.  Emperor Kangxi subscribed to the Jesuit interpretation that the supreme Deity held in veneration in the traditional Chinese classics is the Almighty of the Christians, and that many traditional Chinese virtues were consonant with Christian teaching.

Maillard de Tournon avoided directly responding to the Emperor, but applied for an audience for a bishop who is well-versed in Chinese.

Emperor Kangxi received Bishop Carolus Maigrot in Jehol (Rehe) in August.  Bishop Maigrot spoke Hokkien (the dialect of Fujian Province) but no Mandarin.  The French Jesuit Dominicus Parrenin acted as his interpretor.  The Emperor questioned Bishop Maigrot on his knowledge of Chinese culture.  The Bishop was found to know only one of the four characters on the panel behind the Emperor’s seat.  After the audience the Emperor issued written instructions chiding Bishop Maigrot for commenting on Chinese ways without being versed in them.

Early in 1707 Maillard de Tournon made public, in Nanjing, the Vatican decisions on rites, including the stipulations concerning the veneration of ancestors and of Confucius.  Clergy who did not conform to the stipulations would be excommunicated. Emperor Kangxi was furious.  The Pope to him was a foreign sovereign who had no right to interfere with Chinese affairs.  The Emperor ordered the expulsion of Bishop Maigrot and other missionary clergy who worked closely with him.  In a visit to the southern provinces of the empire, the Emperor put missionaries scattered throughout the provinces on notice that they needed residency permits from the Imperial Court in order to stay in China, and that they were to conform to the old practices set up under Matteo Ricci, on pain of expulsion. As a result, Maillard de Tournon himself was expelled to Macao, where he died in 1710.

After the publication of the encyclical “Ex Illa Die” in 1715, Pope Clement XI made another attempt to enforce the Vatican decisions and to resolve the conflict with the Imperial Court in Beijing.  In 1719, he dispatched the uniate Patriarch of Alexandria, Carlo Ambrosius Mezzabarba, to make representations to the Emperor of China.

In December 1720, Mezzabarba made a written request in Beijing for permission for Catholic missionaries and lay people to abide by the stipulations of the Vatican decisions, and for recognition of Mezzabarba’s authority over all Catholic missionaries operating in China.  Emperor Kangxi responded in the same month:

“We grant the two requests made by your Pope. His ways, however, are far from our ways.  Your Catholicism cannot operate in China, it must be banned.  As Catholicism cannot operate, Catholic missionaries are useless here.  With the exception of those with technical skills, and those who are old or infirm, you should bring them all back to the West.  The stipulations of your Pope can only bind Western people here; Chinese cannot be bound by those stipulations.  The Westerners remaining here may practice their religion according to your Pope’s stipulations, but may not proselytize.  It is in this manner that we grant your two requests.

“We will grant you an audience if there are no further controversial issues.  Maigrot was the person who started all this.  How come you have not brought him along?”

The Emperor further sought to view a copy of the stipulations set out in “Ex Illa Die”.  His remarks on the stipulations, written in red-ink, said in part: “Westerners do not seem to be able to comprehend the ethics of China.  These Westerners are not versed in the Chinese classics, and their opinions are often laughable.  I am surprised to see in their stipulations the kind of jumbled discourse you find among minor Buddhist and Taoist clergy.  In future, they should not proselytize in China.  Ban their activity and there will be no trouble.”

Mezzabarba realized the bottom line had been reached with the Emperor, and sought to salvage the situation by issuing eight concessions to the stipulations:

1. The setting up of ancestral name tablets at home would be permitted, but the tablets could only bear the names of the deceased (without mentioning their “soul” or “spirit”), accompanied by inscriptions of traditional Catholic teaching on honoring one’s parents.

2. Traditional Chinese ceremonies of a non-religious nature in honor of the deceased would be permitted.

3. Traditional ceremonies of a non-religious nature honoring Confucius would be permitted, including the use of incense.  The tablet bearing the name of Confucius would not be permitted to mention “soul” or “spirit”.

4. Bowing before name tablets that do not bear the wording for “soul” or “spirit”, and bowing before a casket containing the body of a deceased person in accordance with Chinese tradition, would both be allowed.

5. The use of incense and candles would be allowed for funerals, provided there is an explicit disavowal of superstitious beliefs.

6. Fruit and vegetables may be laid out in front of the deceased’s casket or name tablet, provided there was an explicit acknowledgment that this was an observation of social convention without superstitious implications.

7. On the Lunar New Year and other festivals, bowing before name tablets of ancestors would be permitted.

8. Incense and candles before ancestral name tablets (expunged of any reference to “soul” or “spirit”), and fruit before graves, would be permitted as part of the convention of veneration, provided there is an explicit disavowal of superstitious beliefs.

The Emperor’s sentiments were somewhat assuaged by this move, but through his ministers he still admonished against Westerners making facile comments on Chinese ethics and culture.  He treated Mezzabarba on a high level of protocol and courtesy throughout, granting him 13 audiences, but declined to be engaged on the subject of the veneration of ancestors and of Confucius.  Nor was permission granted for Mezzabarba to apply for the Clement XI stipulations to be followed by Catholics.  Having learned the lesson of  Maillard de Tournon, Mezzabarba trod with caution, and in 1721 applied for leave to return to Rome when he saw that nothing further could be achieved.

Mezzabarba’s eight concessions were welcomed by and seized upon by some missionaries as a basis to set aside some of the new restrictions from the Vatican.  There were others opposed to it. The validity of the Mezzabarba provisions, however, depended on papal recognition.  In 1742, Pope Benedict XIV issued an encyclical in which he disavowed the Mezzabarba concessions, saying they never received any papal endorsement, and that they were contrary to Clement XI’s 1715 stipulations.  Benedict XIV further prohibited missionaries from arguing about the matter of rites in China.

This brought to a close the Rites Controversy.  Catholic missionaries were mostly expelled from China.  Only those too old or sick to travel, those with residency permits, those with special skills, and those living secluded lives in retreats remained.

The Controversy was laid to rest for about 200 years.  Catholic missionary activity resumed with some momentum more than 100 years later, after the opening of China due to the Opium War of 1841, when China signed a series of treaties with Western powers which allowed for activity by missionaries.
 

The Final Chapter

The final chapter of the Rites Controversy was not written, however, until 1939, when Pope Pius XII, through the Sacred Congregation of the Propagaion of the Faith, revoked the ban on the veneration of ancestors and of Confucius.

The Propaganda Fidei document of 1939 read, in part:

“1. The Chinese Government has repeatedly stated its support for freedom of religion, and that it will not promulgate laws governing religion.  Ceremonies venerating Confucius conducted in Chinese Government agencies are not religious rites, but acts according proper honor to this great sage, and to Chinese civilization.
For this reason, Catholics are permitted to participate in ceremonies honoring Confucius, whether it be in a school, in a temple to Confucius, or before a tablet or a statue set up in his memory.

2. For the same reason, Catholic institutions are not prohibited from setting up or displaying name tablets or images of Confucius.  Where appropriate, the Catholic position on giving proper honor to Confucius may be explicitly stated.
 
3. If there are any elements in the ceremonies which strike the Catholic as possibly superstitious, the Catholic should make clear he is embracing the Catholic position on according honor to Confucius, when he is engaged in such ceremonies.

4. Bowing before the deceased, or before his image or name, as an act of respect and love, is permissible.”

The Rites Controversy is now part of Chinese history.  If we reflect on it with prayerful hearts and a tranquil and humble spirit, there are yet many rich lessons to be learned.