CULTURE AND LITURGY:

ANCESTOR VENERATION AS A TEST CASE

Peter C. Phan

The Catholic University of America

                There is little doubt that by any measure “inculturation” is taking the lion’s share of the efforts of the Church and theology, at least in Asia. And one of the areas where inculturation is strongly urged is liturgy and worship. Furthermore, in countries and cultures permeated by Confucianism, such as China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam, ancestor veneration (or ancestor worship or the cult of ancestors) has been and continues to be a vexing and contentious issue, with immense ramifications for evangelization and Church life, as the so-called “Chinese Rites Controversy” has made painfully clear.

            In this essay I will first sketch the history of the Chinese Rites Controversy as the background against which to approach the problem of liturgical inculturation in Asia. The focus is not on the complex and lengthy historical development of the controversy but on the theological issues that underlie it. Secondly, I will outline some of these theological problems. Thirdly, I will present a particular case of liturgical inculturation of ancestor veneration, namely, that of Vietnam. In light of the Chinese Rites Controversy and the Vietnamese liturgical experiment I will conclude with some general guidelines on how liturgical inculturation should be implemented today.

THE CHINESE RITES CONTROVERSY: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

            Early missionaries to China in the sixteenth century, during the Ming dynasty (1368-1643), faced three distinct though related issues: how to translate Christian terms, especially “God” into Chinese;[1] whether the liturgy should be conducted in the vernacular;[2] and whether to allow certain rituals and ceremonies widely practiced, in particular the veneration of Confucius and the ancestors.[3] While each of these issues had its own complicated history and constitutes a fascinating theme for inculturation by itself, in this essay I will focus on the third, and more narrowly, only on its second element, that is, the veneration of ancestors, since it is the only remaining issue that poses serious challenges to liturgical inculturation.[4]    How the cult of Confucius was perceived by missionaries can be gathered from the six questions posed to the Holy Office; see 101 Roman Documents, 10-14. The fundamental question for Rome was whether the sacrifice offered and the honors paid to Confucius had a religious character and hence were “tainted with superstition,” or were simply a “civil and political rite.”  

            Before examining how Christian missionaries viewed the Chinese practice of the veneration of ancestors, it would be useful to give a brief description of its main rituals which of course vary widely according to time and place.[5]  As soon as a person dies, after the usual acts of preparation of the corpse for burial, a piece of paper or white cloth which bears the name of the deceased is placed in front of the coffin and is carried to the cemetery. After burial, the piece of paper or cloth is brought home and placed on the family altar to receive prayers and acts of piety from family members. Eventually it is replaced by a piece of wood, called “spirit tablet.” On its front, the name, family status, and societal rank of the deceased are written, and on its back, the date of his or her birth and death. Since this tablet is thought to somehow represent the deceased, or something in which the soul of the deceased is believed to reside, characters such as shen wei or ling wei or shen zu (the seat of the spirit) are inscribed on it. In front of this tablet various ceremonies such as the burning of incense and the kowtow are performed. On the anniversary of the deceased’s death, on the first and fifteenth days of the month of the lunar calendar, and on other solemn festivities such as wedding and New Year, family members gather to perform acts of veneration such as the kowtow (bowing until the forehead touches the ground), burn incense and paper money, make offerings of food and drink (which will be eaten later in a banquet). At the heart of all these ancestral rites lies hsiao (filial piety), the most important virtue in Confucian ethics, by which a person lives out his or her wu lun (five relationships) – ruler and subject, parent and child, husband and wife, older and younger siblings, and friend and friend.[6]

            It is well known that the early Jesuit missionaries to China, in accordance with Alessandro Valignano’s accommodationist policy,[7] were open to accepting the veneration of ancestors as well as the cult of Confucius as legitimate, except when any of these rites seemed to imply superstition. For example, with regard to ancestor worship, Matteo Ricci, who worked in China from 1582 until his death in 1610, wrote in his memoir:

The most solemn thing among the literati and in use from the king down to the very least being is the offering they annually make to the dead at certain times of the year of meat, fruit, perfumes, and pieces of silk cloth – paper among the poorest – and incense. And in this act they make the fulfilment of their duty to their relatives, namely, “to serve them in death as though they were alive.” Nor do they think in this matter that the dead will come to eat the things mentioned or that they might need them; but they say they do this because they know of no other way to show their love and grateful spirit toward them [the dead]. And some of them told us that this ceremony was begun more for the living than for the dead, that is, to teach children and the ignorant ones to honor and serve their living relatives, since they [the children] see serious people doing the offices for the relatives after their deaths that they were wont to do to them when they [the relatives] were alive. And since they do not recognize any divinity in these dead ones, nor do they ask or hope for anything from them, all this stands outside of idolatry, and also one can say there is probably no superstition, although it will be better for the souls of these dead ones, if they are Christians, to change this into almsgiving to the poor.[8] 

            In 1585 Pope Gregory XIII gave the Jesuits the exclusive right to work in China and Japan, but this restriction was later lifted by Popes Paul V and Urban VIII. As the result, the Dominicans and Franciscans from the Philippines entered China in 1630s.[9] They were joined by the Augustinians in 1680 and the members of the Missions Étrangères de Paris (the Paris Foreign Mission Society) in 1684. These new arrivals, who adopted a missionary method different from that of the Jesuits,[10] found the Jesuits’ accommodationist policies objectionable, and one of them, the Dominican Juan Bautista de Morales, who came in China in 1633 and left in 1638, presented “Seventeen Questions” to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Propaganda Fide) in 1643, attacking the Jesuits’ practices.[11] In 1645, on the basis of Morales’s presentation and with Pope Innocent X’s approval, Propaganda Fide condemned the Chinese Rites.

            Believing that the condemnation was influenced by Morales’s inaccurate portrayal of the Chinese Rites as having a religious nature, the Jesuits responded by dispatching one of his own, Martino Martini, to Rome in 1651 to plead their case before Propaganda Fide. As the result of Martini’s presentation, in 1656 the Holy Office, to which Martini’s “Four Questions” had been sent for examination, published, with Pope Alexander VII’s approval, a rescript in favor of the Jesuits on the ground that the Chinese Rites were “merely civil and political.”[12]

            Meanwhile in China persecutions broke out against the Christians, and in 1665 most missionaries were exiled to Canton and put in detention there. Of those detained nineteen were Jesuits, three were Dominicans, and one was a Franciscan. Taking advantage of their time together they held a conference (“The Canton Conferences”) on the missionary strategies to be adopted in China. At the end of these conferences, which lasted for forty days and ended on January 26, 1668, they issued forty-two articles, the forty-first of which recommended that Pope Alexander VII’s rescript permitting the practice of the veneration of Confucius and the ancestors be followed unconditionally (omnino).[13] These articles were discussed, amended, and voted upon. The Dominican Domingo Fernandez Navarette, who approved the articles, later changed his mind upon his escape and return to Spain and wrote a book attacking the Jesuits’ position regarding the rites. Asked by Juan Polanco, O.P., a delegate of the Dominicans from the Philippines, whether its rescript of 1656 had annulled the1645 decision of Propaganda Fide regarding the Chinese rites, the Holy Office replied in 1669, with Pope Clement IX’s approval, that both decrees had to be observed “according to the questions, circumstances, and everything set down in them.”[14] 

            Back in China, a momentous and tragic turning point in the Chinese Rites Controversy occurred in 1693 when Monsignor Charles Maigrot, a member of the Paris Foreign Mission Society and Apostolic Vicar of Fukien (later bishop of Conon), issued a “mandatum” or “edictum” containing seven points which condemned and forbade, inter alia, the cult of Confucius and ancestral rites which he declared “tarnished with superstition.”[15] Maigrot’s mandatum created a furor of opposition, especially among the Jesuits. Four of them in Peking presented to Emperor K’ang Hsi a statement on the meaning of the cult of Confucius and the ancestors which they said is only  “a means of showing sincere affection for members of the family and thankful devotion to ancestors of the clan” and asked for his authoritative opinion. The emperor confirmed the correctness of their interpretation in a rescript on November 30, 1700.

            Meanwhile in Rome Maigrot’s mandatum re-opened the whole question of the Chinese rites since he had charged that Pope Alexander VII was misled by Martini’s presentation in adopting a favorable stance toward the Chinese rites. In 1704 Pope Clement XI issued a decree confirming Maigrot’s condemnation of the Chinese rites, but wanted it to be kept secret until its promulgation in China by his  newly appointed legatus a latere, Carlo Tommaso Maillard de Tournon, after his arrival to the country.[16]

            De Tournon’s mission was an unmitigated disaster. After three fruitless audiences with K’ang Hsi in Peking, he left for Nanking.[17] Meanwhile the emperor examined Maigrot on his knowledge of the Chinese classics and the Chinese language, and finding it woefully inadequate, issued an edict on December 21, 1706 banishing him from the country. Furthermore, he required that only those missionaries could remain in China who had been granted the p’iao, that is, the certificate by which they promised to follow the practices of Matteo Ricci and to remain in China all their lives.  Apprized of this imperial requirement, de Tournon published in 1707 a decree in which he instructed missionaries on how to answer the emperor’s questions, and anticipating Pope Clement XI’s still-to-be proclaimed 1704 decree, forbade the veneration of ancestors and Confucius and the use of the spirit tablets.[18]

            The strongest condemnation of the Chinese rites came at the hand of the same pope  with the Apostolic Constitution Ex illa die (March 19, 1715), confirming de Tournon’s position.[19] To add force to his rulings, Clement XI attached the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae to their violations and required missionaries to take an oath on the Bible that they would observe his instructions “exactly, absolutely and inviolably ... without any evasion.”  The new decree, promulgated in Peking on November 5, 1716 by the vicar general Charles Castorano, met with much opposition. The emperor ordered Castorano to go to Canton, where the decree was circulating, to retrieve all the copies of Ex illa die and send them back to the pope.

            In another attempt to enforce his decree Pope Clement XI sent Charles Ambrose Mezzabarba as his apostolic legate to China. In his audience with K’ang Hsi the legate told the emperor that he was authorized to grant certain permissions regarding the rites and that he was prepared to relate to the pope the emperor’s thinking on the matter. It was in Macao on November 4, 1721 that Mezzabarba issued a pastoral letter in which he granted the infamous “Eight Permissions” regarding the Chinese rites, even though he prefaced his letter by saying that he did not intend to suspend Ex illa die or permit what had been prohibited by it.[20] However, despite Mezzabarba’s protestations to the contrary, his “permissions” did seem to go against the pope’s decree, and therefore caused much confusion. Whereas François Saraceni, vicar apostolic of Shansi and Shensi, prohibited the use of the “Eight Permissions,” François de la Purification, bishop of Peking, allowed them in his two pastoral letters of 1733. Pope Clement XII had to write a letter in 1735 in which he declared that the two letters of the bishop of Peking “are and forever be wholly and absolutely null and void and invalid and of utterly no force or importance.”

            The final and most forceful condemnation of the Chinese rites occurred on July 11, 1742 with Pope Benedict XIV’s Apostolic Constitution Ex quo singulari. The document reviewed the history of the Chinese Rites Controversy from its beginning in1645 and quoted in full the various papal statements against the Chinese Rites; reiterated the rejection of Mezzabarba’s “Eight Permissions” as “null, void, invalid, and completely futile and ineffective”; ordered  Ex illa die to be observed “exactly, integrally, absolutely, inviolably, and strictly” under pain of automatic excommunication reserved to the pope; expanded the formula of the oath against the Chinese rites; and continued Ex illa die’s prohibition of  further discussions of the issue, again under pain of automatic excommunication.[21]

            Benedict XIV wanted to settle the Chinese rites controversy once and for all with his Constitution which he proclaimed to “remain in force, all of it for all time to come.” Unfortunately, political events, some two hundred years later, ironically not in China but in Japan, forced the reconsideration of the Chinese rites and led the Church to adopt a more flexible stance. On May 5, 1932, some students from the Jesuit Sophia University refused to bow to the famous Yasukuni Shrine where the Japanese war dead were honored. When Jean Alexis Chambon, archbishop of Tokyo, inquired from the Ministry of Education about the meaning of the bow required of visitors to the Shinto shrine, he was informed that the bow “has no other purpose than that of manifesting the sentiment of patriotism and loyalty.”[22] A year later, Edward Mooney, the Apostolic Delegate to Japan, issued a statement allowing Japanese Catholics to perform such a bow.

            At about the same time, in the state of Manchukuo, which the Japanese Kwantung army had established in Manchuria, an attempt was made to make use of Confucianism, called the Wangtao [the Way of the Benevolent Ruler] as a tool to unify the people. As a consequence, Manchurian Catholics were required to render homage to Confucius at the local shrine. Bishop Augustin Ernest Gaspais, in the footsteps of Archbishop Chambon, asked the Manchurian government to clarify the meaning of this act of veneration. He was advised that “the ceremonies in honor of Confucius have as their sole objective the exterior manifestation of the veneration one has for him, but they do not have at all any religious character.”[23]

            As the result of these governmental declarations on the non-religious character of the cult of Confucius and the veneration of ancestors, Propaganda Fide issued on December 8, 1939, with Pope Pius XII’s approval, the instruction Plane compertum est in which it is said that (1) it is lawful for Catholics to participate in public honors paid to Confucius; (2) the image or name tablet of Confucius may be placed in Catholic schools and saluted by a head bow; (3) if Catholics are required to assist at public functions that appear to be superstitious, they should maintain a passive attitude; and (4) bows of heads and other marks of respect in front of the deceased or their images or name tablets are lawful and honorable. In addition, the requirement of the oath was abolished.[24]

            With this document of Propaganda Fide, which the historian of the Chinese Rites Controversy, Francis A. Rouleau, S.J., called the “Liberating Decree” for China, a painful and lengthy chapter of the history of the Church in Asia came to an end. The instruction brought an immense relief to missionaries to Asia by abolishing the requirement of the oath and removed a serious obstacle to the conversion of many Asians, in particular the educated class, by permitting, under certain conditions, the cult of Confucius and especially the veneration of ancestors. Nevertheless, in spite of its short-term missionary gains, it left many theological issues unresolved which are of great consequence for the project of liturgical inculturation. It would be therefore useful to examine the theological issues underlying the Chinese Rites Controversy as well as the doctrinal problems involved in the veneration of ancestors.

THE CHINESE RITES CONTROVERSY:
INCULTURATION AND THEOLOGICAL ISSUES

            There is no doubt that extra-theological factors, such as the rivalries among religious orders (i.e., the Jesuits on the one hand and the Mendicant Friars and the Paris Foreign Mission Society on the other), personality conflicts, cultural chauvinism, misguided patriotism, the complications of the padroado system (i.e., between the Portuguese crown and the Holy See), the misunderstandings between Emperor K’ang Hsi and the Roman representatives, and even the competition between the Holy Office and Propaganda Fide have all played a role in the Chinese Rites Controversy. Nevertheless, from the writings of the people involved in the dispute, it is clear that theological considerations also loomed large in the decision to accept or condemn the Chinese rites.  Indeed, the basic and often repeated argument of those opposed to the Chinese rites was that they were “tainted by superstition,” whereas those who argued for their toleration justified their position on the ground that these rites were not religious but “merely civil and political.” Even Plane compertum est, which allowed Asian Catholics to participate in the cult of Confucius and the veneration of ancestors, did so only because these rituals, “although in earlier times they were tied in with pagan rites, now that customs and minds have changed with the flow of the centuries, merely preserve civil expression of devotion toward ancestors, or of patriotism, or of respect for fellow countrymen.”[25] 

            1. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether ancestor veneration is “merely civil and political,” to which I will come back below, clearly the most important theological issue for those opposed to the Chinese Rites was the nature of non-Christian religions. For them ancestor veneration was to be rejected because they formed an essential part of Chinese religions which could not be anything but paganism, superstition, and idolatry, words frequently used in Roman documents to describe the Chinese rites. Even Matteo Ricci, who had a deep respect for the Chinese culture, had reservations about the veneration of ancestors. As is clear from the passage of his diary quoted above, for Ricci the cult of ancestors was legitimate only because it was for the descendants simply “a way to show their love and grateful spirit” to their ancestors, because the rite was meant more for the sake of the survivors than for the dead, that is, “to teach the children and the ignorant to honor and serve their relatives,” and because “there is probably (forse) no superstition.” For Christians, Ricci recommended that the veneration of ancestors be replaced by almsgiving to the poor. In other words, despite his acceptance of the veneration of ancestors, Ricci did not recognize its intrinsic value as a religious practice.

            My point here is not to find fault with Ricci’s or any other seventeenth-century missionary’s theology of religions.[26] Indeed, such a theology already represented a commendable openness toward non-Christian religions.[27] Rather, my purpose is at once to point out that the rejection, total or partial, of the Chinese Rites in the seventeenth century was undergirded by a negative view of non-Christian religions and to argue that a genuine liturgical inculturation is not possible unless such a theology of religions is abandoned. It is common knowledge that there has been a Copernican revolution from the seventeenth-century pessimistic theology of religions to Vatican II’s positive appreciation of and commitment to “acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods” found among the “teachings, rules of life, and sacred ceremonies” of other religions.[28]  It was precisely the emergence of this positive theology of religions during the waning years of Pius XI’s pontificate and especially at the beginning of Pius XII’s that the reversal of the longstanding rejection of the Chinese Rites was made possible.[29]

            2. Inculturation as a theological and liturgical project was also made possible by a new pneumatology which, in accord with this positive theology of religions, sees the divine Spirit present and active not only in individuals but also in collective realities such as cultures and religions. John Paul II affirms this kind of presence of the Holy Spirit when he says: “The Spirit’s presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions. Indeed, the Spirit is at the origin of the noble ideals and undertakings which benefit humanity on its journey through history.”[30]  In light of this pneumatology, the primary goal of mission is no longer seen as saving individuals, which was the dominating preoccupation of past missionary efforts.  With Vatican II’s recognition that salvation is possible outside the visible confines of the Church,[31] mission is now focused on the reign of God which Jesus inaugurated in the power of the Holy Spirit. Mission is carried out in activities such as proclamation, witness, worship, inculturation, liberation, and interreligious dialogue.[32]  By means of this complex of activities, what is sought is not merely an external adaptation of Christianity to the local cultures but, in the words of John Paul II, “the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures.”[33] 

            3. In addition to the questions of the salvific value of non-Christian religions and the active presence of the Holy Spirit in cultures, another theological issue underlying the Chinese Rites Controversy is Christology, and more specifically, the role of Christ as the unique and universal savior, even though it was not framed in these precise terms during the dispute. This issue was indirectly broached by Juan Bautista de Morales when he raised the question of whether the Chinese word sheng [holy], which Christian missionaries used to refer to the Trinity, Christ, Mary, and the saints, may be used of Confucius.[34] It was also implied in the question of whether Catholics are permitted to take part in the cult of Confucius. At stake is the issue of whether the role of Christ as the unique and universal savior excludes the role of other religious founders as mediators of salvation and other religions as ways to God.

            This question has been dealt with in contemporary theology under the rubrics of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, and of ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism, theocentrism, and regnocentrism.[35] The challenge here is to find a coherent way to hold together the Christian claim that Jesus is the unique and universal savior and the recognition that various religions “reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all human beings,”[36] between God’s particular self-revelation in Jesus and God’s general self-revelation in non-Christian religions. The question is whether it is possible to affirm with Jacques Dupuis that there is “a convergence between the religious traditions and the mystery of Jesus Christ, as representing various, though not equal, paths along which, through history, God has sought and continues to seek human beings in his Word and Spirit.”[37]  Clearly, on the positive answer to this question depends the possibility of incorporating into Christian liturgy the sacred texts, prayers, and rituals of non-Christian religions.

            4. From the ecclesiastical point of view, during the Chinese Rites Controversy the relationship between Rome and the Churches in China was often put to the test, or to put it in terms of contemporary ecclesiology, the nature of the Church as communio ecclesiarum hang in the balance. This was evident in the activities of the two papal legates Carlo Tommaso Maillard de Tournon and Carlo Ambrogio Mezzabarba and the various decrees by which Pope Clement XII and Benedict XIV annulled the pastoral policies of François de la Purification, the bishop of Peking. It was extremely unfortunate that the Roman authorities made decisions regarding the Chinese Rites without a serious consultation with the Chinese Churches and the Chinese Christian themselves.

            It is widely admitted today that no real inculturation is possible without a certain autonomy of the local Churches. Even Propagande Fide recognized the wisdom of leaving the matter of giving rules and norms of behavior regarding permitted or forbidden ceremonies in ancestor worship to the local bishops and to the conscience of priests and the laity.[38] During the Special Assembly for Asia of the Synod of Bishops in Rome (April 19-May 14, 1998), many Asian bishops demanded a legitimate autonomy for the local Churches, especially in matters of liturgical inculturation.[39] Pope John Paul II himself has pointed out that “inculturation must involve the whole people of God, and not just a few experts, since the people reflect the authentic sensus fidei which must never be lost sight of.... It must be an expression of the community’s life, one which must mature within the community itself, and not be exclusively the result of erudite research.”[40] A healthy communion ecclesiology, in which the local churches function in proper autonomy, is then a necessary presupposition for inculturation.[41]

            5. For the possibility of the liturgical inculturation of ancestor worship, the question of its nature must be revisited. As has been shown above, the Jesuits considered the practice of ancestor worship theologically acceptable because in their view, it was not religious but “merely civil and political.”[42]  It was this precise understanding, encapsulated in that terse phrase or its equivalents, and officially confirmed by the Japanese Ministry of Education and the government of Manchukuo in 1932 (and already by Emperor K’ang Hsi in 1700!), that allowed Propaganda Fide to reverse the Church’s three-century long condemnation of the Chinese Rites. On the other hand, the Mendicant Friars and the members of the Paris Mission Society saw in the rituals of ancestor worship nothing but rank superstition and therefore to be forbidden because they were, in their view, of a religious nature.[43]

            Various explanations have been given for this discrepancy in the evaluations of the Chinese Rites, the likely one being that the Jesuits were explaining the veneration of ancestors (and the cult of Confucius) from the perspective of the (mostly rationalistic and atheistic) literati, whereas the Mendicant Friars and the French missionaries were describing the rituals as practiced by the common people among whom they worked. Be that as it may, there is little doubt, at least with regard to ancestor worship, that it is a deeply religious act, indeed the most religious act in the everyday life of the followers of indigenous religions in Southeast Asia. This point was well understood by Alexandre de Rhodes (1593-1660), a seventeenth-century Jesuit missionary to Vietnam.[44] It was confirmed by Léopold Cadière (1869-1955), a member of the Paris Mission Society and a missionary to Vietnam for more fifty years: “It is impossible to hold that the Vietnamese, at this moment in time, do not believe in the survival and real presence of the ancestors in the tablets, that they do not attribute supernatural powers to these ancestors, and that, therefore, the cult they render to them is not, properly speaking, a religion. Such a theory is in total contradiction with what can be seen every single day in Vietnam .... For the immense majority of the Vietnamese, the ancestors continue to be part of the family and the cult rendered to them is clearly religious.”[45]

            Given the undeniably religious nature of ancestor worship, its liturgical inculturation can no longer be legitimated on the basis of its alleged “merely civil and political” character. Such a view, while making things easier for theologians and liturgists, empties the rituals of ancestor veneration of their deepest meanings and transforming power.  Rather, with its religious nature frankly recognized, it is possible to appeal to the doctrine of communion of saints and enlarge it in such a way that the ancestors can find their appropriate place in this communion and receive due veneration. Of great relevance to this project is Elizabeth Johnson’s development of the notion of communio sanctorum as composed of all people, some of whom are paradigmatic figures, working out of holiness through creative fidelity in ordinary time, in relation with those who have preceded them into eternal life and now accessible to them through memory and hope, and in solidarity with the whole community of the natural world.[46]

            6. Finally, of great importance for the liturgical inculturation of the cult of ancestors is a renewed theology of popular devotions or better popular religiosity or popular Catholicism that goes beyond the inadequate concept of pia exercitia.[47] Popular religion is neither mere superstitious practices (the elitist interpretation) nor the false consciousness imposed upon the proletariat by the ruling class (the Marxist interpretation). Nor is popular religion the genuine religion that has been skewed by official religion and now resides in the poor and simple folk (the romanticist interpretation). Nor is it the residue of the previous, pre-Christian religion that now survives in a transformed and purified state in Christianity (the remnant interpretation). Nor, finally, is it an articulation of the social-psychological needs of individuals in their interaction with the cosmic, social and political patterns of the environment (the social-psychological interpretation).[48] 

            Rather, it must be recognized that every culture has its own religious symbolization that takes place in two parallel forms, i.e., popular religion and organized world religions, each with its own official liturgy and worship. Both popular religion and official religion are distinct symbolizations of the liturgy of life; the one should not be identified with the other, or replaced by the other, or reduced to the other, with the official liturgy deemed superior to popular religiosity. At any rate, without a robust theology of popular religiosity, the veneration of ancestor will be doomed to remain on the margins of liturgical worship.[49]

VENERATION OF ANCESTORS: A VIETNAMESE EXPERIMENTATION

            As is well known, Vietnam, along with Korea and Japan, has heavily been influenced by China, especially its Confucian culture. This influence is most visible in certain funerary rites and especially in the cult of ancestors.[50]  Needless to say, the Chinese Rites Controversy and the Roman position regarding ancestor worship affected Vietnamese Catholicism as well, profoundly and extensively, even until today. Indeed, many if not most of the questions raised to Propaganda Fide between 1742 1nd 1939 about the permissibility of certain rites connected with ancestor worship came from the apostolic vicars of Tonkin and Cochin China, as Vietnam was known to the West in the seventeenth century.[51]

            Curiously, though Propagande Fide’s Plane compertum est was issued in 1939, it was not until 1964 that the Vietnamese hierarchy, somewhat unnecessarily, applied for its application to Vietnam. The request was approved on October 2, 1964.[52] On June 14, 1964 the Vietnamese bishops in a communication entitled “The Veneration of Ancestors, National Heroes, and War Dead” spelled out the concrete norms to apply Propaganda Fide’s instruction. In general, the bishops distinguished three kinds of acts, attitudes, and rituals: those that are clearly secular, patriotic, and social expressions of piety toward the ancestors, national heroes, and war dead; those that are clearly religious in nature and contrary to Catholic belief, smack of superstition, and are performed in places reserved for worship; and those that are of an ambiguous nature. The first kinds are not only permissible but are to be encouraged and promoted; the second are prohibited; and the third need to be examined according to the common local opinion: if they are generally thought to be of a non-religious nature, they are permissible. If doubt concerning their nature persists, it is permissible to act according to one’s conscience. If possible, explanations of one’s intention should be given with due tact, or one can participate in a passive manner.[53]

            On April 12, 1974 the Vietnamese bishops issued another communication in which they specified a list of activities, attitudes, and rituals deemed permissible:

            “1. An ancestral altar dedicated to the veneration of the ancestors may be placed under the altar dedicated to God, provided that nothing smacking of superstition such as the “white soul” [the white cloth representing the dead] is placed there.

            2. Burning incense and lighting candles on the ancestral altar, and prostrating with joined hands in front of the altar or the repository of the ancestors are gestures of filial piety and veneration, hence permissible.

            3. On death anniversaries it is permissible to present the dead person with “offerings of commemorative cult” according to local customs, provided that one eliminates things smacking of superstition such as burning paper money. It is also recommended that the offerings be reduced or changed to express more clearly their true meaning of respect and gratitude to the ancestors, for instance, flowers, fruits, incense, and lights.

            4. During the marriage rites, the bride and groom are permitted to perform the “ceremony of veneration toward the ancestors” in front of the ancestral altar or the repository of the ancestors. These rituals are expressions of gratitude toward, recognition of, and self-presentation to the ancestors.   

            5. During the funerary rites, it is permissible to perform prostrations with joined hands before the corpse as well as to hold burning incense sticks in joined hands according to local customs, as a way to express veneration for the dead person, just as the Church permits the use of candles, incense, and inclination before the corpse.

            6. It is permissible to participate in the ceremonies venerating the “lord of the place,” who is usually called the “titulary genius,” in the village community building, to express gratitude toward those who history shows have earned the gratitude of the people, or the benefactors of the village, and not to express a superstitious belief in evil spirits and harmful ghosts.”[54]

            In addition to the permission of these rituals of ancestor veneration outside of the liturgy, the Vietnamese bishops have introduced two properly liturgical innovations.[55] The first is an expansion of the prayer for the dead in the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass.  In the second Eucharistic Prayer, instead of the simple formula “Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again,” the Vietnamese memento of the dead reads: “Remember also the faithful, our brothers and sisters, who rest in peace in the expectation of the resurrection, and the dead who can only trust in your mercy. Remember in particular our ancestors, our parents and our friends who have left this world ....”[56] Obviously, the explicit mention of “ancestors” is an attempt at inculturating ancestor veneration into the liturgy, with significant theological implications which will be detailed below.

            The second liturgical innovation is the Masses for the celebration of the lunar New Year or Tet. For the Vietnamese Tet is the most important cultural and religious feast, the equivalent of New Year, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas rolled into one.[57] It symbolizes the total renewal of all things. All debts should be paid, all bad feelings set aside, and everything should be clean and new.  On New Year’s Eve, especially at midnight (giao thua), there are various rituals to perform, the main of which is to “welcome the ancestors” (ruoc ong ba) to the home. Culturally, Tet is the celebration of the family: all members of the family are supposed to return to the ancestral home to show gratitude to their ancestors and to renew the family bond. Religiously, it is the occasion for the most solemn celebration of  the cult of ancestors. Members of the family gather before the ancestral altar with the pictures of the dead ancestors displayed on it, make deep bows, burn incense, make offerings, and pray for their protection. Catholics say their prayers in front of the altar.

            Tet is celebrated for at least three days: the first is reserved for the cult of ancestors and the living parents, the second for near relatives, and the third for the dead. Alexandre de Rhodes had already attempted to Christianize Tet by suggesting that its three days be dedicated to the Trinity: “The first day in memory of the benefits of creation and conservation, which is dedicated to God the Father; the second in thanksgiving for the inestimable benefit of redemption, which is dedicated to God the Son; and the third in humble gratitude to the Holy Spirit for the grace of being called to be a Christian.”[58]  In the seventeenth century and until even as recently as the twentieth, as long as the monarchy lasted, on the first day of the year the emperor offered in the name of the nation the Nam Giao [south gate] sacrifice to Heaven, which de Rhodes interpreted as a “sacrifice offered to the heavenly King.”[59]

            Given the central position of Tet, it is not surprising that the Vietnamese bishops have undertaken to solemnize it with eucharistic celebrations. Five Mass formulas have been composed to express the various meanings of Tet and are now in use: the first for the end of the year in to give thanks and ask for forgiveness; the second for New Year’s Eve to celebrate the passage into the new year (giao thua); the third for the first day of the new year to praise God and to ask for peace and prosperity; the fourth for the second day to pray for ancestors, grandparents and parents; and the fifth for the third day to pray for the sanctification of labor.[60] 

            For our present purpose the fourth formula is of special interest. Here are some of its significant prayers:

            Collect: Father of mercies, you have commanded us to practice filial piety. Today, on New Year’s Day, we have gathered to honor the memory of our ancestors, grandparents and parents. Deign to reward abundantly those who have brought us into this world, nurtured us, and educated us. Help us live in conformity with our duties toward them ....   

            Prayer over the Gifts: Lord, accept our offerings and bestow your graces abundantly upon our ancestors, grandparents and parents, so that we may in our turn inherit their blessings ....

            Preface: As we look at things in the universe, we clearly see that every being has an origin and principle: birds have their nests, water its source, and the human person coming into this world has a father and mother. Moreover, thanks to your revelation, Father, we recognize that you are the creator of all things that exist and that you are our Father. You have given life to our ancestors, grandparents and parents so that they may transmit it to us. You have also filled them with good things so we may inherit them by knowing you, adoring you, and serving you ....

            The inclusion of the veneration of ancestors into the Mass, and especially the mention of the term “ancestor” in the Eucharistic Prayer, mark a monumental step in liturgical inculturation in Vietnam. We have traveled a long way from the days of the Chinese Rites Controversy. Theologically, it is important, at least for two reasons. First, in mentioning the ancestors explicitly in the Eucharistic Prayer and in praying for them, the Vietnamese text does not distinguish between Christian ancestors and non-Christian ones (among Vietnamese Christians attending Mass there are many whose ancestors did not receive baptism). In the cult of ancestors, the ancestors are venerated not because they have been saved or were holy but simply because they are ancestors. Simply in virtue of the physical bond with their descendants, the ancestors are bound to protect them, and the descendants to honor them. Furthermore, in describing the cult of ancestors, many Vietnamese bishops have used not only the word to tien [forebears] but also thanh hien [saint and sage] to refer to those who should receive this cult. Of course, they do not mean to say that these are “saints” in the Christian sense of being officially canonized, but clearly the old objection that the word “saint” should not be used of people like Confucius no longer holds, and of course there is no suggestion that the non-Christian ancestors have been damned simply because they were not Christian.

            Secondly, there is in the prayers cited above an affirmation that somehow the ancestors act as mediators of the blessings and graces that their descendants receive from God. The descendants are said to “inherit” them from their ancestors. Of course, in these prayers the ancestors are not directly asked to “intercede” God for their descendants, since these prayers are not addressed to them, in contrast to those said in front of the ancestral altar at home. Theologically, of course, there can be no objection to ask someone, dead or alive, canonized or not, to intercede for oneself or others before God. The old objection that the cult of ancestors, in so far as they are invoked in prayer, is superstitious is a red herring, since no Asian who practices this cult believes that the ancestors are divine, in the strict sense of this term.[61]

            From the liturgical experimentation of the Vietnamese Church it is obvious that the Church in Southeast Asia has moved a long way from Benedict XIV’s Ex quo singulari and even from Propaganda Fide’s Plane compertum est, thanks to the recent theological developments in the six areas mentioned above. However, there is still a long way to go.[62] To guide this further work of liturgical inculturation I will conclude by highlighting certain principles and some of the lessons that can be derived from the Chinese Rites Controversy.[63]

            1. Liturgical inculturation is never a simple matter of appropriating rituals, sacred texts, and religious symbols of non-Christian religions for Christian use. These elements cannot be uprooted from the religious soil in which they grow and by which they are nurtured in order to be grafted onto Christian worship. In so “baptizing” non-Christian religious elements Christians run the risk of committing what Aloysius Pieris calls “theological vandalism” which is guilty of an “irreverent disregard for the soteriological matrix of non-Christian religious symbolism” and of  “a disguised form of imperialism.”[64] Liturgical inculturation must be predicated upon a positive regard for and acceptance of this non-Christian “soteriological matrix.”

            2. Consequently, an effective liturgical inculturation presupposes a particular brand of theology of religions, the Holy Spirit, Christ, church, communion of saints, and popular religiosity, as outlined above.  Without a consistent theology of these aspects of the Christian faith, liturgical inculturation will remain incoherent, piecemeal, fragmented, and limited. Quite often, disputes about the acceptability of a particular proposal of liturgical inculturation arise ultimately from fundamental differences in these theologies, and not from a superficially different evaluation of the proposal itself.

            3. Liturgical inculturation must not be carried out apart from interreligious dialogue and the work for integral liberation, especially in Asia. As Pope John Paul II says in his Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia: “Liturgical inculturation requires more than a focus upon traditional cultural values, symbols and rituals. There is also a need to take account of the shifts in consciousness and attitudes caused by the emerging secularist and consumer cultures that are affecting the Asian sense of worship and prayer. Nor can the specific needs of the poor, migrants, refugees, youth and women be overlooked in any genuine liturgical inculturation in Asia.”[65] Inculturation, interreligious dialogue, and liberation are the three inseparable aspects of Christian mission as well as of liturgical inculturation.[66]

            4. In liturgical inculturation a close collaboration between the local churches and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is absolutely necessary. Again Ecclesia in Asia says: “Such cooperation is essential because the sacred liturgy expresses and celebrates the one faith by all and, being the heritage of the whole church, cannot be determined by the local churches in isolation from the universal church.”[67]

            5. In the liturgical inculturation of the cult of ancestors in particular, it seems that in order for it to be genuine and effective, a simple “adaptation” envisaged by The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation would not be appropriate. For one thing, its understanding of “popular devotion” is seriously inadequate. Hence, its prohibition of the introduction of devotional practices into liturgical celebrations is not well founded.[68]           At a minimum, it must be said that the reason adduced is a non-sequitur. The supposed superiority of liturgy over popular devotion is by itself no reason for why popular devotion cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations. Indeed, not a few sacramental rituals began their lives as “popular devotion.” On the presumed superior dignity of the liturgy, see Peter C. Phan, “The Liturgy of Life as the ‘Summit and Source’ of the Eucharistic Liturgy: Church Worship as Symbolization of the Liturgy of Life?” 5-25. Furthermore, its view of the veneration of ancestor is prejudicially negative, as something to be “accompanied by purification and, if necessary, a break with the past.”[69]