The Jesuits had studied the matter very comprehensively and scholarly - the Franciscans did nothing of the sort but only reacted within an ethnocentric perspective of western European chauvinism (this would also explain a lot about East-West Christian relations in Eastern Europe as well).
In any event, the Chinese Rites were practices that had nothing to do with Christian liturgical worship. The respect paid to tablets with the name of Kung Fu-Tsu or the respect given to one’s elders and prayers for them at home altars - these are all things that had to do with civic and cultural aspects of Chinese life. Fr. Matteo Ricci SJ understood this brilliantly and became so “Chinese” that the Emperor ordered him to be entombed in China itself - an unheard of honour for a foreigner.
Three statements.
I am Chinese.
In the past, my education has been handled by Franciscans.
Oh, and if the screenname doesn’t give it away - Matteo Ricci was kind of one of the major topics i studied in university way back when.
Allow me to say - Alex is so completely correct on the matter with this one.
Much of what torpedoed the Jesuits’ attempts to convert the Chinese came not from the native population itself but from their own fellow monastic orders. And frankly, the whole situation reeks of internal politics.
The primarily dilemma is that the critics of the Jesuit mission made up their mind on the situation even prior to setting foot on Chinese soil to
actually see what was going on.
Moreover their understanding of the differences between Daoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and its syncretistic, dare i say “Cafeterian”, expression amongst the actual population was minimal at best.
We can contrast this with the Jesuit experience - esp. Matteo who actually was capable of cognizing not only the social differences between a Buddhist monk, a Daoist priest, and one of the literati, but also researching what each school of thought taught and realizing “one of these things isn’t like the other.”
As an Eastern Catholic, my Church also has numerous cultural practices taken over from pre-Christian/pagan times. They have been Christianized, although their original meanings were non-Christian. And they are so integrated with the Byzantine religious/cultural ethos so as to be inseparable from it.
Heck, for all of us, the title “Pontiff” should give it away.
As an EC, your uniquely positioned to understand the concept of cultural/regional variation within the Church…whereas mot Norvus Ordo/Latins have known nothing else (even the EC!)
Couple this with what occurred during the 1960s and what you get is a population that is highly suspicious of anything that comes outside of its cultural millieu - therefore promoting essentially a “European Church.”
This is especially true for things emanating from Asia - i can even point to priets within our Church who believe practicing the stripped down execise version of Yoga can lead to demonic possession.
Addenum: but i digress. there needs to be a balanced way of approaching things.
Somewhere between the almost extreme suspicion of things “foreign” sustained by someone like say Tertullian vs. an equally extreme spiritual sycnretism.
