Jijin

Not to be confused with Jinn.
Joseph-Martial Mouly, vicar apostolic of Mongolia and Northern Chi-Li, wearing a jijin

Jijin or Tsikin (祭巾) was a liturgical headwear permitted for clergy in China during the 17th through 20th centuries as part of the early Jesuit missions' efforts to adapt Catholic liturgical practices to local customs.

Description

Jijin have a square top with four faces leading to a rounded bottom. Three strings, representing the Trinity, hang from each top corner, and two long ribbons hang from the back.[1] While Taoist in style, Christian symbols were placed on the hat.[2]

History

A priest celebrating Mass wearing a jijin

In 1613, Nicolò Longobardo, the Jesuit superior of the mission in China, sent Nicolas Trigault to Rome to ask for adaptations for the liturgy in China, including the ability to wear headgear during the liturgy, reflecting traditional Chinese cultural values that regarded an uncovered head as a sign of disgrace. Robert Bellarmine supported the idea. Pope Paul V issued the bull Romanae Sedis Antistes on January 25, 1615, granting the faculty.[3][4] From that point onwards the jijin replaced the Roman biretta and was worn during all liturgical functions.[3][5] Unlike the biretta, which is generally only worn during processions and when seated,[6] the jijin is worn through the entirety of Mass. Théophile Raynaud recounted in 1655:[7][8]

Here we should recall what I mentioned above, that among the Chinese it is a taboo, or at least extremely impolite, ever to leave one's head uncovered, since this is the way criminals are taken to the gibbet. For this reason Chinese Christians only bare their heads when they confess their sins, to show that they are guilty and worthy of punishment. Since it would have been a scandal for a sacrificing priest to appear without a head covering, they pleaded with Paul V to permit them to respect local custom and not command them to disgrace the sacrifice by allowing the priest to be bareheaded. The pope gave his assent, as long as the head covering was suitable for the sacred and divine action, and differed from a profane hat.

Pope Clement X reaffirmed the permission in 1673. The jijin fell out of use during the early 20th century, during a period of Westernization in China.[8] In 1924, the First Chinese Council was held in Shanghai. The conference brought an end to the use of Jijin and Masses in the Chinese language, in order to bring the Chinese Catholic Church into line with the universal Latin Church.[3][9]

See also

References

  1. ^ Aleni, Giulio (1629). 彌撒祭義 transl. Sacrificii Missae Explicatio. pp. 28–29. Translated by New Liturgical Movement[A]
  2. ^ Spence, Jonathan D.; Chin, Ann-ping (1996). The Chinese century : a photographic history of the last hundred years. New York: Random House. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-679-44980-5. Retrieved 5 December 2024.
  3. ^ a b c Trimállez, Marina Torres (5 November 2021). Bastias Saavedra, Manuel (ed.). "Finding Norms for the Chinese Mission: The Hat Controversy in the Canton Conference of 1667/1668". Norms Beyond Empire. Brill: 285–328. doi:10.1163/9789004472839_010. ISBN 978-90-04-47282-2.
  4. ^ "Un pratique liturgique propre à la Chine: Le Tsikin 祭巾 ou bonnet de messe". Bulletin Catholique de Pekin (PDF) (in French). 1924. pp. 376–377, 404–406.
  5. ^ Meynard, Thierry; Hongfan, Yang (2021). To Wear or Not to Wear a Hat During Mass? The Canton Conference and Giovanni Francesco de Ferrariis SJ's Report of 1668. Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu.
  6. ^ Herbert Thurston (1913). "Biretta" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
  7. ^ Raynaud, Théophile (1655). Tractatus de pileo, coeterisque capitis tegminibus tam sacris quam profanis. pp. 148–149. Retrieved 5 December 2024.
  8. ^ a b Dipippo, Gregory. "The Chinese Sacrificial Hat, and Reflections on Inculturation in China". New Liturgical Movement. Archived from the original on 25 April 2024. Retrieved 5 December 2024.
  9. ^ Bontnick, François (1962). La lutte autor de la liturgie chinoise aux XVIIᵉ et XVIIIᵉ siècles. UCLouvain. pp. 387–388.