Zhong Wen: Matteo Ricci sought to adapt to Chinese national conditions, adopting a missionary strategy that integrated Catholic doctrine with Confucian ethical concepts. Ricci called himself a “Western Confucian,” adhered to Confucian styles of conduct, cited Confucian classics to argue for and interpret Catholic teachings, and explained the Catholic “Lord of Heaven” (Deus) as the Tian (Heaven) or Shangdi (Supreme Lord) found in the Confucian classics The Book of Documents and The Book of Songs.

Ricci integrated the Chinese idea of ancestor veneration with Catholic doctrine, permitting converts to retain traditional rites and social customs such as ancestral sacrifices and Confucius worship. He believed that Chinese people, when honoring ancestors, were expressing the respect of descendants toward their forebears—“to teach their sons and grandchildren to honor their living parents”—and that this practice lacked religious meaning; therefore it did not fundamentally violate Catholic doctrine. Likewise, he believed that scholars and officials worshipping Confucius was a Chinese tradition meant “to give thanks for the noble teachings he left in his writings,” and thus was not a religious act. Therefore, Catholic converts could participate in ceremonies at Confucian temples.

Ricci, adapting to Chinese conditions, interpreted ancestral rites and Confucius veneration as non-religious ceremonies—“sincere expressions of filial piety” and “respect for Confucius as a teacher and model.” On this basis, he respected the sacrificial customs of both the scholar-elite and the common people. The Kangxi Emperor of the Qing dynasty referred to Ricci’s attitude toward Chinese rites as “Ricci’s Rule.”

Bo Ya: Ricci’s approach laid the foundation for the widespread expansion of “Catholicism” in China, but in fact it was a “revisionist line.”

Zhong Wen: In the early Qing period, missionaries—primarily Jesuits—continued Ricci’s missionary policy. Thus, in the 31st year of the Kangxi reign (1692), Emperor Kangxi issued an edict permitting the propagation of Catholicism in China.

However, soon afterward, disputes arose among missionaries in China regarding the proper attitude toward Chinese rites. The Spanish Dominicans and Franciscans opposed Ricci’s view, insisting that ancestral and Confucian rites could not be tolerated. In Kangxi’s 39th year (1700), the Chinese Rites Controversy escalated into an open conflict between the Qing imperial court and the Roman papacy. Kangxi held that ancestral and Confucian rites were Chinese customs devoid of religious meaning. In 1704, the Holy See insisted on strictly forbidding Chinese Catholics from observing these rites. The Qing saw this as interference in China’s internal affairs and refused to yield.

Kangxi finally declared: “From now on, if the missionaries do not follow Ricci’s rule, they are absolutely forbidden to remain in China and must be expelled.”

In the first year of the Yongzheng reign (1723), the Catholic mission was strictly banned, and it was not lifted until more than 100 years later, after the Opium War forced concessions upon China. On the opposing side—in Europe—another century passed before 1939, when amid the turmoil of the Anti-Japanese War, the Holy See finally revoked all prohibitions regarding Chinese rites.

Bo Ya: I believe the erroneous title “Tianzhu jiao” (Religion of the Lord of Heaven) produced extremely harmful side-effects. For example, Hong Xiuquan’s “God Worshipping Society” was influenced by it, resulting in an evil group that belittled Jesus Christ. This shows that if one follows “Ricci’s Rule,” one inevitably abandons the principles of the Christian faith.

Zhong Wen: “Ricci’s Rule” later became a term referring to Ricci’s “accommodationist” missionary strategy, whose core was that the Catholic Church must actively and consciously adapt to China’s society, culture, and politics and integrate itself into Chinese society in order to develop.

Bo Ya: In my view, the “gospel” transmitted by Ricci in this way was no longer the pure Gospel at all—at best it was a “compromise,” one that greatly misled later generations.