Zhong Wen: In December 1627, nine Jesuits gathered at Jiading, northwest of Shanghai, for a special meeting presided over by Vice-Provincial Manuel Dias Sr. (杨玛诺, 1574–1659). The missionaries held intense discussions about the translation of the terms “Shangdi” (上帝), “Tian” (天), and “Tianzhu” (天主). Although they respected one another, they were unable to reach agreement on some fundamental issues.

In 1629, in order to maintain doctrinal unity within the Society of Jesus in China, Visitor André Palmeiro adopted a compromise: missionaries were forbidden to use “Shangdi” or “Tian” in liturgy and publications, and only the term “Tianzhu” would be retained.

Since 1630, prominent Jesuits such as Alfonso Vagnone (高一志), Manuel Dias, and Giulio Aleni (艾儒略) repeatedly appealed to Rome, “requesting that the Superior General Vitelleschi reopen and re-examine the terminology question.” In 1633, the newly appointed Visitor, Manuel Dias, convened another meeting of missionaries in China. The decision was to continue following Matteo Ricci’s method of evangelization and to allow the use of “Shangdi,” “Tian,” and “Tianzhu.”

In 1645, fearing that debate over the terms “Shangdi” and “Tian” would erupt again, Visitor André Palmeiro and the vice-provincial Francesco Furtado (傅泛际, 1589–1653) resolved to put an end to the matter once and for all. They ordered the destruction of all reports written by Longobardi (龙华民) and Johannes Terrenz (陆若汉) opposing Ricci’s missionary strategy. In his decree, Palmeiro made an especially pointed remark:

“Regardless of what the original meanings of the terms ‘Shangdi,’ ‘Tianzhu,’ ‘Tiangshen,’ or ‘Soul’ may be, can we not firmly believe that through our efforts—through repeated explanation in accordance with Catholic doctrine—we may infuse the genuine meaning of the Gospel into these terms? Can we not say this to the Chinese? Whatever your ancestors may have thought, and whatever many among you today think about the term ‘Shangdi,’ according to Catholic teaching, God is the eternal, infinite, unique, and omnipotent Creator of heaven and earth.”

Bo Ya: For me personally, the impressions given by “Yahweh” and “Shangdi” are completely different. The former feels intimate and close; as for “Tian” or “Shen,” the distance feels even greater—because the Yahweh of the Bible has stories, speaks, and is deeply involved in human destiny. But China’s “Tian,” “Shen,” and “Shangdi” have no stories, do not speak, and are far removed from people.

Zhong Wen: Thus Ricci, seeking to integrate Catholicism into Chinese culture, translated Deus/God as “Shangdi,” “Tian,” and “Tianzhu.” But this was not understood or accepted by his successor Longobardi. Out of a desire to defend doctrinal purity, Longobardi criticized Ricci’s method and insisted on using transliteration—rendering Deus/God as “Dou-si” (陡斯). This led to severe ideological division within the Jesuit mission in China. Missionaries like Vagnone who supported Ricci vigorously contested Longobardi’s views. Their debate over terminology lasted more than twenty years—unprecedented in intensity, in the number of participants, in the range of issues involved, and in the depth of theological questions raised. It can rightly be called the “yeast” that fermented the later Chinese Rites Controversy.

Moreover, because the Franciscans and Dominicans sharply criticized the Jesuit strategy, their pressure eventually contributed directly to the 1742 papal bull Ex Quo Singulari issued by Benedict XIV on July 11, which decisively prohibited the use of the terms “Shangdi” and “Tian.”

What is thought-provoking is that Vagnone’s earlier warnings were ultimately fulfilled: if the use of “Shangdi” and “Tian” were forbidden, disastrous consequences would follow. Indeed, the Chinese Catholic community—once composed largely of scholars, officials, and Confucian literati—gradually transformed into a faith community primarily of the lower classes. Catholicism increasingly came to be viewed as a foreign religion. This tragic outcome haunted the Chinese Church through nearly two centuries of persecution.

Bo Ya: Chinese Catholic believers—including scholars, officials, and literati—tended to practice a Confucianized form of Catholicism. This is fundamentally different from the faith of ordinary commoners; the latter, being free from Confucian intellectual constraints, could accept the truth of Christ’s blood and the Cross.

In other words, trying to make a Confucian literatus believe in “the Trinity,” “the Virgin Birth,” “the mysteries of Christ,” “the miracle at Cana,” or “salvation through the cross”—and not merely repeat notions like “Heaven,” “spirits,” or “Shangdi”—seems to me almost impossible.

Zhong Wen: The term “Shangdi,” abandoned by the Catholic Church, was later adopted by Protestant missionaries who came to China in the nineteenth century. Today, because of the rapid expansion of Protestant communities in China and other Chinese-speaking regions, many people know only the word “Shangdi,” and do not know “Tianzhu.” When Protestant translators render Catholic spiritual texts using “Shangdi” to express “Tianzhu,” many Catholics cannot accept a term they feel no longer belongs to them—even though it was originally introduced into Chinese by Matteo Ricci himself.

Bo Ya: Some believe that if Chinese Catholics understood the history of their own Church—especially the early Jesuit debates over the translation of “Shangdi” and “Tian,” and the fact that the term “Shangdi” was first used by Ricci and vigorously defended by Vagnone—they might approach the term “Shangdi” with more understanding, sympathy, and acceptance.