Spanish Dominican Fernández de Navarrete and the Chinese Rites Controversy

Abstract

Spanish Dominican Fernández de Navarrete played a pivotal role in the Chinese Rites Controversy. Not only did he bring the controversial manuscript by Nicolò Longobardi to wider attention, thereby intensifying the debate over Chinese rituals, but he also further interpreted and reinforced its contents, amplifying the manuscript’s influence. This, in turn, attracted both internal and external forces within the Church to challenging the Jesuits. In addressing the issue of Chinese rituals, Fernández de Navarrete relied on Thomas Aquinas’ theological framework to evaluate Confucian practices, categorizing the act of offering sacrifices to ancestors and to Confucius as idolatrous. He subsequently demanded that believers refrain from participating in Chinese ritual practices.

1. Introduction

Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) passed away in 1610 and was succeeded by Nicolò Longobardi (1556–1654) as Superior of the Jesuit Mission in China. This transition marked the commencement of a series of theological and cultural debates among missionaries regarding Chinese rites. These disputes encompassed events such as the 1628 Jiading Conference, the issuance of two contradictory papal decrees, and the 1667 Guangzhou Conference. The controversy reached its apex in 1715, when Pope Clement XI (1649–1721) issued the Ex illa Die, which prohibited Catholics from observing Chinese rites. This papal decree intensified the controversy, transforming it into a critical episode in the history of cultural exchange between China and the West during the late Ming and early Qing periods. At the core of the dispute were two central issues: (1) the translation of the term “Deus”, and (2) whether Chinese Catholics could be permitted to venerate their ancestors and Confucius.

The scholarly literature on the “Chinese Rites Controversy” is extensive and continues to expand. Previous studies have not only elucidated the origins, developments, and consequences of the controversy, but have also examined the conflicts among various Catholic orders within the Church. This dispute was not merely a religious matter; it also represented a significant clash and interaction between Eastern and Western cultures. Moreover, the controversy extended beyond superficial ritual differences, reflecting deeper internal power struggles and competing interests within the Church. While research on the “Chinese Rites Controversy” has deepened and matured over time, it has been focused predominantly on the Jesuits, with less attention given to other religious orders that played a critical role in instigating the dispute.

Dominican friar Fernández de Navarrete (1618–1686), a steadfast critic of the Jesuits’ “accommodative missionary policy”, offered a sharply contrasting approach to their practices. In this paper, we will examine two central points of intense debate within the Church: the translation of the term “Deus” and Confucian sacrificial rites, with the aim of exploring Navarrete’s views, actions, and arguments during the controversy. The discussion will focus on two key areas: first, we will analyze Navarrete’s translation, revisions, and interpretations of Nicolò Longobardi’s Portuguese text, Reposta breve sobre as controversias do xamty, tien xin, lim hoen, e outros nomes e termos sinicos: para se determiner quaes delles podem ou não podem usarse nesta cristandade, dirigida aos Padres das Residencias da China, pera a verem, e depois enviarem com o seu parecer sobre ella ao nosso padre Visitador em Macao (hereafter Reposta breve), specifically examining his response to the translation of the term “Deus”. Second, we will also explore Navarrete’s perspective on the veneration of ancestors and Confucius, focusing on how he sought to reconcile Catholic theology with Confucian rites, ultimately concluding that he considered the Chinese sacrificial ceremonies to possess religious character. Examining the relationship between Navarrete and the “Chinese Rites Controversy” not only provides a deeper insight into the specific issues of this debate and the interaction between Chinese and Western cultures, but also enables a more thorough understanding of Navarrete himself, particularly his reflections on Chinese culture. Moreover, from the perspective of the history of Catholicism’s spread in China, this inquiry helps us better grasp the internal conflicts within the Catholic Church and the broader trajectory of Catholicism’s dissemination in China.

2. Navarrete’s Translation, Revisions, and Interpretation of Longobardi’s Portuguese Text Reposta breve

Navarrete included Longobardi’s Reposta breve in the fifth chapter of his collection Tratados históricos, políticos, éticos y religiosos de la monarquía de China (hereafter referred to as Tratados), using it as a strategic response to challenge the Jesuits’ “accommodative missionary policy” (Navarrete 1676). Longobardi composed this text in reaction to several Jesuit missionaries, including Diego de Pantoja (1571–1618), Sabatino de Ursis (1575–1620), Alfonso Vagnone (1568–1640), and the Jesuit fathers serving as visiting inspectors, following the Macau Conference of 1621. The content of Longobardi’s work addressed a broad range of issues, with particular emphasis on his interpretation of Neo-Confucian thought (Pan 2017, pp. 29–43).

The current scholarship has thoroughly examined Navarrete’s manuscript, exploring various aspects such as the origins of the text, the different versions of the work, the sources and references Longobardi consulted, and the methods he employed in interpreting Neo-Confucian thought. Daniel Canaris argues that, when studying Navarrete’s opposition to Matteo Ricci’s “accommodative missionary policy”, scholars should not focus exclusively on the theological disputes over terminology. Rather, it is crucial to consider this opposition as an extension of the European humanist exegetical debates within the Chinese context (Longobardo 2021, pp. 45–59). While Thierry Meynard has also addressed Navarrete’s interpretation of Longobardi’s manuscript, it is important to note that he did not pursue this issue in depth. This paper, therefore, focuses on the relationship between Navarrete and Longobardi’s text.

2.1. Navarrete’s Revisions and Additions to the Text of the Reposta breve

The original manuscript of Longobardi’s work was written in Portuguese, and the version currently held in the Archivio di Propaganda Fide (APF) is incomplete. However, following its acquisition by Antonio de Santa Maria Caballero, a transcript of the manuscript was produced. By combining the version preserved at the APF with Caballero’s copy, which is now housed in the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF), it is possible to reconstruct much of the content of Longobardi’s original Portuguese manuscript.

According to Thierry Meynard’s research, Navarrete relied primarily on Antonio de Santa Maria Caballero’s manuscript during that period. Pan Fengjuan has authored an article comparing the relationship between Longobardi’s original Portuguese manuscript and Caballero’s Latin translation (Pan 2018, pp. 45–56). In the current research paper, the focus of the discussion will be on the relationship and differences between Navarrete’s Spanish translation and Longobardi’s original Portuguese text.

The most notable difference between Navarrete’s translation of the Reposta breve and Longobardi’s original Portuguese manuscript is the absence of the Chinese marginal annotations. Longobardi’s manuscript contained numerous Chinese notes, in which the original Chinese texts were provided to support his arguments, thereby enhancing the persuasiveness of his discussion (as illustrated in Figure 1). In contrast, Navarrete chose to omit the Chinese texts from the marginal notes in his translation.

Longobardi’s original manuscript also included illustrations that served as visual evidence for the text, such as the Taiji diagram (太極圖), the Five Elements chart (五行圖), and others (see Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). However, Navarrete omitted these illustrations in his Spanish translation.

Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 appear in the fifth section of Longobardi’s manuscript, which primarily addresses the Chinese conception of the origin of the universe, drawing on Confucian ideas of “Pre-Heavenly Learning” (先天学). Longobardi argues that, within the Chinese worldview, the fundamental principle of the universe is Li (理), from which Qi (气) is derived. Through a process of accidental and alternating transformations, the material world as we know it comes into being.

In addition to omitting the Chinese characters and illustrations from Longobardi’s manuscript, there were also significant differences in content between Navarrete’s Spanish translation and the original Portuguese text. On the one hand, certain references to books and quotations from well-known figures familiar to Western readers have been omitted. On the other hand, some key terms have been rewritten or supplemented.

In terms of content omissions, the tenth section of Longobardi’s manuscript discusses a dialogue in which Confucius’ disciples inquire about angels or deities. Confucius responds by explaining that they are merely manifestations of Qi (氣). Longobardi quotes part of the content from the Xingli Daquan (性理大全), but Navarrete omits this section.

Additionally, Navarrete made several revisions and additions to the text, which may warrant further consideration. Regarding the title of the manuscript, “Resposta breve sobre as controvérsias do Xamty, Tien Xin, Lim Hoen, e outros nomes e termos sinicos…,” Longobardi’s original text presents the terms “God”, “Heavenly Gods”, and “Souls”, using a combination of pinyin and Chinese characters, such as Xamty, Tien Xin, and Lim Hoen, with their Chinese equivalents indicated in the margin. However, in Navarrete’s Spanish translation, the Chinese terms were omitted and Western terminology was used in their place.

In Navarrete’s rendition, “God” is translated as El rey de lo alto, “Heavenly Gods” as “Espíritus”, and “Soul” as Alma racional (Rational Soul). Notably, he uses the term “Alma racional” to translate “Ling Hoen”. The concept of the “Alma racional” is rooted in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, who classified the soul into three types: (1) the vegetative soul for plants, (2) the sensitive soul for animals, and (3) the rational soul for humans. According to Aquinas, the rational soul is what distinguishes humans from animals, because only humans possess it.

Navarrete also explained certain specialized terms through the lens of Western philosophy and theology to make the debates between religious orders more accessible to European readers. In contrast to Longobardi, who typically retained the original Chinese terms, Navarrete preferred to deconstruct them using familiar concepts from Western thought. For example, while Longobardi transliterates “Confucianism” as Jukiao, Navarrete consistently refers to it as “la secta de los Letrados” or “La secta literaria”, which literally translates to “the sect of the literati”.

In Longobardi’s version, the term “Pre-Heavenly Learning” (先天学) is transliterated as “Sien tien hio”, whereas in Navarrete’s translation, it is rendered as la ciencia a priori. Similarly, “post-heavenly learning” (后天学) is translated as la segunda ciencia or posteriori. The terms a priori and posteriori are derived from Latin, meaning “prior to experience” and “after experience” respectively. In medieval logic, a priori reasoning referred to deduction from cause to effect, whereas a posteriori reasoning involved deriving conclusions from effect to cause. In Christian philosophy, Thomas Aquinas employed the a posteriori method, arguing for the existence of God by reasoning from observable effects to the existence of a first cause (Fu 1982).

Here, Navarrete employs the terms a priori and posteriori to refer to the “pre-heavenly learning” (先天学), and “post-heavenly learning” (后天学) proposed by Neo-Confucian scholars such as ShaoYong (邵雍), which address the origins of the universe and the creation of all things. Similarly, terms such as “Wuji” (无极), “Taixi” (太虚), “Taiyi” (太乙), and “Hongmeng” (鸿蒙) appear in Longobardi’s manuscript, but Navarrete omits the pinyin and Chinese characters for these philosophical concepts, opting instead to use their explanatory equivalents directly.

In addition to revising the manuscript’s content, Navarrete also added additional remarks in certain sections. A notable example can be found in fifth section of Longobardi’ s manuscript, where the Chinese conception of the origin of the universe is discussed. Longobardi touches on a broad range of philosophical concepts, such as Taiji, Wuji, Qi, movement and stillness, Yin and Yang, the Five Elements, the Eight Trigrams, and the Dao, each with rich and extensive implications. However, Navarrete considered Longobardi’s treatment insufficient, particularly as the character “Li” (理) was not explicitly mentioned in this section. In response, Navarrete introduced the term “Li” eight times in the corresponding section of his Spanish translation, thereby supplementing Longobardi’s manuscript and providing further clarification of the philosophical concepts (Navarrete 1676, pp. 260–62).

Longobardi’s manuscript was completed around 1630, at a time when debates over Chinese rites were just beginning to emerge. In contrast, Navarrete wrote Tratados during the peak of the rites controversy, when tensions were at their highest. This temporal difference highlights the fact that Longobardi’s earlier manuscript could no longer fully address the demands of the ongoing intellectual struggle. With a deeper understanding of Zhu Xi’s concept of Li (理), Navarrete recognized that some of the explanations in Longobardi’s work, written a half century earlier, lacked the clarity and sophistication needed to engage with the evolving debates. As a result, Navarrete felt compelled to make further revisions and to refine certain points in the manuscript.

Navarrete’s revisions and additions to Longobardi’s manuscript reflect relatively subjective changes. Additionally, there were some transcription errors in the manuscript. For example, when discussing the date of Xinglidaquan (《性理大全》), Longobardi’s original manuscript states that it was written more than 200 years ago, whereas Navarrete mistakenly attributes it to a time period of 2500 years ago (Navarrete 1676, p. 250). Regarding the annotations, Longobardi’s manuscript suggests that the commentaries on Confucian texts were formed around 200 years before the birth of Jesus, while Navarrete’s version incorrectly states that these commentaries were written over a period of 2000 years, beginning from the birth of Jesus (Navarrete 1676, p. 253).

Navarrete’s revisions to Longobardi’s manuscript, combined with the transcription errors introduced during the copying process, have affected not only the Spanish text but also the French and English versions of the manuscript. Both the French and English translations were based on Navarrete’s Spanish version, meaning that the omissions, additions, and transcription errors in the Spanish text were mirrored in these subsequent translations. The resulting domino effect across these different versions presents an additional issue worthy of further exploration.

2.2. Navarrete’s Reinterpretation and Reinforcement of Longobardi’s Ideas

In the past, scholars have often dismissed Navarrete’s interpretation of Longobardi’s manuscript, viewing him as someone who simply relied on the quotes of Western philosophers to explain Longobardi’s ideas. However, this approach precisely reflects his method and strategy. While Navarrete may not have been well-equipped to provide a systematic exposition of Neo-Confucianism, he could effectively use Longobardi’s manuscript to speak on his behalf.

For Navarrete, presenting Neo-Confucian thought in a relatively complete manner was important, but making it accessible and comprehensible to Western audiences was even more crucial. The battleground of the Chinese rites was situated in Rome and Europe, and the ultimate goal was to garner the support of European readers. Consequently, his task was not only to ensure that Longobardi’s manuscript was intelligible to his audience, but also to effectively disseminate the ideas contained within the text.

Specifically, with regard to the contradictions between Confucian texts and their commentaries, as raised by figures such as Matteo Ricci, Navarrete argued that these discrepancies were not necessarily in conflict and were, in fact, a common phenomenon. He drew a parallel with the Bible, where similar issues arise. He noted that theologians within the Church have used various methods to reconcile such contradictions, such as Augustine’s Harmonization of the Four Gospels. This issue is also present in the works of Thomas Aquinas, and Pedro Bergamo made efforts to reconcile the content within Aquinas’ writings (Navarrete 1676, p. 254).

In Navarrete’s view, the contradictions between Confucian texts and their commentaries, as highlighted by the Jesuits, can be reconciled and do not represent a fundamental conflict. He argues that this is not a serious issue, noting that similar phenomena occurred in Christian scriptures as well. Therefore, Navarrete contends that there is no need to emphasize the supposed contradictions between Confucian texts and their commentaries. Rather, the commentaries and the texts are intrinsically linked, with the commentaries serving as a means to fully grasp the deeper meaning of the texts. In this context, Navarrete invokes the authority of Christian scriptures and the writings of the saints to counter the Jesuit perspective.

Longobardi’s introduction of concepts such as Li (理), Qi (气), and Taiji (太极) would have been challenging for Western readers unfamiliar with China. When Longobardi initially wrote this article, it was primarily intended for internal discussions within the Church, rather than for public dissemination. However, Navarrete took steps to simplify and clarify these concepts, with the aim of making them more accessible and ensuring that they could reach a broader audience.

Navarrete argued that the ideas of Neo-Confucian philosophers, particularly the concept that the essence of the spirit or soul is Qi (气), bear significant similarities to the views of certain Western philosophers. For instance, the Dominican bishop and philosopher Albertus Magnus proposed that human existence depends on a natural heat, which, when extinguished, causes the body to wither and turn to ashes, while the spirit departs from the body and disperses into the air. Similarly, the Greek philosopher Diogenes viewed the soul as a form of dense vapor that appears to dissipate upon the death of the body, a notion that was also shared by Heraclitus, who considered the soul to be a form of steam. Longobardi discusses Zhu Xi’s classification of Qi (气), which he divides into the categories of Zheng (正), Pian (偏), Tong (通), Se (塞), as well as Jing (精), Cu (粗), Qing (清), and Zhuo (浊). These different dispositions of Qi contribute to the formation of distinct individuals and objects.

To enhance readers’ understanding of this classification, Navarrete employed metaphors. The “metaphoric interpretive approach” is a way of understanding and interpreting texts, phenomena, or concepts through metaphors. A metaphor itself is a rhetorical device that compares one concept or thing to another unrelated one, thereby conveying deeper meanings or emotions. Navarrete compared the varying qualities of Qi to different types of bread: the highest quality Qi was likened to refined white bread, the next tier to homemade bread, the third to rye bread or hard crackers, and the lowest to bran. Navarrete further bolstered his argument by citing Western philosophers, such as Nicolás Monardes, who explored the origins of metals, to illustrate his point. Just as metals differ in purity and quality, so too do the forms of Qi. Gold, as the purest metal, represents the most perfect form of material. Silver, though still valuable, is somewhat less refined, and other metals are considered less pure. By employing these everyday food metaphors, familiar to European audiences, as well as Western philosophical ideas regarding the formation of metals, Navarrete was able to clarify the concept of Qi within Confucian texts.

Navarrete’s public release of Longobardi’s manuscript exposed the internal divisions within the Jesuit order. Given Longobardi’s prominent status and influence within the Jesuit mission in China, Navarrete’s strategic dissemination of the manuscript dealt a significant blow to the Society. However, relying solely on Longobardi’s perspectives would have been insufficient. Navarrete undertook a meticulous examination of earlier and contemporary works by other Jesuit scholars, identifying contradictions within these texts. This not only deepened the rift within the Jesuit camp but also strengthened both Longobardi’s position and his own.

Navarrete arrived in China in the 1650s and was imprisoned alongside fellow Jesuits during the “Kangxi Persecution” in Guangzhou, where he was held for nearly four years. During this time, the Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits engaged in intense debates over the issue of Chinese rites. The Jesuits, in particular, were actively producing works to defend their missionary policies. Navarrete took a keen interest in these writings, seeking to uncover critical insights within them. He meticulously studied the works of prominent Jesuit missionaries, including Matteo Ricci, Nicolas Trigault (1577–1628), Giulio Aleni (1582–1649), Martino Martini (1614–1661), Álvaro Semedo (1585–1658), Prospero Intorcetta (1625–1696), and António de Gouveia (1592–1677).

When exploring the relationship between Taiji (太极), the First Matter (Materia Prima), and Deus, Navarrete identified contradictions within Jesuit writings. He observed that individuals such as Matteo Ricci, Giulio Aleni, and other Jesuits recognized Taiji as the equivalent of their “First Matter”. However, in his work Sapientia Sinica, Prospero Intorcetta contended that for the ancient Chinese, Taiji was synonymous with their concept of Deus. Navarrete argued that this internal division within the Jesuit order raised a fundamental question: if the Jesuits themselves were divided on this issue, why should they expect other religious orders to accept their interpretation without scrutiny? (Navarrete 1676, p. 279).

Earlier, figures such as Matteo Ricci and other Jesuit missionaries believed that traces of the Chinese concept of Deus could be found in pre-Qin Confucian texts, particularly in the term “Shangdi” (上帝). However, Navarrete raised a critical question: Did Confucius truly know Deus? (¿Si el Confucio conoció a Dios?). In doing so, Navarrete departed from the framework established by Matteo Ricci and others, who differentiated between ancient and modern Confucians. Instead, Navarrete directly interrogated the foundational aspects of Chinese religious thought. Like Navarrete, some missionaries also questioned whether Confucius recognized Deus, proposing that, had Confucius known God, he would have conveyed this belief to his disciples, who, in turn, would have propagated it. Yet, Confucian texts make no reference to an eternal soul or posthumous judgment. This analysis diverges from the conventional chronological or causal approach to Confucianism. Rather, Navarrete employed a retroactive approach, tracing the origins of these ideas by interrogating their very foundations.

The Jesuit Philippe Couplet (1623–1693) and others responded by suggesting that Confucius may have been unable to teach such lofty doctrines, or that his disciples were not yet prepared to receive them. Navarrete found this explanation untenable. He argued that Confucius lived for 73 years—a sufficient length of time to have found the right moment to impart such beliefs, had he possessed them. Confucius had numerous disciples, many of whom were highly talented, with some even regarded as sages. How, then, could they have been incapable of grasping such profound principles (Navarrete 1676, p. 171)? According to Navarrete, Confucius had already transmitted his teachings to his disciples, but these teachings did not include doctrines associated with Christianity. To bolster his argument, Navarrete cited a passage from the Analects to further illustrate his point, “My disciples, do you think I have concealed anything from you? I have concealed nothing” (Ibid).

Navarrete also published the records of the 1628 Jiading Conference in his second book, Controversias antiguas y modernas entre los missionarios de la gran China (hereafter referred to as Controversias). Longobardi was closely involved with the conference, and the manuscript he authored was specifically intended for use during the debates at the event. At the time of the Jiading Conference, the Dominican Order had not yet arrived in China, and thus no Dominican missionaries participated in the proceedings. Navarrete was able to obtain the conference records because, during his return journey from Guangzhou to Europe, he met François Pallu (1626–1684), the founder of the Paris Foreign Missions Society, while stopping in Madagascar. The two engaged in a lively and amicable conversation, quickly establishing a strong connection. Pallu held Navarrete in high regard and recognized his contributions.

Earlier, two French Jesuit priests, Joseph Tissanier (1618–1687) and Pierre Albier (1620–1665), disclosed the details of the Jiading Conference to François Pallu. Seizing this opportunity, Pallu provided Navarrete with a copy of the conference records. Upon his return to Spain, Navarrete included the records as an appendix in his published work.

Navarrete’s book included 36 topics discussed at the Jiading Conference. He believed that the discussions and resolutions made during the conference further validated Longobardi’s viewpoints. In the book, Navarrete excerpted two key conclusions from the conference, which dealt with the concepts of God, the human soul, and ritual practices. Regarding the first conclusion, the missionaries argued that the Chinese understanding of “spirit” could be divided into three categories: Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. In the first category, “spirit,” is attributed to Heaven, which refers to “God”. However, “God” in this context is not considered a true spirit; rather, it is seen as the virtuous force that governs the material heavens.

The second category of “spirit” pertains to Earth, which is tangible and material. The “spirit” of the Earth refers to the virtues and effects required for its operations. The third category is the Chinese concept of the soul, which is believed to depart from the body after death. These three types of “spirits” are collectively referred to as ghosts and gods, and they are not regarded as distinct entities, but as manifestations of the virtues of Heaven and Earth (Navarrete 1679, p. 110).

At the time, the inspector, Father Andre Palmeiro, endorsed this view, and issued an order prohibiting the use of the terms “Heaven” and “God” from Confucian texts to refer to Deus. However, later figures such as Emmanuel Diaz (1574–1659) and Francisco Furtado (1589–1653) continued to uphold Matteo Ricci’s missionary strategy. They insisted that the issue be banned from internal discussions within the Society of Jesus, and they took measures to keep the previous conference proceedings confidential. Longobardi’s manuscript was also destroyed. As the controversy over religious rituals continued to unfold, Navarrete managed to obtain confidential documents from within the Jesuit Order, first through Antonio de Santa Maria Caballero, and then through François Pallu, and he presented these materials to European society.

Navarrete edited and expanded upon Longobardi’s manuscript, employing a metaphorical interpretive approach to introduce Neo-Confucian thought to European audiences. In doing so, he not only reinforced Longobardi’s arguments but also adopted strategies that extended beyond simply exposing the internal contradictions within the Jesuit Order. His approach further aimed to deepen the divisions within the Jesuit camp, notably by publicly revealing the contents of the Jiading Conference. Moreover, Navarrete argued that Neo-Confucianism was a direct continuation of pre-Qin Confucianism, dismissing any distinction between ancient and modern Confucians. In his view, Confucius himself was an atheist who did not acknowledge the existence of God.

3. Navarrete and the Chinese Sacrificial Rituals

The Jiading Conference in 1628 and Longobardi’s Manuscripts extensively discussed the issue of Chinese sacrificial rituals. According to the meeting records published by Navarrete, the disputes regarding sacrifices included the following:

• whether kneeling and worshiping Confucius in public was considered idol worship and whether such behavior was permitted;
• whether holding ceremonies for the deceased was considered superstition;
• whether rituals performed at burial sites should be condemned as superstitions;
• whether local officials’ worship of the city god after taking office aligned with Christian doctrines;
• whether Chinese Christians were allowed to participate in the slaughter of sacrificial animals or consume fruits and meats offered to the deceased (Navarrete 1679).

Unlike the theological debate over the translation of “Deus”, which primarily concerned doctrinal issues, the Chinese rituals of ancestor worship and the veneration of Confucius are intricately tied to practical ceremonies in daily life. The discussions of these practices at the Jiading Conference failed to produce a consensus and the issue of sacrifices remained unresolved. By 1666, following the “Yang Guangxian incident”, missionaries from various orders were imprisoned in Guangzhou, where they had ample time to convene and address the challenges arising in their missionary work. The Guangzhou Conference resulted in 42 resolutions, with the 41st directly addressing Chinese rituals. All attending missionaries, with the exception of the Franciscan friar Antonio de Santa Maria Caballero, signed the resolutions, including Navarrete. Resolution 41, which pertained to Chinese ritual practices, formally accepted the papal decree issued by Pope Alexander VII in 1656, which permitted Chinese customs such as ancestor worship and the veneration of Confucius.

Navarrete quickly regretted his decision. He subsequently rewrote a report and submitted it to Father Feliciano Pacheco (1622–1687), the Vice-Provincial of the Jesuit Order, expressing his opposition to Chinese rituals. He argued that the Chinese sacrificial rites were not secular or political in nature, but were, in fact, superstitious and idolatrous, possessing a distinct religious character. A manuscript copy of this report is currently housed in the Ajuda Library, titled Sentir do P.e Fr. Domingos de Navarrete sobre alguns pontos que se propuzerão na consulta que fizerão. The manuscript (Figure 5) is shown in the image below:

Navarrete completed his report in March 1668, and the Jesuits included its contents in the 1668 Annual Letter to report to their superiors. When Navarrete returned to Europe and began working on his second book Controversias, he further expanded and incorporated the report into a new book (Meynard 2020). The report is titled, Informe al R.P. Feliciano Pacheco, Vice Provincial de la misión de China, de la Compañía de Jesús, sobre si el culto que los letrados de este Reino dan a su Maestro el Confucio, es supersticioso, ó no. This report is found in Chapter 6 of the book, titled “De el culto que el Chino dá á su filosofo Confucio, y á sus difuntos”.

Navarrete’s report offers a direct expression of his views on Chinese sacrificial rituals. By examining this report in conjunction with the manuscript from the Annual Letter and his observations on ancestor worship, we can analyze Navarrete’s interpretation of Chinese rituals. Specifically, this analysis seeks to explore the criteria he employed to categorize Chinese rites as superstitious and religious in nature, how he understood these rituals, and how he connected the sacrificial practices to behaviors he considered analogous to those condemned as superstitious by the Church. To begin, it is necessary to define what constitutes “superstition” as understood within Church doctrine.

3.1. Superstition and Idolatry in Church Theology

Thomas Aquinas argues that “superstition is a vice of the opposite religion that results from excess, not because it offers more acts of worship than true religion, but because it offers worship to inappropriate objects or in inappropriate ways” (Aquinas 2008, p. 176). In this context, “excess leading to the opposite of religion” refers to actions that violate the Catholic principle of the “mean” or “moderation”, as they are excessive and contrary to true religious practice (Wang 2021, p. 55). Worship should be directed solely to God; thus, offering worship to “inappropriate objects” constitutes superstition. Similarly, worshiping God in an improper manner is also considered superstitious. This highlights the importance of a delicate balance between “quantity” and “measure” in religious practice.

Aquinas categorized superstition into four distinct forms. The first is the inappropriate worship of God; the second is idolatry, where acts of worship are misdirected toward created beings rather than being directed to God. The third form is divination, which seeks knowledge from the devil through pacts, instead of relying on divine guidance. The fourth form encompasses a variety of superstitious practices, such as taboos and charms (Aquinas 2008, pp. 178–89).

Idolatry is regarded as a form of superstition, and practices such as ancestor worship and the veneration of Confucius in China have often been criticized as manifestations of idolatry. Aquinas categorized idolatry into three distinct types. The first involved the worship of human beings, where certain individuals are elevated to divine status and venerated through images, such as in the case of Jupiter or Mercury. This form of idolatry is closely linked to mythological theology. The second type is the belief that the entire world is divine, with acts of worship directed toward the world and its components—such as the heavens, the weather, water, and other natural elements. The Platonic view of gods and spirits also falls under idolatry, and can be categorized as natural theology, as it represents philosophers’ perspectives derived from their study of the world. The third type involved the veneration of images of gods, excluding the worship of God Himself. This is referred to as folk theology and is typically practiced by priests in temples (Aquinas 2008, p. 188).

For Aquinas, the worship of idols represents the gravest sin because it denies the unique sovereign authority of God. This type of worship sets up another god in the world and therefore diminishes God’s supreme status (Aquinas 2008, p. 193). Both “superstition” and “idolatry” carry complex connotations and manifest in various forms. Applying these extensive categorizations to Confucian sacrificial rituals makes it difficult for Chinese rites to avoid the label of “superstition”. Opponents of Chinese rituals argue that the very objects of worship in Confucian sacrificial practices are fundamentally erroneous. They assert that, while certain aspects of the sacrificial process exhibit religious characteristics, the objects of worship are not the true God.

3.2. The Intersection of Confucian Rituals, Christian Theology, and Confucian Exegesis in Navarrete’s Writings

Critics of Chinese rituals often argue that Confucian thought is inherently superstitious, constitutes idol worship, and displays characteristics typically associated with religious practices. However, these critiques are often generalized and lack a nuanced analysis of the underlying reasons for such assessments. Specifically, one must question why these critics perceived Confucian rituals as inherently religious. What specific practices within these rituals led to this interpretation? What evaluative frameworks, grounded in Christian theology, informed their judgment? Furthermore, how do these critics reconcile their Christian doctrinal perspectives with the study and interpretation of Confucian texts and practices?

Navarrete is a central figure in the “Chinese Rites Controversy”. His writings played a pivotal role in shaping the discourse surrounding this issue. In his works, he provided a detailed account of Chinese ancestral worship and the veneration of Confucius, documenting the entire ritual process, from its preparatory stages to the performance of the rituals and their conclusion. Overall, Navarrete characterized these practices as superstitious and advocated for their prohibition by the authorities. The following discussion will examine these rituals in detail, focusing on key elements such as the selection of auspicious dates, the preparation of sacrifices, and the prayers of blessing that accompany the ceremony.

3.2.1. The Selection of an Auspicious Date

Regarding the veneration of Confucius, Navarrete identifies four key occasions on which the Chinese people visit Confucian Temples (templo) to offer sacrifices (sacrificar). These occasions include when officials assume office in a new jurisdiction; during students’ graduation ceremonies; on the first and fifteenth days of each month; and during the annual Ji Ting Ceremony (祭丁), which occurs in the summer and autumn (Navarrete 1679, p. 302).

The Ji Ting ceremony (祭丁) refers to the annual sacrificial rites held in honor of Confucius during the spring and autumn seasons. In his book, Navarrete mistakenly identifies the ceremony as occurring in the summer and autumn, when, in fact, it is traditionally observed in the spring and autumn.

The practice of ancestral worship, particularly during the four seasonal rites, involves careful selection of an auspicious day. In his work, Navarrete explains that, before conducting the ritual, one must first consult the heavens to identify a favorable date. He outlines the process for selecting such a day as follows: the head of the household, dressed in formal attire, stands outside the main door of the ancestral hall, facing west. In front of him is an incense altar, with additional items such as a brazier and a basin of water placed nearby. The male relatives of the household stand to his south, while his descendants position themselves behind him. The head of the household then burns incense and recites “On a certain day, we will fulfill our duty”, after which the auspicious day is determined (Navarrete 1679, p. 414). The accounts of ancestral worship in Navarrete’s work primarily draw from the content of Jiali (家禮). In the section titled “Rituals of Sacrifice” within Jiali, the text describes the “Four Seasonal Rites” as follows:

For sacrificial rites, a favorable date is chosen through divination during the first ten days of the second month of the season. At the beginning of late spring, one chooses a day within the first and last ten days of the month, which could either be a Ding (丁) or a Hai (亥) day. The head of the household, dressed in formal attire, stands outside the main door of the ancestral hall, facing west. The brothers stand to the south of the head of the household, slightly behind, facing north; the descendants stand behind the head of the household, in an orderly manner, facing west and north. A table is placed before the head of the household, on which are arranged an incense burner, incense box, wine cups, and a tray. Holding a ceremonial staff, the head of the household burns incense and wafts the smoke over the incense box, while reciting the divined date: “On a certain day, I shall fulfill my duty to honor my ancestors”. The incense box is then cast into the tray, with one side facing up and the other facing down to indicate a favorable omen. If the omen is not favorable, another divination is performed for the middle of the month. If that is also unfavorable, no further divination is done, and a date in the latter part of the month is used for the ceremony (Hu 1987, p. 462).

Ritual sacrifices in Confucian culture are regarded as auspicious rites. Prior to these ceremonies, the Chinese traditionally perform divination to select a favorable date, or they may conduct the ritual on specific days, such as the Winter Solstice. However, in Christian theology, “divination” is viewed as a superstitious practice, encompassing activities such as casting lots, interpreting omens (both favorable and unfavorable), foretelling the future, and observing celestial phenomena.

Thomas Aquinas contended that the term “divination” originates not from the legitimate sharing of divine knowledge but from an unlawful attempt to access it (Aquinas 2008). Only God, through divine revelation, has knowledge of the future, and any attempt to foresee it through other means is considered an encroachment on God’s exclusive domain. In addition to the divination associated with sacrificial rites, Navarrete also observed the Chinese practice of divination in other contexts, such as selecting auspicious dates for banquets before sending out invitations. He argued that the ancient Chinese lacked a concept of God and often directed their sacrifices and requests toward material deities (Navarrete 1679, p. 380).

3.2.2. The Offerings Prepared for the Sacrificial Ritual

During a Confucian sacrificial ceremony, a sacrificial table is set up in the Ming Lun Hall (明倫堂) of a Confucian Temple, with the tablet of Confucius placed upon it. In front of the table, offerings such as grains, fruits, and vegetables are carefully arranged. Additional tables in the courtyard are set with burning candles and incense. A live pig is positioned in front of the sacrificial table. The method for selecting the sacrificial animal is as follows: hot wine is poured into the pig’s ears, and if the animal shakes its head, it is chosen as the sacrificial offering; if there is no reaction, the pig is discarded (Navarrete 1679, p. 303). After the pig is slaughtered, some of its hair and blood are preserved for use in subsequent rituals.

There is a discrepancy between the method of selecting the sacrificial animal as recorded in the manuscript of Navarrete held at the Ajuda Library, and the account found in Controversias. In Controversias, the animal is selected as the sacrificial offering if it reacts when hot wine is poured into its ears. By contrast, the version in the Ajuda Library specifies that hot wine is poured not only into the pig’s ears but also onto its head. If the pig does not resist the treatment, it is chosen as the offering (Navarrete 1668, f.14v). Navarrete provides additional details regarding the sacrificial rites in Controversias, and we are inclined to believe that the account in Controversias more accurately reflects the original intent.

In his analysis of animal sacrifice within the sacrificial rites of Ding in Navarrete’s writings, Thierry Meynard argues that a pig can be selected as a sacrificial offering if it shows no reaction to the hot wine but cannot be chosen if it does react. This interpretation is likely based primarily on a copy of Navarrete’s manuscript held at the Ajuda Library. Thierry Meynard also discusses Francesco Brancati’s response to Navarrete’s views on the selection of sacrificial animals. Brancati argues that “a healthy pig is strong enough to endure hot wine poured into its ears, while a weak pig is not. This method of selecting a sacrifice is common in both Naples and France, and there is nothing particularly unusual about it” (Meynard 2020, p. 81). Brancati’s response is likely based on the content of the 1668 Jesuit Annual Letter, as Navarrete’s Controversias was not partially published until 1679.

Thierry Meynard suggests that Brancati’s interpretation of animal sacrifice is relatively rational, as it distinguishes Confucian sacrificial rites from Church rituals, thereby diminishing the religious connotations traditionally associated with Confucian practices (Meynard 2020, p. 80). In comparison, Navarrete adopted a diametrically opposed stance. He emphasized the similarities between the two sacrificial cultures in order to highlight the religious nature of Confucianism, arguing that it fails to acknowledge the true God and, as such, should be regarded as a form of superstition.

In Christian sacrificial traditions, animals are selected as offerings to the Supreme God. Thomas Aquinas argues that not only should spiritual sacrifices be directed to God, but external, tangible sacrifices must also be dedicated to Him (Aquinas 2008, p. 82). According to Aquinas, sacrifice is rooted in natural law: humans are obliged to offer material goods to God as an expression of their subordination and reverence. Furthermore, the animals selected for sacrifice must be whole and unblemished; offering a blind or crippled animal would violate Church canon law (Aquinas 2008, p. 94). This practice bears a striking resemblance to the selection of sacrificial animals in Chinese traditions, although the objects of sacrifice differ fundamentally between the Chinese and Western cultural contexts.

3.2.3. Prayer of Blessing

The various stages of the sacrificial ceremony are characterized by distinct roles. For instance, during ancestor worship, officiants perform specific duties. The ritual dedicated to Confucius is notably more complex, involving roles such as the principal officiant, secondary officiants, ritualists, officials responsible for offerings, and musicians and dancers. In the Confucian ritual, when the sacrificial meat dedicated to Confucius is uncovered, the ritualist loudly announces, “The Sage Confucius is descended”. At this moment, the person offering the sacrifice raises a cup of wine and pours it onto a straw effigy. Navarrete observes a similar practice in Chinese sacrifices for the deceased, where the ritual was intended to summon the spirits of the departed, allowing their essence to enter the offerings. Meanwhile, other participants recite eulogies, extolling Confucius’ virtues and awaiting the descent of his spirit (Li 2012, p. 793). During the stages known as the “offering of silk” and the “sacrificial wine”, participants frequently kneel and bow (Flectamus genua). In this context, Navarrete adopts terminology derived from Catholic Mass (Meynard 2020, p. 79). In the final stage of the Confucian ritual, the ritualist bids farewell to Confucius’ spirit with a prayer. Following the ceremony, the officiant distributes the sacrificial meat to those present (Navarrete 1679, p. 304).

The ceremonial procedures for ancestor worship and the worship of Confucius are fundamentally similar, with officiants overseeing the various rituals. At the conclusion of the ceremony, the principal officiant proclaims that the ancestors have accepted the offerings and that the family members who participated in the ritual have received blessings. These blessings encompass longevity, health, wealth, and prosperity, with the entire family placed under divine protection (Navarrete 1679, p. 416).

Let us now examine the connection between the rituals discussed above and Catholic Mass. With respect to the offering of sacrificial meat and wine, Thierry Meynard observed that Navarrete portrayed the process in a manner akin to the consecratory prayers of Catholic Mass. In his description, the spirit of Confucius appears to truly enter the meat and wine, much as the Holy Spirit is believed to enter the bread and wine during the Eucharist (Meynard 2020, p. 79).

Subsequently, with regard to the prayers and kneeling of the participants, Navarrete adopts the term “Flectamus genua”, a phrase used in Catholic Mass. Although Navarrete does not explicitly reference Mass in his work, his description implicitly draws a parallel between Confucian sacrificial rites and the Catholic Eucharist.

At the conclusion of the sacrificial ceremony, the principal officiants proclaim that all participants in the ritual will receive blessings, and they then proceed to distribute the sacrificial meat. From the perspective of Catholic theology, the act of seeking blessings from Confucius or ancestors might be viewed as a form of idolatry. In Catholic doctrine, prayer is a religious act through which individuals petition God, with the aim of receiving what is requested. While prayer may also be directed to angels and saints, the purpose is not to seek blessings directly from them, but rather to ensure that, through their intercession and merits, our prayers are made effective (Aquinas 2008, p. 40).

Navarrete argues that blessings cannot be obtained through ancestor worship or the worship of Confucius. Regarding the distribution of sacrificial meat to those present after the ceremony, a comparable practice occurs at the end of Catholic Mass, where the distribution of sacrificial offerings is similarly addressed. In Catholic theology, Thomas Aquinas views the priest who celebrates Mass as a “mediator” or “intercessor” between God and humanity. On the one hand, the priest proclaims God’s teachings and sacraments to the people; on the other, he offers the prayers, sacrifices, and gifts of the congregation to God. Therefore, the offerings presented by the faithful to God are considered to be the priest’s responsibility (Aquinas 2008, p. 91).

The priest may, at his discretion, manage these offerings, including using them to assist the poor. The Catholic Church has always placed significant emphasis on almsgiving to the poor. Monks, too, can receive items from these offerings in three ways: by accepting them as recipients of charity, by serving at the altar during Mass, or by acting as parish overseers (Aquinas 2008, p. 92). Navarrete references the words of the Catholic theologian A. Lapide, who stated “The heathens bring offerings to worship idols, and after the ceremony, they take the offerings away to distribute to their family or friends”. In light of this, Navarrete criticizes Christian involvement in ancestor worship or Confucian rituals and further forbids the faithful from consuming the offerings used in these rituals, as such actions go against Church liturgical practices.

Navarrete, interpreting Confucian sacrificial rites through the theological framework, naturally viewed these rituals as possessing religious characteristics. In this context, “religion” refers specifically to practices that are directed exclusively toward God. True religion, according to this perspective, entails the worship of the one true God. Any act that involves reverence for a deity but does not conform to the worship of God is therefore considered superstition (Wang 2021, p. 55).

If the object of worship is not considered, both “superstition” and “religion” involve acts of reverence toward the divine. In this context, when Navarrete characterized Confucian sacrificial rites as possessing religious attributes, he drew a comparison between these rites and the acts of divine veneration practiced in Catholicism. However, he deemed ancestor worship and Confucian sacrifices to be superstitious and idolatrous, as the objects of worship in these rituals do not correspond to the one true God.

Navarrete’s account of sacrificial rituals in his work was derived from two primary sources: one is the information provided by Catholic converts from Fujian, and the other comes from classical texts he consulted, including the Collected Statutes of the Ming Dynasty (大明會典), the Liji (禮記), and others. He also referenced the Yijing (易經), the Zihui (字彙), and Du Yu’s Leizuanguwenzikao (類纂古文字考) to examine the meanings of terms such as “Miao” (廟) and “Wen Miao” (文廟). For instance, Navarrete discovered that “the construction of a temple is intended to gather the spirits of the deceased; by collecting these spirits, people can visit the temple to venerate the dead.” He further observed that “an ancestral hall is a place for gathering the souls of the deceased, typically smaller in scale, while a larger ancestral hall is referred to as a temple” (Navarrete 1679, p. 310). According to Catholic theological principles, Navarrete refers to Confucian temples as Templo del Confucio in his work, thereby associating them with idol worship, which he considers a hallmark of Confucianism.

Contemporaneous with Navarrete in his critique of the Jesuits, the Dominican missionary Francisco Varo (1627—1687), who remained in China, also criticized Chinese religious practices. He authored Bian Ji (《辩祭》), a seminal work that articulates the Dominican Order’s opposition to Chinese ritual practices.

The theoretical foundation of Bian Ji lies in the application of Aquinas’ sacramental theology to the critique of the Jesuits’ stance on Chinese rituals. Similarly, as we have seen in Navarrete’s treatment of sacrificial rites, he also employs Catholic theological principles to assess Confucian rituals. However, due to the unfamiliarity of Europeans with Confucian sacrificial practices, Navarrete provided a more detailed account of the sacrificial process in his work. He also employed terminology that easily evoked associations with idol worship. This detailed description of sacrificial rites serves to further emphasize their religious characteristics.

Unlike the debate surrounding the translation of “Deus”, the Dominicans sought to sever the connection between the term “God” in Confucian texts, and the Christian notion of “Deus”. However, in the context of ancestor worship and the veneration of Confucius, they endeavored to identify religious elements within Confucian rituals and draw parallels with Catholic liturgical practices. Their goal was to affirm the religious nature of these rituals while denying their secular and political dimensions. As they relied on Catholic theological principles, the Dominicans ultimately condemned Confucian rituals for failing to acknowledge the true God, categorizing them as superstitious practices.

Navarrete’s attempt to link Confucian rituals with Catholic Mass represents a convergence between Western theology and Confucian exegesis. While certain similarities between the two can be identified, the conservative and uncompromising stance of the Dominicans prevented any reconciliation or synthesis between these two cultural traditions.

4. Conclusions

Navarrete arrived in China in 1658 and was subsequently imprisoned in Guangzhou for four years due to the “Yang Guangxian Case”. In 1669, he came into conflict with the Jesuits over the Chinese rites issue. Unable to convince the Jesuits, he fled to Europe alone, requesting the Roman Curia to adjudicate the matter. In 1676, the publication of Tratados made the internal Church debates about Chinese rites public, igniting a significant controversy.

As an insider, Navarrete made full use of Longobardi’s Portuguese manuscript. In his Spanish version, he omitted the Chinese characters and illustrations present in the original manuscript. Furthermore, in terms of content, he rephrased and supplemented certain key terms, further emphasizing the core concept of Neo-Confucianism–Li (理). Regarding Chinese sacrificial rites, Navarrete drew upon authoritative texts, such as the Collected Statutes of the Ming Dynasty (大明會典) and Zhu Xi’s Jia Li (家禮), to provide a detailed account of Chinese rituals for ancestor worship and the veneration of Confucius. By employing specific terminology, he imbued Confucian rituals with religious connotations. Drawing upon Church theology, he judged these rituals to be superstitious and idolatrous.

From a Christian-centric perspective, he measured Confucian culture and sacrificial rituals according to Western religious standards, opposing the attempt to reconcile the two heterogeneous civilizations. This approach only widened the gap between the two cultures, making dialogue and exchange impossible.

Similarly to Navarrete, Franciscan missionary Antonio de Santa Maria Caballero underwent a shift in his stance over time. With the accumulation of his missionary experience, his study of Confucian texts and Catholic theological writings, as well as changes in his personal networks, his position toward the Jesuit missionary strategy in China evolved from a stance of “complete opposition” to one of “partial acceptance.” However, Navarrete remained resolute and vehement in his opposition, even going so far as to claim that priests who equated “God” in Confucian texts with the Christian “Deus” were suffering from cataracts. He was also adept at exploiting the internal divisions within the Jesuit order, fueling their disputes.

After Navarrete’s statements were published, they caused a significant stir within the Church, provoking strong rebuttals from Jesuits, but also attracting support from others, such as Charles Maigrot (1652–1730) of the Paris Foreign Mission Society, who embraced his views. Ultimately, the Pope ruled to forbid Chinese Catholics from following Chinese rites.