Your search

This official correspondence, dated 21 October 1926, originates from the Secretariat of State of His Holiness at the Vatican and is addressed to His Excellency Augusto de Castro, Minister of Portugal to the Holy See. The document, classified under reference number 57145 and marked for citation in reply, serves as a formal invitation to a significant ecclesiastical event. It announces that on Thursday, 28 October 1926, at 8 a.m., Pope Pius XI will confer episcopal consecration upon six Chinese bishops in the Vatican Basilica. The undersigned, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, Cardinal Secretary of State, extends the invitation to the Portuguese Minister and the entire staff of his Legation, noting that members of the Most Eminent Diplomatic Corps will be granted access through the Porta di Santa Marta. This primary source reflects the diplomatic protocols of the Holy See during the early 20th century and highlights the internationalisation of the Catholic Church’s hierarchy, particularly in relation to China. As a formal state communication within Vatican diplomatic channels, the document provides evidence of Sino-Vatican ecclesiastical relations and the integration of non-European clergy into the episcopate during the interwar period. It is a valuable resource for researchers examining religious diplomacy, colonial-era ecclesiastical policy, and the globalisation of Catholicism in the 1920s.

This 1926 diplomatic memorandum, issued by the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ General Directorate of Political and Diplomatic Affairs, addresses ecclesiastical jurisdictional disputes between the Portuguese Crown and the Holy See concerning dioceses under the Padroado system in British India and Asia. Dated 5 May 1926 and addressed to the Portuguese Minister Plenipotentiary to the Holy See, the document analyses a proposed agreement on the reorganisation of Portuguese ecclesiastical jurisdictions, specifically Goa, Daman, Cochin, Mylapore, and potentially Macau. It outlines Portugal’s position on four key issues: approval of boundary modifications only with governmental consent; extension of the state’s response period to three months in episcopal appointments; clarification that the semi-Padroado arrangements over Indian dioceses such as Bombay, Trichinopoly, Quilon, and Mangalore should remain subject to Portuguese input; and strong objections to the proposed transfer of spiritual jurisdiction over enclaved Padroado Christian communities to local bishops under Propaganda Fide. The author, Vasco Inge (or Vase Boye), argues that such transfers—particularly affecting Daman and Mylapore, which would lose up to half or one-third of their Christian populations—would cause severe institutional harm. Instead, he proposes a system of territorial compensation based on reciprocal exchanges of equivalent Christian populations, citing precedent from the 1923 establishment of Tuticorin. The document underscores Portugal’s determination to preserve its historic patronage rights while advocating for negotiated, equitable solutions to complex transcolonial ecclesiastical governance challenges.

This 1924 ecclesiastical letter, authored by the Bishop of Macau and addressed to the Portuguese Minister to the Vatican, constitutes a formal response to the Decree of 30 October 1923 issued by the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, which extended the authority of the Apostolic Delegate in China to the Diocese of Macau. The document outlines the historical jurisdictional isolation of the Diocese of Macau under the Portuguese Padroado system, detailing its dependence on the Metropolitan See of Goa and the Apostolic Nunciature in Lisbon for communications with the Holy See. The bishop argues that this arrangement resulted in practical disadvantages, including exclusion from episcopal conferences, denial of voting rights, and inability to access mission subsidies from the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, despite hierarchical parity with Apostolic Vicars in China. He recounts personal experiences from his tenure as Vicar Capitular in 1918 and his non-participation in preparatory meetings for the First Chinese National Council due to jurisdictional ambiguities. The letter asserts that the 1923 Decree, while ending a long-standing privilege, effectively integrates the Diocese of Macau into the broader Chinese ecclesiastical structure, granting equal faculties, inclusion in decision-making processes, and improved access to resources. The author concludes that the measure resolves longstanding administrative and pastoral impediments, affirming its benefits for the mission in China. This primary source is critical for understanding ecclesiastical politics, colonial religious patronage, and Sino-Vatican relations in early 20th-century East Asia.

This 1923 diplomatic dispatch, dated 27 January and sent from Rome by J. P. to the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs, constitutes a confidential report on ecclesiastical and political tensions surrounding Portugal’s Padroado rights in India. The document records discussions held with Monsignor Borgongini and the Cardinal Secretary of State regarding sustained campaigns against the Portuguese patronage system in Indian territories, particularly Goa, Daman, and Cochin. Drawing on information provided by Portuguese prelates, including the Archbishop of Goa and the Bishops of Daman and Cochin, the author characterises the opposition as tendentious and malevolent, driven by both indigenous and British actors—ecclesiastical and lay—and supported by formal complaints submitted to the Vatican, often through the British minister. The correspondence highlights the volume of anti-Padroado petitions and press coverage forwarded to the Holy See, calling for abolition or radical reform. A key allegation addressed is Portugal’s alleged failure to meet financial obligations to mission personnel, which the author acknowledges has occurred due to administrative delays, leading to public embarrassment. Despite these challenges, the author affirms that the Holy See reaffirmed Portugal’s rights, with both the Cardinal Secretary and Monsignor Borgongini explicitly stating no intention to alter the status quo—a position aligned with Pope Benedict XV’s earlier assurances. The dispatch concludes with an assessment that while the campaign will likely persist, vigilant defence of the Padroado may render it ineffective.

This 1922 telegraphic document, originating from Lisbon and transmitted to the Portuguese Legation in Rome, concerns the remittance of a cheque for the payment of a Papal Bull designated for the Bishop of Macau. The message, sent under urgent protocol via circuit No. 137 and received on 15 June 1922 at an unspecified hour, confirms that the payment was processed through the Preslè office at the Holy See. Endorsed by the Minister of the Colonies, the communication reflects administrative procedures between the Portuguese colonial authorities and ecclesiastical institutions under the jurisdiction of the Vatican. The document bears marginal annotations in blue and black ink indicating archival tracking numbers, dates of internal handling (including 9 July and a possibly revised 26 December), and reference codes. It is printed on official Italian telegraph form Mod. 30 Telegr. 1910, issued by the Stabilimento Poligrafico per l'Amministrazione della Guerra in Rome, and features the coat of arms of the House of Savoy alongside a post office stamp from Ufficio Telegrafico ROMA with an illegible date. With no signatures visible on the transmitted strip, the record serves as a procedural trace of financial and diplomatic coordination concerning the Portuguese colonial presence in Macau during the early twentieth century. This primary source offers insight into church-state relations, colonial administration, and international communication mechanisms within the context of Portuguese ecclesiastical finance under the Holy See’s jurisdiction.