Your search

Termination of the process for P. Jerónimo José da Mata to become coadjutor and successor to the bishop of Macau.

Official dispatch from the State Secretariat dated 18 September 1842, addressed to the Sir Minister of the Navy, concerning ecclesiastical jurisdictional reorganisation and administrative protocol. The document references paragraphs 3 and 4 of a prior memorandum regarding the subordination of the Bishopric of Malacca to Macau and of St. Thomas and Prince’s Island to Angola, requesting ministerial consideration and endorsement. It affirms approval of the Minister’s response to the Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs and Justice, particularly the directive to refrain from using flying seals (sello volante) in official correspondence, and stresses compliance while ensuring the State Secretariat is informed of significant developments to maintain oversight. The dispatch also includes instructions to gather intelligence on potential insurgent activities anticipated in Bologna, with a request for detailed reporting on outcomes and consequences. Additionally, it directs the forwarding of a copy of an official communication to Demetter, alongside the dispatch to the Secretary of Justice dated 1 October (porta three). Signed by Deus G. de W.S. Paço de Cintra at the Paço de Cintra, the document bears annotations referencing João Pedro Migueis de Carvalho. The marginal note records the name Lee, Anielle, a 15-year-old girl of diminutive build with possibly altered physical measurements, originating from the District of Our Lady of Macairi, though her connection to the main text remains unclear. This primary source offers insight into mid-19th-century Portuguese colonial ecclesiastical administration, bureaucratic procedure, and possible surveillance practices.

Burnt document

This 1843 ecclesiastical document, originating from the Archdiocese of São Paulo and dated 23 March at Lee (Crispiet), records administrative and canonical proceedings related to clerical appointments and transfers within Portuguese colonial territories. The text, registered on 15 June by J. P. Felício, documents a transfer effected on 18 July 1823 from the 24th vacancy of the Bull of the Archdiocese of São Paulo to the 24th of Minas. It comprises two principal components: first, a tomb and brief concerning the twentieth part of revenues due to D. Lz., attached to an ecclesiastical office; second, a papal bull addressing the jurisdictional authority of the Tribunals of Goa, the Prince of the East, Rio de Janeiro, and Sua de Marcos. The document further notes the removal of 14 vicars—designated as advanced and secondary—who were deemed competent in matters pertaining to Urqui. These individuals, along with the predecessor Bravo, were expelled from the Faculty and the preceding Office on 8 March of the same year. The notation “Baj. A. D. S.” appears at the conclusion, likely indicating archival endorsement or authentication. This record offers critical insight into the hierarchical governance, financial obligations, and institutional conflicts within the Catholic Church’s colonial administration in Brazil and Portuguese Asia during the early 19th century. It serves as a primary source for researchers examining ecclesiastical bureaucracy, clerical succession, and the interplay between local and transnational church authorities in the Lusophone world.

About diocese of Macau and the intention of the Propaganda Fide to extinguish de Portuguese Padroado

Official correspondence from the Portuguese State Secretariat for Foreign Affairs, dated 24 December 1842, transmitting documentation regarding ecclesiastical jurisdictional disputes in Hong Kong following its cession to British control. The document comprises a formal report addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, António José Maria Campelo, by António Joaquim Gomes d’Oliveira, concerning the transfer of religious authority on the island of Hong Kong from the Diocese of Macau—under the Padroado Real privileges of the Portuguese Crown—to the Congregation for Propaganda Fide. It references a dispatch from the Governor, dated 22 April 1841, confirming Rome’s authorisation of this ecclesiastical shift, interpreted as an act of usurpation by Lisbon. A subsequent report from the Vicar Capitular of Macau, dated 9 March 1842, protests the establishment of a new mission under Propaganda Fide jurisdiction, asserting it violates longstanding royal patronage rights. The correspondence highlights diplomatic and canonical tensions between the Holy See, the Portuguese state, and colonial authorities in Macau and Hong Kong. Damaged sections obscure minor textual details, but the core argument centres on Portugal’s efforts to defend its traditional ecclesiastical prerogatives in the region through intervention at the Papal Court. This document is essential for researchers examining 19th-century colonial ecclesiastical politics, Sino-Portuguese relations, and the decline of the Padroado system in East Asia.

This 1842 official correspondence, originating from Macau and addressed to the Portuguese Minister and Secretary of State for Naval and Overseas Affairs, documents a dispute concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction and colonial authority in the context of Portuguese Catholic administration in East Asia. The letter, signed by Father Conceição Franco and countersigned by Pedro de Carvalho, references the presence of Rigua, a Procurator of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, who resided in Macau under orders from the Apostolic Prefecture of Hong Kong—dependent on the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith—and allegedly operated beyond his authorised mandate. The text asserts that Rigua’s activities contravened prior reports submitted to the Holy See and conflicted with the papal Bull *Sub Romana Militantis Ecclesia* (interpreted as issued by Pope Gregory XIII in 1586), which defined ecclesiastical boundaries and jurisdictions. In response, the author claims to have expelled the Procurator and his associates from the establishment within three days to protect the rights of the Vice-Prefecture. The document further expresses reluctance to engage the British Governor of Hong Kong, then serving as Plenipotentiary, due to lack of governmental authorisation. It also alludes to an unauthorised decree of 22 April 1851 (anachronistic within the 1842 dating) obtained under false pretences, suggesting later interpolation or transcription error. The communication underscores tensions between local ecclesiastical powers, colonial governance, and Roman centralisation efforts in mid-19th century Portuguese Asia.

Archbishop of Goa writes to the Queen of Portugal, D. Maria II, about churches in the Padroado

Petition letter dated 26 February 1820, addressed to Count Pedro de Mello, Plenipotentiary Minister and Envoy of the Portuguese Crown at the Holy See, from Don Filippo Colonna, Rector of the Pious House of the Catechumens in Rome. The document concerns two individuals undergoing religious instruction: Bakxù, a 14-year-old Muslim youth of Macao, China—located within the Portuguese-administered territory under the Province of Guangdong, District of Quanzhou—who seeks baptism and relief from destitution while residing at the institution; and an unnamed 19-year-old Jewish catechumen described as nearly destitute. Colonna requests alms on behalf of both, specifically appealing for clothing previously donated to another convert, referred to as Moro, a Turkish catechumen. The petition underscores the material hardship endured by these converts, particularly Bakxù, who is described as poorly clothed and in fragile health, dependent on minimal sustenance provided by his guardian. The text reflects institutional practices of conversion and charitable support within the Roman Catholic Church during the early 19th century, highlighting transnational religious migration and the role of diplomatic patronage in ecclesiastical welfare. This primary source offers insight into colonial subjecthood, religious conversion, and the socio-economic conditions of foreign converts in papal Rome, as mediated through ecclesiastical authority and diplomatic channels.

This 1819 diplomatic correspondence, dated 21 October and originating from the Rooms of the Quirinal, constitutes an official communication from the Marshal Secretary of State to His Excellency Commissario Mello Dreynen, Plenipotentiary Minister of His Most Faithful Majesty. The document records the formal presentation to the Pope of royal appointments for the Bishoprics of Cochin and Tranganore, made under the authority of the Portuguese Crown. It confirms the transmission of appointment letters and credentials to Monsignor Würtner, representative of the Holy See, in compliance with papal instructions received by the Secretary of State. The letter serves as an acknowledgment of procedural adherence in ecclesiastical nominations within the context of the Portuguese colonial ecclesiastical administration in India. Reference is also made to Crescêncio, Bishop of Crivella, and the summoning of young women presented by the bishops of Coelhão and Cunhagador, indicating supplementary pastoral or administrative proceedings linked to episcopal oversight. As a primary source, this document reflects the intersection of colonial ecclesiastical governance, royal patronage (Padroado Real), and Vatican diplomacy during the early nineteenth century. It offers scholars insight into the bureaucratic mechanisms governing bishopric appointments in Portuguese-held territories and the role of diplomatic intermediaries in Holy See–Crown relations. The text is preserved in formal diplomatic register, characteristic of state-ecclesiastical correspondence of the period.

Burnt document

Burnt documents.

D. Frei Manuel de S. Galdino nominated as coadjutor and successor to the Archbishop of Goa. D. Frei Francisco de N.Senhora da Luz, Padre de Lisboa, Frade Menor Observante was nominated as BIshop of Macau.

This document comprises a series of translated ecclesiastical letters and administrative texts, primarily dating from the late 18th century, with supplementary material likely transcribed from earlier periods. Central to the collection is a 1799 letter from Pope Pius VI addressed to Friar Manuel de Santa Catarina, Archbishop of Goa, concerning jurisdictional disputes over the Island of Bombay. The text details the Holy See’s decision to grant temporary spiritual authority to Apostolic Vicars of the Mughal Empire following the expulsion of Portuguese ecclesiastical personnel by English authorities beginning in 1718. It affirms that the Archbishop of Goa retains full jurisdiction over Bombay in principle, but its exercise was suspended due to political impediments. The Pope justifies the delegation of pastoral care to vicars as a necessity for the spiritual survival of Catholics under non-Catholic rule, citing apostolic duty over institutional rivalry. The document further includes a corrupted or abbreviated transcription—possibly from a damaged colonial-era manuscript—referencing ecclesiastical appointments, synodal authority, fiscal obligations, and jurisdictional claims within a Portuguese colonial context. Names such as Gudricus Vovatus, Danceranus, and Athabasy appear in unclear administrative or hierarchical roles, while terms like “arm of the Conclave” and “fisc” suggest institutional governance. A translator’s note indicates significant linguistic irregularities, potentially arising from scribal abbreviation, hybrid Latin-Iberian legal forms, or textual corruption. This compilation offers critical insight into colonial ecclesiastical politics, papal diplomacy, and the interplay between imperial authority and Church jurisdiction in the Portuguese empire.