Search

Documentário sobre o património, as gentes e a cultura de Macau.

Inclui informações e recortes de imprensa publicadas sobre a discordância entre o Bispo e o governador de Macau na sequência de um incidente do Colégio de S. José

This is a classified Portuguese colonial administrative document dated 14 July 1967, originating from the Directorate-General of Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Lisbon, transmitted to the Ministry of Overseas Affairs and subsequently forwarded to the Governor of Macau. The document contains a verbatim transcription of notes from a conversation held in Rome on 27 July 1967 between the Ecclesiastical Consultant of the Portuguese Embassy to the Holy See, Monsenhor P.J. Carreira, and Dom Paulo Tavares, Bishop of Macau, shortly before his departure for Macau. The discussion centred on the current challenges facing the Diocese of Macau, particularly the future of the local seminary amid plans to transfer approximately twenty students from Timor to mainland Portugal for training. The Bishop expressed concerns over institutional stability and past difficulties attributed to individuals deemed psychologically and diplomatically unprepared for the region’s complex environment. The Portuguese government reaffirmed its commitment to financially support the seminary and broader ecclesiastical social, cultural, and welfare initiatives as key expressions of Portuguese presence in Macau. The Bishop indicated willingness to remain in his post without reservation, reassured by assurances of personal safety and institutional backing from both the Portuguese state and the Holy See. This document provides critical insight into the interplay between colonial administration, Catholic ecclesiastical structures, and geopolitical concerns within Portugal’s overseas territories during the late 1960s.

Fragmentary transcription from a Portuguese colonial-era manuscript, likely dating between the late 16th and early 18th centuries, documents an ecclesiastical and administrative journey involving religious personnel and territorial expeditions in a Lusophone colonial context—possibly West or Central Africa or the Amazon basin. The text records the movements of His Excellency the Bishop of Muidum from Malão towards his bishopric in 1745, including delays due to security concerns and lack of reliable intelligence. It details preparations for entry into China, issuance of pastoral letters to Dom Pedro Xavier das Milhães, and coordination of supplies and messengers. Later sections describe maritime navigation, anchorage near settlements such as Motaõ Seta and So. Brac, encounters with local traders, ritual practices involving figures like Sabina and Salis, and ceremonial processions marked by symbolic offerings, dance, and spiritual invocations. References to locations including Cantam, Malacão, Nancelum, and Fantam suggest a complex network of colonial outposts. The document further outlines military and diplomatic engagements, fortifications, jurisdictional disputes, and interactions with local authorities and Indigenous communities. Despite significant orthographic irregularities, damage to the original manuscript, and numerous illegible or ambiguous passages, the text provides insight into colonial administration, missionary activity, intercultural exchange, and ritual life. Preserved terms resist full etymological identification, reflecting phonetic transcription, scribal error, or code-switching common in frontier archives. This translation adheres strictly to British academic conventions and is suitable for scholarly analysis of early modern Portuguese imperial and ecclesiastical history.

This is a formal ecclesiastical decree promulgated in 1704 and reaffirmed in 1707 by Charles Thomas Mallare, Patriarch of Antioch and Apostolic Vicar with *legatus a latere* faculties, alongside Brother Beda, Bishop and Most Reverend Provincial of the Neocor Missionaries Apostolic in China and Siam, and later endorsed by Lazarus Carneiro and Francis, Apostolic Vicars of Cambodia. Issued on 7 December 1704 and formally published on 7 February 1707 at Matani Nankiri, the document establishes binding canonical regulations for all missionaries—secular and regular, including Jesuits—serving in the missions of China, Siam, and Cambodia. It addresses five critical questions concerning the compatibility of Chinese and Southeast Asian ritual practices with Catholic doctrine, specifically delineating permissible civil veneration (*veneratio civilis*) of ancestors and cultural rites under strict conditions, while explicitly prohibiting participation in or endorsement of the ‘Sacrifice to Heaven’ (*Conchaji*), state cults (*Dovenis*), veneration of the ‘Tablet of the Ruler of Heaven’ (*T’ien-chu P’ai*), and local folk rituals (*geghili*). The decree invokes papal authority—including decrees of Urban VIII and Clement XI—and imposes automatic excommunication for non-compliance, reserving absolution solely to the Holy See or, in cases of imminent death, to the Society of Jesus under narrowly defined conditions. It constitutes a foundational regulatory text for the Chinese Rites Controversy within the early modern Catholic missionary enterprise.

The Boletim do Governo Eclesiástico da Diocese de Macau was a periodical published by the Diocese of Macau.

This diplomatic transcription presents a heavily damaged, linguistically heterogeneous archival fragment originating from the Portuguese colonial and missionary archive, dating approximately to the mid-17th to early 18th century (c. 1631–1724), with palaeographic and orthographic features consistent with late-eighteenth-century Genoese notarial Latin–Italian hybrid usage. The document comprises miscellaneous manuscript leaves, marginalia, seals, and archival references, held within a multilingual chancery context involving Portuguese, Latin, vernacular Iberian, Sinic, and Indo-Portuguese administrative terminology. It records ecclesiastical, diplomatic, and juridical proceedings concerning the Catholic missions in Macau, Canton, Beijing, and associated regions—including interactions with the Qing imperial court (notably under Emperors Kangxi and Yongzheng), the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, and the Holy See—alongside colonial governance in West Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and Brazil. Key figures include Carlo Ambrosio Patr. Athl. Legato Cop. (Patriarch of Antioch, Apostolic Legate to China), Dom Aluy, Kialo, the Emperor’s Mandarin officials (e.g., Duli, Chasedam, Sirint Cum), and missionaries such as James Bouver, S.J., Ignatius Kogler, S.J., and Mother Maria de São José of Macau. Central themes encompass the Chinese Rites Controversy, jurisdictional disputes between papal legates and imperial authorities, canonical procedure, missionary administration, interreligious diplomacy, and the material culture of colonial religious practice. The text is presented strictly as a diplomatic transcription—faithful to the source’s physical condition, abbreviations, corruptions, and linguistic complexity—for critical scholarly engagement in historical, theological, and postcolonial research.

This is a diplomatic correspondence dated 1 June 1891, authored by Demétrio Cinatti, Portuguese Consul in Canton, and addressed to the Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The document forms part of an official dispatch series from the Portuguese Consulate in Canton during 1891 and includes multiple annexes and indices referencing subsequent pages. It discusses Sino-Portuguese relations with particular focus on Macau’s territorial integrity and Chinese administrative encroachments. Key issues include opposition from Chinese authorities regarding Portuguese jurisdiction in Macau, tensions over Green Island (Ilha Verde), and the activities of local mandarins such as Sse and Chang Chi Tung, identified as the Viceroy of Liangguang. The consul reports that obstacles to diplomatic operations have eased due to interventions by the Governor of Macau, enabling access to interpreters. He expresses concern over growing Chinese influence in Taipa and Coloane, noting the significant disparity between the small European population and approximately 8,000 Chinese residents on these islands, which facilitates covert assertions of jurisdiction. The text highlights fears that Chinese officials may replicate tactics used in northern disputes within southern territories. Administrative practices, including falsified inspection reports by mandarins, are detailed as mechanisms to erode Portuguese sovereignty. Additional matters include the Hainan question, where delayed responses from the Viceroy reflect increasing indifference toward foreign claims, and anti-Christian unrest in northern China, attributed to secret societies and popular rumour. Economic observations note high rice prices in Guangdong and reliance on cheaper Siamese imports. The document also references ecclesiastical disputes over property rights in Hainan, asserting that chapels destroyed in 1884 were built and maintained at mission expense, thereby entitling Portugal to indemnity. Later sections address anti-foreign agitation in Canton, including inflammatory placards and arson attempts against missionary residences, prompting consular advisories and calls for naval reinforcement. The proposed appointment of a Chinese consul in Hong Kong is reported as withdrawn due to colonial opposition. Finally, press reports alleging Portugal’s intention to sell Macau are refuted, with emphasis on treaty prohibitions against alienation and recommendations for economic development instead. The material provides critical insight into late 19th-century colonial diplomacy, jurisdictional conflicts, and cross-cultural tensions in southern China under Qing administration.