Your search

This 1844 ecclesiastical document, originating in Malacca and dated 10 February, comprises a formal declaration by José, Archbishop Primate of the East, addressed to the Commission representing the local Catholic community. It responds to jurisdictional disputes arising from claims by the Apostolic Vicar of Macau to assert authority over Malacca’s Catholics under the Papal Brief *Multa praeclare* and a 1840 decree of the Sacred Congregation. The Archbishop refutes the validity of these claims within Portuguese ecclesiastical territory, asserting that the Brief is either spurious or null due to existing agreements between the Holy See and the Portuguese Crown. He reaffirms the authority of Reverend Francisco Jones, Administrator of the Diocese, as his legitimate delegate, and instructs missionaries from the Propaganda Fide—Fathers Bergaudetti and Bervel—to withdraw immediately under penalty of disobedience. The text underscores the Archbishop’s full jurisdiction confirmed by Papal Bulls, including *Intr. L. Saldino*, and affirms loyalty to Pope Gregory XVI while rejecting extrajudicial interventions. Endorsed by the State Secretariat for Naval and Overseas Affairs on 15 April 1844 and the State Secretariat for Foreign Affairs on 16 April, this authenticated copy serves as a key record of colonial-era ecclesiastical politics, illustrating tensions between Roman centralisation efforts and entrenched Portuguese patronage rights in Southeast Asia.

This 1844 ecclesiastical letter, addressed to the British Government and copied to parties designated A° B. and the Metropolitan See (Metrópole), originates from João, Archbishop of Goa and Primate of the East, in response to a communication dated 12 December of the previous year. The document concerns a jurisdictional dispute over the Diocese of Malacca, focusing on Mgr. Francisco Jones, its Governor, who has refused to comply with a papal decree of 3 January 1840 issued by the Apostolic Secretary declaring his incapacity. Jones asserts allegiance solely to the Ecclesiastical Authority of Goa, rejecting external directives. The Archbishop invokes the authority conferred by Papal Bulls of Confirmation—equivalent to those granted to his predecessors—to assert full metropolitan jurisdiction, including over Malacca, and explicitly rejects the validity or continued applicability of the Brief *Multa podere*, whether genuine or clandestinely obtained, arguing that it has been superseded by subsequent provisions. Reference is made to an Encyclical Bull affirming the suffragan bishops’ obligation to obey the Archbishop of Goa, further undermining claims based on the earlier Brief. The letter firmly opposes British governmental intervention in the appointment of the Apostolic Vicar of Angapura and ecclesiastical matters in Malacca, demanding withdrawal from such affairs and unimpeded exercise of ecclesiastical authority by the legitimate diocesan governor. Signed by Archbishop João and countersigned by Reverend Fathers Burgandetti and Beverel, the text underscores the Holy See’s jurisdictional claims within a colonial context, reflecting tensions between ecclesiastical authority and imperial administration in mid-19th century Portuguese ecclesiastical provinces in Asia.

This 1844 ecclesiastical document comprises a series of official declarations and certifications concerning jurisdictional authority within the Diocese of Malacca under British governance. Issued by José, Archbishop-Primate of the East, the text asserts his legitimate exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the diocese, grounded in papal Bulls issued under the authority of Pope Gregory XVI. It explicitly revokes prior directives, including a Brief concerning Nossa Senhora, arguing their invalidity through the issuance of an Encyclical Bull commanding suffragan bishops to recognise the Archbishop-Primate’s metropolitan authority. The document underscores the continuity of Catholic submission to the current Prelate—identified as the Archbishop-Primate—and affirms obedience to the Supreme Head of the Church. A formal letter dated 10 February 1844, addressed to the Catholic Commission of Macau, confirms the author’s role as Governor of the Diocese of Malacca and includes subsequent certifications by civil authorities: Manoel Jorge d’Oliveira Lima of the State Secretariat for Naval and Overseas Affairs, and another from the State Secretariat for Foreign Affairs, both dated 15 April 1844. Central figures include Archbishop-Primate José, Pope Gregory XVI, and Reverend Fathers Bengaletti and Rav., identified as Missionaries of Propaganda Fide directed to withdraw from the bishopric. The primary locations referenced are Malacca, Macau, and Mazagão. This document serves as a critical source for understanding ecclesiastical jurisdiction, colonial religious administration, and church-state relations in Portuguese and British territories in Asia during the mid-19th century.

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.

This 1843 official correspondence, originating from the Portuguese colonial administration in Macao, concerns the ecclesiastical jurisdictional disputes arising from British acquisition of Hong Kong and its impact on the Padroado Real system. The document, addressed to a high-ranking colonial official (referred to as "Your Excellency"), confirms alignment with prior directives regarding the perceived injury to Portugal’s ecclesiastical patronage rights (Padroado Eclesiástico) following the transfer of Hong Kong from Macao’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It references Despatch No. 3, which detailed protests against the usurpation of spiritual authority over Hong Kong, and indicates concurrence in reporting this matter to the Supreme Pontiff. The author further notes receipt of confidential instructions—specifically Despatch No. 2—to delay formal diplomatic notification until resolution of pending issues concerning episcopal appointments and confirmations, as previously raised in Despatch No. 15 from the preceding year. Dated 10 April 1843, with marginal annotations indicating internal administrative handling, the document reflects ongoing tensions between Portuguese ecclesiastical authority and emerging British colonial governance in East Asia. This primary source provides critical insight into 19th-century imperial ecclesiastical politics, the defence of colonial patronage rights, and the intersection of religious and political authority within the context of European imperialism in China.

This 1842 administrative and ecclesiastical document, originating from the Secretariat of State for Foreign Affairs on 24 December, records the provisional ecclesiastical governance of the island and region of Fontana following the opening of Ling-haomo to civil administration under imperial decree. The text, referencing deliberations held at Angoche, confirms that Pope Pius XVI, in his capacity as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, entrusted full spiritual care and pastoral administration of the area to the Fathers Provincial (P.P.), pending the establishment of a formal ecclesiastical See. The decision reflects the Catholic Church’s institutional response to the spiritual needs of missionaries and faithful in the region during a period of colonial administrative transition. Additionally, the document cites an earlier edict of 22 April 1841, which annulled all prior regulations currently in force in the locality, thereby establishing a new canonical framework. Endorsements are provided by Archbishop Idelfonso ai decr., António Pedro de Carvalho, and Ibi Maria de Arquica, indicating formal ecclesiastical and administrative ratification. The use of terms such as ‘canonical pounds’ points to the application of ecclesiastical law and financial provisions within this jurisdiction. This primary source offers critical insight into the intersection of colonial governance, religious administration, and papal authority in mid-19th century imperial and missionary contexts. It is a key document for researchers examining the role of the Catholic Church in colonial territories, the mechanics of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the interplay between state and religious institutions during the period.