Full bibliography

Translation

Page 1

**Translation (Modern UK Academic English)**

*Year 1523. Sixth, on the Foundation.*

We, the undersigned, having deliberated in our respective chambers, discussed and resolved upon foundations of considerable breadth and solemnity, addressed to His Lordship the Bishop Dom Diogo Veloso. In our communication, we designated—by way of formal custody—the individual whom *Nolo Mad* had previously held in custody; and we transmitted this matter to you, Father Córdova.

We questioned *Nolo* as to whether he had treated this foundation as a basis for challenge—just as he had contested papal authority. Now that *Nolo Mad* has himself raised the question, we affirm that *Nolo* had, at one time, intended to act upon it; yet *Mad* maintained that *Nolo* had declared—as part of the same discussion—that he would also wish to proceed with such a challenge, *provided that the timing permitted*. Indeed, the present moment is opportune, for circumstances now afford sufficient latitude to do so.

The foundational argument is as follows: That the Reverend Father António (*D. Fr. António*) *Mad* may lawfully serve as our Governor—and may legitimately invoke impediment—rests upon an arrangement formally sanctioned by *Maj.* (i.e., the *Majestade*, or sovereign authority). See, for instance, the biographical accounts recorded in the life of Dom Adriano da Cunha. For if, during the tenure of *Megad.* and *Maguelhe*, the governorship had already been exercised by *Mad*, then *Mad* could have exceeded the lawful bounds in arresting the said prelate—and other clergy—thereby contravening canonical norms. Moreover, such conduct would place the entrusted official (*encomendado*) under ecclesiastical censure, including excommunication pronounced by cathedral chapters (*capítulos siguis*), as explicitly stipulated in the gloss on *Clementinae V, tit. Nonnulli de excubitis Ecclesiarum Navarrorum*, in *Manuale*, lib. cap. 28, W. 38—a passage cited by Manuel Rodrigues in *Quaestiones Vigilantes*, Tomus XII, quaestio 64, art. 7, §3, *in fine*.

It is further alleged that *D. Fr. António* *Mad* exceeded his lawful authority in arresting the aforementioned priests—not only by acting on behalf of the Holy Office *without prior episcopal licence*, but also by deploying armed retainers (*broquel de gente em Huid. Maior*), including *familiares* (lay officials attached to the Inquisition), who publicly intimidated witnesses—including those bearing testimony on feast days (*dies Christi*)—and subjected them to grossly improper treatment. This conduct reportedly provoked widespread public indignation: ‘a general outcry arose in another city’, and ‘on this account, the entire matter was subsequently suspended’.

We conclude: If *Megad.* and *Maguelhe* served as governors in their time, then *Mad*’s current appointment must be subject to rigorous scrutiny—especially given the documented irregularities. The matter now rests before the Chapter (*senado*), and the Priest (*Pe.*) is duly apprised.

Page 2

**Title:** On the said Captain Siguij, a Judge whose affiliation is with the Apostolic See, and who has been declared excommunicated; consequently, he is deprived of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction he formerly held as a suffragan bishop—namely, the Bishop of Coimbra. As stated in *Sedulius*, Book IV, Chapter 4 (*Cathen*), while the said priest was under sentence of excommunication (‘in the Muradi’), it was denied that he had ever lawfully possessed jurisdiction prior to that sentence; and, having been placed under the aforementioned excommunication, he remained—and continues to remain—deprived thereof.

*[Marginal note — right-hand margin]*
O

**Main text:**
A further impediment prevents Father Frei António from serving as Vicar General and Governor of this diocese: namely, his status as a mendicant religious of the Order of Saint Dominic. Although certain religious, with the express permission of their superiors, may be appointed vicars or even bishops, mendicant religious—including Dominicans—are expressly prohibited from holding such offices. This prohibition is affirmed by Eudo and by Cardinal Naclerius in *Clementina*, Book III, *De Regularibus*, no. 6; by *Refutatio in Praxi Beneficiali*, Book I, *De Vicario Episcopali*, no. 32; and by *Clementina*, Book I, *Ad Probationem de Regularibus*, §1. The authority of Cardinal Merique Francisco Marco is cited in his *Quaestiones Delphinienses*, p. 5, q. 1287, no. 1; likewise, the opinions of André and Índia are adduced in the *Capitulum Finale*, *Extra De Claro Egrotante*, and those of António de Brito concerning episcopal jurisdiction, *Capitulum VI*, no. 43; of Paulo Furos de Niute, *Vicarius*, *Eudo*, *Capitulum XVII*, no. 100, Book II; of *Concessio de Constitutionibus Episcopalis*, no. 5; of Marco Antonio Cuen, *Institutiones Juris Canonici*, Book I, *De Vicario Episcopi*, no. 56; and of Segovia, *De Potestate Vicariorum*, Book III, q. 6, art. 40, no. 2. Azor’s *Institutiones Morales*, Volume II, Book III, Chapter 43, question 10, *ad finem*, is also cited. The principal foundation for this position is set forth by the Cardinal in *Clementina*, *De Electione*, no. 14, and by the Council of Trent, Session XXV, *De Regularibus*, Chapter I, which commands prelates to observe scrupulously all provisions pertaining to the regular observance—including communal living, shared meals, common dress, and other constitutive elements of the mendicant life.

Page 3

[Page] 2

Ande del May had acquired peoples—i.e., parishes or ecclesiastical benefices—which were contrary to his rightful incumbency; and it was demonstrated, in some measure, that he possessed *nothing at all* by virtue of the (M)eny [i.e., *mensa episcopalis*, the episcopal revenue fund], having dissipated its resources entirely. Moreover, through the said ‘grata’ [i.e., *gratia*, a form of papal dispensation or favour] and ‘reprovivem’ [i.e., *reprobae vivendi*, a term denoting irregular or morally suspect modes of livelihood], he occasioned the commission of certain acts of simony—namely, the purchase, or attempted purchase, of bishoprics and other ecclesiastical offices. As occurred, for instance, at the aforementioned place.

Further, Ande del May caused certain religious to become dissatisfied with the communal provisions (*comer da comunidade*, i.e., the shared sustenance and stipends allocated to members of a religious house), prompting them to demand that such provisions be dispensed outside the community. A further instance arose when Fr. António fell from office: it was alleged that, during the period in which he served as Vicar General, he had amassed considerable sums of money; with these funds, he purchased numerous items, which he subsequently had gilded (*depisar para gordinhar*)—ostensibly to embellish the episcopal residence (*minha deste bispado da China*, i.e., the bishop’s official residence in the Diocese of China)—though in practice he contented himself solely with the communal provisions, while diverting monetary resources to the house of his female devotees (*casa de suas devotas*), where he received favours (*felhads*, i.e., *favores*—material or spiritual benefits). It is reported that, when questioned on this matter, he replied evasively: ‘Who would dare accuse me?’ (*Je arrecde lhe dim propoha*—a phonetic rendering of the Portuguese *‘Quem ousaria acusar-me?’*).

Another foundation existed whereby the aforementioned religious might serve as Vicars General or even as Governors (*Nun Governador*); yet, should any individual offend them, they sought to assume authority over their own mortuaries (*wder de sos Morteiros*, i.e., *superioritas super sua mortuarium*—jurisdiction over burial rights and associated revenues). This we have observed occurring at the Monastery of São Domingos: indeed, the friars there appointed Fr. Sofónio to attest to the fidelity—or rather, to verify the legitimacy—of certain questionable matters (*Fidalidad de Algũas Cousas Malfitas*) brought to their attention. When asked whether Fr. Sofónio could act impartially—given that he himself stood to benefit from the favourable disposition of those very matters—he responded: ‘Could I not act alongside my fellow friar?’ (*pod com Seu Frey, que forad Cauza De as Marfavorecer?*—i.e., *‘Poderia eu agir com meu frade, que seria causa de as favorecer?’*). Moreover, certain practices which he customarily undertook in this capacity—such as accepting fees (*Dinhe3 de Faur*, i.e., *dinheiros de favor*, unofficial payments for ecclesiastical services) and performing duties (*af Irnofficio*)—coincided temporally with other irregular activities carried out within the Church of São Domingos. Consequently, it was determined that Fr. António was wholly unsuited to hold office (*Nad convem Offr*), nor did he wish—nor was he deemed fit—to serve as Governor (*queria pode Ser Govd*); indeed, although he continued to offer himself for appointment up to the present time, no one has been able to nominate him (*por Mai3 [Nad poderem]*), nor has any competent authority (*homm*, i.e., *homem*, meaning an officially authorised person) designated him for the post—neither formally (*Nem edo*), nor informally (*e Mas je*); and, moreover, it remains unclear (*entende3 como*) how he could possibly be considered eligible (*q elle o podia ser*).

Transcription

Page 1

Anno de 1523. Sexto, fundamento. Nós, os d. Nossos apartamentos dissemos, e tratamos sobre fundamentos mui espaciosos & alegres, ao Senhor Bispo Dom Diogo Veloso, Maj. N. Mad dizíamos por guarda nos vírgulas aquele que Nolo Mad guardou; e enviamos a Vós Pe. Córdova. Nós perguntámos-lhe Nolfo tratado por este fundamento para o impugnar, como impugnou os papados; ora já que ele o Mad perguntou, Nolfo dissemos agora To Mad queria em algum tempo faze-lo, e Mad tinha que Nol dizia, ejuntamente para o pôr impugnar se quizera, Maj. Será fremente, porque o tempo Mad dá lugar para Maj. O fundamento he, que o D. Fr. António Mad pode ser Nosso Governador & ter legítimo impedimento, este, que está ordenado por Maj. vide vidas no D. Adriano da Cunha, pois caso Megad. & Maguelhe tempo fora governador Mad podia exceder o modo em prender ao ditto D., e a outros dos clérigos), e excede de ficar o encomendado na excomunhão de capítulos siguis, (vidente como diz a glosa Commente Recebida na Clem. V. S. Nonnulli de excubitis Eccles. Navare in Manu. li. Cap. 28. W. 38. aos quais refere, segue Manuel Rodrigues in quest. Vig. Tom. 12. q. 64. a 7. §. 3º in fine), do diz D. Fr. António excede o modo em prender os ditos padres, porquanto além de os prender da parte do Santo Ofício, (sem ter licença) para isso, o fez com broquel de gente em Huid. Maior, familiaris, que punham magos videntes, nos dias, Christos, e os descompostos de maneira, (houve dito geral encandado outra cidade, & por esta causa se noutolveu toda). Dizemos: Caso Megad. & Maguelhe tempo fora Gov. Já ora estão o Mad vera, senado o Pe.

Page 2

[Title]

di dito Cap. Siguij, Iudente, cuja affeluid he Meirrada á Sê Apostolica, e quem esta ligado ed excomunhad, o declarado, esta privado de jurisdicad Ecclesiastica, q tinha, como couta de Minis. bispos, q Vefme. Soqroj de Coimbra qij digo 14. Sed. 4. Cathefin estando o dito P. Excom- mungado (Nas Muradi; Caso Negado que dantey tivera jurisdicad, p. Madita Excommunhad em q encores ficou privado della).

[Marginalia — right]

O

[Main text]

Outro impedimento tem o P.e Frey Antonio p.º Nāo poder Ser Vigario Geral, e Gov. desta Bispada, ahe ser Religioso Mendicante da Ordem de S. Domingos; porq aindaq os Majs Religiosos com licenca de Seus Superiores possam ser Vigarios, Dej Bis- pos, com hua ou Mendicantes) Nāo podem Jer, como diz Eudo, e o Cardell Na Clement. 3d de Regularib. N.º 6. Refuto in pract. Beneficiali 1. de Vicario Epi. N.º 32. a onde em prova de sua Opiniao allega a Clement. 1. §. ad probanç de Regularib. Ca Clement.º Merique Francisco Marco in quest. delphiniany p. 05. q 1287. N.º 1. Jved Andre, e Igndia in Cap. Finali extra de Clarius egrotan Antonio de Brito in grado de jurisd. Epi. Cap. 6. N.º 43. Paulo Furos de Niute Vig. Eude. Cap. 17. N.º 100. lib. 2. Conced de const. Episcop. N.º 5. Marco Antonio Cuen inst. juri can. 1.º de Vicario Episcopi N.º 56. aos quays Vefme. Segue Brosia depor. Vicarij lib. 3. q 6. 40. N.º 2º. Azor inst. Moral tom. 2. lib. 3. cap. 43. q.º 10. ad finem, e o fundamentu Principal, — que para isto hd., como di o Cardell in Clementina plubus N.º 14. de electione & o Concilio Tridentino Sess.º 25. de Regul. Cap. 1. onde Manda aos Pre- lados, que Guardem inteiramente todos aquillos que per- tence á observancia Regular, e que ante com a Comu- nidade Mo Comer, vestir etc.

Page 3

[Page]

2 Ande del May he adquirido Povos, que he contra a Sua Propriedade; y lhe foron provados d’algũa sorte, que pelo (M)eny em partículas Nada tinham Deixo, e com a dita grata y Reprovivem tem ocasionado de cometer Algũas Simônias, Comprando, ou pretendendo comprar Bispos e Hierarquias. Como di Sorrio, No lugar Referido. Delles May ocasionado de se Mad contentarem com o comer da Communidade, e De o Mandarem Fazer fora: e Noua3 occasio3 falemos, que Cadio o Fr. António, por quanto tem adquirido m. dinheiros Neste tempo aqy foi Vigário Geral, e com elles Comprou Muitas peças, que Mandou depisar para gordinhar a Minha deste Bispado da China, onde Se contenta co o Comer da Communidade, e assim de Dinheiro o Manda fazer fora a Casa de Suas devotas, Onde lhe vem felhads, y por que dizem Je arrecde lhe dim propoha). Outro Fundam. podia haver p. os dits Religiosos Mad serem Vigários Geraes, Nun Governador, lhe, offendo Alguem, o querem Ser wder de sos Morteiros, o que vemos Ser acontecido No Mosteiro de S. Domingos, porque athe omer ms Frey Sophonio para dar Fidalidad de Alguãs Cousas Malfitas, que se lhe Entrenhiam, Je dissh: pod com Seu Frey, que forad Cauza De as Marfavorecer? E Alguãs Fetas, que Je Costumad Fazer Neste Ce, af Irnofficio, e Dinhe3 de Faur, por No Mesmo tempo Je Fizerem outras Na Igreja de S. Domingos, pelo que edis qe Frey António Nad convem Offr, Nem ainda, queria pode Ser Govd, que se athe Agora offre mais, Por Mai3 (Nad poderem), e porq [UNCLEAR: word] de homm (and athe ver Je vinha) apontouq (Nem edo, e Mas je) entende3 como, q elle o podia ser.

Translation

Page 1

**Translation (Modern UK Academic English)**

*Year 1523. Sixth, on the Foundation.*

We, the undersigned, having deliberated in our respective chambers, discussed and resolved upon foundations of considerable breadth and solemnity, addressed to His Lordship the Bishop Dom Diogo Veloso. In our communication, we designated—by way of formal custody—the individual whom *Nolo Mad* had previously held in custody; and we transmitted this matter to you, Father Córdova.

We questioned *Nolo* as to whether he had treated this foundation as a basis for challenge—just as he had contested papal authority. Now that *Nolo Mad* has himself raised the question, we affirm that *Nolo* had, at one time, intended to act upon it; yet *Mad* maintained that *Nolo* had declared—as part of the same discussion—that he would also wish to proceed with such a challenge, *provided that the timing permitted*. Indeed, the present moment is opportune, for circumstances now afford sufficient latitude to do so.

The foundational argument is as follows: That the Reverend Father António (*D. Fr. António*) *Mad* may lawfully serve as our Governor—and may legitimately invoke impediment—rests upon an arrangement formally sanctioned by *Maj.* (i.e., the *Majestade*, or sovereign authority). See, for instance, the biographical accounts recorded in the life of Dom Adriano da Cunha. For if, during the tenure of *Megad.* and *Maguelhe*, the governorship had already been exercised by *Mad*, then *Mad* could have exceeded the lawful bounds in arresting the said prelate—and other clergy—thereby contravening canonical norms. Moreover, such conduct would place the entrusted official (*encomendado*) under ecclesiastical censure, including excommunication pronounced by cathedral chapters (*capítulos siguis*), as explicitly stipulated in the gloss on *Clementinae V, tit. Nonnulli de excubitis Ecclesiarum Navarrorum*, in *Manuale*, lib. cap. 28, W. 38—a passage cited by Manuel Rodrigues in *Quaestiones Vigilantes*, Tomus XII, quaestio 64, art. 7, §3, *in fine*.

It is further alleged that *D. Fr. António* *Mad* exceeded his lawful authority in arresting the aforementioned priests—not only by acting on behalf of the Holy Office *without prior episcopal licence*, but also by deploying armed retainers (*broquel de gente em Huid. Maior*), including *familiares* (lay officials attached to the Inquisition), who publicly intimidated witnesses—including those bearing testimony on feast days (*dies Christi*)—and subjected them to grossly improper treatment. This conduct reportedly provoked widespread public indignation: ‘a general outcry arose in another city’, and ‘on this account, the entire matter was subsequently suspended’.

We conclude: If *Megad.* and *Maguelhe* served as governors in their time, then *Mad*’s current appointment must be subject to rigorous scrutiny—especially given the documented irregularities. The matter now rests before the Chapter (*senado*), and the Priest (*Pe.*) is duly apprised.

Page 2

**Title:** On the said Captain Siguij, a Judge whose affiliation is with the Apostolic See, and who has been declared excommunicated; consequently, he is deprived of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction he formerly held as a suffragan bishop—namely, the Bishop of Coimbra. As stated in *Sedulius*, Book IV, Chapter 4 (*Cathen*), while the said priest was under sentence of excommunication (‘in the Muradi’), it was denied that he had ever lawfully possessed jurisdiction prior to that sentence; and, having been placed under the aforementioned excommunication, he remained—and continues to remain—deprived thereof.

*[Marginal note — right-hand margin]*
O

**Main text:**
A further impediment prevents Father Frei António from serving as Vicar General and Governor of this diocese: namely, his status as a mendicant religious of the Order of Saint Dominic. Although certain religious, with the express permission of their superiors, may be appointed vicars or even bishops, mendicant religious—including Dominicans—are expressly prohibited from holding such offices. This prohibition is affirmed by Eudo and by Cardinal Naclerius in *Clementina*, Book III, *De Regularibus*, no. 6; by *Refutatio in Praxi Beneficiali*, Book I, *De Vicario Episcopali*, no. 32; and by *Clementina*, Book I, *Ad Probationem de Regularibus*, §1. The authority of Cardinal Merique Francisco Marco is cited in his *Quaestiones Delphinienses*, p. 5, q. 1287, no. 1; likewise, the opinions of André and Índia are adduced in the *Capitulum Finale*, *Extra De Claro Egrotante*, and those of António de Brito concerning episcopal jurisdiction, *Capitulum VI*, no. 43; of Paulo Furos de Niute, *Vicarius*, *Eudo*, *Capitulum XVII*, no. 100, Book II; of *Concessio de Constitutionibus Episcopalis*, no. 5; of Marco Antonio Cuen, *Institutiones Juris Canonici*, Book I, *De Vicario Episcopi*, no. 56; and of Segovia, *De Potestate Vicariorum*, Book III, q. 6, art. 40, no. 2. Azor’s *Institutiones Morales*, Volume II, Book III, Chapter 43, question 10, *ad finem*, is also cited. The principal foundation for this position is set forth by the Cardinal in *Clementina*, *De Electione*, no. 14, and by the Council of Trent, Session XXV, *De Regularibus*, Chapter I, which commands prelates to observe scrupulously all provisions pertaining to the regular observance—including communal living, shared meals, common dress, and other constitutive elements of the mendicant life.

Page 3

[Page]

2

Ande del May had acquired peoples—i.e., parishes or ecclesiastical benefices—which were contrary to his rightful incumbency; and it was demonstrated, in some measure, that he possessed *nothing at all* by virtue of the (M)eny [i.e., *mensa episcopalis*, the episcopal revenue fund], having dissipated its resources entirely. Moreover, through the said ‘grata’ [i.e., *gratia*, a form of papal dispensation or favour] and ‘reprovivem’ [i.e., *reprobae vivendi*, a term denoting irregular or morally suspect modes of livelihood], he occasioned the commission of certain acts of simony—namely, the purchase, or attempted purchase, of bishoprics and other ecclesiastical offices. As occurred, for instance, at the aforementioned place.

Further, Ande del May caused certain religious to become dissatisfied with the communal provisions (*comer da comunidade*, i.e., the shared sustenance and stipends allocated to members of a religious house), prompting them to demand that such provisions be dispensed outside the community. A further instance arose when Fr. António fell from office: it was alleged that, during the period in which he served as Vicar General, he had amassed considerable sums of money; with these funds, he purchased numerous items, which he subsequently had gilded (*depisar para gordinhar*)—ostensibly to embellish the episcopal residence (*minha deste bispado da China*, i.e., the bishop’s official residence in the Diocese of China)—though in practice he contented himself solely with the communal provisions, while diverting monetary resources to the house of his female devotees (*casa de suas devotas*), where he received favours (*felhads*, i.e., *favores*—material or spiritual benefits). It is reported that, when questioned on this matter, he replied evasively: ‘Who would dare accuse me?’ (*Je arrecde lhe dim propoha*—a phonetic rendering of the Portuguese *‘Quem ousaria acusar-me?’*).

Another foundation existed whereby the aforementioned religious might serve as Vicars General or even as Governors (*Nun Governador*); yet, should any individual offend them, they sought to assume authority over their own mortuaries (*wder de sos Morteiros*, i.e., *superioritas super sua mortuarium*—jurisdiction over burial rights and associated revenues). This we have observed occurring at the Monastery of São Domingos: indeed, the friars there appointed Fr. Sofónio to attest to the fidelity—or rather, to verify the legitimacy—of certain questionable matters (*Fidalidad de Algũas Cousas Malfitas*) brought to their attention. When asked whether Fr. Sofónio could act impartially—given that he himself stood to benefit from the favourable disposition of those very matters—he responded: ‘Could I not act alongside my fellow friar?’ (*pod com Seu Frey, que forad Cauza De as Marfavorecer?*—i.e., *‘Poderia eu agir com meu frade, que seria causa de as favorecer?’*). Moreover, certain practices which he customarily undertook in this capacity—such as accepting fees (*Dinhe3 de Faur*, i.e., *dinheiros de favor*, unofficial payments for ecclesiastical services) and performing duties (*af Irnofficio*)—coincided temporally with other irregular activities carried out within the Church of São Domingos. Consequently, it was determined that Fr. António was wholly unsuited to hold office (*Nad convem Offr*), nor did he wish—nor was he deemed fit—to serve as Governor (*queria pode Ser Govd*); indeed, although he continued to offer himself for appointment up to the present time, no one has been able to nominate him (*por Mai3 [Nad poderem]*), nor has any competent authority (*homm*, i.e., *homem*, meaning an officially authorised person) designated him for the post—neither formally (*Nem edo*), nor informally (*e Mas je*); and, moreover, it remains unclear (*entende3 como*) how he could possibly be considered eligible (*q elle o podia ser*).

• Location
  • Portugal
    • Biblioteca da Ajuda
      • Jesuítas na Ásia. Collection
        • 49-V-6