{
  "bookName": "History of Christianity in India: Source Materials",
  "authorName": "M. K. Kuriakose",
  "publisherName": "Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge",
  "publicationYear": 2011,
  "chapterNumber": 96,
  "chapterName": "1838. Padroadoist Reaction to the Papal Brief Multa Praeclare",
  "pageFrom": 141,
  "pageTo": 146,
  "pages": [
    {
      "pageNumber": 141,
      "ocrText": "SOURCE MATERIALS\n141\nWherefore We trust that those who have not hesitated to oppose\nUs hitherto will easily perceive that they should take care lest, by\nrefusing obedience to Our Decrees made in the present state of\nthings, they openly show that they can produce no reason for their\ndissension, except that of a disobedient spirit.\nDeclaring the present letters to be, and that they shall continue\nto be firm, valid and efficacious, and that they are to have their full\nand complete effect, and to retain the same, and are to avail to their\nwidest extent for those in whose concern they have been issued, or\nwhom they shall at any future time affect, notwithstanding any\nenactments to the contrary.\nGiven at Rome, at St. Peter's, under the Ring of the Fisherman,\nthe 24th day of April 1838, the eighth year of Our Pontificate.\nE. Card. de Gregorio.\n96. PADROADIST REACTION TO THE PAPAL BRIEF\nMULTA PRAECLARE (1838 A.D.)\nThe representatives of the Padroado (those under the patronage\nof the Portuguese King) in India refused to recognise the validity of\nthe brief of Pope Gregory XVI, Multa praeclare, and hence intensi-\nfied the conflict between the Padroadists and Propagandists that so\nweakened the Roman Catholic Church in India during the ninteenth\ncentury. The Padroadist position was put forward in a Pastoral by the\nArchbishop-elect of Goa, F. Antonio Feliciano de Santa Rita Carvalho,\ndated 8th October 1838. An English summation of the original Portu-\nguese is found in Ernest R. Hull, The Bombay-Mission History\nwith a Special Study of the Padroado Question, Vol. I, pp. 245-249.\nI. A rumour has been spread abroad on all sides by the\nPropagandists about the recent arrival of an aposto-\nlic brief issued by Pope Gregory XVI, abolishing the\npatronage of the crown of Portugal in the dioceses\nof Malacca, Mylapore, Cochin and Cranganore,\nhanding them over to certain Vicars-Apostolic, and\nannulling in them the metropolitan jurisdiction of\nGoa. They (the Propagandists) have also given\nout that within a short time another apostolic brief\nwill be issued, separating from the metropolitan of\nGoa, and giving over to the Vicar or the Great\nMogul, the churches situated in British territories\nnorth of Goa on the ground that the Queen of\nPortugal has lost her right of patronage in these\ndominions for not maintaining the missionaries sent\nto these parts.",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 142,
      "ocrText": "142\nHISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\nII. It is quite conceivable that the propagators of this\nrumour are capable of forging such a document, or\nof extorting it from the Sovereign Pontiff by trickery\nand falsehood, in order to gratify their ambition,\nself-love and avarice.\nIII. When a copy of this apostolic brief came into our\nhands through the Bishop of Mylapore, we could\nsee at once from certain manifest signs that it deserved\nto be rejected from the very outset, either as apocry-\nphal, or else as having been obtained surreptitiously.\nAnd this for the following reasons:\nIV. First, it is contrary to the ordinary usage of the Holy\nSee to treat of a matter of such importance in a mere\nbrief and not in a bull.\nV. But passing this over, it is strange that we should\ndepend on a stray copy coming in our way, and that\nit should not reach us in the official manner, accompa-\nnied by an apostolic letter to the metropolitans or\nordinaries, and fortified by the royal consent, which\nis part of the prescriptive right of the crown.\nVII. The absence of this royal consent, certifying that the\nbrief contains nothing contrary to the rights of the\nqueen, is in itself a sufficient reason why it should\nbe rejected at once.\nVIII. Besides these external arguments there are also\nseveral internal signs that it is surreptitious.\nFirst, the document calls the patronage a privilege.'\nThis is manifestly false, since it is not a privilege but\na right (jus patronatus) resting on the titles of founda-\ntion and endowment, and one which cannot be\nabrogated without the express consent of the king.\nXI. Secondly it is false to say that this 'privilege' had\nfor its object that the sees should not remain vacant\nfor long.\nXII. The title by which the right of patronage was obtained\nare, first, the fact of foundation and endowment, as\nappears in the bulls by which those sees were estab-\nlished; and secondly, prescription or pacific posses-\nsion for over 300 years. It is a true ownership\nlegitimately obtained, legitimately maintained, and\npossessed in good faith; nor can it be lost by reason\nof the sees being left vacant.",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 143,
      "ocrText": "SOURCE MATERIALS\n143\nXIII. It is a real ownership based on the natural law, and\none which therefore cannot be abolished without\nthe consent of the owner.\nXIV. Hence we wonder at the culpable ignorance shown\nby the writer of the brief, not only of the principles\nof canon law, but even of the natural law also.\nXV. If the rights of the queen are guaranteed by the\nnatural law, it follows that even the existing Pope\ncannot abrogate them without diametrically oppos-\ning the will of Christ who came not to destroy but\nto fulfil and who said: 'Render to Caesar the things\nthat are Caesar's.'\nXVI. It is impossible, therefore, that the Pope should\nattempt to violate the rights of the queen-rights\nobtained by legitimate titles and preserved and main-\ntained by immemorial possession-a possession\npurchased by the shedding of rivers of blood and the\nexpenditure of copious treasure for the spread of the\nGospel. It is unthinkable that the Pope should do\nthis; and since he cannot be the author of the pre-\ntended brief, it must have been fabricated by sacrilegi-\nous men.\nXIX. But these are not the only arguments. Besides this,\nthe pretended brief fails to satisfy the 42nd rule of\nthe Chancellary, which for the validity of a bull of\nabrogation requires these four conditions :-first,\nit must specify the time, etc., of the vacancy;\nsecondly, it must show that the time for presenta-\ntion has expired; thirdly, it must have the consent\nof the crown; and fourthly, it must specify the\nprevious bulls which are abrogated.\nXX. The brief makes no specification of the times, etc.,\nof the vacancies, and hence it fails in the first condi-\ntion.\nXXI. The time for presentation to these benefices is not\nspecified or limited, and does not expire. Hence it\nfails in the second condition.\nXXII. Nor does it allege the consent of the crown-no\nsuch consent having been given. Hence it fails in\nthe third condition.",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 144,
      "ocrText": "144\nHISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\nXXIII.\nThere is no mention of the bulls which it is intended\nto abrogate, and hence if fails in the fourth condition.\n(Here follows a list of 19 bulls ranging from 1442 to\nrecent times, express mention of which ought to have\nbeen made in the derogation).\nXVI\n. Another collection of falsities in the brief is, first,\nthe alleged relaxation in faith, morals and discipline\nin the dioceses of the patronage through lack of\nproper pastors; secondly, the alleged unjust\nresistance shown to the Vicars-Apostolic by the\nPadroado bishops; and thirdly, the alleged change\nof circumstances due to these countries having passed\nunder the dominion of a most powerful king, whose\nform of government is declared to be incompatible\nwith the maintenance of the Padroado. All these\nthree points are false.\nFirst, as regards the relaxation of faith, morals and\ndiscipline, everybody knows how lax the Apostolic\nmissionaries (Propagandists) are, for instance with\nregard to dispensations for marriages, etc.; and\nmoreover, how they have no scruple in spreading\ncalumnies against us, calling us schismatics and our\njurisdiction null; nor have they any scruples in\nusurping churches and the jurisdiction of others-\nall with the object of promoting their sinister ends.\nXXVII\n. Even if there be relaxation in the places named in\nthe supposed brief, this is certainly not for want of\npastors, but on account of the blunders and relaxed\nmorals of the Apostolics already mentioned. For\nwhen our clergy show themselves strict maintainers\nof discipline, their subjects threaten at once to run\noff to the Propagandists, where they will easily\nobtain easier treatment, etc. In general, the charge\nof lack of proper pastors is false.\nXXIX.\nSecondly, as regards the opposition show to the\nVicars-Apostolic by the Padroado bishops: This,\nbeing in defence of their proper rights against aggres-\nsion, ought not to be blamed but praised. In fact\nthey would deserve to be punished as unfaithful\nministers if they did not make such opposition in\ndefence of their rights, and against the invasion of\nforeign prelates.\npassage from the instructions\n(Here follows a long passage\ngiven by King Jose I. I. in 1774).",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 145,
      "ocrText": "SOURCE MATERIALS\n145\nXXXIX. As regards the third point, viz., the change of circum-\nstances. Even supposing the change referred to,\nthis should not be made a ground for abolishing the\nright of patronage; which, being founded on the\nnatural law, cannot be abrogated even by the Pope\nhimself. But as to the argument that the British\nGovernment is of such a nature as not to allow the\nPadroado to be exercised, we reply that we have\nactually been exercising this right in British territory\nhitherto, and there is no reason why we should not\ncontinue to do so. Besides this, it would be a\ngrievous injury to Great Britain to suppose that she\nshould fail in fidelity to the treaties sworn between\nherself and Portugal, by which she is bound not to\ninterfere with ecclesiastical jurisdiction-besides her\nprinciple of extending toleration to all religions\nalike.\nXL. With this we may conclude, having shown that the\nbrief is apocryphal, and that it ought therefore to be\nrejected from the outset\nXLI. And when the Apostolics of the Great Mogul appear\nwith their other expected brief, by virtue of which\nthey intend to claim certain churches under our juris-\ndiction north of Goa, we shall in like manner examine\ninto the motives on which it is founded, and see\nwhether it is fortified by the royal consent or not,\nand shall admit it or reject it accordingly. They\nallege that the queen has lost her right over these\nchurches through failing to give proper support to\nthe pastors. This allegation is quite false.\nXLII. It is well known that suitable subsidies were paid\nout of the royal treasury without interruption down\nto the year 1835, when the Prefect ordered them to\nbe suspended till a new and perhaps more regular\norganisation should be given to the missions which\nhad previously belonged to the religious orders now\nextinct. Secondly, it is well known that these\nsubsidies were, with some modification, reestab-\nlished in June of the present year 1838. Thirdly, it\nis well known that under the administration of Goa\nthere were treasuries named after the different\nmissions, e.g., the North, the South, and Canara,\nfrom which funds were derived to meet local needs;\nand we ourselves have often made donations to these\nchurches, as can be proved from our account-books:\nH.C.I.-10",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 146,
      "ocrText": "146\nHISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\nXLIII.\nTherefore the assertion is false, maliciously made\nand spread about by the Apostolics in Bombay.\nBut even if the accusation were true, this would not\nbe a sufficient reason for arguing that the right of\npatronage had been lost. It is well known in canon\nlaw that failure of contribution on the part of a\nsecular patron is not sufficient cause even to suspend,\nstill less to abolish such a right.\n*XLV.\nHence it is manifest how ill-founded are the views\nof the Propagandists in Bombay. Should they\ncome forward with some brief passed by the Congre-\ngation of Propaganda favouring their unjust preten-\nsions, we have declared already that we cannot admit\nany such rescript unless it is fortified by the royal\nconsent. Moreover, we shall make known to the\nPope through competent channels that his Vicars\nin this part of the world have deceived him with\ntheir arbitrary and false informations; and that\nsuch briefs are obreptitious and subreptitious, and\ntherefore he himself ought to approve of their\nrejection.\n*XLV.\nWe have often made our profession of faith and\nobedience to the Holy See; but this is not incompa-\ntible with another oath which we have also taken,\nof equal force and solemnity, to maintain fidelity\nand obedience to our sovereign, and to maintain\nuntouched the prerogatives of the royal patronage\nand of our metropolitan see. And as the supposed\nbrief attacks these royal rights, and offends against\nthe ordinary rights of our suffragans as well as our\nown, we feel bound to protest against and legally\nto resist the execution of this or any similar brief-\nwhich bears clear signs, external and internal, of\nbeing supposititious and false. Moreover by a\nsimilar right we protest against its acceptance by the\ncourt of the British Government; from whom we\nrespectfully ask the necessary support for the mainte-\nnance of our sacred rights, in the name of reason and\njustice, and on account of the solemn treaties signed\nbetween the crowns of Portugal and England.\nXLVII. We order all our subjects not to admit or to give\neffect to the brief referred to, unless it is fortified\nby the royal consent of the queen-to whom we have\n* In E. R. Hull's book the numbers are the same.",
      "status": "completed"
    }
  ]
}