¹ See, for instance, Archivio Segreto Vaticano [ASV], Segreteria di Stato, 251, 1875, speaking of a papal letter of September 20, 1873, which condemns Masonry, and was sent directly to the Bishops for publication. The whole Bishops’ Question was essentially concerning their denial of the right of placet by the king.

² It is true that an alvará of September 4, 1804 practically cut off all contact between the Portuguese court and the Roman Curia. There was an interchange of notes between Bishop Lorenzo de Nisibi, (Nuncio Caleppi) and Fernando de Portugal on this subject on Oct. 31, 1808 (Arquivo Nacional [Rio de Janeiro], Coleção Eclesiástica, Caixa 940, doc. “Nunciatura”). On January 7, 1809, the 1804 alvará was revoked and it was commanded by the king “que se observe daqui em diante o que antes da sua promulgação se praticava, em quanto sobre esta materia não tomar nova deliberação” (ASV, Portogallo, 143). I also found in the ASV, Segr. di Stato, 251, Busta 447 (1813–1815) seven pages of short extracts of Nuncio Caleppi’s correspondence with Rome during the years 1808–1814.

³ A. J. Lacombe, “O Aspecto Religioso da Questão dos Bispos,” Verbum, I (Dec, 1944), 333–338. He mentions earlier conflicts in the 1830’s, in 1855, and in 1862, all of them serious enough to have become “questions.” The 1855 difficulty was concerning government presentation of an unworthy candidate in Mariana. See “Cartas de D. Antônio Ferreira Viçoso, Bispo de Mariana, ao Visconde do Uruguay,” RIHGB, 242 (Jan.-Mar. 1959), 424–437, for some of the correspondence. The government’s viewpoint has been widely publicized by Lloyd Mecham, J., Church and State in Latin America. A history of politico-ecclesiastical relations (Chapel Hill, 1934), pp. 316 f.Google Scholar

⁴ The reaction of the Brazilian bishops was very strong until it was undermined by the results of the Penedo Mission; however protests continued even after the “Gesta Tua” letter. See ASV, Nunziatura Brasile, Buste 35, 38, 41, 42, and ANR, Col. Ecl., C. 893, pac. 3, doc. 72, and 898, doc. 45. Among these documents, the letter of Dom Pedro Lacerda of Rio de Janeiro to the Emperor deserves to be better known. Lacerda reports to Mons. Ferrini of the Nunciature: “Enviei ao Imperador minha representação adherindo a do Arcebispo. Dice-lhe que não podia assistir indifferente a esta luta entre Igreja e lojas excomungadas, e que tanto tern perseguido os Bispos. Dice-lhe que D. Vital era victima da seita—que queriamos liberdade para ser-nos Catholicos e cidadaos livres. Em fim que eu era e sou Catholico, ergo—reputo Maçons excomungados—não reconheço poder para julgar-me nem Bispo nem Catholico em cousas de Fe senão nos Tribunaes da Igreja; e que não reconheço Placet para effeitos moraes e obligatorios para as consciencias …” (B.41).

⁵ See, for instance, the three letters of Sept. 14, 17, 19, 1875 of Pedro II to Caxias. The first and third are found in the Biblioteca Nacional, Coleção Tobias Monteiro; that of the 17th is in the ANR, Coleção Duque de Caxias, Cod. 551, No. 1, pp. 140 f. Incidentally, the letter of Sept. 19, destroys a favorite statement of Brazilian historians that Pedro’s daughter influenced her father to grant the amnesty. Pedro says that periodical articles “obrigão-me a insistir na necessidade de declarar o que é verdade que minha filha em nada influiu no meu animo nem procurou influir para a amnistia.”

⁶ A good example exists in the traditional Third Order of Penance of St. Francis, with headquarters in the “Golden Church” alongside the Chapel of S. Antonio Convent in the Largo da Carioca, Rio de Janeiro, where today Masons and even some non-Christians are members. I know this through personal contact.