[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Dark Ages](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages) › [Travellers (1500–1858)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel) › [Storia do Mogor](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci) › [Storia do Mogor (Irvine)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine) › 358.4 # Storia do Mogor 358.4 Storia do Mogor (Irvine) 358.4 - **Language:** English ### [358.4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.358.4.1) If they say that his Holiness and the Sacred Congregation have not sent them \[the decrees\] to re-establish us in our ancient mission, and that this subject is not in the least touched upon in the said decrees, will they tell me how they would in that case interpret the following words: 'In locis in quibus existunt missionarii unius ordinis?' etc. Perhaps, because they are Jesuits, they are exempt from that rule. Then what does this mean: 'Aliorum Religiosorum et etiam Societatis Jesu'? Their acts proceed, perhaps, from their having arguments and pretexts which support what they are doing. In that case, what is the meaning of this: 'sub quovis praetextu'? Perhaps it is because they hold in their hands the authority of his Lordship the Bishop of San Thome. Then what does this mean: 'aut authoritate exercere'? Once more, it may be they have permission to act at their own pleasure without the consent of the Sacred Congregation. What \[223\], then, mean these words: 'absque expressa licentia ejusdem Sacrae Congregationis'? Can it be that if they disobey the said Sacred Congregation their acts will not be open to condemnation? What is this, then: 'Sub poena privationis officii, privilegii, et facultatis, ipso facto incurrenda, non obstantibus quibuscumque'? Perhaps, lastly, the Lord Bishop of San Thomé and the reverend Jesuit fathers are not subject to the Sacred Congregation. Perhaps the Sacred Congregation has no authority over them. ### [358.4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.358.4.2) If so, let them put before me the whole of that in writing; I will then hold my tongue and be at peace. Gentlemen, I am absolutely certain that they will do no such thing, which is sufficient proof to any person of discernment, and an obvious revelation that the reverend Jesuit fathers, in acting as they have done, are not devoid of ill-will. If you are in doubt, ask them this yourselves, and you will find them tell you so orally, but will never reduce it to writing. Now, if the Sacred Congregation has the power to issue commands to them whenever judged appropriate, and to inflict on them penalties in case of disobedience, how can they appease their conscience after defying the orders of the said Sacred Congregation, which orders them to obey 'sub poena privationis officii, privilegii, et facultatis, ipso facto incurrenda, non obstantibus quibuscumque'? ### [358.4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.358.4.3) Before the receipt of the decrees of his Holiness and of the Sacred Congregation, the Lord Bishop of San Thomé and the reverend Jesuit fathers were possibly acting in an excusable manner, for it might be assumed that they did not know, in spite of its being a thing of which they should not have been ignorant. But after seeing the decrees, after having approved them, after having notified them to the reverend Jesuit fathers, after having proclaimed them in our church, after being convinced that his Holiness and the Sacred Congregation meant that the Capuchin fathers should re-enter upon their ancient mission, how could Monsignor entrust that mission to the reverend Jesuit fathers by a Pastoral expressly issued? The reverend Jesuit fathers know quite well that the thing is no longer in Monsignor's power, for, as the decrees state, 'sub quovis praetextu aut authoritate exercere absque expressa licentia ejusdem Sacrae Congregationis,' how, then, can they continue to exercise their functions in the usual way? It is no longer a sin of ignorance; it is — pardon me, gentlemen, I hardly dare to say what, and leave you to place upon it the interpretation that you please, and to judge calmly whether the Lord Bishop of San Thome and the reverend Jesuit fathers are right and clear in conscience, or, rather, have all of them incurred the censures set forth in the Sacred Canon? ### [358.4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.358.4.4) However great the injustice committed against us, which cries aloud for vengeance before God and in the sight of men, that is not, however, what most weighs down our hearts. It is a certain letter delivered to the Reverend Father Esprit of Tours on November 3, 1706, concerning which the Lord Bishop of San Thome, without reflecting upon whether what he imputed to us is true or false, has written a letter to you in such hard, cruel, sharp words that the public will hardly believe their eyes. However, I constrain myself to quote a few expressions, solely that you may satisfy yourselves, gentlemen, whether they correspond with the original in your possession: 'It concerns you, gentlemen; it is your business to preserve the peace, and uphold my jurisdiction as set forth by me, by compelling the reverend Capuchin fathers, through measures of the requisite rigour, to desist.' You gentlemen who are at Pondicherry know how the Capuchin fathers have behaved. Tell me what is the scandal they have caused, that they should be dealt with in so harsh a way and spoken of in terms so hard? If the Capuchin Fathers had refused to obey, or, rather, had they been wicked men, persons given up to every vice, could worse have been done to them than consigning them to the secular arm, with the direction \[225\] that they should be treated with the utmost rigour of the law? ### [358.4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.358.4.5) Before giving you orders like this, the Lord Bishop of San Thome, as it would seem, could never have read the contents of the Patents conceded to the Capuchin fathers by Henry III. of happy memory. Because, had his Lordship read them, he would have seen about half-way through the said Patent the following words : 'In order that we and our aforesaid subjects may benefit by the prayers and orisons of the said religious fraternity, We have taken and placed and hereby take and place the aforesaid religious fraternity called the Capuchins of the Order of St. Francis, as well as their monasteries, congregations, dependents, and all thereto appertaining, under our protection and special safeguard and that of the kings our successors, of our special grace, plenary power and regal authority. . . .,' etc. Most probably the Lord Bishop of San Thomé has never read the words contained in the Patents of Louis XIV. now reigning. For his Lordship, who professes such great respect for our Invincible Monarch, since he places in his hands the decision about the cure of the Malabārīs, would not in that case have made over to the secular arm friars whom His Most Christian Majesty takes under his singular protection and special safeguard. Here are a few phrases from the Patent we have obtained : ### [358.4.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.358.4.6) 'Equally we desire and it is Our Pleasure that they enjoy the same in perpetuity, permitting them by Our grace and authority, as above stated, to establish themselves again and build convents and houses in all such places as may be offered or given to them hereafter, and that they may carry out therein their religious functions in pursuance of their laudable and saintly custom ; the said places, as also every other thing that is and can be of service to them, we have freed and do by these presents free, permitting them further to remove the said convents and habitations to other more convenient spots, and to this effect, therefore, so far as necessary, we have taken and placed and hereby take and place under our singular protection and safeguard their persons, convents, and all the things \[226\] that they have or may hereafter have,' etc. A little farther on we read : 'We forbid every sort of person, of whatever station or condition, whoever he may be, to disturb them or offer them any impediment under any pretext whatsoever, and in whatever manner it may be. These things we enjoin on our faithful and well-beloved lieutenants in our courts, parliaments, chamber of accounts, the court of aids, the procurators-general and their substitutes, bailiffs, seneschals, provosts and their deputies, and every other official whom it may regard,' etc. ### [358.4.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.358.4.7) Probably the Lord Bishop of San Thomé, when he wrote those words to your Council \[see ante\], did not know that His Most Christian Majesty would not concede any respect to episcopal authority in cases where we were badly treated without cause. For there are many judgments by the councils of the parliaments of Paris, Toulouse, Grenoble, Rennes and elsewhere, of July 17, 1662, May 12, 1663, and of the council of Sens in 1667, and others fulminated against the Lord Bishop of Alets, \[the Archbishop of\] Sens, and other prelates. Yet these had not oppressed us in the severe way adopted by the Lord Bishop of San Thome. All these things you may see, gentlemen, in an extract from the Registers of Parliament entered at the head of our Rule, from which we take a few phrases. 'Meanwhile, that the petitioners may be maintained in the possession of the rights and privileges of their Order, we forbid the Lord Archbishop of Sens and all others to disturb or interfere with their persons, or to hinder their ordinary functions, as also we direct all priests, rectors, rural deans and all others that they issue neither proclamation nor order in regard to any decrees, interdicts, or excommunications,' etc. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.358.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.358.4) · Pramāṇa