Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:29:20.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opposition to the Third Mexican Council

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Stafford Poole
Stafford Poole*
Affiliation:
Saint Mary’s Seminary, Perryville, Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of the opposition to the Third Mexican Council of 1585 provides a fascinating picture, not only of the determined efforts to undo the work of the most important ecclesiastical meeting of colonial New Spain but also of the various hostilities and animosities, intrigues and rivalries, that were at work in New Spain toward the end of the sixteenth century In the Third Council, the bickering of secular and religious priests, the opposition of bishops to the exorbitant privileges of the religious orders, the encroachments of the civil authority into the domain of the ecclesiastical, and the determination of clerics to defend their privileges and jurisdiction, all converged on the questions of (1) should the Council be permitted to publish its decrees and (2), once published, could they be put into execution?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , October 1968 , pp. 111 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1968 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The author is associate professor of History at Saint Mary’s Seminary, Perryville, Missouri. Research into the European sources of this article was made possible by a grant from the American Philosophical Society.

2 Individual examples of rivalries will appear in the course of the article. Standard histories may be consulted for the general background on conditions in the sixteenth century, for example,

Ricard, Robert, The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico, translated by Simpson, Lesley Byrd (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

Lopetegui, León S. J., and Zubillaga, Félix S. J., Historia de la Iglesia en la América Española: México, América Central, Antillas (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1965).Google Scholar

Cuevas, Mariano S.J., Historia de la Iglesia en México (Tlálpam: 1922).Google Scholar

Bancroft, Hubert Howe, History of Mexico (San Francisco, 1883), volume 2.Google Scholar

Lloyd Mecham, J., Church and State in Latin America (University of North Carolina Press, 1966)Google Scholar, particularly chapter 1.

3 Moya was archbishop of Mexico from 1573 to 1592, visitador of Mexico from 1583 to 1586 and acting viceroy from September, 1584, to October, 1585.

At the present time the best source of conciliar studies is the Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. In addition to a number of tangential materials, it also possesses the four volumes of original papers, acta, and memorials of the first three Mexican Councils. These papers constitute Mexican Manuscripts 266, 267, 268, and 269 and will be hereafter cited as Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, 267, 268, and 269, with the appropriate folio numbers. All quotations are made with the permission of the director of the Bancroft Library.

With the increased interest in the place and importance of the Third Council, it would be impossible to cite all the helpful references. Among those to be cited in this article are:

Vera, Fortino Hipólito, Apuntamientos Históricos de los Concilios Provinciales Mexicanos (México, 1893).Google Scholar

Vera, Fortino Hipólito, Compendio Histórico del Concilio Tercero Mexicano (Amecameca, 1879).Google Scholar

Burrus, Ernest J. S.J., “The Author of the Mexican Council Catechisms,” The Americas, XV (October, 1958), pp. 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ernest J. Burrus, S.J., “The Salazar Report to the Third Mexican Council,” Ibid., XVII (July, 1960), pp. 65–84.

Ernest J. Burrus, S.J., “The Third Mexican Council (1585) in the Light of the Vatican Archives,” Ibid., XXIII (April, 1967), pp. 390–405.

Llaguno, José S.J., La Personalidad Jurídica del Indio y el Tercer Concilio Provincial Mexicano (México, 1963).Google Scholar

Rodríguez, Juan Manuel, La Iglesia en Nueva España a la Luz del IIIer Concilio Mexicano (1585-1596) (Isola dei Liri, 1937).Google Scholar

4 In a personnel report of February 7, 1614, Archbishop Juan Pérez de la Serna spoke of Juan de Salamanca as the choirmaster (chantre) of the cathedral, sixty-six years old, “con gran loa y aprobación,” and of Alonso Muñoz, canon and catedrático, fifty-five years old, as a man of exemplary life, “muy prudente y amigo de la verdad.” Archivo General de Indias (hereinafter cited as AGI), Méjico, legajo 337. The delegation of powers to these two can be found in Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 251.

5 The Licentiate Eugenio de Salazar was fiscal from 1581 to 1589, was made an oidor on March 9, 1589, and later became a member of the Council of the Indies. Cf. Schaefer, Ernesto, El Real y Supremo Consejo de las Indias (Sevilla, 1947), volume 1, pp. 463 and 453Google Scholar. He was also a minor Spanish poet and literary figure of some standing.

The theological consultors were Fray Pedro de Pravia and Fray Melchor de los Reyes, catedráticos in theology at the university; Fray Juan Salmerón, lector in theology at the Franciscan convent; Doctor Juan de la Plaza, S.J., Doctor Hernando Ortiz de Hinojosa, catedrático in philosophy at the university. The canonical consultors were Doctor Juan Zurnero, archdeacon of the cathedral chapter; Doctor Fulgencio de Vich; and Doctor Pedro de Morales, S. J. Cf. Concilios Provinciales, MM 268, f. 59.

The delegation to Ortiz de Hinojosa can be found in MM 266, f. 186 and his sub-delegation on the same folio. Ortiz was the vicar general of the archdiocese of Mexico and later coadjutor bishop of Guatemala. Cuevas, Historia de la Iglesia, II, p. 97.

6 The specific royal command that viceroys assist at the provincial councils can be found in the Recopilación de las Leyes de Indias (Madrid, 1681), Libro 1, título 8, ley 2. This also said that the king had to see the results of the councils beforehand. The only reference given under this law is to Philip II, at Barcelona, May 13, 1585. Cf. also the 1560 cedula of Philip II to be discussed below. In a letter to Philip II, November 7, 1584, Moya de Contreras mentioned that he had already written to ask the king’s approval for his plan to hold a provincial council and that he was taking the king’s silence for consent. He also said that he would preside over it to watch out for the patronato and that it would not be published until the king had seen and approved. AGI, Méjico, L. 337.

7 Cf. below with regard to Moya’s conflicts with the bishops over publication and execution of the Council’s decrees and directives.

8 Cf. Fabián, Francisco y Fuero, , Colección de Providencias Diocesanas del Obispado de la Puebla de Los Ángeles, Hechas y Ordenadas por su Señor Illustrímo (Puebla de los Ángeles, 1770)Google Scholar. This is a compilation of rules and orders for the conduct of civil and religious life based on the work of the Third Council. The author was one of the bishops at the Fourth Mexican Council of 1771.

9 Cf. also Ximeno, José, Opúsculo sobre los Catorce Casos Reservados y otras tantas Excomuniones Sinodales del Concilio Mexicano Provincial Tercero (México, 1816)Google Scholar. In writing his commentary on the reserved confessional cases found in the legislation of the Third Council, the author stated that he was doing so to make up for the lack of material available to confessors who were bound by the legislation of the Council.

10 Cf. Burrus, “The Author of the Mexican Council Catechisms . . .” The copy of the catechism that the bishops sent to Rome can be found in the Biblioteca Vallicelliana in Rome, L 22, ff. 252-277. Cf. also Burras, “The Third Mexican Council . . .” p. 406. In this (p. 396, note 18), Father Burrus refers to the puzzle over the ritual or ceremonial book of the Council. Francisco de Beteta, the bishops’ representative to the pope, definitely mentioned that the ritual was approved by the Congregation of Rites, something which would explain why the Congregation of the Council would know nothing about it. Beteta to the Council of the Indies, undated, but seen in the Council, Apra 30, 1590. AGI, Méjico, Eclesiástico, L. 289. There was likewise a ritual approved for the Mexican Church in 1620 but it is impossible to tell if it was the same as that of the Third Council, AGI, Méjico, L. 337. Father Vera, in Apuntamientos Históricos, p. 32, also mentions the directory for confessors which gave precise instructions on how to deal with penitents who were repartidores or encomenderos. I have not been able to find a copy of it anywhere.

11 It can be found in Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, ff. 24–41. Most of it has been transcribed in Llaguno, La Personalidad Jurídica, pp. 287–324.

12 For further details on the Council’s activities in regard to the repartimientos and the Chichimecas, see my articles, “The Church and the Repartimientos in the Light of the Third Mexican Council, 1585,” The Americas, XX (July, 1963), and “War by Fire and Blood—The Church and the Chichimecas in 1585,” Ibid., XXII (October, 1965).

13 For example, see the comments made by Simpson in his introduction to his translation of Gómara, López de’s Cortéz (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966)Google Scholar to the effect that one of the sources of difference between Bernal Díaz del Castillo and López de Gómara was the fact that the latter was a clérigo, a secular priest. “In Bernal’s mind nothing good can be expected of a . . . secular priest.” He then quotes at length Bernal’s disparaging remarks about the quality of secular priests who worked among the Indians (p. xxi). Since medieval times, the members of the mendicant orders had usually had better reputations than had the secular clergy and were regarded as being the preachers par excellence. The Council of Trent had tried to reverse this somewhat by emphasizing the role of the bishop as preacher.

On the role of the viceroys and civil officials as partisans of the religious, see Ricard, The Spiritual Conquest, p. 254.

14 For some of the difficulties in the case of polygamy, see Ricard, The Spiritual Conquest, pp. 110–115. According to him, the Indians in the Franciscan missions did not begin to limit themselves to one wife until after 1531. He also mentions that Charles V had supported the bishops by a cédula of December 18, 1552 in which he reminded the religious that authority over marriage cases belonged exclusively to the bishops (p. 115).

15 This move is called “tan dura mano” by Grijalva, Juan de, Crónica de la Orden de Nuestro Padre San Agustin en las Prouincias de la Nueva España, en quatro edades desde al eno de 1533 hasta el de 1592 (México, 1624), p. 275 Google Scholar. Other accounts of the incident can be found in Basalenque, Diego, Historia de la Provincia de San Nicolás de Tolentino de Michoacán del orden de Nuestro Padre San Augustín (México, 1673), tomo I, libro I, capitulo XVI, p. 322 Google Scholar, and Vetancurt, Agustín, Teatro Mexicano (México, 1697), parte 4, titulo I, p. 10 ffGoogle Scholar.

Customarily, after a region had been evangelized, the religious kept charge of the Indian parishes, hence the name doctrinas rather than parroquias. “The Council of Trent upset this simple and flexible organization by putting the parish priests under the control of the bishops. The regulars, therefore, had either to give up their doctrinas or submit to the jurisdiction of the bishops. They rejected the latter solution as contrary to the privileges of the religious orders while the former was inadmissible because of the insufficiency of the secular clergy, in numbers as well as in competence.” (Ricard, p. 109). This judgment is somewhat harsh, since the doctrina was atypical, especially in areas where the hierarchy had been established.

16 Basalenque, p. 322. Vetancurt, number 26. A complete translation of the Omnímoda can be found in Eugene Shiels, W. S. J., King and Church: The Rise and Fall of the Patronato Real (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1961), pp. 212–214 Google Scholar. Cf. also Hernáez, Francisco Javier, Colección de Bulas, Breves, y otros Documentos Relativos a la Iglesia de América y Filipinas (Bruxelles, 1879), volume I, p. 382 Google Scholar. On Motolinía’s use of the faculty to confirm, see Ricard, p. 126. On such a basis, it is easy to understand why someone like Diego de Landa was able to exercise the power of episcopal inquisitor in Yucatan.

17 Vetancurt, number 27. Basalenque, p. 324. It is quoted in full in Grijalva, pp. 388–389.

18 Vetancurt, loc. cit.

19 Grijalva, p. 544. Basalenque, p. 363. Vetancurt, number 30.

20 This is not in the 1681 edition of the Recopilación.

21 Basalenque, loc. cit., and Grijalva, p. 545. There is a great deal of disagreement in the conciliar documents over whether or not the religious knew the native languages.

22 Cabildo of Mexico to the Council of the Indies, AGI, Méjico, L. 339. There are many other complaints from the cabildo about the religious. On March 11, 1586, they wrote to complain about the disadvantages that came from the religious’ being able to buy inheritances, estancias, etc. AGI, Méjico, L. 339. On June 10, 1583, both the archbishop and the cabildo wrote about the extensive goods and possessions of the Dominicans and Augustinians. Ibid.

23 Basalenque, p. 33. Vetancurt, number 34.

24 It is summarized in Vetancurt, number 34 and Basalenque, p. 335. It can be found reproduced in Grijalva, p. 555 f. The only date on it is 1585 and it is addressed to the provincials of the religious orders. Note the extension of the patronato into a purely theological area. After 1605 the bishops were allowed to make use of visitors.

25 Cf. Vetancurt, number 32. Reference to the fact that this bull was issued by Gregory XIII can be found in Vera, Apuntamientos Históricos, p. 20. I have been unable to locate this particular bull. Pius V, by a famous bull Etsi Mendicantium, May 16, 1567, had confirmed all the privileges of religious orders which were not contrary to Trent. This can be found in Bullarium Diplomatum et Privilegiorum Sanctorum Romanorum Pontificum Taurinensis Editio (25 vols.; Augustae Taurinorum, 1857–1872), VII, 573. Cf. also McCartney, Marcellus O. F. M., Faculties of Regular Confessors (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1949), p. 5 Google Scholar. Gregory XIII did issue a bull In Tanta, March 1, 1573, which revoked only those privileges granted by Pius V and which were contrary to Trent. Cf. Hernáez, I, 477, and the Turin Bullarium, VIII, pp. 39–41. Gregory XIII had also forbidden the mendicants to share in the privileges of the Jesuits by the constitution Pium et Utile, September 22, 1582. Bullarium, VIII, p. 397.

26 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, ff. 180–191.

27 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 44. Llaguno, La Personalidad Jurídica, p. 290.

28 Ibid. The decree of the Council of Trent, session 25, chapter XI, is “. . . nee de cetero [monasteria] erigantur sine episcopi, in cuius dioecesi erigenda sunt, licentia prius obtenta.” Sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum . . . additis declarationibus (Antwerp, 1644), p. 515. The original Latin of the Tridentine decrees together with a serviceable English translation can be found in Schroeder, H.J. O.P., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with English Translations (Saint Louis: Herder, B., 1955)Google Scholar. Chapter XI can be found in Latin on pp. 492–492 and in English on pp. 224–225.

29 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 44. Llaguno, pp. 292–294.

30 Ibid. Chapter XIV can be found in Schroeder, op. cit., in Latin on pp. 493–494, and in English on p. 226.

31 Ibid. For some of the personal defects of many of the religious, see Ricard, p. 239 f. and for complaints against them by the secular clergy, p. 246.

32 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 45. Llaguno, pp. 295–296. The December 1 letter of the bishops, to be mentioned below, repeats the same general charges. In it, the bishops mentioned that they had already sent the enumeration of the doctrinas to the Council of the Indies. AGI, Audiencia de Méjico, Eclesiástico, L. 287, contains a number of letters of complaint written by the Franciscans of Mexico against the activities of Fray Alonso Ponce, the Commissary General who, it was claimed, gave away half the Franciscan houses to Moya de Contreras. Ponce was supported by Moya and the younger Luis de Velasco, while the religious were supported by the Viceroy Villamanrique and by the oidores Farfán, Palacios, and Robles, the three suspended by Moya in his capacity as visitador.

33 See Shiels, King and Crown, chapter 15, and Mecham, Church and State, chapter 1. Cf. also Fernández, Manuel Giménez, El Concilio IV Provincial Mejicano (Sevilla, 1939)Google Scholar, for a fine example of regalist domination of a provincial council.

34 A summary of this dispute, together with the sources, can be found in Leonard, Irving, Books of the Brave (New York: Gordian Press, 1964), pp. 194–197 Google Scholar.

35 Bancroft, History of Mexico, II, pp. 740–753. The documentation on this visita can be found in AGI, Audiencia de Méjico, L. 336, 741, and 70.

The May 4 letter of Moya to the king can be found in L. 741. Philip II made the note on it, “Y sera muy bien yr introduziendo y procurando q[ue] vayan a las indias personas en quien concurran todas buenas qualidades y vos terneis particular cuidado desto.” According to Schaefer, El Real y Supremo Consejo, I, p. 453, Hernando Saavedra de Valderrama was appointed oidor on June 1, 1585. This further complicates matters, because he is never mentioned or listed as an oidor in any of the Bancroft documents, that is, up to December of 1585.

Moya’s letter of November 6, 1586, written from Sanlúcar de Barrameda, can be found in L. 336.

On May 2, 1586, Eugenio de Salazar wrote to the Council of the Indies that the audiencia was shorthanded because of Moya’s suspensions (L. 70). On October 1, 1587, Villamanrique wrote to complain that of the two oidores who remained active, one was in bad health and so there was really only one on duty. He himself had appointed two interim oidores, Salazar and Santiago del Riego. (According to Schaefer, I, 453, Riego was appointed September 28, 1589). On March 2, 1588, the Council of the Indies informed Philip II that the audiencia was still shorthanded, with only three active oidores, one of whom was in bad health and the other two of whom were new appointees. Francisco de Sande, the only remaining member of the original audiencia and the only one who was still active when Villamanrique wrote in 1587, was then under investigation and the Council was pessimistic about the outcome. (L. 741).

36 Documentos Inéditos del Siglo XVI para la Historia de México, colegidos y anotados por el P. Mariano Cuevas, S.J. (México, 1914), pp. 279–283.

37 The Feria treatise can be found in Concilios Provinciales, MM 268, ff. 186–203. The Salazar letter is in the same volume, ff. 204–219. See the transcription by Father Burrus, “The Salazar Report,” cited above, n. 3.

38 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 49. Llaguno, p. 319.

39 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 47. Llaguno, p. 307.

40 A partial translation of this bull can be found in Shiels, pp. 158–163.

41 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, ff. 47–48. Llaguno, pp. 307–309.

42 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 6. The 1560 cédula can be found in the Recopilación, Libro I, titulo VII, ley 6. This is the first instance of the legal predicament in which Moya found himself. However it should be remembered that he had specifically promised the King that the Council would have prior royal approval.

43 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, ff. 6–7.

44 Ibid., f. 7.

45 Ibid.

46 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 264. AGI, Indiferente General, L. 2986, ff. 1–2.

47 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 267. AGI, loc. cit.

48 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 269. AGI, loc. cit., ff. 3–5.

49 AGI, loc. cit., ff. 17–18. This is one of the few documents not duplicated in the Bancroft collection.

50 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 258. What Salcedo asked was “Most Reverend Gentlemen here present, are you pleased to approve, decree, and establish the decrees which have been read and which have been published in this holy provincial synod of Mexico?“ Note his use of the term “synodus“ to refer to a provincial council.

51 Ibid., f. 169

52 Ibid., f. 172

53 Ibid., ff. 173–175 inclusive.

54 Ibid., f. 170. Some of the passages are very obscure and it is impossible to date the document precisely.

55 Ibid., f. 242. This is signed by Salamanca alone.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid., ff. 247–249.

58 Ibid., f. 272. Emphasis in the original. Another copy of the letter, addressed only to the audiencia, can be found in AGI, Indiferente General, L. 858 and L. 2986, ff. 5–6. The deprivation of income was a common threat to bring recalcitrant churchmen into line.

59 AGI, Indiferente General, L. 858. The bishops got a belated revenge when Diego Romano was put in charge of Villamanrique’s residencia. Cf. Bancroft, History of Mexico, II, 755–756, where he incorrectly identifies the bishop as Pedro Romano.

60 A copy of the 1585 cédula is in Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 273, and in AGI, Indiferente General, L. 2986, f. 6v.

61 Concilios Provinciales, MM 269, f. 274, contains the audiencia’s order and f. 296 Moya’s notification to the bishops. Cf. also AGI, loc. cit., f. 6v-7.

62 Ibid., ff. 294–295, inclusive.

63 Ibid., ff. 176–180, inclusive.

64 Ibid., f. 180.

65 Ibid., f. 181. At this point, it seems that the two appeals which are to be found in ff. 188–189, should be dealt with. Both are undated but they reasonably belong to this stage of the dispute.

The first (f. 188) is a petition entered before the audiencia by Hernández, Vela, and Ortiz de Hinojosa. They began by reminding the audiencia of the appeals which they had already made and which were well known, and the refusal of the bishops and Salcedo to exercise their offices in favor of the petitioners. The bishops, they contended, did not hesitate to act as judges in passing decrees or in seeing to the advantage of others or in having copies made of the Council, whenever this suited their purpose. But they refused to do so when the appellants turned in their petitions. Thus they had to come before the audiencia “por via de fuerza.” They now understood that the bishops were making efforts to copy the Council hurriedly for the purpose of sending it to Spain on the next flota so that it could be confirmed by the pope. With it, of course, would go only the bishops’ side of the story, with no note of the contradictions and inconveniences involved. If they should succeed, great harm would result, especially to the patronato. The appellants concluded by asking that the audiencia command the bishops “that they not make or have made any copy nor authorize the said Council and its decrees without our petitions, allegations, appeals, and protests.” They should also be compelled to inform the audiencia if they have done any of these things yet.

The second plea (f. 189) is from the same men but its meaning is more obscure. They again pointed out the difficulties that they had had with the bishops and their inability to get a hearing for their appeals. The audiencia had been unable to see these appeals and the three clerics asked that a messenger be sent to get them, together with all the papers and instruments of the Council. This was an affair which closely touched the patronato and since the new viceroy was so close to Mexico, it was fitting and proper that public notice be given that this was all being done by force. The archbishop had the obligation to represent the appellants before the Council.

66 The appeal is on f. 191. The bishops’ answer is on f. 192.

67 For the date of his arrival, see Bancroft, History of Mexico, II, 742.

68 Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 248.

68 Ibid., f. 275. Cf. also f. 189.

70 Ibid., f. 276. AGI, Indiferente General, L. 2986, f. 8v.

71 Ibid., f. 185.

72 Ibid., f. 298. The notification of the bishops’ answer to the medical doctors is on f. 292, to Funes on f. 296, to Cárdenas’ letter, f. 260.

73 Ibid., f. 277. AGI, Indiferente General, L. 2986, f. 9v.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid., f. 299. AGI, loc. cit., f. 10.

76 Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 278. AGI, loc. cit., f. 10–11.

77 Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, ff. 300, 301, 304.

78 Ibid., MM 266, f. 255.

79 Ibid., MM 266, f. 278, contains Agurto’s report to the audiencia, f. 262 Salcedo’s request and Agurto’s testimony.

80 Ibid., MM 266, f. 279.

81 Ibid., MM 266, f. 305.

82 Ibid., MM 266, ff. 306 and 304.

83 Ibid., MM 266, f. 304.

84 According to a dossier on Beteta (1563), he originally belonged to the diocese of Michoacán. He understood and spoke Tarascan and was considered a man of good character, “muy amigo de los Yndios.” AGI, Méjico, L. 207.

85 For his appointment, see Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 283, and AGI, Indiferente General, L. 2986, ff. 14v-16. His petition to the audiencia is in Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 282 and in AGI, Indiferente, L. 2986, ff. 13v-14.

86 Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 279. AGI, Indiferente General, L. 2986, ff. ll-13.

87 Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 261.

This, or the case of the Bishop of Guatemala, to be mentioned later, may be the incident referred to by Fray Francisco Jiménez, rector of the College of San Luis de la Puebla de Los Angeles when writing to the Viceroy Villamanrique, February 9, 1588.

De todo lo cual se sigue está V. E. desde que entró en esta ciudad, enredado y encadenado con muchas y gravísimas censuras y excomuniones por muchas violencias e injurias que ha hecho a la iglesia y a sus ministros, porque desde que entró en méxico se encontró con los perlados del Concilios, y a uno de ellos, por auto que pronunció, tuvo preso en la ciudad, o por hablar más cortésmente, detenido; pero al fin fue fuerza y violencia.

Icazbalceta, Joaquín García, Nueva Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México: Cartas de Religiosos de Nueva España, 1539–1594 (México: 1941), p. 157.Google Scholar

88 Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 285. AGI, Indiferente General, L. 2986, f. 16.

89 AGI, Méjico, L. 2547.

90 Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 287. AGI, Indiferente General, L. 2986, f. 16v. All the copies of appeals now in the Archive of the Indies are those of Salazar alone, that is, those involving the patronato. These were copied out by Sancho López de Agurto on May 20, 1586, for forwarding to Spain.

91 Concilios Provinciales, MM 266, f. 259.

92 Moya left for Spain around the middle of 1586 and arrived there sometime late in the fall. See Bancroft, History of Mexico, II, 686, and note 35 above. He was appointed a consultor for colonial problems in 1587 (Schaefer, I, 317). For the dates of his presidency, see Schaefer, I, 112 and 352.

The source of the letter is Rodríguez, La Iglesia, p. 151. On December 18, the bishops wrote to congratulate the new pope, Sixtus V, on his election and to submit to him the work of the Council. They claimed that everything in the Council was decided with a view to preserving the faith and asked the pope for his support and approval. The letter is in the Secret Vatican Archive (hereinafter cited as SVA), Secreteria di Stato, Nunziature di Spagna, volume 38, ff. 506–507. The papal nuncio in Spain, the bishop of Novara, sent a covering letter when he forwarded this to the pope, dated March 15, 1587. It was received at the Spanish embassy in Rome, April 4, 1587. Cf. Burrus, “The Third Mexican Council,” pp. 404–405.

One’s attitude toward the title Patriarch of the Indies will depend on the source used. It was basically an empty title since the Church of the Indies did not enjoy genuine patriarchal status.

93 Rodríguez, p. 149. SVA, volume 30, ff. 235–236. Sixtus V was elected pope on April 24, 1585.

94 AGI, Méjico, Ramo Eclesiástico, L. 287.

95 AGI, Indiferente General, L. 1237.

96 SVA, volume 19, ff. 150–151. Burras, “The Third Mexican Council,” p. 405. This was the covering letter for the bishops’ letter mentioned in note 92.

97 Rodríguez, pp. 149–151; Burrus, “The Third Mexican Council,” p. 405.

98 Rodríguez, p. 143. He located the document in the Archivo de la Embajada de España, Legajo 7, f. 192.

99 Rodríguez, pp. 143–144. Archivo de la Embajada, L. 7, f. 193.

100 AGI, Méjico, Eclesiástico, L. 339.

101 SVA, volume 34 (no foliation).

102 Rodríguez, p. 151. SVA, volume 37, f. 231. Rodríguez refers to the recipient as an unidentified person but Burrus, “The Third Mexican Council,” p. 405, identifies him as Cardinal Montalto.

103 SVA, volume 38, f. 515.

104 Archive of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. The volume has no catalogue number, only the title Concilium Provinciale Mexicanum. A.D. 1585. More detail on this can be found in Burrus, “The Third Mexican Council,” passim. These revisions caused the Latin decrees to be substantially different from the Spanish original.

105 A note at the end says that this is the “catechismus maior et minor“ and that it was signed and sealed by the bishops on October 16, 1585. The date on the catechism itself is May 11, 1586, which, as Father Burrus indicates, was either the date on which the Latin translation was made or else the date when it was received by the Congregation of the Council. “The Third Mexican Council,” p. 406. Following the catechism are some further pages of corrections and annotations, titled “In Doctrinam Mexicanam” (f. 278). On f. 280 is a page titled “Dubia in Ecclesia Mexicana Occurentia quoru[m] desideratur Resolutio.” These are all questions and doubts about ceremonies.

106 AGI, Méjico, Eclesiástico, L. 287.

107 Recopilación, Libro I, título VIII, Ley 7.

108 AGI, Méjico, Eclesiástico, L. 337.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid. The Franciscan provincial was Juan Márquez Maldonado who held the position from 1620 to 1623. Cf. Vetancurt, Agustín, Menologio Franciscano de los varones mas senalados que con sus vidas ejemplares, perfeccion religiosa, ciencia, predicacion evangelica, en su vida y muerte ilustraron la provincia del Santo Evangelio, V. 4. [Biblioteca Histórica de la Iberia, V. 10.] (México: Imprenta de Escalante, I. y cia., 1871), p. 478 Google Scholar.

111 Concilio III Provincial Mexicano ilustrado con muchas notas del R.P. Basilio Arrillaga . . . Publicado con las licencias necesarias por Mariano Galvan Rivera (Barcelona: 1870).

112 The first cedula can be found in Rodriguez, pp. 145–146, and the second on pp. 146–147.

113 AGI, Méjico, Eclesiástico, L. 337.

114 Ibid.

115 Father Ernest J. Burrus, S. J., and Father Félix Zubillaga, S. J., both of the Jesuit Historical Institute in Rome, are currently working on a critical edition of the conciliar decrees which should go far in showing the variations between the original Spanish and the published Latin.