Dioceses - Vinculum Information System Guide

Chronological span

The first dioceses of the Portuguese kingdom were restored between the late eleventh and twelfth centuries as the Christian “reconquest” moved southwards¹. The diocesan organisation in continental Portugal underwent new changes in the sixteenth century, with the creation of four other dioceses: Leiria and Miranda (1545), Portalegre (1549), and Elvas (1570)². This ecclesiastical geography remained until the time of the Marquis of Pombal³. These institutions have been maintained to the present day⁴.

Normative documents (main)

Headed by bishops (archbishops in archdioceses), the medieval Portuguese dioceses functioned with regulations emanating from the dispositions of the diocesan synods⁵ and agreements made with other institutions and powers, namely with the crown and the respective cathedral chapters⁶.

With the increasing complexity of episcopal bureaucratic structures from the end of the medieval period onwards, the regulations on the functioning of the various organs of the diocesan curia (ecclesiastical chamber, tribunal, and dispatch) were the object of specific organisation within the diocesan constitutions⁷. Some of the latter included specific codifications on the episcopal tribunal (Regimentos do Auditório) and on the prerogative of the bishop (or his representatives) to visit the ecclesiastical institutions of the diocese (Regimentos de visitações), some of which included specific determinations on the inspections of chantries⁸.

Competences

General

Dioceses and archdioceses were governed respectively by bishops and archbishops, with the assistance of the respective chapters. These prelates had a set of sacred, pastoral, and jurisdictional prerogatives derived from the exercise of a power of order (administering sacraments), of jurisdiction (judging causes over individuals and jurisdictions, legislating), and of pastoral instruction (providing for the cultural and pastoral formation of clerics and lay people)³⁶.

On entails

The intervention of the prelates and their officials in matters related to entails was framed within the broader question of the relationship of the diocesan authorities with the fulfilment of the will of the deceased, in terms of the establishment of pious legacies intended to promote the salvation of the souls of the respective founders and beneficiaries. The capacity and legitimacy of prelates in exercising this mediating role resulted, above all, from a historical process of definition and redefinition of competences with the royal power around the foundation (in the context of the execution of wills and management of residuary estates), the administration (nomination of administrators, reviewing of accounts), and the correction (inspections) of chantries endowed with entailed assets.

Testamentary execution was attributed by canon law and civil law to the Church³⁷. Through successive concordats with the Portuguese clergy, in 1289 and 1309, King Dinis confirmed the Church’s jurisdiction over wills made in favour of clerics and over the execution of pious legacies established in wills in favour of laymen, while recognising the crown’s jurisdiction over the execution of the latter³⁸. Kings Afonso IV and João I maintained the obligation of publishing wills before the secular courts, with the former’s law stating that the bishops and their vicars could only intervene in the execution of wills with regard to assets left as legacies to churches, hospitals, hostels, the poor, the redemption of captives, and for pious works³⁹. Given the choice of jurisdiction to execute wills according to the type of legacy, the Portuguese clergy unsuccessfully proposed to João I, in 1427, the establishment of a “system of prevention”, according to which the execution of a will would fall to the jurisdiction first involved⁴⁰. This arrangement was finally accepted by King Afonso V, in a law of 1458, within the scope of a process initiated two years before, establishing the precept that testamentary execution would fall to the jurisdiction which first summoned the respective executors⁴¹. The same doctrine continued to be reflected in the provisions on reviewing testamentary accounts in the Ordenações Manuelinas and Ordenações Filipinas⁴². The law of Filipe IV, dated 3 November 1622, consolidated the mixed jurisdiction on this matter, establishing throughout the kingdom the monthly rotation in the execution of wills, which fell to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the months of January, March, May, July, September, and November and, in the remaining months, to secular jurisdiction⁴³. The mixed jurisdiction in this matter remained until the Law of 27 August 1830, which made it the exclusive competence of secular judges⁴⁴.

The execution of wills was directly related to issues associated with the respective taking of accounts and jurisdiction over the pious obligations that were poorly fulfilled or that remained unfulfilled (residuary estates), which could include the establishment of a chantry and the entailment of its patrimony⁴⁵. In general terms, the crown took upon itself the right to oversee the distribution of the assets attached to the residuary estates, this prerogative being contested by the clergy in 1427⁴⁶. In the Concordat of that year, King João I maintained the crown’s dominion in this matter—although allowing the Church to manage wills when the testator and executors were clerics—consolidating its role in this matter in the following decades through the creation of specific officials (juízes dos resíduos, or judges of the residuary estates) with jurisdiction at the level of the kingdom and rules and directives set out in the Ordenações Afonsinas⁴⁷. The law of 9 November 1458 included the cognizance of residuary estates within the aforementioned “system of prevention”, and this doctrine was reflected in the Ordenações Manuelinas and the Ordenações Filipinas⁴⁸. The exercise of jurisdiction over the residuary estates was also subject to monthly rotation, established by the law of 3 November 1622⁴⁹.

Once a chantry was established, it had to be determined who had jurisdiction over its appointments, management, and accounting. Similar to the above-mentioned issues, the crown and its officials arrogated to themselves the competence to supervise the nomination, management, and finances of the chantries. During the reign of João I, such prerogatives were the object of complaints from the clergy, the monarch eventually allowing, in the concordat of 1427, the prelates to make appointments and exercise jurisdiction over ecclesiastical chantries and chantries administered by laymen by dispensation, since the remunerated administration of such establishments rendered them “profane assets” and therefore subject to royal administration⁵⁰. These provisions became doctrine and were incorporated into the Ordenações Afonsinas⁵¹. Following the promulgation of the latter, shared jurisdiction over the administration, appointment, and accounts of chantries was confirmed by the law of 9 November 1458, incorporated into the Ordenações Manuelinas: for chantries, hospitals, and hostels founded by authority and consent of the prelates, the latter could appoint the administrators and review their accounts; in cases where these institutions were established and administered by laymen, such competences would fall to the royal officials, although the prelates, at the time of their visitation, could verify and enforce the respective pious obligations⁵². Subsequent regulations recognised the prerogatives of each of these jurisdictions in this matter: the Regimento dos hospital, capelas, hospitais, albergarias e confrarias de Lisboa e do seu termo (1504) and the Regimento de como os contadores das comarcas ham de prover sobre as capellas, ospitaaes, albregarias, confrarias, gafarias, obras, terças e residos (1514) recorded the prerogative of these officials to review the accounts of the chantry administrators, while a warrant (alvará) of 1553 prohibited the monarchs from settling questions regarding the assets of the chantries established or founded by authority of the pope and prelates⁵³. The authority of the provedores of the comarcas to receive the accounts of the wills and of the income and obligations of chantries, morgados, and welfare institutions was subsequently reaffirmed in a law of 24 November 1564, when these officials were mandated to receive information from the prelates about the unfulfilled pious legacies of these institutions, in accordance with the stipulations of the Council of Trent⁵⁴. Four years later, within the scope of the Law on the implementation of the Council of Trent, the mixed jurisdiction is confirmed in the appointment of chantry administrators⁵⁵, all this legislation ultimately being incorporated into the Ordenações Filipinas⁵⁶. In addition, there were also ecclesiastic regulations on compliance with the “system of prevention” (see below, point 4.2) and on the abuses of the provedores in this regard: the Lisbon cathedral chapter, in the additions to the Regimento da Visitação do arcebispado, copied in 1666, ordered the vicar-general of the diocese to take note of the cases of usurpation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the provedores of the region (comarca), when the latter unduly reviewed the accounts of confraternities, chantries, and hospitals that had been established by episcopal authority⁵⁷.

In accordance with his duty, the bishop had to inquire into the functioning of the ecclesiastical institutions located in the parishes of his diocese under his jurisdiction. For this purpose, he had a set of mechanisms at his disposal, among which the canonical visitation stands out. In the medieval period, these visitations focused on the patrimonial aspect of the churches and hermitages (state of repair of the ecclesiastical buildings and their liturgical implements, the management of their assets) and on the parishioners’ observance of the sacraments and participation in mass. From the sixteenth century onwards, especially after the Council of Trent, the visitation was carried out in two phases: the “spiritual” visitation with the absolution of the dead, the inspection of the buildings and liturgical accoutrements, and the verification of the church registers, followed by the “temporal” visitation, during which the visitator inquired into the moral behaviour of the parishioners⁵⁸.

Finally, according to the diocesan constitutions, the bishop had authority over the commutation of pious legacies⁵⁹, the placement of shields and weapons and other insignia in churches, chantries, and hermitages⁶⁰, as well as the very building and reconstruction of chapels⁶¹. The Constitutions of Elvas of 1632 also refer to the power of the respective bishop to eliminate or change the location of a chapel for whose establishment he had already granted the necessary authorization⁶².

Institutional organisation and the roles of its agents with regard to entails

Institutional organisation

The diocese was governed by the bishop assisted by the cathedral chapter (see heading Cathedral Chapter, subheading 3). In order to ensure that the actions necessary for diocesan government were carried out, the prelate headed a functional organisation variably designated in the medieval period as Casa (House), Corte (Court), or even Audiência¹¹⁵. Created in step with the institutionalisation of the structures of government in each diocese, this structure brought together a group of officials responsible for the application of justice, for the management of property, and for the production of documents, without it being possible to identify in this period, in the majority of cases, the existence of specific departments (“repartições”) beyond an “audiência” linked to the judicial dimension and a “chancellery” responsible for the production of episcopal documents and those of the aforementioned audiência¹¹⁶. The increase in the bureaucratic activity of this Casa, Corte, or Audiência from the end of the Middle Ages onwards, largely as a consequence of the reforming tendencies of the fourteenth-century Church and, subsequently, from the reinforcement of the competences and jurisdiction of the prelates determined at the Council of Trent, led to the increasing individuation and institutionalization of its component parts¹¹⁷. The most complex iteration of this diocesan bureaucratic structure took place in the three metropolitan areas of Braga, Lisbon, and Évora, around three large departments (repartições), each centrally fixed in the respective seat of the archdiocese:

A tribunal (called “audiência” in the late Middle Ages and most commonly “metropolitan audiência” from the early modern period onwards) authorised to judge in the first instance cases originating in its own jurisdiction and, in the second instance, appeals against the rulings of the ecclesiastical tribunals of the subordinate dioceses (with appeals of its decisions in the second and third instance, respectively, directed to the tribunal of the nunciature)¹¹⁸. This judicial structure was headed by a president, who supervised a group of officials made up of a chancellor, a provisor, a vicar-general and desembargadores, among others¹¹⁹. In each of the Relações (High Courts), there were also specific judicial posts assumed by judges recruited from within the group of desembargadores, one for the execution of wills (juiz dos resíduos) and the other for investigations related to marriages (juiz dos casamentos)¹²⁰. Although the historiography generally makes no distinction between the “audiência” and the “Relação Eclesiástica” (ecclesiastical high court), at least in the case of Évora, the first was responsible for the processing of judicial cases by the vicar-general and the provisor and the second for the drawing up of the respective sentence by a “junta of letrados”¹²¹.
An ecclesiastical chamber or episcopal mesa (council) responsible for dealing with administrative matters related to the spiritual and voluntary jurisdiction of the bishop¹²². This body was presided over by the archbishop and brought together the president of the Relação, the chancellor, the provisor and the vicar-general¹²³.
A “secretariat” for the dispatch of visitations (Casa do Despacho in the Archdiocese of Évora), responsible for the management of matters (organisation, registration) associated with the canonical visitations carried out by the prelate or his representatives, headed by the president of the Relação and composed of a scribe/secretary and an executor¹²⁴.

The archdioceses also had a chancellery, a body responsible, since the medieval period, for the issuing and validation of documents issued by the prelate and for his administration, under a chancellor who supervised a body of officials responsible for drafting documents (scribes)¹²⁵. In the case of the archdiocese of Évora, for example, a Mesa da Consulta was created in the sixteenth century, composed of the officials belonging to the Relação, empowered to advise the prelate in cases of the application of his power of “grace”¹²⁶.

This structure became simpler in the other dioceses of the kingdom¹²⁷. There was still a tribunal, presided over by the bishop or the vicar-general, authorized to judge in first instance the cases belonging to the episcopal jurisdiction, comprising a variety of officials (ouvidor, promotor, meirinho, solicitador, contador, distribuidor, aljubeiro, porteiro das audiências) and an episcopal chamber/board (mesa), headed by the bishop or the provisor and composed of the scribe of the chamber and other subordinates¹²⁸. The majority of the Portuguese dioceses did not have a Despacho das Visitações, so their competences were assumed by the bishop, the provisor, the vicar-general, and the executor of the visitations, as in the case of the diocese of Viseu and Portalegre¹²⁹. As in its metropolitan areas, each diocese had a chancellery, responsible for the preparation and validation necessary for episcopal administration¹³⁰.

In addition to these “central” structures of government, the archepiscopal bureaucracy was extended throughout the diocesan territory through a body of “peripheral” officials responsible for the exercise of a jurisdiction delegated in the name of the prelate, actualised through one or more audiências headed by a vicar (of Santarém in the case of Lisbon; of Beja in the case of Évora; of Valença, Vila Real, Chaves, and Torre de Moncorvo in the case of Braga) and regional jurisdictions (archdeaconates, archpriesthoods, and vicariates) headed by archdeacons, archpriests/vigários forâneos, and vigários de vara¹³¹. While the former was responsible for the pastoral care of the inhabitants of the archdeaconates, the latter were responsible for the exercise of justice and episcopal administration¹³².

The roles of its agents

Juiz dos resíduos (Judge of the residuary estates)
Magistrate belonging to the archepiscopal bureaucracies of Braga, Lisbon, and Évora, responsible for the execution and accounting of the wills of deceased testators in the months belonging to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction (January, March, May, July, September, and November), with the governing regulations from Braga attesting to his competence over the processing of cases involving residuary estates¹³³. The creation of this judicial post derived from the separation of the sphere of residuary estates from the jurisdiction of the vicars-general, effected in the archdiocese of Évora before 1568 and noted in Lisbon only in 1656, the judge of the residuary estates, in this case, succeeding the promotor (1535) and the vicars-general (1537, 1588)¹³⁴.

It was up to this official to execute the will of the testators regarding the establishment of chantries. In accordance with the dispositions of the Statute or Regimento do juiz dos resíduos contained in the Regimento do Auditório Eclesiástico do arcebispado of Évora (1598), followed later in Regimento da relação e auditorório eclesiástico do arcebispado of Braga (1699), the juiz dos resíduos was entitled to order the verification and fulfilment of the pious duties and obligations associated with chantries, as well as to review the accounts of the administration of the latter, when reviewing the accounts of the execution of wills. So that the memory of these obligations would not be lost, this magistrate would have to have them inscribed on the “tablet” (“tábua”) of the church to which the chantries belonged, along with information on the identity of the chantry administrator. In the same way, he would have to have these obligations recorded in a dedicated registry book, existing in each church, in addition to rubricating and numbering a book in which the scribe of the residuary estates would record all the chantries established and in the process of being established in the diocese¹³⁵.

Vicar-General
Since the competences relating to pious legacies fell under the jurisdiction of the judge of the residuary estates, the activity of the vicars-general of the continental Portuguese archdioceses in this regard was limited, with such attributions recorded only in the aforementioned cases of Évora and Lisbon prior to the sixteenth century¹³⁶. In that period, at least in the case of Lisbon, the vicars-general of Lisbon and Santarém had to ensure the fulfilment of specific legacies—”the certain works”—such as chantries, ordering that the contract for their physical construction be awarded to those offering the best price¹³⁷. With the transfer of this competence to the judge of the residuary estates, only the vicar-general of Santarém retained such responsibilities in the territory under his jurisdiction¹³⁸.

Given that there were no judges of residuary estates at the level of suffragan dioceses, it fell to the vicar-general to execute the wills and residuary estates in the latter, as well as to verify the fulfilment of pious obligations and review the accounts of the chantries¹³⁹. For example, in the diocese of Porto, the Diocesan Constitutions and the Rules of Visitators, both from 1690, reproduced the archepiscopal dispositions by establishing that the vicar-general executed the last wills of the deceased in the city and its suburbs, according to the terms of the system of prevention, being responsible for executing the “certain work”, such as the establishment of chantries, based on contracts that were awarded for the best price¹⁴⁰.

Visitator (Visitador)
The prerogative of the prelate to inspect the ecclesiastical institutions within his jurisdiction led to the visitation becoming a specific occasion to manage the issues associated with the verification of pious legacies, through the action of its main agent, the visitator.

In the case of archdioceses, the dispositions on canonical visitations, contained in the regimentos dos auditórios (in specific titles referring to visitators), in the regimentos dos visitadores, and in the diocesan constitutions, determined that the visitators would inspect the chantries and pious establishments with regard to the ecclesiastical cult, after the visitation of the churches and other ecclesiastical institutions under the jurisdiction of the prelate¹⁴¹. This inspection focused essentially on the fulfilment of the pious obligations attached to such establishments, sometimes extending to the state of their respective ornaments¹⁴². In order to carry out this assessment, the visitators would have to verify the existence and consult the documents of the church and the respective chantries¹⁴³. For future memory, these officers would ensure that the pious obligations declared therein were transcribed in a book and recorded on “tablets” placed in the sacristies of the respective churches¹⁴⁴.

In addition to verifying the fulfilment of the pious duties, the Braga ecclesiastical legislation also determined that these officials had to review the accounts of the chapels and execute the wills outside the city and district of Braga¹⁴⁵. In the case of Lisbon, it is known that the review of accounts of the execution of the wills of the deceased, in the vicariates they visited, constituted one of the prerogatives of the visitators, at least in the sixteenth century¹⁴⁶.

Visitators were also active with regard to the chantries with entailed assets in the suffragan dioceses, modulated by the existing norms (diocesan constitutions, statutes on visitations) for some of their activities. The legislation essentially comprises two types of norms on this specific matter, to a great extent similar to the regulations applied to the visitations of chantries in the archdioceses:

It generically establishes the duty of the visitators to visit the chantry (regarding divine worship), with the purpose of verifying the fulfilment of the pious duties assigned to it¹⁴⁷, and to review the accounts of its respective administration¹⁴⁸.
It obliges the visitators to inspect the records associated with the fulfilment of the liturgical duties of the chantries in question. To ensure this verification, the Regimento dos visitadores of Coimbra, dated to the last quarter of the seventeenth century, established that the visitator had the obligation to collate the “old notebook of chantries and masses” that he kept throughout the visitation with the “tablet of masses and obligations” to be found in each church¹⁴⁹. To help in this task, the Regimento dos visitadores of Elvas (1632) allowed the visitator to take the book of visitations, the inventory of the assets of the church, and the book of the chantries and confraternities to his quarters, in order to facilitate the consultation and cross-referencing, based on which he would make amendments to his book of visitations¹⁵⁰.

Promotor
The promotor was a lawyer belonging to the ecclesiastical court found in the archdioceses and dioceses of the kingdom, with the right to intervene in the processes adjudicated by the aforementioned institution and responsible for defending ecclesiastical jurisdiction, within the framework of the system of “prevention” established in agreement with the crown¹⁵¹. In the archdiocese of Lisbon, the Regimento do Auditório Eclesiástico de Lisboa, dated 1535, conferred on him competence over the fulfilment of pious legacies¹⁵². In the archdiocese of Évora, he had the right to appeal to the ecclesiastical Relação (high court) of Lisbon, if he thought that the vicar of Évora had ruled improperly in a case related to the souls of the deceased¹⁵³. The same connection of the promotor to the pious legacies may be noted in the case of Braga, whose auditório specifically included a promotor of the residuary estates, endowed with a particular statute included in the Statute of the Relação of 1699¹⁵⁴.

These competences were maintained at the diocesan level. In Funchal, for example, the promotor had to request the cases involving residuary estates, given the danger posed to souls by delays in the fulfilment of the pious works expressed in the wills¹⁵⁵. In Portalegre, any unresolved doubts over the execution of wills would be sent to the vicar-general with a certificate addressed to the promotor, in which the date (day and hour) of the respective summons to the executors would be stated¹⁵⁶.

Archpriests
The archpriests of the archdiocese of Évora, at the end of the sixteenth century, ruled in cases concerning residuary estates and the execution of wills in the territory within their remit, where there were no vicars of the vara, with an alçada fixed at 4000 réis¹⁵⁷. In order not to compromise unfulfilled legacies, they could spend up to a total of 10 cruzados, with the possibility of ordering the recitation of a maximum of 50 masses¹⁵⁸.

Vicars of the vara/Petty or lesser vicars (vigários pedâneos)
These officials had competence over the execution of wills in the vicariates belonging to the archdioceses of Lisbon and Évora (since in Braga such competences fell to the visitators) and, in the case of Lisbon, they could issue sentences and give quittance, in the cases where testamentary executions finished before the prescribed time limit¹⁵⁹. In Évora, the vicar of Beja and the vicars of the vara also had the duty of keeping the accounts of the residuary estates in the territories under their care and the duty of informing themselves about the fulfilment of the obligations of the chantries, inspecting for this purpose the existing books of wills, commitments, and registries (tombos). To preserve the memory of these obligations, these officials had to verify whether the anniversaries to be celebrated in these chantries had to be inscribed on the “tablet”, to be placed in the choir of the respective church¹⁶⁰.

At the level of the diocese, the diocesan constitutions of Portalegre (1598, 1632) and Elvas (1635) conferred upon them the power to execute and review the accounts of the testamentary executions and give quittance of the residuary estates that may be identified, any doubts regarding the process being referred to the vicar-general of Portalegre¹⁶¹. On the specific question of the chantries, the former determined that the vicars of the vara would enforce the “certain things” that the deceased had mandated, in the case of the executors not executing them within the prescribed time limit¹⁶².

Scribe of the residuary estates (escrivão dos resíduos)
It was the duty of the escrivães dos resíduos of Braga to be in possession of the statutes of the chantries, prepare the schedule of the chantries and confraternities to be visited, to be delivered to the scribes of the visitations, as well as to draw up the processes related to the residuary estates—carried out during the visitations in the city and district of Braga or settled in the audiência of the vicars-general (since the juiz dos resíduos did not hold an audience)—and the respective sentences pronounced in the Relação¹⁶³. In addition to the chantries’ registry book, he had to prepare a book in which all the chantries established by the testators and the places where they were registered were recorded—in the order of the visitations—and this book was rubricated and numbered by the juiz dos resíduos¹⁶⁴. According to Ana Sandra Meneses, the latter would be the books for registering chantries and legacies currently kept in the Arquivo Distrital of Braga¹⁶⁵.

This official also performed functions at the diocesan level. In the case of the vicariate of Beja, the escrivão dos resíduos kept the records of all the cases pertaining to the vicariate¹⁶⁶.

Relations with other institutions with regard to entails

Since testamentary execution, residuary estates, and the management and supervision of chantries were subject to mixed jurisdiction, the prelate’s officials were in communication with royal officials, namely the provedores das comarcas, within the framework of compliance with the system of prevention established between both jurisdictions on such matters (see above, under “Competences”).

In the context of the execution of legacies associated with the establishment and the review of accounts of the chantries, the ecclesiastical visitators were in contact with the parish priests of the churches that housed them, the chaplains who served them, and the laymen who administered them (see heading “Parishes”, subheading “Relations with other institutions”).

Diocesan constitutions compiled:

Constituições e estatutos do Bispado da Guarda, published in 1500¹⁶⁷;
Constituições de Braga de D. Diogo de Sousa, dated 1505 and published in 2019¹⁶⁸;
Constituições do Bispado de Coimbra, published in 1521¹⁶⁹;
Constituições do Bispado de Évora, published in 1534¹⁷⁰;
Constituições do arcebispado de Lisboa, published in 1537¹⁷¹;
Constituições do arcebispado de Braga, published in 1538¹⁷²;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado do Porto, published in 1541¹⁷³;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado de Coimbra, published in 1548¹⁷⁴;
Constituições do Bispado do Algarve, published in 1554¹⁷⁵;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado de Angra, published in 1560¹⁷⁶;
Constituição sinodais do Bispado de Lamego, published in 1563¹⁷⁷;
Constituições do Arcebispado de Évora, published in 1565¹⁷⁸;
Adições às constituições do Arcebispado de Évora, published in 1569¹⁷⁹;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado do Funchal, drafted in 1578 and published in 1585¹⁸⁰;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado do Porto, published in 1585¹⁸¹;
Constituições sinodais do Arcebispado de Lisboa, published in 1588¹⁸²;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado de Coimbra, published in 1591¹⁸³;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado do Funchal, published in 1601¹⁸⁴;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado de Viseu, published in 1617¹⁸⁵;
Constituições sinodais do bispado da Guarda, published in 1621¹⁸⁶;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado de Portalegre, published in 1632¹⁸⁷;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado de Elvas, published in 1635¹⁸⁸;
Constituições novas do Arcebispado de Lisboa, drafted in 1640 and published in 1656¹⁸⁹;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado do Algarve, published in 1674¹⁹⁰;
Constituição sinodais do Bispado de Lamego, published in 1683¹⁹¹;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado da Guarda, published in 1686¹⁹²;
Constituições sinodais do Bispado do Porto, published in 1690¹⁹³;

Statutes of the auditórios:

Regimento do Auditório Eclesiástico de Lisboa, dated 8 October 1535¹⁹⁴;
Regimento do auditório eclesiástico de Évora, dated 26 December 1535, with additions in 1576¹⁹⁵;
Regimento do Auditório Eclesiástico de Coimbra, published in 1547¹⁹⁶;
Regimento do Auditório Eclesiástico do Porto, published in 1585¹⁹⁷;
Regimento dos Auditórios Eclesiásticos do Bispado do Funchal ordered by D. Luis de Figueiredo Lemos, dated 8 February 1589¹⁹⁸;
Regimento dos oficiais do Auditório Eclesiástico de Coimbra, dated 1591 and published the following year¹⁹⁹;
Regimento do Auditório Eclesiástico do arcebispado de Évora, published in 1598²⁰⁰;
Regimento do Auditório, drafted in 1598 and published in 1601²⁰¹;
Regimento do Auditório, dated 1614²⁰²;
Regimento do auditório eclesiástico da diocese de Portalegre, published in 1632²⁰³;
Regimento do auditório eclesiástico da diocese de Elvas, published in 1635²⁰⁴;
Regimento do Auditório Eclesiástico do Bispado do Algarve, drafted in 1673²⁰⁵;
Regimento do Auditório Eclesiástico do bispado do Porto, published in 1690²⁰⁶;
Regimento da relação e auditório eclesiástico do arcebispado de Braga, manuscript dated 1699²⁰⁷;

Statutes of the visitadores:

Regimento de visitadores of D. Afonso Furtado de Mendonça, archbishop of Braga, dated 1620²⁰⁸;
Regimento dos visitadores do arcebispado de Lisboa, drafted between 1634-1636 and copied in 1666²⁰⁹.
Instrução dos visitadores do bispado de Coimbra, dated 1674-1700²¹⁰;
Regimento dos visitadores, dated 1683²¹¹.