Wednesday, August 17, 2022

Unconvincing "Testimony" on Peter the Aleut and his Supposed Martyrdom by Catholics

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Debate with Two Orthodox · Two Orthodox Continue · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Unconvincing "Testimony" on Peter the Aleut and his Supposed Martyrdom by Catholics

Holy Martyr Peter the Aleut
12th July 2020 | Fr Peter Jon Gillquist

I 2:16 Already one problem with the story about the "monks" - especially if Jesuits.

St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Robert Bellarmine used the word Orthodox about union with Rome and called your confession Photian - so, at least their wording cannot have been "renounce Orthodoxy" ...

II 2:26 Second problem. Cutting off fingers, and then more limbs was the martyrdom of one St. John of Persia that Hermann of Alaska (the spiritual father of the Aleuts) had a devotion to.

I find it believable about Sassanids (or whatever the dynasty in his time, still Zoroastrian, like the infamous Chosroes II). Hermann of Alaska may have found it equally believable about Roman Catholics in California, and I do not. Especially as the Aleuts telling him of Peter already knew the story of St. John of Persia, from Hermann.

III And the third problem ... did Peter work miracles?

I have two alternative theories.

A) He remained, became Roman Catholic, and really did die as a saint, hence miracles, the story told being the protection his fellow Aleuts wanted to provide him against Hermann's curse on pretended apostasy;
B) the fabrication has a darker origin, Russian manipulations to motivate some move against the Spaniards, imitating the English tradition of blackening Roman Catholicism : if true, the result would be : no miracles

And I got to your video in the hope of finding out, you didn't tell of any.

In some support of the latter theory ...

"December 25 1815–January 6 – Tsar Alexander I of Russia signs an order, expelling the Jesuits from St. Petersburg and Moscow."

He was making a political campaign against Roman Catholicism ...

Another thing, you mentioned Spaniards expelling Russians from Fort Ross ...

Was it 1816?

Seems to be lacking from known history of Fort Ross (as known there, not in Alaska), see here:

// Fort Ross was established as an agricultural base from which the northern settlements could be supplied with food, while also continuing trade with Alta California.[10] Yet during its initial ten years of operations the post "provided the company with nothing but heavy expenses for its maintenance."[14] Fort Ross itself was the hub of a number of smaller Russian settlements comprising what was called "Fortress Ross" on official documents and charts produced by the Company itself.[15] Colony Ross referred to the entire area where Russians had settled.[15] These settlements constituted the southernmost Russian colony in North America and were spread over an area stretching from Point Arena to Tomales Bay.[6] The colony included a port at Bodega Bay called Port Rumyantsev (порт Румянцев), a sealing station on the Farallon Islands 18 miles (29 km) out to sea from San Francisco, and by 1830 three small farming communities called "ranchos" (Ранчо): Chernykh (Ранчо Егора Черных, Rancho Egora Chernykh) near present-day Graton, Khlebnikov (Ранчо Василия Хлебникова, Rancho Vasiliya Khlebnikova) a mile north of the present day town of Bodega in the Salmon Creek valley, and Kostromitinov (Ранчо Петра Костромитинова, Rancho Petra Kostromitinova)[6] on the Russian River. ... In addition to farming and manufacturing, the Company carried on its fur-trading business at Fort Ross, but by 1817, after 20 years of intense hunting by Spanish, American and British ships—followed by Russian efforts—sea otters had been practically eliminated from the area.[16] //,_California

IV I have a third theory, also compatible with Peter the Aleut obtaining miracles.

C - He was martyred, and there was a Russian intrigue, both true.

The "Spanish monks" were really Russian Freemasons.

They would have been getting two advantages (from their perverted view) in one single blow.

i) scaring away the Aleuts who were catching less and less (the fur trade ceased next year, not due to any Spanish intervention, but due to the animal getting scarce), and therefore were getting more and more of a burden for the Russians in Fort Ross;
ij) helping the Czar to demonise Catholicism (he had already started, expelling Jesuits), and this perhaps without the Czar's knowledge (but not necessarily so).

And before you say "Russians are Orthodox, not Freemasons" - Freemasonry has been legal in Russia again since I think 1990, and both Catherine the Great and the earlier years of Alexander I were fairly Masonic.

The latter made war on Sweden as Napoleon's ally. The legitimate Swedish king had considered Napoleon as the Antichrist (or at best just a precursor) since he got the Duke of Enghien shot without trial or offense, simply for being a theoretical asset to royalists. But in 1808, Alexander I was happy to be Napoleon's ally.

Also, while Joseph de Maistre was still a Freemason, he seems to have had little problem getting to a lodge in Russia.

Obviously, in this case, God would have had to exonerate Peter for unknowingly being outside the right Church. If he obtained miracles, that is.

No comments: