www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Saint Peter the Aleut

Dear Alexis,

Well, the Orthodox Church affirms his martyrdom - how would you like it if non-Catholics charged Catholic saints with "alleged" this or that?

That has and does occur (the controversy surround St Jan Sarkander and even the 498 beatifications of the Spanish martyrs etc.).

However, there are plenty of Orthodox saints who were martyred "by the Latins" on Mt. Athos, St Athanasius of Brest who was forced to dig his own grave, shot and then was buried alive etc. etc.

I don't know when it became a practice on this Forum to offend the canonized Saints of the Orthodox Church. But then again, I have been off it for a while.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Alex

Dear Doubting Thomas,

Well, with all due respect to the Rev. Fr. Archimandrite, St Peter the Aleut was Orthodox so he could have cared less about "rites!"

If you are looking for those martyred because of their rite, St Isidore and the 72 martyrs of Dorpats, Estonia are a better example (See the entry in Holweck's "Dictionary of the Saints").

Also, the references to the "Jesuits" in California when there were Franciscans is simply the Russian way of referring to Catholic religious Orders as "Jesuits."

"Jesuit" was a pejorative term - and I here it used here at the legislature as such "Jesuitical" and the like.

I don't know what the problem is with this canonized saint of the Orthodox Church.

If we want to start questioning whether saints existed or not, we should also look at what the Bollandists found in the Catholic calendar - all sorts of non-existing saint entries that were later purged, including one "St Artotis" under June 6 - none other than the arch-heretic Arius!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Yes, I am sure that Saint Peter the Aleut did not care about (if he was even aware of) rites. I believe Father was being humorous, and it was in humor that I replied.

In all seriousness, thank you for bringing Saint Isidore and the 72 martyrs of Dorpats to my attention...I will definately look them up.

God bless and keep you!

Dear Thomas,

As for Fr. Archimandrite - no doubt!

I think it is always best to leave each other's saints alone. My favourite example of this is St Pontius Pilate on the Ethiopian calendar. They are positively serious about honouring him and do so on June 25th!

Then there is St Lucifer of Cagliari . . . I won't bore you with other examples.

St Peter the Aleut is quite innocuous by comparison . . .

Alex

Alex,

Look, we can see from unbiased and historical sources that the story probably is not true. Everything from the time to the place to the way in which he was alleged martyred just does not square, as well as the only apparent eye-witness to the acts being an apparent known liar and "dubious."

Honestly, if this story is untrue (which it seems it probably is), then the perpetuation of it is a grave injustice to Spanish Catholic missionaries in California. If there were a story about a Catholic saint probably being martyred by the Eastern Orthodox not even 200 years about that was probably fictionalized, I can guarantee you I would side with what I thought was the truth , not with my Church affiliation.

And the Eastern Orthodox have the right to canonize and venerate whomever they wish, but on this count I am stepping in to defend the probably-innocent names of Spanish Catholic missionaries by reminding readers that it seems the historical and logical record disagrees with the version of how St. Peter the Aleut was martyred, or if he was at all.

My intent is not to offend the memory of St. Peter the Aleut, but rather defend the memory and names of those who have been accused of his murder.

Alexis

Alexis:

So, if he was martyred at all, how did it likely happen?

Ryan

As a descendant of the Spanish settlers in the Southwest, and as a native Californian, I find this HIGHLY offensive not only to my ancestors but to the intelligence of all Christians.

If you want a more accurate history of the interaction between the Spanish and the Russians, click here:

http://softadventure.net/cal-russian.htm

In addition, the Law of the Indies was still in effect at that time and it was diligently followed by the Franciscans of California. All Native Indians were exempt from trial by the Holy Inquisition due to their fledgling faith. Even those historians not friendly to Catholics reluctantly agree with this.

In addition, someone mentioned the Jesuits. But there were no Jesuits in the Californias at that time! The order had been supressed by the Holy Father! All of their property in the Californias reverted to the Franciscans and stayed with them. It was only the year before Peter the Aleut's supposed martyrdom that they were re-instituted as a religious order.

Dear Byzantophile,

However, since Peter was an Orthodox Christian, and therefore a "schismatic" in the eyes of the RC's, there is no reason to believe that these laws would have applied to him.

You are more than correct that there were no Jesuits there - the name was simply a derogatory one for all Catholic missionary Orders period.

Alex

I haven't looked into this saint that much but some of this might have been political. The Spainish were afraid of the Russians coming into the California territory.

Yes, indeed. But there are lots of cases of Orthodox saints being martyred by RC authorities and even by "Uniates" especially on Mt Athos.

The CAtholic calendar too has saints martyred by Orthodox e.g. Sts Josaphat and Andrew Bobola (Andrew really WAS a Jesuit).

Alex

And just why is that? The understanding of most historians is that the Law applied to ALL Native Americans.

In addition, where are the records of this? The documents of the formal procedings? We Spanish have a penchant for bureacracy and documenting EVERYTHING. (My ancestor's baptismal records from the early 1700s are STILL in New Mexico. In addition I can tell you the occupations of most of my mother's ancestors.) The Holy Inqusition as well kept meticulous records. (See Yale professor and Jewish historian Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition.) The Archdiocese of Los �ngeles has most of the documents dating from the Mission era. Where is mention of this case?

To me this smacks of propaganda.

Dear Byzantophile,

Actually, Spain was notorious for "creating" Spanish saints that never existed (see Holweck's introduction to his Dictionary of the Saints), penchants for bureaucracy notwithstanding.

But as for documents et al., you are free to contact the OCA directly who will be pleased to discuss this with you.

Again, the law applied to Natives as "pagans" - and the case of one who was baptized as a member of a "schismatic" group - that's a different story.

And we EC's have lots of historical experience with RC's who destroyed our churches et al. No propaganda there.

Alex

Sure. But these all happened in a different time and place. 19th century California doesn't strike me, or most historians for that matter, as a hot bed of religious dissent.

This also begs the question of how a Spanish priest (who knew Spanish, Latin, and maybe Greek) would have understood and communicated effectively about religious beliefs with an Aleut (who spoke Aleut and perhaps Russian).

In addition, what is the actual proof for this person's case? The testimony is based on a single witness who probably did not speak Spanish.

If this did happen here is my guess as to what happened. This poor Aleut boy, along with others, was captured by the Spanish who were becoming wary of Russian encroachments into California. He and his compatriots were taken to the local Spanish magistrate to be questioned. The Spanish, not knowing Russian, but seeing that there were 'Indians' with them, asked one of the Mission Indians to come over and try to ascertain where they were from and what they were doing. The Mission Indian spoke to the Aleuts in his language. The Aleuts did not understand after several attempts and remained silent. The Spanish men (who were probably dressed in black seeing as that is still to this day the most popular color of Spanish clothing) were taken to be priests by the Russian. The Spanish noticed that the Aleuts were wearing crosses and took a look at one of them, which confirmed their suspicions that these 'Indians' were indeed working with the Russians since they had been Christianized. Thus the Aleut whose cross was inspected was interogated using torture so as to ascertain potential Russian 'plans of invasion'. But since he did not understand the Mission Indian translator's language he did not respond to their satisfaction. He was then killed to set an example to the other Aleuts to co�perate. When the Franciscans (who would not have looked like priests to the Russians in their brown sackcloth robes) got word of what was going on they quickly intervened and, invoking the Law of the Indies and protction for the Indians, put a stop to anymore violence.

This seems to be a more probable interpretation of the account here: http://www.umich.edu/~ocf/saint_peter_the_aleut.htm

Dear Byzantophile,

I've no doubt that events transpired very much as you so articulately describe above!

As for the Franciscans being a party to the martyrdom, that could have happened as well.

If one were to maintain that the Franciscans always maintained the spirit of their saintly and poor Founder - well, then that really is propaganda!

But is it possible the evidence here was "fudged?" Aye, and it wouldn't be the first time in the history of hagiography that that occurred.

And I really don't know. I do think we should defer to the church authorities that formally canonized Peter a saint. Let them speak for their own saints. And let us be attentive to what they say.

Alex

Point taken, but I simply take issue with Franciscan mistreatment of the Indians in California. While the Franciscans in Spain and other parts were involved with the Holy Inquisition, in California they were too busy running the Missions to have had time for such things. Remember that the Missions supplied food and goods for the whole of California. The Mission near where I grew up supplied candles, wine, grain, and leather for the enitirety of Southern California at the time.