Just sharing a bit of additional info: an Orthodox woman who worked at Ft. Ross and travels with St. Peter’s icon, telling his story, shares that his epithet should be St. Peter the Kodiak.
Lots of things. That's like scoffing at the notion of Africans finding their way to Romanov courts because what business would he possibly have there? And it's not an argument. How embarrassing for Catholic Answers & Apologetics in general, which definitely does not need CA's help in seeming less than sound.
-a cradle Catholic who believes Rome subverted Christ's Church from the very start
Your efforts to defend the hagiographical account of St. Peter the Aleut are undoubtedly noble and reflect a deep commitment to preserving the witness of those who have suffered for the faith. However, it is worth considering whether these efforts might be misplaced in this case.
The lack of verifiable evidence for the specific details of St. Peter’s story, combined with its reliance on speculative and polemical sources, calls into question the historical reliability of the narrative. A more measured approach, which acknowledges the story’s symbolic value while addressing its historical uncertainties, might better serve both the integrity of Orthodox tradition and the pursuit of truth.
The principle of revising hagiographical narratives when historical evidence is lacking or problematic could and, in my opinion, should be applied to the story of Peter the Aleut. While the account of his martyrdom may inspire devotion among the Orthodox faithful, the absence of verifiable evidence for key details—such as Peter’s existence, the nature of his death, and the identity of his alleged killers—raises serious questions about the story’s historical reliability. As with other saints' narratives that include legendary or polemical elements, the Church has precedent for adapting such stories to better align with truth and historical integrity.
A significant example is the account of the Child Martyr Gabriel of Białystok, whose veneration traditionally included the accusation that he was murdered by Jews—a narrative rooted in the blood libel myth. Recognizing the harmful and baseless nature of this claim, modern translations and productions of his akathist service have omitted these anti-Semitic details. This demonstrates a willingness within the Church to reframe a saint’s narrative, retaining its spiritual value while removing elements that are historically dubious or morally problematic.
Similarly, the story of St. Christopher, once depicted as having a dog’s head (a cynocephalus), has been largely recognized as containing legendary elements. Over time, the Church deemphasized this aspect of his story, presenting a more theologically appropriate narrative while preserving his veneration.
Likewise, St. George and the Dragon, an iconic and beloved tale, is acknowledged as a symbolic or legendary addition to the historical figure of St. George, illustrating the triumph of good over evil without insisting on the literal truth of the dragon narrative.
Applying this principle to the story of Peter the Aleut could involve a similar reevaluation. While he may continue to be honored as a symbol of steadfast faith, the specific claims about his alleged torture and death at the hands of Franciscans—based entirely on a single uncorroborated testimony—should be recognized as speculative and potentially influenced by Russian anti-Catholic propaganda during a time of geopolitical rivalry. Just as the Church has adapted the narratives of St. Gabriel, St. Christopher, and St. George to reflect truth and remove harmful or mythical elements, it would be prudent to revise the story of Peter the Aleut to focus on his symbolic significance while acknowledging the lack of historical certainty surrounding the details of his martyrdom.
By taking such steps, the Church would not only honor the spiritual message of Peter’s story but also demonstrate a commitment to truth and humility. This approach strengthens the Church’s credibility and avoids perpetuating polemical or potentially false accusations against others, fostering greater respect and integrity in both hagiography and ecumenical dialogue.
Your article claims to substantiate the martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut, presenting a narrative of his torture and death at the hands of Franciscans for refusing to renounce his Orthodox faith. However, a close analysis reveals that your article fails to prove the truth of the account.
Your article provides no verifiable evidence that St. Peter the Aleut was a historical figure. The only sources for Peter’s existence and martyrdom are Russian accounts, particularly the 1819 deposition of Keglii Ivan, an alleged eyewitness; the 1820 report by Semyon Yanovsky, which relies entirely on the deposition; and Yanovsky’s 1865 letter, written decades later, which elaborates on the story but does not introduce new evidence.
The fact that there are no Spanish, Franciscan, or other independent records documenting Peter’s existence, his capture, or his alleged martyrdom should raise doubts about the credibility of the details of this account. His life and name, “Peter the Aleut,” lacks specific biographical details, raising doubts about whether he was a real person or a symbolic figure. This doesn't prove he didn't exist, however one should acknowledge the dearth of evidence supporting the details of his life.
Your article cites multiple sources—Yanovsky’s reports and the deposition—as though they independently corroborate the story. In reality, Yanovsky’s 1820 report and 1865 letter are entirely dependent on the deposition taken from Keglii Ivan in 1819. Yanovsky did not witness the events himself and merely relayed the deposition’s contents, with the later 1865 letter adding graphic details absent from earlier accounts. Presenting these sources as separate pieces of evidence is deceptive, as they all stem from one single eyewitness account. This is a significant weakness, as the entire story depends on the reliability of one individual’s unverified testimony.
Your article attempts to implicate Franciscans in the alleged torture and murder of St. Peter by pointing to the harsh discipline and corporal punishment documented at Spanish missions and the existence of mass graves at Mission Dolores. However, these facts do not demonstrate that Franciscans used torture or murder to force conversions. While Franciscans are known to have used flogging and other forms of corporal punishment to enforce discipline, this was not intended as torture or to compel religious conversions. These practices were harsh but were framed as paternalistic correction rather than violence for coercion. The existence of mass graves at Mission Dolores reflects the high mortality rates among indigenous people in missions, which were largely due to disease, malnutrition, and poor living conditions. This is not evidence of deliberate murder or torture by Franciscans.
Furthermore, there are no other documented cases of Franciscans torturing or killing indigenous people for refusing to convert. The absence of similar incidents makes the story of St. Peter’s martyrdom highly anomalous and less credible. Your article fails to provide concrete evidence that Franciscans at Mission Dolores—or elsewhere—used torture or murder as a means of conversion.
Your article correctly points out that Aleuts were involved in the Russian-American Company’s fur trade and that Spanish authorities sometimes clashed with Russians and indigenous laborers. However, these general historical facts do not prove the specific story of St. Peter’s martyrdom. The geopolitical rivalry between Orthodox Russia and Catholic Spain provides a plausible motive for the fabrication or exaggeration of anti-Catholic stories, such as the martyrdom of St. Peter.
Your article also acknowledges errors in the narrative, such as the initial claim that Jesuits were responsible (despite their absence in California at the time), attributing the mistake to Russian use of “Jesuit” as a generic term for Roman Catholics. This inconsistency further undermines the credibility of the story.
Your article relies heavily on speculative arguments to defend the martyrdom. It asserts that the Franciscans who allegedly ordered Peter’s torture “did not represent Christian values.” This concession while respectful, does nothing to prove that the event occurred as described.
It claims that the existence of the deposition and the harsh conditions at Mission Dolores corroborate the story. However, neither the deposition nor the historical context provides independent evidence of torture or martyrdom. It argues that critics’ dismissal of the 1865 letter as fabricated is inconsistent because Yanovsky wrote about the events in 1820. This ignores the fact that Yanovsky’s earlier report was itself derivative of the deposition and not an independent account. The reliance on rhetorical defenses rather than hard evidence weakens the case for the martyrdom.
Even if one were to assume that Peter existed and died under Spanish custody, there is no evidence that his death was a deliberate act of torture ordered by a Franciscan cleric to compel conversion. The claim that Franciscans mutilated and disemboweled him relies entirely on later embellishments in the 1865 letter and cannot be substantiated by earlier reports or independent records.
The Yanovsky account, as provided in your article, describes the alleged martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut, portraying Catholic missionaries (referred to as Jesuits, though incorrectly, as Franciscans were active in California) as tormenting and murdering Orthodox Aleuts for refusing to convert to Catholicism. However, an analysis of this account, coupled with a discussion of Yanovsky’s broader accusations against Catholicism, reveals significant hypocrisy in the Russian Orthodox critique and raises doubts about the reliability of the St. Peter narrative.
Yanovsky describes Catholic missionaries as torturing and murdering Orthodox Aleuts to force their conversion to Catholicism, drawing parallels to the Inquisition. However, Yanovsky conveniently omits the Russian Orthodox Church’s own record of persecuting dissenters, particularly during the Old Believer Schism.
During this period, the Russian Orthodox Church engaged in systemic violence against Old Believers, including executions, forced labor, property confiscation, and military suppression. Entire communities were burned alive, either by state forces or in mass suicides to avoid capture. The death toll and suffering inflicted on Old Believers far exceed what is historically attributed to Catholic missions in the Americas. The Spanish Inquisition, often cited by Orthodox polemicists like Yanovsky, executed an estimated 3,000–5,000 people over centuries, while Russian Orthodox persecution of Old Believers likely caused tens of thousands of deaths in a much shorter timeframe. This selective critique reveals a pattern of exaggeration aimed at vilifying Catholicism while deflecting scrutiny from Orthodox actions.
Yanovsky’s anti-Catholic bias undermines the credibility of his testimony regarding St. Peter’s martyrdom. His willingness to misrepresent the contrast between the alleged evangelical purity of Orthodoxy over the blood-stained history of Catholicism for polemical purposes casts doubt on the story’s veracity. Without independent evidence or corroboration, the story remains historically dubious and potentially a product of Russian anti-Catholic propaganda during a time of geopolitical and religious rivalry. Without corroboration, the martyrdom narrative cannot be upheld as historically accurate.
The same independent evidence or corroboration you ask for here is completely absent from Juan Diego’s story as well. Do you believe the Catholic Church is wrong to canonize him? Rhetorical question to point out your contradiction. There’s more evidence for St. Peter than there is for Juan Diego. With multiple Roman Catholic bishops disputing his very existence. I don’t think I need to get into all of the saints in the first few centuries of Christianity which bear extremely little to no evidence of their historic existence and how this also contradicts your arguments.
I noticed of all the paragraphs of responses there was no addressing that nor the Juan Diego comparison. Without corroboration if you’re consistent with your argumentation you’ll also be saying there’s no historical reality to many saints we both share in common, I don’t see any advocation for questioning them nor your own. As for accusing the Orthodox of crafting overtly antisemitic hagiographies, you should probably address Simon of Trent and get your own house in order.
The Old Believers reference is irrelevant deflecting that you claim Orthodox are doing. If you want to get into various cases of Orthodox persecuting we can, but you know all too well the entire point of bringing up Catholic killings of other people was to show discontinuity in thinking anything like that could happen to St. Peter and accepting it happened to many others.
Your gripe that there wasn’t enough concrete evidence is quite frankly, ridiculous. You essentially say “yeah there was documented violence at Dolores Mission but there’s no other documented cases so it’s not credible.” And also you contradict and bluntly gaslight in admitting to flogging but claiming it wasn’t torture just discipline. “Yeah I’m flogging you but this isn’t torture I’m just disciplining you.” Was Jesus just being disciplined when He was being flogged?
Your next gripe about Yanovsky using the term Jesuit as a term for Roman Catholics disproves the credibility of his entire account is additionally poor. This is the same Yanovsky you said was being deceptively used to make it appear as if there’s multiple pieces of evidence. Why do you need to discredit him if it just hinges on the one piece of evidence as you previously claim? You’re not familiar with Russian culture, such as Dostoevsky who implored the same language regarding Jesuits. The weakness of a Gish-gallop style of debate that you’re attempting is that I don’t have to respond to every 20+ claims you make I just have to pick your worst ones, which were mostly all of them. This is also fair as you avoided certain arguments I made in this article.
Finally, I truly do not understand Catholics as yourself who label themselves as “formerly Orthodox.” I don’t see any Orthodox putting “formerly Catholic” in their bio. Why is this? It seems irrelevant or a tell to a subconscious need to justify disavowing your past belief. Judging by your response to this, unfortunately our dialogue doesn’t seem like it will progress anywhere on the subject of St. Peter.
Thank you for your reply and engagement with my critique. I’d like to address the points you raised in the spirit of dialogue.
First, I think it’s important to address the comparison you made between St. Peter the Aleut and St. Juan Diego. While the existence of either saint could be debated, the two cases are not entirely analogous. The account of St. Juan Diego is supported by the miraculous tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a tangible and enduring artifact that has been rigorously examined and remains central to his veneration. The tilma provides an objective basis for belief in the events surrounding St. Juan Diego, even if independent corroboration of his personal life is limited. In contrast, St. Peter’s story relies solely on a single, uncorroborated testimony, and no physical or objective evidence has been presented to support the specific claims of his martyrdom. This is not to say Orthodoxy should not honor St. Peter, but his case is unique in that the lack of evidence leaves the narrative particularly vulnerable to historical critique and calls for potential revision.
My intention was not to dismiss the veneration of saints with limited historical evidence wholesale. Many saints from the early centuries of Christianity have sparse historical records due to the challenges of preserving documentation in those periods. However, St. Peter’s case is relatively recent, occurring in the 19th century, making it subject to a higher standard of investigation. The historical context and the means of documentation available at the time allow for more scrutiny than what is possible for saints from antiquity.
Regarding the revisions to hagiographical accounts, I referenced examples like St. Gabriel of Białystok not to accuse Orthodoxy of anti-Semitism, but to illustrate that the Orthodox Church has shown a willingness to revise problematic or questionable elements of certain saints’ stories. In modern translations of Gabriel’s akathist, the explicitly anti-Semitic details have been omitted, demonstrating a thoughtful approach that retains the saint’s spiritual value while addressing historical and moral concerns. My suggestion was that the same principle could apply to St. Peter’s narrative—not to dismiss his veneration but to reconsider and contextualize the account to better reflect historical realities.
The accusation against me of hypocrisy for overlooking the veneration of Simon of Trent neglects a crucial detail: the Catholic Church's willingness to address past wrongs upon further investigation. While Simon of Trent was once venerated locally, and even had a place in the Roman Martyrology, he was never formally canonized, and subsequent inquiries into the accusations against Jews revealed the dubious and harmful nature of the blood libel narrative surrounding his story. As a result, the local bishop and greater Church officially suppressed the cult. This willingness to reassess and adapt hagiographical traditions is relevant to my point about St. Peter the Aleut. Just as the Catholic Church has shown the capacity to critically evaluate and suppress narratives that perpetuate harm or rely on insufficient evidence, so too could Orthodoxy take a thoughtful approach to reevaluating unverified elements of St. Peter’s story. This is not a question of undermining faith but of ensuring that devotion is grounded in truth and integrity.
You also raised the issue of flogging and discipline at Spanish missions. My critique here was not an attempt to minimize or excuse such practices, but to point out the lack of evidence supporting claims of systematic torture or murder for the purpose of forced conversion in the Franciscan tradition. Flogging, while coercive and harsh, is not equivalent to the kind of torture described in the St. Peter narrative. This distinction matters when assessing the credibility of the account, particularly given the lack of similar documented cases of Franciscans engaging in such practices.
The reference to Yanovsky’s use of "Jesuits" to describe Roman Catholics was not meant to discredit him entirely but to highlight inconsistencies in the account. This terminology is a reflection of the polemical context of the time, where "Jesuit" was often used generically by Russians to denote Roman Catholics, as seen in figures like Dostoevsky. It is the prevalence of this malevolent attitude toward the foreigner, the scheming and treacherous "Jesuit" that calls into question the accuracy of Yanovsky's account. This disdain for Catholics suggests a possible exaggeration or mischaracterization of the alleged perpetrators.
On the matter of my identification as "formerly Orthodox," this is not meant as a slight against Orthodoxy, nor is it a subconscious attempt to justify my current beliefs. I don't even understand how this tag would serve to justify me, or to whom. I do seek to justify my beliefs but through study and reflection. My motivations are theological. Rather, it reflects a defining aspect of my personal experience and perspective. It is an important element of my spiritual formation, which has given me the opportunity to experience, investigate, and appreciate both Eastern and Western traditions. Including this detail in my bio is simply a way to contextualize my perspective in discussions like this one.
Finally, your assertion that my critique of the St. Peter narrative undermines belief in other saints with limited historical evidence misconstrues my argument. My concern is not about dismissing saints due to sparse evidence but about critically assessing the historical reliability of specific accounts when they are relatively recent, unverifiable, and potentially influenced by polemical or geopolitical motives. St. Peter’s case deserves thoughtful consideration, not outright dismissal, but also not unquestioning acceptance.
I hope this clarifies my position and demonstrates that my critique was not intended to attack Orthodoxy or its veneration of St. Peter but to engage in a constructive discussion about the historical and theological complexities surrounding his story.
The Yanovsky account, as provided in your article, describes the alleged martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut, portraying Catholic missionaries (referred to as Jesuits, though incorrectly, as Franciscans were active in California) as tormenting and murdering Orthodox Aleuts for refusing to convert to Catholicism. However, an analysis of this account, coupled with a discussion of Yanovsky’s broader accusations against Catholicism, reveals significant hypocrisy in the Russian Orthodox critique and raises doubts about the reliability of the St. Peter narrative.
Yanovsky describes Catholic missionaries as torturing and murdering Orthodox Aleuts to force their conversion to Catholicism, drawing parallels to the Inquisition. However, Yanovsky conveniently omits the Russian Orthodox Church’s own record of persecuting dissenters, particularly during the Old Believer Schism.
During this period, the Russian Orthodox Church engaged in systemic violence against Old Believers, including executions, forced labor, property confiscation, and military suppression. Entire communities were burned alive, either by state forces or in mass suicides to avoid capture. The death toll and suffering inflicted on Old Believers far exceed what is historically attributed to Catholic missions in the Americas.
The Spanish Inquisition, often cited by Orthodox polemicists like Yanovsky, executed an estimated 3,000–5,000 people over centuries, while Russian Orthodox persecution of Old Believers likely caused tens of thousands of deaths in a much shorter timeframe. This selective critique reveals a pattern of exaggeration aimed at vilifying Catholicism while deflecting scrutiny from Orthodox actions.
Yanovsky’s anti-Catholic bias undermines the credibility of his testimony regarding St. Peter’s martyrdom. His willingness to misrepresent events for polemical purposes casts doubt on the story’s veracity. Without independent evidence or corroboration, the story remains historically dubious and potentially a product of Russian anti-Catholic propaganda during a time of geopolitical and religious rivalry. Without corroboration, the martyrdom narrative cannot be upheld as historically accurate.
Thanks for writing this up and citing these sources. Fantastic work, and one I'll be re-reading in the future.
St. Peter is my patron saint. I don't get the denials by Catholics about his existence.
The biggest Orthodox Church in my city is named after him
Thanks for writing this!
Just sharing a bit of additional info: an Orthodox woman who worked at Ft. Ross and travels with St. Peter’s icon, telling his story, shares that his epithet should be St. Peter the Kodiak.
"What would an Aleutian be doing in California?"
Lots of things. That's like scoffing at the notion of Africans finding their way to Romanov courts because what business would he possibly have there? And it's not an argument. How embarrassing for Catholic Answers & Apologetics in general, which definitely does not need CA's help in seeming less than sound.
-a cradle Catholic who believes Rome subverted Christ's Church from the very start
Oops, edit:
"what business would *they* have"
Saint Peter the Aleut, pray for us!
Amen my brother
Your efforts to defend the hagiographical account of St. Peter the Aleut are undoubtedly noble and reflect a deep commitment to preserving the witness of those who have suffered for the faith. However, it is worth considering whether these efforts might be misplaced in this case.
The lack of verifiable evidence for the specific details of St. Peter’s story, combined with its reliance on speculative and polemical sources, calls into question the historical reliability of the narrative. A more measured approach, which acknowledges the story’s symbolic value while addressing its historical uncertainties, might better serve both the integrity of Orthodox tradition and the pursuit of truth.
The principle of revising hagiographical narratives when historical evidence is lacking or problematic could and, in my opinion, should be applied to the story of Peter the Aleut. While the account of his martyrdom may inspire devotion among the Orthodox faithful, the absence of verifiable evidence for key details—such as Peter’s existence, the nature of his death, and the identity of his alleged killers—raises serious questions about the story’s historical reliability. As with other saints' narratives that include legendary or polemical elements, the Church has precedent for adapting such stories to better align with truth and historical integrity.
A significant example is the account of the Child Martyr Gabriel of Białystok, whose veneration traditionally included the accusation that he was murdered by Jews—a narrative rooted in the blood libel myth. Recognizing the harmful and baseless nature of this claim, modern translations and productions of his akathist service have omitted these anti-Semitic details. This demonstrates a willingness within the Church to reframe a saint’s narrative, retaining its spiritual value while removing elements that are historically dubious or morally problematic.
Similarly, the story of St. Christopher, once depicted as having a dog’s head (a cynocephalus), has been largely recognized as containing legendary elements. Over time, the Church deemphasized this aspect of his story, presenting a more theologically appropriate narrative while preserving his veneration.
Likewise, St. George and the Dragon, an iconic and beloved tale, is acknowledged as a symbolic or legendary addition to the historical figure of St. George, illustrating the triumph of good over evil without insisting on the literal truth of the dragon narrative.
Applying this principle to the story of Peter the Aleut could involve a similar reevaluation. While he may continue to be honored as a symbol of steadfast faith, the specific claims about his alleged torture and death at the hands of Franciscans—based entirely on a single uncorroborated testimony—should be recognized as speculative and potentially influenced by Russian anti-Catholic propaganda during a time of geopolitical rivalry. Just as the Church has adapted the narratives of St. Gabriel, St. Christopher, and St. George to reflect truth and remove harmful or mythical elements, it would be prudent to revise the story of Peter the Aleut to focus on his symbolic significance while acknowledging the lack of historical certainty surrounding the details of his martyrdom.
By taking such steps, the Church would not only honor the spiritual message of Peter’s story but also demonstrate a commitment to truth and humility. This approach strengthens the Church’s credibility and avoids perpetuating polemical or potentially false accusations against others, fostering greater respect and integrity in both hagiography and ecumenical dialogue.
Your article claims to substantiate the martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut, presenting a narrative of his torture and death at the hands of Franciscans for refusing to renounce his Orthodox faith. However, a close analysis reveals that your article fails to prove the truth of the account.
Your article provides no verifiable evidence that St. Peter the Aleut was a historical figure. The only sources for Peter’s existence and martyrdom are Russian accounts, particularly the 1819 deposition of Keglii Ivan, an alleged eyewitness; the 1820 report by Semyon Yanovsky, which relies entirely on the deposition; and Yanovsky’s 1865 letter, written decades later, which elaborates on the story but does not introduce new evidence.
The fact that there are no Spanish, Franciscan, or other independent records documenting Peter’s existence, his capture, or his alleged martyrdom should raise doubts about the credibility of the details of this account. His life and name, “Peter the Aleut,” lacks specific biographical details, raising doubts about whether he was a real person or a symbolic figure. This doesn't prove he didn't exist, however one should acknowledge the dearth of evidence supporting the details of his life.
Your article cites multiple sources—Yanovsky’s reports and the deposition—as though they independently corroborate the story. In reality, Yanovsky’s 1820 report and 1865 letter are entirely dependent on the deposition taken from Keglii Ivan in 1819. Yanovsky did not witness the events himself and merely relayed the deposition’s contents, with the later 1865 letter adding graphic details absent from earlier accounts. Presenting these sources as separate pieces of evidence is deceptive, as they all stem from one single eyewitness account. This is a significant weakness, as the entire story depends on the reliability of one individual’s unverified testimony.
Your article attempts to implicate Franciscans in the alleged torture and murder of St. Peter by pointing to the harsh discipline and corporal punishment documented at Spanish missions and the existence of mass graves at Mission Dolores. However, these facts do not demonstrate that Franciscans used torture or murder to force conversions. While Franciscans are known to have used flogging and other forms of corporal punishment to enforce discipline, this was not intended as torture or to compel religious conversions. These practices were harsh but were framed as paternalistic correction rather than violence for coercion. The existence of mass graves at Mission Dolores reflects the high mortality rates among indigenous people in missions, which were largely due to disease, malnutrition, and poor living conditions. This is not evidence of deliberate murder or torture by Franciscans.
Furthermore, there are no other documented cases of Franciscans torturing or killing indigenous people for refusing to convert. The absence of similar incidents makes the story of St. Peter’s martyrdom highly anomalous and less credible. Your article fails to provide concrete evidence that Franciscans at Mission Dolores—or elsewhere—used torture or murder as a means of conversion.
Your article correctly points out that Aleuts were involved in the Russian-American Company’s fur trade and that Spanish authorities sometimes clashed with Russians and indigenous laborers. However, these general historical facts do not prove the specific story of St. Peter’s martyrdom. The geopolitical rivalry between Orthodox Russia and Catholic Spain provides a plausible motive for the fabrication or exaggeration of anti-Catholic stories, such as the martyrdom of St. Peter.
Your article also acknowledges errors in the narrative, such as the initial claim that Jesuits were responsible (despite their absence in California at the time), attributing the mistake to Russian use of “Jesuit” as a generic term for Roman Catholics. This inconsistency further undermines the credibility of the story.
Your article relies heavily on speculative arguments to defend the martyrdom. It asserts that the Franciscans who allegedly ordered Peter’s torture “did not represent Christian values.” This concession while respectful, does nothing to prove that the event occurred as described.
It claims that the existence of the deposition and the harsh conditions at Mission Dolores corroborate the story. However, neither the deposition nor the historical context provides independent evidence of torture or martyrdom. It argues that critics’ dismissal of the 1865 letter as fabricated is inconsistent because Yanovsky wrote about the events in 1820. This ignores the fact that Yanovsky’s earlier report was itself derivative of the deposition and not an independent account. The reliance on rhetorical defenses rather than hard evidence weakens the case for the martyrdom.
Even if one were to assume that Peter existed and died under Spanish custody, there is no evidence that his death was a deliberate act of torture ordered by a Franciscan cleric to compel conversion. The claim that Franciscans mutilated and disemboweled him relies entirely on later embellishments in the 1865 letter and cannot be substantiated by earlier reports or independent records.
The Yanovsky account, as provided in your article, describes the alleged martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut, portraying Catholic missionaries (referred to as Jesuits, though incorrectly, as Franciscans were active in California) as tormenting and murdering Orthodox Aleuts for refusing to convert to Catholicism. However, an analysis of this account, coupled with a discussion of Yanovsky’s broader accusations against Catholicism, reveals significant hypocrisy in the Russian Orthodox critique and raises doubts about the reliability of the St. Peter narrative.
Yanovsky describes Catholic missionaries as torturing and murdering Orthodox Aleuts to force their conversion to Catholicism, drawing parallels to the Inquisition. However, Yanovsky conveniently omits the Russian Orthodox Church’s own record of persecuting dissenters, particularly during the Old Believer Schism.
During this period, the Russian Orthodox Church engaged in systemic violence against Old Believers, including executions, forced labor, property confiscation, and military suppression. Entire communities were burned alive, either by state forces or in mass suicides to avoid capture. The death toll and suffering inflicted on Old Believers far exceed what is historically attributed to Catholic missions in the Americas. The Spanish Inquisition, often cited by Orthodox polemicists like Yanovsky, executed an estimated 3,000–5,000 people over centuries, while Russian Orthodox persecution of Old Believers likely caused tens of thousands of deaths in a much shorter timeframe. This selective critique reveals a pattern of exaggeration aimed at vilifying Catholicism while deflecting scrutiny from Orthodox actions.
Yanovsky’s anti-Catholic bias undermines the credibility of his testimony regarding St. Peter’s martyrdom. His willingness to misrepresent the contrast between the alleged evangelical purity of Orthodoxy over the blood-stained history of Catholicism for polemical purposes casts doubt on the story’s veracity. Without independent evidence or corroboration, the story remains historically dubious and potentially a product of Russian anti-Catholic propaganda during a time of geopolitical and religious rivalry. Without corroboration, the martyrdom narrative cannot be upheld as historically accurate.
The same independent evidence or corroboration you ask for here is completely absent from Juan Diego’s story as well. Do you believe the Catholic Church is wrong to canonize him? Rhetorical question to point out your contradiction. There’s more evidence for St. Peter than there is for Juan Diego. With multiple Roman Catholic bishops disputing his very existence. I don’t think I need to get into all of the saints in the first few centuries of Christianity which bear extremely little to no evidence of their historic existence and how this also contradicts your arguments.
I noticed of all the paragraphs of responses there was no addressing that nor the Juan Diego comparison. Without corroboration if you’re consistent with your argumentation you’ll also be saying there’s no historical reality to many saints we both share in common, I don’t see any advocation for questioning them nor your own. As for accusing the Orthodox of crafting overtly antisemitic hagiographies, you should probably address Simon of Trent and get your own house in order.
The Old Believers reference is irrelevant deflecting that you claim Orthodox are doing. If you want to get into various cases of Orthodox persecuting we can, but you know all too well the entire point of bringing up Catholic killings of other people was to show discontinuity in thinking anything like that could happen to St. Peter and accepting it happened to many others.
Your gripe that there wasn’t enough concrete evidence is quite frankly, ridiculous. You essentially say “yeah there was documented violence at Dolores Mission but there’s no other documented cases so it’s not credible.” And also you contradict and bluntly gaslight in admitting to flogging but claiming it wasn’t torture just discipline. “Yeah I’m flogging you but this isn’t torture I’m just disciplining you.” Was Jesus just being disciplined when He was being flogged?
Your next gripe about Yanovsky using the term Jesuit as a term for Roman Catholics disproves the credibility of his entire account is additionally poor. This is the same Yanovsky you said was being deceptively used to make it appear as if there’s multiple pieces of evidence. Why do you need to discredit him if it just hinges on the one piece of evidence as you previously claim? You’re not familiar with Russian culture, such as Dostoevsky who implored the same language regarding Jesuits. The weakness of a Gish-gallop style of debate that you’re attempting is that I don’t have to respond to every 20+ claims you make I just have to pick your worst ones, which were mostly all of them. This is also fair as you avoided certain arguments I made in this article.
Finally, I truly do not understand Catholics as yourself who label themselves as “formerly Orthodox.” I don’t see any Orthodox putting “formerly Catholic” in their bio. Why is this? It seems irrelevant or a tell to a subconscious need to justify disavowing your past belief. Judging by your response to this, unfortunately our dialogue doesn’t seem like it will progress anywhere on the subject of St. Peter.
Thank you for your reply and engagement with my critique. I’d like to address the points you raised in the spirit of dialogue.
First, I think it’s important to address the comparison you made between St. Peter the Aleut and St. Juan Diego. While the existence of either saint could be debated, the two cases are not entirely analogous. The account of St. Juan Diego is supported by the miraculous tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a tangible and enduring artifact that has been rigorously examined and remains central to his veneration. The tilma provides an objective basis for belief in the events surrounding St. Juan Diego, even if independent corroboration of his personal life is limited. In contrast, St. Peter’s story relies solely on a single, uncorroborated testimony, and no physical or objective evidence has been presented to support the specific claims of his martyrdom. This is not to say Orthodoxy should not honor St. Peter, but his case is unique in that the lack of evidence leaves the narrative particularly vulnerable to historical critique and calls for potential revision.
My intention was not to dismiss the veneration of saints with limited historical evidence wholesale. Many saints from the early centuries of Christianity have sparse historical records due to the challenges of preserving documentation in those periods. However, St. Peter’s case is relatively recent, occurring in the 19th century, making it subject to a higher standard of investigation. The historical context and the means of documentation available at the time allow for more scrutiny than what is possible for saints from antiquity.
Regarding the revisions to hagiographical accounts, I referenced examples like St. Gabriel of Białystok not to accuse Orthodoxy of anti-Semitism, but to illustrate that the Orthodox Church has shown a willingness to revise problematic or questionable elements of certain saints’ stories. In modern translations of Gabriel’s akathist, the explicitly anti-Semitic details have been omitted, demonstrating a thoughtful approach that retains the saint’s spiritual value while addressing historical and moral concerns. My suggestion was that the same principle could apply to St. Peter’s narrative—not to dismiss his veneration but to reconsider and contextualize the account to better reflect historical realities.
The accusation against me of hypocrisy for overlooking the veneration of Simon of Trent neglects a crucial detail: the Catholic Church's willingness to address past wrongs upon further investigation. While Simon of Trent was once venerated locally, and even had a place in the Roman Martyrology, he was never formally canonized, and subsequent inquiries into the accusations against Jews revealed the dubious and harmful nature of the blood libel narrative surrounding his story. As a result, the local bishop and greater Church officially suppressed the cult. This willingness to reassess and adapt hagiographical traditions is relevant to my point about St. Peter the Aleut. Just as the Catholic Church has shown the capacity to critically evaluate and suppress narratives that perpetuate harm or rely on insufficient evidence, so too could Orthodoxy take a thoughtful approach to reevaluating unverified elements of St. Peter’s story. This is not a question of undermining faith but of ensuring that devotion is grounded in truth and integrity.
You also raised the issue of flogging and discipline at Spanish missions. My critique here was not an attempt to minimize or excuse such practices, but to point out the lack of evidence supporting claims of systematic torture or murder for the purpose of forced conversion in the Franciscan tradition. Flogging, while coercive and harsh, is not equivalent to the kind of torture described in the St. Peter narrative. This distinction matters when assessing the credibility of the account, particularly given the lack of similar documented cases of Franciscans engaging in such practices.
The reference to Yanovsky’s use of "Jesuits" to describe Roman Catholics was not meant to discredit him entirely but to highlight inconsistencies in the account. This terminology is a reflection of the polemical context of the time, where "Jesuit" was often used generically by Russians to denote Roman Catholics, as seen in figures like Dostoevsky. It is the prevalence of this malevolent attitude toward the foreigner, the scheming and treacherous "Jesuit" that calls into question the accuracy of Yanovsky's account. This disdain for Catholics suggests a possible exaggeration or mischaracterization of the alleged perpetrators.
On the matter of my identification as "formerly Orthodox," this is not meant as a slight against Orthodoxy, nor is it a subconscious attempt to justify my current beliefs. I don't even understand how this tag would serve to justify me, or to whom. I do seek to justify my beliefs but through study and reflection. My motivations are theological. Rather, it reflects a defining aspect of my personal experience and perspective. It is an important element of my spiritual formation, which has given me the opportunity to experience, investigate, and appreciate both Eastern and Western traditions. Including this detail in my bio is simply a way to contextualize my perspective in discussions like this one.
Finally, your assertion that my critique of the St. Peter narrative undermines belief in other saints with limited historical evidence misconstrues my argument. My concern is not about dismissing saints due to sparse evidence but about critically assessing the historical reliability of specific accounts when they are relatively recent, unverifiable, and potentially influenced by polemical or geopolitical motives. St. Peter’s case deserves thoughtful consideration, not outright dismissal, but also not unquestioning acceptance.
I hope this clarifies my position and demonstrates that my critique was not intended to attack Orthodoxy or its veneration of St. Peter but to engage in a constructive discussion about the historical and theological complexities surrounding his story.
The Yanovsky account, as provided in your article, describes the alleged martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut, portraying Catholic missionaries (referred to as Jesuits, though incorrectly, as Franciscans were active in California) as tormenting and murdering Orthodox Aleuts for refusing to convert to Catholicism. However, an analysis of this account, coupled with a discussion of Yanovsky’s broader accusations against Catholicism, reveals significant hypocrisy in the Russian Orthodox critique and raises doubts about the reliability of the St. Peter narrative.
Yanovsky describes Catholic missionaries as torturing and murdering Orthodox Aleuts to force their conversion to Catholicism, drawing parallels to the Inquisition. However, Yanovsky conveniently omits the Russian Orthodox Church’s own record of persecuting dissenters, particularly during the Old Believer Schism.
During this period, the Russian Orthodox Church engaged in systemic violence against Old Believers, including executions, forced labor, property confiscation, and military suppression. Entire communities were burned alive, either by state forces or in mass suicides to avoid capture. The death toll and suffering inflicted on Old Believers far exceed what is historically attributed to Catholic missions in the Americas.
The Spanish Inquisition, often cited by Orthodox polemicists like Yanovsky, executed an estimated 3,000–5,000 people over centuries, while Russian Orthodox persecution of Old Believers likely caused tens of thousands of deaths in a much shorter timeframe. This selective critique reveals a pattern of exaggeration aimed at vilifying Catholicism while deflecting scrutiny from Orthodox actions.
Yanovsky’s anti-Catholic bias undermines the credibility of his testimony regarding St. Peter’s martyrdom. His willingness to misrepresent events for polemical purposes casts doubt on the story’s veracity. Without independent evidence or corroboration, the story remains historically dubious and potentially a product of Russian anti-Catholic propaganda during a time of geopolitical and religious rivalry. Without corroboration, the martyrdom narrative cannot be upheld as historically accurate.