HGL's F.B. writings: Two Orthodox Continue

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

Continuing from previous, same thread:

Eugene Santalov: Hans-Georg Lundahl you completely ignored the book, based on extensive research, but did not offer anything to counter what the book claims. US authorities seemed to listen to the book author (apparently he was credible enough), but for emotionally attached to their agenda/faith no argument is good enough. It is their own opinion against all. This position is simply not convincing enough for those, who look for evidence. To me, a book like that is evidence enough of atrocities of the Latins, exactly like the ones described in the story of St. Peter, in the same area and in the same time period, killing THOUSANDS. The similarities are very convincing, especially considering the huge difference in the time, language, country, when the two accounts were created. Your arguments with regards to this have no substance (at least I didn't find any), because they have no backing.

As far as who believed the story of the Russians about St. Peter and who did not, your claim that "only Russians believed it", is no argument at all, as St. Peter is a saint in the Russian Church. Other faiths and other jurisdictions are busy praying to their ethnic saints, who are closer to them, or do not pray to saints at all. They simply have little interest in saints elsewhere. However, since we have become a melting pot of ethnic groups all over the world, and I have been around for a while, I have never met a Greek, an Arab or any other Orthodox Christian or a Roman Catholic to that matter, and I have met plenty of them over the past 3 decades, prayed with them, they saw icons of St. Peter, too, NONE of them would deny his martyrdom. After living on 3 continents, you are the first person I come across, who denies it. I think you do it, because it shows how the Latin Church treated Native Americans, and you dislike that part of history, so you have chosen to make an argument, where there was never one before, and the much more recent research, presented in the book, simply removes any reasonable doubts of authenticity of St. Peter's account.

It does not make a difference to me that one of Latin popes is not "yours" and another one is. The popes speak on behalf of the Latin Church, and you defend it as "not heretical", though don't have the authority the popes do, to speak on behalf of the organization in the official capacity
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. Question 36. Article 2. Objection 2, in the Summa. St. Thomas states that Filioque is not to be found in the words of the Council of 381. This stands opposed to your contention. His statement regarding the Greeks is to be found as his answer to Objection 7. By Greeks is meant the eastern church which Rome regards as schismatic. If there is no patristic consensus, how then is the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of Filioque to be determined? As regards the Cappadocians, you are affirming that they taught Filioque and this is clear in their writings? As regards the Nestorians, two points. Firstly, their heresy is Christological not Trinitarian. Thus, their opposition to Filioque should be viewed as normative. Secondly, there were orthodox Antiochians. St. Chrysostom being most prominent among them and his name and purity of faith were defended by St. Cyril during the Nestorian controversy. St. Gregory of Cyprus was neither more nor less impartial than St. Thomas Aquinas. One being a great apologist of the East. The other, of the West. As regards Pope Leo and Charlemagne, both were united in their respective rebellion. That the former did not condemn the latter, is in no way surprising.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Eugene Santalov "you completely ignored the book, based on extensive research, but did not offer anything to counter what the book claims"

I have little time to consult it, and probably no opportunity here in France, and extensive research does not always make for good research, when one has a bad agenda, based on emotional bias.

US is one of the best countries in the world by today's standards, not quite a match for Poland, let alone for the Austria of Charles the Last - but it has a strong strand of Masonic influence in governance and governments, all levels, and therefore has lots of government agents (some of them nominal Catholics, like a certain Biden) who are willing to do a hatchet job on especially historic Catholicism. Your recommendation in fact isn't one. It's like recommending (in 1600) Foxe' Book of Martyrs because Elisabeth and James VI and I thought highly of it - they had an axe to grind against the Catholic Church and wanted "millions of martyrs" on the Catholic side to hide they were in fact martyring Catholics.

Now, it is still irrelevant for the fake canonisation of Peter the Aleut as precisely Martyr.

Even suppose *every* atrocity in it were correct as to facts, and correctly assessed as to morality of the facts, which I doubt, but let's suppose it. The atrocity committed by Inquisitors to Peter the Aleut doesn't become the least more credible because of that.

Why? Drunkenness, murder, lechery are all sins likely to get you to hell, but you cannot prove one of them because the other is proven about any given person. Elvis the Pelvis can't be tied to a murder just because he was no doubt at all about it a lecher (who may have repented just before he met his judge). Ted Bundy can't be in proven need of Alcoholics Anonymous (actually I think those are heretics, Hell is worse than alcoholism) just because he was, also beyond the shadow of a doubt, a murderer (who may also have made his peace with God before getting executed, dear St. Dismas, pray for us).

But even if we limit us to murders, and even if we counted Serra as a murderer (which I don't think holds up either), murderers are also different. A certain Mengele would commit atrocities in human bodies within medical research and while sterilising some people without their consent, does it mean he could be tied down to a crime like those in the chainsaw massacre? No, not because he is morally better, but because he psychologically different. It's like pretending some wheelchair bound very evil version of Dr. Strangelove would have got on a horse, taken a sabre and ridden into a crowd of women and children, hacking as many to death as he could.

So, whatever the book can tell, truthfully or otherwise, about Junipero Serra (remember, my Pope who died a week before yesterday didn't canonise him, the Antipope in Rome "did"), it doesn't mean Junipero Serra could have killed Peter the Aleut the way the story describes. End of story (at least should be).
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Alex Coleman "As regards Pope Leo and Charlemagne, both were united in their respective rebellion. That the former did not condemn the latter, is in no way surprising."

Leo III is a canonised saint in the Orthodox Church.

He is also famous for not approving Filioque in the Creed.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. You are correct about St. Leo III. What is your view of his opposition to Filioque? My point is that Charlemagne rebelled against the legitimate authority of the Emperor in the East when declared he himself Emperor in 800. The Papacy supported him as a means of affirming it's claim to primacy.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Pope Leo III, by legitimising Charlemagne, certainly could have condemned Filioque as heresy, had he liked to, at least at a safe distance when Charlemagne was back in Aachen or fighting Saxons.

That he didn't means, that as a Byzantine cultured Pope, he was against including it in the creed, but had no hard feelings about the orthodoxy as such.

The background for the Christmas 800 coronation was this : basileus (not basilissa) Eirene Sarantapechaina was defending the iconodule position (so far all right) by gouging out the eyes of her own son and co-regent suspected or even condemned of being iconoclast.

The point was not "leave Constantine VI alone" but "gouging out eyes is Barbaric, not Roman" (as we Franks and Italians see Romanity) and as Constantine VI was technically lawful emperor, Eirene was technically usurper, as much as or more than Charlemagne.

"as a means of affirming it's claim to primacy."

Again an accusation against a Pope you consider (technically) a saint, and also, it was hardly an issue in his day.

I even think Photius showed some Papism by accepting the lawful Patriarch's appeal to precisely the Pope. After Leo III.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. By not including it in the creed, it is clear that St. Leo III did not regard Filioque as orthodox. Furthermore, if my ailing memory serves, was it not he who inscribed the creed in silver in it's original form, so as to make the orthodox position clear? That he did not condemn Charlemagne as a heretic is rooted in the necessity of their alliance. Charlemagne was such a powerful member of the Church and a force for the spread and upholding of it's teachings, that a relatively minor theological dispute could not separate the two men. The Empress Irene may indeed have been a barbaric usurper. However, the throne of the empire and it's capital was in Constantinople. The crowning of Charlemagne was an act of rebellion against the Emperor who was anointed by God. Pope Leo is indisputably a saint. However, few saints are without error. To interpret a consultation between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Rome as an appeal from the former to the latter in submission, strikes me as revisionist history. Patriarch Michael Cerularios called the Roman Pontiff brother, and the Pope was infuriated to not be called father. Why was St. Photios not the lawful patriarch, in your view?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "By not including it in the creed, it is clear that St. Leo III did not regard Filioque as orthodox."

Your number one unproven assumption.

For instance, it involves there are only two positions possible "Filioque is certain" and "Filioque is certainly false" - it doesn't account for Leo III being able to sit on the hedge doctrinally and for that precise reason prefer a creed that doesn't decide.

"Furthermore, if my ailing memory serves, was it not he who inscribed the creed in silver in it's original form, so as to make the orthodox position clear?"

Memory good, logic see previous. He made what he considered the correct text version clear.

"That he did not condemn Charlemagne as a heretic is rooted in the necessity of their alliance."

It's not. Schuschnigg signed an Anti-Comintern pact with Mussolini, Horthy and Hitler. Yet he opposed Hitler and was thrown into prison. Leo III is a saint, and you are saying Schuschnigg was braver?

"Charlemagne was such a powerful member of the Church and a force for the spread and upholding of it's teachings, that a relatively minor theological dispute could not separate the two men."

If it was "minor" that means Leo III did not regard Filioque as heresy, at worst as an error compatible with keeping the faith.

"The Empress Irene may indeed have been a barbaric usurper. However, the throne of the empire and it's capital was in Constantinople."

Not the actual case since Constantine the Great. There were Emperors East and West after him. I think Theodosius (I or II) was from the West.

"The crowning of Charlemagne was an act of rebellion against the Emperor who was anointed by God."

Highly disputable. Even apostles can lose their salt, and be worth only treading underfoot. Why not an Empire?

"Pope Leo is indisputably a saint."

Thank you.

"However, few saints are without error."

Including *major* error in both theology and political loyalty? Cringeworthy view of what sanctity means.

"To interpret a consultation between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Rome as an appeal from the former to the latter in submission, strikes me as revisionist history."

It was not a consultation, it was an appeal to get the usurper Photius deposed by the Pope. And Photius accepted the judge as such.

"Patriarch Michael Cerularios called the Roman Pontiff brother, and the Pope was infuriated to not be called father."

A few centuries after Photius.

"Why was St. Photios not the lawful patriarch, in your view?"

Because the emperor had no authority to depose the previous patriarch to impose a personal favourite layman (Photius' position up to then).
Eugene Santalov: Hans-Georg Lundahl more rhetoric with your personal opinion without authoritative references. Not convincing. All of it is subjective. I trust the authority of those who called St. Peter a martyr more than yours, sorry, with the general "practice" of mistreating Native Americans by the same organization at the same time and location confirmed by the research and the resulting book from a completely different culture, time and religion. Those people were more objective and had no agenda. You do.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Eugene Santalov They had no agenda - false, but thanks for it being over with you.
Eugene Santalov: Hans-Georg Lundahl they made conclusions based on their findings. Orthodox Church has ALWAYS taken glorification of saints very seriously, after much research. You make conclusions based on biased rhetoric, NO findings, no references, no research. You have zilch. Your rhetoric has no weight to it, no backing and no objectivity. You blindly defend the Latin Church by denying its crimes, at least in this case.

For examples of heretical and brutal conduct of the Latins one doesn't even need to travel to the New World. If they burned those of their own race at the stake what kind of treatment can be expected towards "savages"? And it did not end in Middle Ages. Mistreating and killing children, molesting and raping them, have been a Latin Church stigma in Americas for centuries now.

Latin religious courts would condemn innocent to exile and death even for such things as singing, dancing and having goose bumps when it is cold. Those were considered to be some symptoms of leprosy or witchcraft.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. By not including Filioque in the creed and by engraving the creed as such in silver, St. Leo did not hedge but clearly demonstrated his opposition. I call Filioque a relatively minor theological dispute because although the clause has heretical implications, it is not an explicit heresy such as Arianism. There were Christian emperors in the West, to be sure. However, with the fall of the western empire in 476, the eastern emperor became sole ruler of Christendom. If the West had desired independence, it would have had to be done with the permission of Constantinople. Yes, saints can be guilty of major errors. St. Augustine, for example, was a great and holy man. Yet his teaching against free-will and view of corporate guilt for the sin of Adam, are both serious errors. The appeal to Rome of which you speak does not demonstrate that the East accepted the Papal monarchy. Surely St. Photios did not! It demonstrates that the patriarch of rome was held in high esteem, as is proper and right. St. Photios was not a layman when he ascended to the patriarchate and that is all that is relevant.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Eugene Santalov "they made conclusions based on their findings."

With Peter the Aleut, the first findings were the words of fellow Aleuts who might have wanted to protect him against the curse of Hermann of Alaska.

If later on miracles were added to that, I would suggest, Peter lived a holy life as a Latin, married in California.

"If they burned those of their own race at the stake what kind of treatment can be expected towards "savages"?"

Burning at the stake was not for "the eucharist isn't in azymes" but for "the good God didn't create earth" or "Christians must have no deal with political power" ... or sorcery. In each case, when there was either no repentance or relapse. And what they would do to Amerindians or Aleuts in such a case is precisely the same thing : burning at the stake. Not slow dismemberment.

"Mistreating and killing children, molesting and raping them, have been a Latin Church stigma in Americas for centuries now."

You failed to document the "for centuries" part, as well as the "killing" part.

Molesting or raping children has been a plague of a set of apostates, like deniers of Biblical creation, affirmers that Adam had a childhood among beasts. Exists since the 1940's.

"Latin religious courts would condemn innocent to exile and death even for such things as singing, dancing and having goose bumps when it is cold."

Wonderful story, but where is your source? A complaint by a Wiccan?

There is no proof that the picture shown goes along with what you are telling.

"Those were considered to be some symptoms of leprosy or witchcraft."

Leprosy was not an offense with the Inquisition. Lepers were quarantined, not exiled thousands of miles.

If a Wiccan coven wants someone to tell horror stories about Roman Catholicism, I think they will welcome you. For my part, I'd like sources when facing allegations.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Alex Coleman "By not including Filioque in the creed and by engraving the creed as such in silver, St. Leo did not hedge but clearly demonstrated his opposition."

A b o u t exactly one question : it's inclusion into the creed. Perfectly copatible with hedging on the theological question, especially as there was no follow up in condemnations.

"There were Christian emperors in the West, to be sure. However, with the fall of the western empire in 476, the eastern emperor became sole ruler of Christendom."

And by 800, this changed. Constantinople had shown itself totally an-axios.

"If the West had desired independence, it would have had to be done with the permission of Constantinople."

Like with Venice? You know how Doge Dandolo had his eyes put out by a Basileus because he insisted Venice was independent of Constantinople?

Venice became so when Doge's refused to pay tax to Iconoclast Emperors who persecuted Orthodox.

"Yes, saints can be guilty of major errors. St. Augustine, for example, was a great and holy man. Yet his teaching against free-will"

None that I know of ... some Protestants and Jansenists have claimed such. Jesuits have proven that false.

"and view of corporate guilt for the sin of Adam, are both serious errors."

Palamas shared this view and viewed the Blessed Virgin as exempt thereof. Aren't you celebrating him one of the Sundays either of Triodion or early Lent as a "defender of Orthodoxy"?

In other words, you have proven no major fault in St. Augustine ....

"The appeal to Rome of which you speak does not demonstrate that the East accepted the Papal monarchy. Surely St. Photios did not! It demonstrates that the patriarch of rome was held in high esteem, as is proper and right."

It demonstrates at the very least that both claimants saw Rome as a court of higher appeal.

"St. Photios was not a layman when he ascended to the patriarchate and that is all that is relevant."

When was he ordained and when was he made patriarch? Two weeks between?

No, it's not all that is relevant. The imprisoned former patriarch who made an appeal to Rome clearly was not a heretic or an apostate and the Basileus had no reason to depose him just to favour an old favourite of the court.
Eugene Santalov: Hans-Georg Lundahl "With Peter the Aleut, the first findings were the words of fellow Aleuts who might have wanted to protect him against the curse of Hermann of Alaska."

That's your biased interpretation without a shred of evidence to back it up, vs the words of simple honest people, who had fear of God in them after becoming Christians. Guess whose testimonies have more weight?

"If later on miracles were added to that, I would suggest, Peter lived a holy life as a Latin, married in California."

More fantasies in place of a testimony of witnesses, whom you accuse of lying with no evidence to support your accusation, but rather evidence to the contrary, even if secondary, still overwhelming (and you simply chose to ignore it without zilch of your own evidence to the contrary).

"And what they would do to Amerindians or Aleuts in such a case is precisely the same thing : burning at the stake. Not slow dismemberment."

This statement goes against the research and the book which I referred to. You are making things up again. Not good.

"You failed to document the "for centuries" part, as well as the "killing" part. Molesting or raping children has been a plague of a set of apostates, like deniers of Biblical creation, affirmers that Adam had a childhood among beasts. Exists since the 1940's."

Of course, they began mistreating Native American children only after 1940s, and before that they were all good to them. Talk about denial...

"Wonderful story, but where is your source? A complaint by a Wiccan?"

The source is an 11th century description on how they dealt with determining who were the lepers in a Western European city, and what happened to those people afterwards.

"There is no proof the picture shown..."

Considering your statements with no backing, it is funny to hear such statements from you. In this topic you seem to use arguments, which have no proof to them, even the opposite, they are illogical, just biased rhetoric.

This is a sort of gaslighting, I suppose. Examine your own statements before doubting those of others.

"Lepers were quarantined, not exiled thousands of miles."

Again a false statement and distorting of what I wrote. I did not say "thousands of miles", and of course they were exiled, at least from the society, NOT thousands of miles. You must live in an alternate reality, plus make things up, as if they were part of my statements. Why such dishonest methods of discussion? How then you expect then to be taken seriously?

"I'd like sources when facing allegations."

I have been asking you for sources all along, so far I have provided way more than you have. It is also funny to hear you asking for more sources, when you chose to ignore those I referred to before. Means you will keep using the same partial approach no matter my sources. So what's the use? I might as well present my sources to a donkey.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. Constantinople had become an-axios because of iconoclasm? If so, that would render Charlemagne unfit to be the Western Emperor, for he too was an iconoclast! By demonstrating that heretics sat upon the throne in the East, you do not thereby demonstrate that the East had lost authority. Pope Honorius was a heretic, yet you hold that he was the Vicar of Christ. Perhaps Jansenus and his followers had a clearer understanding of St. Augustine than did the followers of Loyola? If you are indeed correct about Palamas, why then does the Roman Church not venerate him? The Latins tend to devalue the Greek Fathers. St. Cyril of Alexandria had no feast day in the Western Church until the 1880's. Rome was granted primacy of honor at the 6th Ecumenical Council. Thus, an appeal to Rome was perfectly reasonable but does not prove the doctrine of Roman Primacy as understood in the West. Did the Emperor have the authority to depose the patriarch and install St. Photios? If so, he did no evil, though perhaps we can say that what was done was not a good........
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Eugene Santalov "the words of simple honest people, who had fear of God in them after becoming Christians."

If they were afraid of Hermann's curse, on azyme communion, they had reason to protect Peter against it.

"More fantasies in place of a testimony of witnesses,"

Indeed, the miracles could equally have been faked - or granted more for the piety and need of those getting than for the glory of Peter. It was indeed speculation. By the way, I have not even heard what miracles are attributed to him, but think miracles are a standard requirement for canonisation.

"This statement goes against the research and the book which I referred to."

Your book is by an author making up things. Roman Catholicism is not racist. The penalties meted out by the Inquisition are the same for white, black, red or yellow skinned people.

While you may yourself not be making up things, you are a dupe of one who is doing so.

"Of course, they began mistreating Native American children only after 1940s, and before that they were all good to them."

We were talking of molesting and rape. Pedophile cases start in the 40's in France.

I do not know what you can point to as done to Amerindian children before this, but it is more like exposing them to death in tuberculosis by obeying the evil laws of Canada requiring residential schools.

"The source is an 11th century description on how they dealt with determining who were the lepers in a Western European city, and what happened to those people afterwards."

Would you mind mentioning the author of the 11th C. description so I can check it independently of your book?

"Examine your own statements before doubting those of others."

In fact, I was not doubting your honesty. I have seen modern researchers abuse pictures for presenting a horror story of the past. Horror story : "children were regularly helping in ploughing and risked getting maimed by ploughs" - one of the pictures is a baby before a plough, and I could make out the text with Telemachus over the baby and Ulixes over the man with the plough - it is a depiction of a very unique situation (possibly fictional) which if it happened is from some time 1200 BC, Ulysses feigning madness by using the plough wrong, and those wanting to draft him putting the baby before the plough to prove him sane when he stopped. The other picture was not of a child, but of a teen, and it was of a collection of miracles, so hardly a source the secularists would accept as honest anyway, even if I do. What I definitely cannot guarantee is that the book you refer to is made by someone using pictures in a more honest way than that. Sorry. Frauds are rampant when people try to demonise the Middle Ages.

Obviously, the picture of burning heretics was not what I doubted.

"Again a false statement and distorting of what I wrote. I did not say "thousands of miles", and of course they were exiled, at least from the society, NOT thousands of miles."

Still, their loved ones could take a walk and bring them something - keeping the distance. In my book this is extreme quarantine, but not "exile" in the normal sense of the word.

"You must live in an alternate reality, plus make things up, as if they were part of my statements"

You used the word "exile" without adding "from society" ... to my ear that means exile many miles away, like Ovid was exiled to the Black Sea or St. Athanasius to Trier. If you had said "exile from society" I would have understood you better. But you said "condemned to exile and death" ... basically putting leprosy (a condition which was dealt with by very extreme quarantine) and witchcraft (in some jurisdiction a death penalty offense, but that was mostly way after 11th C.) in the same breath. I was taking your statement at what it made most coherently sense as meaning, had you used a clearer phrase, you could have avoided it. And you were speaking of gaslighting?

"I have been asking you for sources all along,"

I checked with a F search. The first mention of "sources" (plural) is actually my word you are now answering. I'll try "source" (singular) as well ... did. Nada. You maybe used another word?

Or, again, you may be the one doing the gaslighting ... and you have referred to a book of research, but you have not referred to the primary sources in it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Alex Coleman "Constantinople had become an-axios because of iconoclasm?"

In the case of Venetian secession, which happened earlier than Charlemagne's - yes.

"If so, that would render Charlemagne unfit to be the Western Emperor, for he too was an iconoclast!"

He was not quit iconodule by the standards of Nicaea II, is the worst I have heard, but definitely not iconoclast or persecuter of iconodules.

"By demonstrating that heretics sat upon the throne in the East, you do not thereby demonstrate that the East had lost authority."

The iconoclast emperor was not just heretic, he was using tax money to persecute those who weren't.

"Pope Honorius was a heretic, yet you hold that he was the Vicar of Christ."

As far as I know, he was not a Monothelite, he simply banned polemics about the subject - bad enough. Pope St. Leo II signed an act saying he had favoured heresy, but not that he was a heretic.

"Perhaps Jansenus and his followers had a clearer understanding of St. Augustine than did the followers of Loyola?"

Or perhaps not.

"If you are indeed correct about Palamas, why then does the Roman Church not venerate him?"

Some Uniates tend to do that. However, the most simple answer, he was on the wrong side of a schism that had already taken place in his day.

"The Latins tend to devalue the Greek Fathers. St. Cyril of Alexandria had no feast day in the Western Church until the 1880's."

I'd have to ask my Church Historian friend about this ....

"Rome was granted primacy of honor at the 6th Ecumenical Council. Thus, an appeal to Rome was perfectly reasonable"

Even against the Emperor?

"but does not prove the doctrine of Roman Primacy as understood in the West."

Both the "deposed" and imprisoned real patriarch and Photius actually appealed to him as a kind of judge.

"Did the Emperor have the authority to depose the patriarch and install St. Photios? If so, he did no evil, though perhaps we can say that what was done was not a good........"

But the point is, he hadn't.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Alex Coleman "Constantinople had become an-axios because of iconoclasm?"

Back to this ... in the case of the Carolingian secession, no. But because the return to Orthodoxy was as barbaric as the persecutions by iconoclasts had been.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Eugene Santalov "The source is an 11th century description on how they dealt with determining who were the lepers in a Western European city, and what happened to those people afterwards."

Whether the original text is an 11th C. text, I think the illustration looks like later - 12th, 13th, up to 15th ...

If you were willing to give sources, why not say what Western European City and what the description is named? I know Latin, so no problem if the description is in Latin.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. We both could continue this disputation ad infinitum. I will allow you the last word, brother. I am reminded of the words of St. Ambrose of Milan: "in essentials unity. In nonessentials, diversity. In all things, charity."
Eugene Santalov: Hans-Georg Lundahl the source was quoted in a lecture in Russian, they didn't specify the city. Even if illustrations are done a little later, it does not cancel history before that time. In any case, I repeat, asking for sources is humorous coming out from someone whose statements with regards to the questions you and I discussed here, had ZERO sources, even remote ones. All your statements were based on not very convincing and often obviously flawed/subjective logic.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Eugene Santalov "the source was quoted in a lecture in Russian"

Sounds v e r y reassuring for objectivity and for fairness as against Latins (or not quite so).

"statements with regards to the questions you and I discussed here, had ZERO sources, even remote ones."

Which one were you even remotely asking one source from?

I went over the two posts on my blog (extant and upcoming) where this is mirrored, and I searched the word "sources" and the word "source" and I was the first to use it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Alex Coleman I just checked with a Church Historian, Stephan Borgehammar, and while certain Greek fathers were really well known, they were celebrated only in few localities. The saints feasts are, as he said, originally a local affair, it's rare for a feast to penetrate even one whole patriarchate.

This obviously not to add new fuel to the debate, but to fix a side issue I lacked an answer to.
Eugene Santalov: Hans-Georg Lundahl in ALL your statements to me you had NO references. I did even without you asking. Please, provide sources for ANY of them? Anyone refuted the account of St. Peter the Aleut and based it on research? Anyone refuted torture of Native Americans, based on evidence? Anyone refuted inquisition in Europe, exiling of so called lepers in the Middle Ages and murder of Native American children by Roman Catholics? Anyone refuted any other statements I made which you disagree with, based on evidence? You question my evidence with ZERO of your own. Your doubts have ZERO weight, especially after some of your statements, which distort facts, all without facts of your own, just your own ideas, obviously set on defending your organization even if it means ignoring or denying facts of history.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "in ALL your statements to me you had NO references."

I was prepared to give any reference for a statement you challenged.

"Anyone refuted the account of St. Peter the Aleut and based it on research?"

Yes, I, based on what I know of the Inquisition. Catholicism distinguishes Heresy from Schism, and refusing Azymes would be Schism. Heresy as death penalty offense (repeat offense of very long refusal to repent) meant burning, sometimes mitigated by strangulation before it. NOT the kind of death this "martyrdom" history presents.

What I read about Hermann of Alaska says he already prior to these reports had a devotion to one St. John of Persia, who was executed that precise way - but by Sassanids, not Inquisitors. Points to the story having been adapted to what he would found believable.

Here it is:
Φιλολoγικά / Philologica : Was Peter the Aleut a Martyr?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/09/was-peter-aleut-martyr.html

I didn't feel like needing to cite it to you, since it would be myself I were citing and I was offering the same arguments.

"Anyone refuted torture of Native Americans, based on evidence?"

Depends on what kind of torture, by whom - lay Spaniards may have done so more than once. Spanish ex-Colonies made it worse. This is about Inquisitors, not laymen. Before you pretend Native Americans were tortured by Church men, what exactly do you count as torture? Putting an offender in irons?

"Anyone refuted inquisition in Europe,"

I don't intend to. It's my knowledge of the Inquisition that's my argument against the story.

"exiling of so called lepers in the Middle Ages"

Quarantining may be "exile from society" but it is not "exile" in the sense this has as a kind of punishment. First bc leprosy is not an offense, but a contagious disease, second because the leper colonies were put outside the city walls, the lepers were neither required nor even allowed perhaps to wander far away (except on pilgrimages hoping for healing?), and this means the people they knew could go and visit them (seeing each other at a safe distance) rather than, as in real exile, being cut off.

The idea simply having goose bumps in cold counted as a symptom of leprosy is absurd. Perhaps things looking like goose bumps but staying that way when not in cold were mistranslated? I don't know if that could be an early symptom or not.

"and murder of Native American children by Roman Catholics?"

If you mean Roman Catholic either clergymen or laymen acting on orders of clergymen, you are far out.

Unless you count it as murder to obey an evil law of Canada and keep children in a boarding school where Tuberculosis is spreading - but this law came into existence by a vote in Ottawa 1890, way after the purported martyrdom of Peter the Aleut, and Canada voting this law had a Protestant majority within the English majority.

"Anyone refuted any other statements I made which you disagree with, based on evidence?"

You didn't give much evidence. The major refutation remains that.

But if you want evidence about the Inquisition and not from me, check:

The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision Paperback – July 11, 1999
by Henry Kamen (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Inquisition-Historical-Revision/dp/0300078803

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kamen

"Your doubts have ZERO weight, especially after some of your statements, which distort facts, all without facts of your own, just your own ideas, obviously set on defending your organization even if it means ignoring or denying facts of history."

If anyone distorts facts of history, it's you.

Check Kamen if you think I suck on Medieval history and early modern history among Latins, but that's one of the lines where my university studies in precisely Latin helps get the eyes open for more research and historians than most people get.