JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[deducer]

The flip side of that premise is that Och was truly unshaken because he had no guilt, and didn't care where or what was searched.

I do not get a sense of outrage in Fr. Och's writing at being rounded up, treated like cattle, and marched off. He calmly describes how their quarters were ransacked, how rudely they were treated, and how he lost all of his books. Why isn't he upset over it? Why isn't he surprised?

It was as if he were expecting this, and knew why this was happening.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hi '''springfield coffee" it didn0't work in Arizona, The Illlegals trashed the areas there;

Don Jose de la mancha

 

[deducer]

Also, while the Jesuits may well have had an inkling that trouble was brewing for them, the expulsion may well have caught them flat footed; there was no opportunity to go back and hide anything.

I disagree that they were caught flat-footed. My position is that they knew it was inevitable at some point, after two false alarms:

 

[Springfield]

Hi '''springfield coffee" it didntn work in Arizona, The Illlegals=es trashed the areas there;

Don Jose de la mancha

If you're referring to Organ Pipe, it's on the border in essentially empty country. Las Cruces is an urban area 40 miles north of the border. Apples and oranges.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

apple ^ orange juice makes an interesting comb want some ' springfield: Home free for furthering an ilegal entry

But this is far off subject.

don Jose de la Mancha

 

[gollum]

Roy,

You're crazy if you think all the Jesuits were caught flat-footed by the arrests. I don't know how many may have been "in the loop" (so to speak), but obviously not all of them were privvy. Unless the good fathers that broke down crying (and the one that fainted) were Colonial Jesuit Academy Award Nominees in the category of "Best Bad News Overreaction", it is evident that only a select number of the fathers had any inside knowledge of the goings on at higher levels.

It makes all the sense in the world. Compartmentalization is used to this day. Only a few select people know everything. That way, even if tortured, most of the good fathers did not know, and therefore could not tell about any secret goings on (mining, hiding treasure, etc). It would also explain that using temporal coadjutors to run their mines and businesses for profit, would be mostly unknown to local Jesuit Priests (except maybe Father Visitadores or Visitador Generals). Just a thought.

Deducer,

I feel the same every time I read Father Och's Journals. I get the sense that he feels a sense of "I got away with it!" when he writes about the day of the arrests (26 June 1767). Read the whole episode about how they are so lax in guarding him, that he is able to have his boy bring up a container of burning coals, so he can ...........................................................

WAIT FOR IT!​

...................................... BURN HIS CORRESPONDENCES! GEEZ! Why on Earth would a poor old Jesuit Priest feel the need to burn correspondences in the midst of a roundup of Jesuit Priests? What would he feel the need to hide from the Spanish? HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

I'm sure this is exactly the right place to decide/speculate what Father Och's reasons were for burning his papers.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Mike,

I'm sure this is exactly the right place to decide/speculate what Father Och's reasons were for burning his papers.

Good luck,

Joe

Joe,

First, here is the specific quote regarding Priests and mining. Maybe you can show me how to interpret it so that amalgamating gold would not fall under it:

Rule #4. No one will work mines. This includes the prohibition that no one will have any knowledge about the matter of mining, either directly or indirectly. The intention of the precept is to include all forms of knowledge or interpretations that could even fall within the same precept.

Somehow I think we will now see a multipage argument about some minutiae.

Actually, it is the PERFECT place to discuss why Father Och would feel the need to burn papers while the Spanish were searching his residence.

ESPECIALLY, since there were Ecclesiastical Precepts to write letters in code and destroy letters.

1647:

"Inasmuch as possible, Ours will avoid writing letters to Ours complaining about the laity. If a letter has to be written, let it be so done that, even if lost or opened, the person about whom the letter was written could not understand it. The same caution is to be observed when writing the Provincial about things THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH SECRETLY BECAUSE EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THE CONTRARY PRACTICE CREATES GRAVE INCONVENIENCES."

"17. In the matter of writing and keeping letters, many serious improprieties have been observed. Since, as we are mortals, the written word remains, letters can serve as the Father of Rumors and the seedbed of discord. Wherefore, I beseech you in the bosom of Jesus Christ, that whoever has any such letters WILL HEREUPON BURN THEM (AS SOME HAVE ALREADY DONE). In the future the Fathers should take a careful look at what they are writing because LITTERA SCRIPTA MANET and they can break charity apart in various ways which is something we should take very much to heart in our Society which is after all a Society of Love."

Is there really any wonder why there is no paper trail regarding Jesuit Mines and Treasures? If the Jesuit Fathers burned all their papers that were "about things THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH SECRETLY", then there would be very little left to prove our case. A case which must be proven circumstantially and anecdotally (for the most part). Finding a treasure is also a way to prove the case. I have shown it with the 82 Pounds of Gold Bars and 1028 silver bars stories, as well as newspaper articles, and the Canada Law Review Article. Unfortunately, most treasure hunters will opt for secrecy if they find wealth. So goes history. Can't say 100% that I wouldn't either.

On 26 June 1767, while all the Jesuit Fathers were being rounded up, Father Joseph Och SJ was allowed to recover from a severe illness at his Mission. While there, he recounts in his journal ("Missionary in Sonora; the travel reports of Joseph Och, S.J., 1755-1767 Translated by Theodore Treutline), that while the Spanish Soldiers were guarding the stairs to his bedroom, his servant boy was allowed to come and go to bring him food. In doing this, he also brought to Och a bowl of burning coals. They were used to burn Och's Letters and other papers. He wrote that it made so much smoke, it brought the soldiers running, but it was too late.

So Joe, why not conjecture? Surely a Jesuit Priest as well thought of at the time as Father Och would not have been doing anything that needed to be hidden from nonJesuits? RIGHT? Maybe you can give us some possibilities for Father Och risking the safety of his servant so he could burn some letters while in Spanish Custody. Were they all letters? Maybe some maps? Who knows? Maybe he REALLY didn't want the Spaniards getting his recipe for Hot Cacao!

Mike

 

[Springfield]

... If the Jesuit Fathers burned all their papers that were "about things THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH SECRETLY", then there would be very little left to prove our case. A case which must be proven circumstantially and anecdotally (for the most part). Finding a treasure is also a way to prove the case. I have shown it with the 82 Pounds of Gold Bars and 1028 silver bars stories, as well as newspaper articles, and the Canada Law Review Article. Unfortunately, most treasure hunters will opt for secrecy if they find wealth. So goes history. Can't say 100% that I wouldn't either...

Mike

There's the rub - the argument can't really be proven without incontrovertible hard evidence. The 82 pounds and the 1028 silver bars have reliability problems for many, as recently discussed in depth. The CLR article is irrelevant to the Santa Cruz Valley. I like anecdotal and circumstantial evidence generally, but they only serve to 'affect the odds'. You can inch the odds up slowly with this stuff, but it's a long way from 0 to say, 80, for most prudent observers.

Let's say a treasure hunter decides to accept all this circumstantial evidence as adequate proof and joins the 'Jesuit treasure' camp. Where does he go from there? Is this all merely an intellectual debate, or is there a reason for him to start wearing out his Vibrams? After all, many, many 'well-informed', experienced and saavy guys (probably with better info than available from the pulp media) have methodically searched and dug up a lot of Arizona dirt with nothing to show for it. I know that doesn't prove a negative, but it seems to leave a searcher with diminishing options.

 

[Cubfan64]

Not taking sides on any of this as I have my own opinions, but I'm not clear as to the reason behind this precept and especially the logic behind it...

Rule #4. No one will work mines. This includes the prohibition that no one will have any knowledge about the matter of mining, either directly or indirectly. The intention of the precept is to include all forms of knowledge or interpretations that could even fall within the same precept

By all accounts the Jesuit order was comprised of many highly learned men of those days. Mathematics, astronomy, geology, etc... all the sciences. A rule that no one will work any mines seems to be pretty crystal clear and to the point, why the addition of the second "nebulous" part? Logic and reason would argue that a person cannot "unlearn" something (in this case mining and/or anything related to mining) that they may have studied or even done prior to becoming a full member of the order. What about noting geology during their travels and passing that information along to Spanish who could then work the rocks and provide revenue for the King?

Personally I take the precept as an early statement similar to the warnings we're given as children about certain things like ..."I don't want you doing this, in fact I don't even want you thinking about doing this, or even knowing anything that might have anything to do with doing this, or even knowing anybody else who's doing this, etc..."

Do you all interpret the precept the same way I do, that's it a specific warning NOT to work any mines, but the nebulous part afterwards as being too silly to ever truly enforce?

 

[deducer]

There's the rub - the argument can't really be proven without incontrovertible hard evidence. The 82 pounds and the 1028 silver bars have reliability problems for many, as recently discussed in depth. The CLR article is irrelevant to the Santa Cruz Valley. I like anecdotal and circumstantial evidence generally, but they only serve to 'affect the odds'. You can inch the odds up slowly with this stuff, but it's a long way from 0 to say, 80, for most prudent observers.

Let's say a treasure hunter decides to accept all this circumstantial evidence as adequate proof and joins the 'Jesuit treasure' camp. Where does he go from there? Is this all merely an intellectual debate, or is there a reason for him to start wearing out his Vibrams? After all, many, many 'well-informed', experienced and saavy guys (probably with better info than available from the pulp media) have methodically searched and dug up a lot of Arizona dirt with nothing to show for it. I know that doesn't prove a negative, but it seems to leave a searcher with diminishing options.

Simple question:

If Fr. Och had nothing to hide, why did he burn his correspondences?

 

[Cubfan64]

Simple question:

If Fr. Och had nothing to hide, why did he burn his correspondences?

Not that simple of a question imho. Maybe he did have something to hide, or maybe he wasn't that much different from many of us who would be outraged or at least very annoyed to have someone (or some group) snooping through our things when it's none of their business who I've been talking to or what I've been saying. The bottom line is we'll never know what he destroyed or why he destroyed them - it's a discussion that quite honestly will lead nowhere (again imho).

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

I have no problem with conjecture......it's all we really have, after so much non-specific evidence.

As Paul stated, the Jesuits were the most highly educated men in the New World. Beyond that, mining was one of the things, I believe, that was taught by the Jesuits.

I don't believe either side will see the conclusion of this debate.

So far, Paul and Springfield have voiced my thoughts perfectly. Nothing left for me to write.

Take care,

Joe

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

Save a tree !!

Simple question:

If Fr. Och had nothing to hide, why did he burn his correspondences?

To save them a fortune in photocopying and records archival

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

You're crazy if you think all the Jesuits were caught flat-footed by the arrests. I don't know how many may have been "in the loop" (so to speak), but obviously not all of them were privvy. Unless the good fathers that broke down crying (and the one that fainted) were Colonial Jesuit Academy Award Nominees in the category of "Best Bad News Overreaction", it is evident that only a select number of the fathers had any inside knowledge of the goings on at higher levels.

It makes all the sense in the world. Compartmentalization is used to this day. Only a few select people know everything. That way, even if tortured, most of the good fathers did not know, and therefore could not tell about any secret goings on (mining, hiding treasure, etc). It would also explain that using temporal coadjutors to run their mines and businesses for profit, would be mostly unknown to local Jesuit Priests (except maybe Father Visitadores or Visitador Generals). Just a thought.

Deducer,

I feel the same every time I read Father Och's Journals. I get the sense that he feels a sense of "I got away with it!" when he writes about the day of the arrests (26 June 1767). Read the whole episode about how they are so lax in guarding him, that he is able to have his boy bring up a container of burning coals, so he can ...........................................................

WAIT FOR IT!​

...................................... BURN HIS CORRESPONDENCES! GEEZ! Why on Earth would a poor old Jesuit Priest feel the need to burn correspondences in the midst of a roundup of Jesuit Priests? What would he feel the need to hide from the Spanish? HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

Mike

Well for starters, I do not claim that ALL of the Jesuits were caught, flat-footed. Perhaps I used a poor choice of words there, as it seems to have given the wrong impression. My point was that when the arrests were made, or as in the case of Arizona, the priests were called to come in, there would have been NO opportunities for them to hide ANYTHING from that moment onward. They surely had to know that trouble was brewing for them, as has been pointed out previously, and I get much the same impression from father Och's words (actually a good writer, almost had a coffee-nostril fountain with that privy episode) that he was in effect laughing up his sleeve at the ineptitude of the Spanish in their searching efforts. Confident that they would NOT find the "goods". In Arizona specifically, on being notified that they must leave, the Indians would have been, heck not "would" but WERE left with no padre for some time, and as we can see in the Pueblo revolt, and in several stories with Apaches, it was the Indians whom covered up the mines, possibly for very different reasons than to keep them for the Jesuits or maybe for the Jesuits return one day. So I must still respectfully disagree, in particular about the mines, which were not even actively looked into by the Spanish except in Baja, and even that took some time (months) before they bothered to get around to examine those.

I don't think for a moment that any Jesuit mission, college or house, nor any other Order, would have had stacks of gold bars laying around in plain sight at ANY time; as we can see in the South American examples, virtually every church or house had a 'treasury' underground vault. Precious metals and other treasures would be stored in these vaults against dangers, which in S America was often enough pirate raids, but would work against the Spanish ever finding it too. To me it makes perfect sense that there would also be 'inventories' done periodically on this accumulated wealth, a matter of book keeping, and I believe the Tayopa inventory is just what it says it is. These vaults or tunnels or caves would not be laying open for any passerby to see at any time, so would not have required special efforts to conceal it due to the expulsion. Also consider the possibility that the stories published in England may have been true, the Jesuits might well have been plotting to betray the Spanish colonies and had years of time to make sure their wealth was safely hidden. I put caves in bold because that is where father Kino hid the 'ornaments' of his own church, and on a wild frontier, caves would make for handy hiding places ready-made and not likely to be known to outsiders.

I missed that about the burning of his papers, and when viewed in context, as in the roundup of all Jesuits under the shadow of various accusations, burning correspondence does NOT look so innocent to me.

Of course for those whom need to see certified, notarized, sealed by what ever 'authority' type proof, you can always stay home and save your Vibrams for other things. The impressive treasure found in Brazil is apparently not certified enough for you, nor the treasure found in a Jesuit college in Spain. There is always the local city park however.

Roy

 

[Springfield]

Simple question:

If Fr. Och had nothing to hide, why did he burn his correspondences?

Beats me. How are you planning to use this report?

 

[releventchair]

No treasure yet in the village park. Six cents last time, the hard way.. With raids and uprisings a secure place beats near blind burying. Both happened from whats been found. If an opposing force knows where stuff is accumulated on a consistent basis for any group they wish to harass those accumulations become targets if a defense of them is weak or weakened. For any that agree,even offerings needed to be preserved.

 

[sailaway]

[SUP][/SUP]Joe brought up the Chinese as a possible source of the mercury. When the Spanish arrived in Mexico the Chinese had been there a thousand years before.(I gave evidence of this some time back) This would be a source that the Spanish King had no control of. Read Kino's report of being saved by the China ship during the shipment of gold from California.

Just got back from the Mina Virgon. Sad to say but it has been destroyed. The whole mountain has dropped on that side. does this mean that there was a store room under it and the faults that it sat on had a event in the last three years? Where it was a gentle slope is now a shear drop off, everything has fell around 50 feet. The lower strata is still intact and can be seen the same but the whole top has settled. To me this means it had to have a cavern that collapsed.

 

[gollum]

Not taking sides on any of this as I have my own opinions, but I'm not clear as to the reason behind this precept and especially the logic behind it...

Rule #4. No one will work mines. This includes the prohibition that no one will have any knowledge about the matter of mining, either directly or indirectly. The intention of the precept is to include all forms of knowledge or interpretations that could even fall within the same precept

By all accounts the Jesuit order was comprised of many highly learned men of those days. Mathematics, astronomy, geology, etc... all the sciences. A rule that no one will work any mines seems to be pretty crystal clear and to the point, why the addition of the second "nebulous" part? Logic and reason would argue that a person cannot "unlearn" something (in this case mining and/or anything related to mining) that they may have studied or even done prior to becoming a full member of the order. What about noting geology during their travels and passing that information along to Spanish who could then work the rocks and provide revenue for the King?

Personally I take the precept as an early statement similar to the warnings we're given as children about certain things like ..."I don't want you doing this, in fact I don't even want you thinking about doing this, or even knowing anything that might have anything to do with doing this, or even knowing anybody else who's doing this, etc..."

Do you all interpret the precept the same way I do, that's it a specific warning NOT to work any mines, but the nebulous part afterwards as being too silly to ever truly enforce?

No, I don't interpret this the same way you do. This precept was from 1747. You can look all the way back into the late 1500s in the Spanish Mining Laws that state Religiosos are not allowed to mine. The Jesuits, being the smartest guys in the room usually, can and will find the loopholes in just about any rule. Take card playing for instance. This is a perfect example for you to see how rules started out very basic and vague, and as the Fathers exploited loopholes, those rules became more specific and exacting:

First, in about 1683, it is just a Rule:

"No one will play cards either with Ours or with Externs."

In 1710:

"I am notifying you that a Precept has come from our Father General to the effect that none of Ours will play cards, neither with an extern (external= Non-Jesuit) nor with a subject of the house. This Precept has been promulgated throughout the Province and I enjoin your Reverence to let it be known throughout your visitation. It should be recorded where similar Precepts are prescribed."

Father Provincial Andres Nieto 1726:


"If anyone knows that the prohibition against card-playing has been violated, he will notify the Provincial."

Now, when I quote the next version of this precept, you should be able to see why they had to make the revision and be MUCH more specific:

Father Provincial Andres Garcia 1747:


"No one will play cards either with Ours or with Externs. This Precept extends to any of Ours betting, although only looking on at a card game being played by laymen."

HAHAHA See what I mean. The Jesuit Fathers are forbidden by a general rule from playing cards. They must have kept doing it, because it was then elevated from a Rule to a Precept. So then, the Fathers stopped PLAYING and started sitting behind the players and betting on the games without actually playing cards. They found the loop hole! Then, the Jesuit Heierarchy had to be more specific to stop all forms of gambling and card-playing.


Same thing can be said for mining. What started out as a rule, which the Fathers found the loophole in, became a Precept. When the loopholes were found and exploited in that Precept, the Precept became more specific. When it became too specific, they generalized it, but added the last part to make absolutely certain EVERY Jesuit Priest understood that even showing a knowledge of the mining arts was forbidden!

Mike

 

[deducer]

Not that simple of a question imho. Maybe he did have something to hide, or maybe he wasn't that much different from many of us who would be outraged or at least very annoyed to have someone (or some group) snooping through our things when it's none of their business who I've been talking to or what I've been saying. The bottom line is we'll never know what he destroyed or why he destroyed them - it's a discussion that quite honestly will lead nowhere (again imho).

This requires the presumption that the Spanish soldiers would be interested in going through his papers when they were there to look for something else.

How would Fr. Och know that they would go through his papers?

He knew they were there to arrest him and the rest of his company and to look for whatever "treasure" may have been hidden.

So for him to burn his correspondences during this search would have made him look very bad, and made him appear guilty. Yet he did it.

Seems like he had good reasons to do so.