Does the Holy Fire Miracle Prove the Orthodox Church to be true one?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ioana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ioana

Guest
It isn’t that it happens for the Orthodox but that apparently when Catholics had the rule of the city they failed to get it. Is that true? How do we explain that?
I mean that parallels Abel’s sacrifice in the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Ioana said:
It isn’t that it happens for the Orthodox but that apparently when Catholics had the rule of the city they failed to get it. How do we explain that?
Click to expand...
I have heard about this miracle. Only Orthodox can do it and Pope Urban II said: “Truly, in this Temple (the Tomb of the Lord), God rests, even in the present day. He does not stop working miracles for, on the days of His Passion, when all the lights are extinguished around His tomb and in the church, suddenly the extinguished lamps are relit. What heart, no matter how hardened, would not be touched before such a manifestation!”
 
Exactly. I’ve heard that Latin clergy tried and they failed. Is that true and if so how do we explain it?
 
Ioana said:
Exactly. I’ve heard that Latin clergy tried and they failed. Is that true and if so how do we explain it?
Click to expand...
The Eastern Orthodox claim that it proves that they are the true Church. But of course, Catholics have miracles too.
 
Father Richard Simon talked about this on his Relavant Radio show … He has some good things to say about it.

Remember: the Orthodox (like Catholics) have VALID Sacarments.

We both have worthy Miracles because we are BOTH valid Churches
 
Last edited:
Ioana said:
does anybody know more about the history
Click to expand...
From a Greek site:
“This ceremony takes place in the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem in such a way that bewilders the soul of the Christians.
On Easter Saturday, at noon, the Orthodox Patriarch, or any other Orthodox Archbishop, enters the Holy Sepulchre, recites special prayers and remains waiting. Sometimes the waiting is long, sometimes short. The crowd, in the darkened church, repeats continually with a loud voice: “Lord, have mercy.” (Kyrie eleison). At a certain moment the Holy Light flashes from the depth of the Holy Sepulchre in a supernatural way, miraculously, and lights up the little lamp of olive oil put on the edge of it. The Patriarch (or the Archbishop), after having read some prayers, lights up the two clusters of 33 candles he is holding, and begins to distribute the Holy Light to the multitude of pilgrims, who receive it with great emotion, accompanied with the pealing of bells, acclamations, and an unbridled enthusiasm.
The Holy Light is not only distributed by the Archbishop, but operates also by itself. It emits from the Holy Sepulchre having a gleam of a hue completely different from that of natural light. It sparkles, it flashes like lightning, it flies like a dove around the tabernacle of the Holy Sepulchre, and lights up the unlit lamps of olive oil hanging in front of it. It whirls from one side of the church to the other. It enters to some of the chapels inside the church, as for instance the chapel of the Calvery (at a higher level than the Holy Sepulchre) and lights up the little lamps. It lights up also the candles of certain pilgrims. In fact there are some very pious pilgrims who, every time they attended this ceremony, noticed that their candles lit up on the own accord!
This divine light also presents some peculiarities: As soon as it appears it has a bluish hue and does not burn. At the first moments of its appearance, if it touches the face, or the mouth, or the hands, it does not burn. This is proof of its divine and supernatural origin. We must also take into consideration that the Holy Light appears only by the invocation of an Orthodox Archbishop. EACH TIME THAT HETERODOX BISHOPS TRIED TO OBTAIN IT, THEY FAILED.”
 
thanks for posting. i have never heard of this Holy Light. does this happen on every Easter Saturday at noon? of course, the Orthodox celebrate Easter on a different date also.
 
Every year, yes. The date is different but some Eastern rites and even some Latin Catholics in the area keep the same date as the Eastern Orthodox. It isn’t the fact that it occurs that makes me feel a bit strange but the fact that when we were there we have barely managed to obtain it the first time and the second time we simply gave up or something.
 
Fair enough but by that token any alleged miracle could be false. Assuming it is true (because if it isn’t we committed some sort of fraud in 1101) how do we account for it? I’ve heard some stuff about the bad morals of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem at the time but I’m not entirely sure and was looking if anybody has some detailed explanation on this really specific question.
 
Ioana said:
Fair enough but by that token any alleged miracle could be false.
Click to expand...
Some have more credible criticism than others. But in any event, that’s why no single alleged miracle done by someone or some group in Jesus’ name can be the criterion for deciding good or evil, truth or error. Even real miracles are not necessarily evidence of this, as Our Lord notes when he describes the Judgment in Matt. 7:21-23, whereas those He never knew, and whom He condemns, worked miracles in His name.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
Matt. 7:21-23
Click to expand...
True and that is exactly what was going through my head as I was thinking about this. The thing is though, Jesus did kind of prove Himself via miracles and the Resurrection too and the Orthodox are very close to full communion but then the whole Peter thing…
 
Last edited:
The Eastern Orthodox — indeed all ancient apostolic churches — have the Miracle of (to use Latin terminology) Transubstantiation.

Does that mean they are the fullness of the Church?

So yes, think about it: Do we as Catholics claim that the supernatural, the sacramental, the holy, the true, the good – and even salvation – is only found in the Catholic Church? Is that what we mean when we say that the Catholic Church is Christ’s church? Of course not. The Catholic Church is the fullness of Christ’s church, because the Catholic Church has the fullness of the visible elements he wished for his Church (governance under the Apostles, united in Peter, as continued in the bishops, united in Peter’s successor; the sacraments; unity of Faith, etc.) But The Orthodox Churches are valid particular churches because they are united around their bishops, who truly possess apostolic succession.

So in a sense, the Orthodox Churches are members of the Catholic Church, but lacking full visible communion. This language may not be technically correct, but it’s essentially the state of the matter: There’s only One Church, and yet the Orthodox have true churches united under true bishops. Since there is only One Church, these Orthodox are part of it, but not fully.
 
Last edited:
There is VERY good reason to believe that the “Holy Fire” is not a bona fide miracle, but rather is a sort of pious liturgical act and tradition.

According to Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi, the 13th century Ayyubid ruler Al-Muazzam Turanshah is mentioned as having discovered the fraudulence of the Holy Fire; however, he allowed the monks to continue their fraud in exchange for money. This is written in al-Qarafi’s work al-Ajwiba, one of many polemic works exchanged between Christians and Muslims of that period.

In 1238, Pope Gregory IX denounced the Holy Fire as a fraud and forbade Franciscans from participating in the ceremony. Similarly, many Christians have remained unconvinced by the occurrence.

The Ottoman traveller, Evliya Celebi, claimed that a hidden zinc jar of naphtha was dripped down a chain by a hidden monk
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
In 1238, Pope Gregory IX denounced the Holy Fire as a fraud
Click to expand...
Really? I thought he said:“Eidem – intellecto “quod canonici sepulchri Jerosolimitani, ignem in idem sepulchrum de celo in vigilia in Pasche descendere et Redemptorem nostrum Dominum Jhesum Christum inibi incarceratum fuisse dicentes, locum conflicti carceris sub certo pretio, non sine ignominia divini nominis, venalem exponunt” – mandat quatenus tales praesumptiones de cetero prohibeat.” which seems to be not that the fire is a fraud, but that the practice involved selling something in church?
 
I’m not sure.

Personally I don’t think it’s a “fraud.”

I think it’s a pious custom.

I don’t believe it’s a miracle either, however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top