Holy Fire of Jerusalem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rocks_91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rocks_91

Guest
Do most Orthodox consider the Holy Fire to be a genuine miracle?

I would also like to know what is the significance behind the miracle? What purpose does it serve? It seems most Catholic miracles usually involve healing or apparitions revealing knowledge to people. So the Holy Fire thing has me curious.

Also, it seems many people, historians included, and Pope Gregory IX in the past believed the Holy Fire to be a fraud. And Michael Kalopoulus, a historian, ‘imitated’ the miracle on live television using phosphorous, suggesting that the miracle is possible using chemicals, and could be a fraud. What is the Orthodox reaction to it, and is there any evidence in support of the miracle?
 
Think of it like Lourdes. We don’t know if the miraculous healings associated with Lourdes are really miraculous or just acts of chance (or fraud), but those who believe choose to do so on faith.
 
To suggest that the Holy Fire is a fraud is to cast aspersion on hierarchs of our Sister Orthdodox Churches. You’ll find that a significant number, if not most, Eastern Catholics believe in the Miracle of the Holy Fire.
 
Rocks_91 said:
Do most Orthodox consider the Holy Fire to be a genuine miracle?
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox.

Perhaps you were wondering if Eastern Catholics believe in the Holy Fire?
Rocks_91 said:
I would also like to know what is the significance behind the miracle? What purpose does it serve? It seems most Catholic miracles usually involve healing or apparitions revealing knowledge to people. So the Holy Fire thing has me curious.
Click to expand...
It is a mystery.

The Shroud of Turin is also a mystery, and they both come from the same place.
Rocks_91 said:
Also, it seems many people, historians included, and Pope Gregory IX in the past believed the Holy Fire to be a fraud. And Michael Kalopoulus, a historian, ‘imitated’ the miracle on live television using phosphorous, suggesting that the miracle is possible using chemicals, and could be a fraud. What is the Orthodox reaction to it, and is there any evidence in support of the miracle?
Click to expand...
One could ask this question about most reported miracles, there will always be skeptics, and there will always be those who are looking for signs (not that we need them, the Gospel message should be enough).

I am sure that among Popes over time one could probably find a whole range of opinions. Does Pope Gregory’s opinion carry more weight than any other?

Christian history is replete with signs in the environment from the time of Saint Constantine in the east and the west. There are accounts of spinning suns, phantasms floating around church roofs and in grottos, sparks and flashes, voices and messages, oozing liquids, imprinted images, tongues of fire in the cenacle. Who can explain the means of all this, and how is science to proceed?

If your faith is strong and the law of God is written on your heart you will not need any of it, not the messages, nor the signs. You will need nothing but the sign of Jonah.
 
Rocks_91 said:
Do most Orthodox consider the Holy Fire to be a genuine miracle?
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox.

Perhaps you were wondering if Eastern Catholics believe in the Holy Fire?
Rocks_91 said:
I would also like to know what is the significance behind the miracle? What purpose does it serve? It seems most Catholic miracles usually involve healing or apparitions revealing knowledge to people. So the Holy Fire thing has me curious.
Click to expand...
It is a mystery.

The Shroud of Turin is also a mystery, and they both come from the same place.
Rocks_91 said:
Also, it seems many people, historians included, and Pope Gregory IX in the past believed the Holy Fire to be a fraud. And Michael Kalopoulus, a historian, ‘imitated’ the miracle on live television using phosphorous, suggesting that the miracle is possible using chemicals, and could be a fraud. What is the Orthodox reaction to it, and is there any evidence in support of the miracle?
Click to expand...
One could ask this question about most reported miracles, there will always be skeptics, and there will always be those who are looking for signs (not that we need them, the Gospel message should be enough).

I am sure that among Popes over time one could probably find a whole range of opinions. Does Pope Gregory’s opinion carry more weight than any other?

Christian history is replete with signs in the environment from the time of Saint Constantine in the east and the west. There are accounts of spinning suns, phantasms floating around church roofs and in grottos, sparks and flashes, voices and messages, oozing liquids, imprinted images, tongues of fire in the cenacle. Who can explain the means of all this, and how is science to proceed?

If your faith is strong and the law of God is written on your heart you will not need any of it, not the messages, nor the signs. You will need nothing but the sign of Jonah.
 
The Orthodox tend to be less interested in if a mystery/miracle is scientifically true…Catholics should take note. The Orthodox tend to not propagate miracles either; they don’t have seemingly “cult” followings like certain Catholic groups. Knowing this, I’d reason to say its true. If it were proved to be false, I’m sure it wouldn’t bother most Orthodox.
 
The Holy Fire is different than miracle cures at Lourdes. Once could argue that a spontaneous and unexplained cure could still have a scientifica explanation, just one that hasn’t been recognized yet.

But the spontaneous lighting of the Holy Fire is either a true miracle or a fraud perpetuated by generations of EO priests and patriarchs. The latter is almost unthinkable. Out of charity alone, we must presume it to be true, but there is no need for that to distract us from the far greater miracle that occurs daily at mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top