How come the Latin bishops weren't able to ignite the Holy Fire, but Eastern bishops were?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenSinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BenSinner

Guest
The Eastern Orthodox have a tradition in the church of Jerusalem where the bishop will invoke a Holy Fire and it will miraculously appear.

Catholic bishops tried to do this when they ruled Jerusalem and the fire NEVER came.

Why weren’t the Catholics able to do this? wouldn’t God bless the Catholic Church with this miracle as well and only allow EO bishops to do it?

Does this mean Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
 
Could you provide a reference for this, please? I’ve never heard of this.

Thanks
 
Not wanting to offend anyone…but, this sounds like one of those matters that God may well have nothing to do with, to begin with.
 
Because the mass was originally in Greek and Latin was the vulgar language
 
BenSinner said:
Why weren’t the Catholics able to do this?
Click to expand...
Because they didn’t know the secret. You have to dip the candles in white phosphorus about 20 minutes before parading into the Holy Sepulchre with them.

That said, I’m counting the minutes until this thread gets yanked just like the last one! 😁
 
Actually they did get the fire. After a penitential delay, but they did get it. If you wish to interpret it in terms of divine providence it could be because the Crucaders were a bit immoral on Jerusalem or because the miracle is only given to the Jerusalem patriarch
 
I have been there for the lighting of the New Fire. It happens every year and it is wonderful! No clue how it happens but when it does, the Church of the Holy Sepulcre bursts into cheers and the fire is passed from one candle to the next and people run into the streets, carrying the flame back to their churches.

It only happens on Orthodox Easter.
 
Well Agatha, as a former EO this troubled me a lot more than it should’ve too. The Latins did get the Holy Fire. They got it after a weird penitential procession but they did get it. If we wish to interpret this in terms of something do to with divine providence there could be two reasons:

Reason 1:

The Crusades did terrible things in Jerusalem and giving them the fire willy-nilly would’ve looked as an approval of their actions.

Reason 2:

Only the Patriarch of Jerusalem is supposed to be able to get the fire (ie the successor of the original, which right now happens to be an EO bishop)
 
An Armenian who was a regular participant in the ceremony once offered this explanation:

“It’s not a miracle. The Greek priests bring in a lamp - one that has been kept burning for 1,500 years - to produce the Holy Fire. For pilgrims full of faith who come from abroad, it is a fire from Heaven, a true miracle. But not for us. Of course the source of the fire is ancient and symbolic. I heard this from my father and I think he knew the truth.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...y-of-Jerusalems-Holy-Fire-comes-to-light.html
 
Also, is this proof that the Eastern Orthodox have the correct date for Easter and Catholics don’t?

Since this only happens in an EO church on EO’s Easter.
 
Some Byzantine Catholics (including those in my country) celebrate Easter on the same date as the Orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top