Jerusalem Easter Vigil, The Holy Fire

[504Katrin]

WOW how interesting!

 

[504Katrin]

I just read at wikipedia that first time the holy fire was mentioned in Europe was around 800. Back then they didn’t have the technology to cheat. It must be true.

 

[504Katrin]

why did you guys move Easter to another day? Had the Orthodox church not moved it we could all celebrate Easter on the same day.

 

[Hesychios]

why did you guys move Easter to another day? Had the Orthodox church not moved it we could all celebrate Easter on the same day.

Who is “you guys” ?

 

[504Katrin]

Who is “you guys” ?

sorry, I meant the Orthodox church.

 

[Bezant]

i saw this on a documentary once…has anybody been to see the holy fire?..

Yes, to this year’s as a matter of fact. I tried, almost got crushed to death, and walked away.

I would not recommend it to anyone but the physically, spiritually, and emotionally hardy, or those who fail to prepare well beforehand. Do not enter this ceremony without adequate food, drink, sleep, or relieving yourself at the toilet.

Also prepare yourself for some pretty f(ing) un-Christ-like behaviour and strong ethnic nationalism.

On the other hand, about a third of the people I saw attempting this were elderly women.

 

[RyanBlack]

why did you guys move Easter to another day? Had the Orthodox church not moved it we could all celebrate Easter on the same day.

Well, there’s just one problem with that statement–it wasn’t the Orthodox who moved it.

 

[countertenor]

why did you guys move Easter to another day? Had the Orthodox church not moved it we could all celebrate Easter on the same day.

The Roman Catholic Church moved the date of Easter! Not the Orthodox!

 

[dcointin]

well,
it makes sense to me that the orthodox would want to hide or misconstrue to the the public that the fire appears on Orthodox Easter Vigil. But, most of the Orthodox leaders are very clear that they “retreive” the fire on Orthdox Easter Vigil. Mention of When the Miracle happens is not discussed.

This is exactly the reason that I believe God is reluctant to grant us miracles - we use them as weapons against each other argue that the miracle validates our claims. I’ve personally never heard of the Holy Fire falling on a date other than the one celebrated by Orthodox for Pascha, but neither would rule it out in principle. God grants us such things to strengthen our faith and remind us of the truth of his resurrection. Why can’t we simply celebrate the event, and not use it as an excuse for triumphalism? Lord have mercy!

 

[Joel_PF]

The Miracle of the Holy Fire has indeed converted many people and has strengthened the faith of countless others through the centuries.

That there are those who doubt it - people will doubt that any miracle can occur. As for hiding the miracle, there is good spiritual reasons for doing so (although I myself have seen lanterns hanging on the walls in the Church catch fire all by themselves - quite a dramatic thing, to be sure!).

Imagine more people having the benefit to witness such a miracle.

The Catholic Church takes great care to make sure miracles are authentic. They even allowed testing to occur on the Miraculous Host of Lanciano, which is believed to be the Body of our Lord.

A fire, as miraculous as it is, is not more holy than the body of Jesus Christ. If we can, reverently, film and make tests on the latter, why not on the former?

In one sense, to want to see a miracle is a kind of “testing” of God, a refusal to believe God until “He shows us His power.”

Tell that to the millions who go there to see the miracle!
I have an interest to see it; though not to confirm a belief in God, but to know whether it is actually a miracle or a pious lie maintained through the centuries.

Ultimately, for the believer, everything that happens is a true miracle.

Well, if that is the case, there is no problem in investigating the miracle of the Holy Fire, is there?
Note that I’m not even denying it is a miracle; I just have doubts (which I believe are well-founded) and would like to solve them.
You say that there are “good reasons” why the miracle is kept secret, outside the view of common people and cameras. What are these good reasons?

 

[dcointin]

Imagine more people having the benefit to witness such a miracle.

The Catholic Church takes great care to make sure miracles are authentic. They even allowed testing to occur on the Miraculous Host of Lanciano, which is believed to be the Body of our Lord.

A fire, as miraculous as it is, is not more holy than the body of Jesus Christ. If we can, reverently, film and make tests on the latter, why not on the former?

Tell that to the millions who go there to see the miracle!
I have an interest to see it; though not to confirm a belief in God, but to know whether it is actually a miracle or a pious lie maintained through the centuries.

Well, if that is the case, there is no problem in investigating the miracle of the Holy Fire, is there?
Note that I’m not even denying it is a miracle; I just have doubts (which I believe are well-founded) and would like to solve them.
You say that there are “good reasons” why the miracle is kept secret, outside the view of common people and cameras. What are these good reasons?

Would the testing prove anything? The Vatican submitted the Shroud of Turin to extensive, even destructive, testing, and nothing has been proven in the absolute sense. Imagine they did allow scientific investigation of the Holy Fire miracle, e.g. allowed cameras in the tombs, searched the tomb and priest who enters, tested the fire, etc. there will always be those who claim it was forged. I have seen many pictures and videos of people handling the fire without being burned, and countless eye witness testimonies, and these are all available to those who are interested. Ultimately faith is a choice to believe rather than disbelieve, and as Christ said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe”.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, there’s just one problem with that statement–it wasn’t the Orthodox who moved it.

The Roman Catholic Church moved the date of Easter! Not the Orthodox!

Nope.

The church agreed on a common date for Pascha at the first ecumenical council: the first Sunday after the first full moon, after the vernal equinox. The Western reckoning of Pascha follows this canon very well. The Eastern reckoning rarely follows the canon. By using a selected calendar date - rather than the actual date of the vernal equinox - on a calendar that incorporates an accumulating error, the Eastern reckoning has allowed the date of Pascha to move away for the date prescribed by the canons.

 

[dvdjs]

I have seen many pictures and videos of people handling the fire without being burned, and countless eye witness testimonies, and these are all available to those who are interested.

That is not necessarily a miracle. I saw videos of this years events. The flames look like the safety flames on bunsen burners - very fuel rich and oxygen deficient. These flames, deficient in the heat of combustion, are relatively cool even at their hottest parts - possibly even as low as the flame point of wax, which is as little as 400F, but ~ 460F for beewax. I wouldn’t leave my hand in such flames for a long time but it could take some prolonged exposure to burn flesh. Btw, in these videos I see the flame transferred in the conventional way, flame to wick.

If the on-schedule ignition of the first flame is “spontaneous”, that would be miraculous.

Palestinians and Israeli’s check for “funny business”? Really? Why would they? What is the interest of either group?

 

[RyanBlack]

Nope.

The church agreed on a common date for Pascha at the first ecumenical council: the first Sunday after the first full moon, after the vernal equinox. The Western reckoning of Pascha follows this canon very well. The Eastern reckoning rarely follows the canon. By using a selected calendar date - rather than the actual date of the vernal equinox - on a calendar that incorporates an accumulating error, the Eastern reckoning has allowed the date of Pascha to move away for the date prescribed by the canons.

Prior to the West’s change from the Gregorian calendar, did East and West celebrate Easter on the same day every year? Yes. After the change to the Gregorian calendar? No. Who made the change? The West.

Both the West and the East use a selected calendar date for the vernal equinox, rather than the actual astronomical vernal equinox, and it was the West that changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar (to which I have no personal or theological objection), so I stand by my earlier statement. The Orthodox did not make the change. The West did by switching from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. I don’t see this as a matter of fault, so when I say that the West made the change, I do not do so in an accusatory manner. However, statements to the effect that the Orthodox changed the date-particularly in the critical way in which it was made earlier in this thread-are unsustainable.

 

[dvdjs]

Prior to the West’s change from the Gregorian calendar, did East and West celebrate Easter on the same day every year? Yes. After the change to the Gregorian calendar? No. Who made the change? The West.

You are not right on the facts. It cannot be said that after Nicea I, until the Gregorian reform, the East and West celebrated Pascha on the same day. In fact, it cannot even be said in the first years just following Nicea I. Moreover, your questions are not probative of which reckoning more closely adheres to the canons: it is the the failure to make calendar adjustments, not the adjustment, that has led to the deviation from the canons.

Both the West and the East use a selected calendar date for the vernal equinox, rather than the actual astronomical vernal equinox…

Currently that is the case, although from Nicea I the idea was to use astronomical observations. There is a move (Aleppo proposal) to use astronomical reckoning. In the meantime, the key point is that the West uses a reckoning that gives the same date, in nearly every case, as would be calculated using astronomical data, whereas the Easter reckoning only occasionally gives that canonical date.

… it was the West that changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar (to which I have no personal or theological objection), so I stand by my earlier statement. The Orthodox did not make the change. The West did by switching from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. I don’t see this as a matter of fault, so when I say that the West made the change, I do not do so in an accusatory manner. However, statements to the effect that the Orthodox changed the date-particularly in the critical way in which it was made earlier in this thread-are unsustainable

No. The Orthodox did not change** the calendar**. But by not changing the calendar they, over the centuries, began to use an incorrect date for the vernal equinox that led to an error in the calculation of Pascha. By taking the date as the first Sunday after the first full moon after Mar 21 (Julian), rather than after the vernal equinox,** they have indeed changed the date of Pascha**, departing from the prescription of the Nicea I.

I don’t see this as a matter of fault either, just a matter of getting the facts right.

 

[RyanBlack]

You are not right on the facts. It cannot be said that after Nicea I, until the Gregorian reform, the East and West celebrated Pascha on the same day. In fact, it cannot even be said in the first years just following Nicea I. Moreover, your questions are not probative of which reckoning more closely adheres to the canons: it is the the failure to make calendar adjustments, not the adjustment, that has led to the deviation from the canons.

Currently that is the case, although from Nicea I the idea was to use astronomical observations. There is a move (Aleppo proposal) to use astronomical reckoning. In the meantime, the key point is that the West uses a reckoning that gives the same date, in nearly every case, as would be calculated using astronomical data, whereas the Easter reckoning only occasionally gives that canonical date.

No. The Orthodox did not change** the calendar**. But by not changing the calendar they, over the centuries, began to use an incorrect date for the vernal equinox that led to an error in the calculation of Pascha. By taking the date as the first Sunday after the first full moon after Mar 21 (Julian), rather than after the vernal equinox,** they have indeed changed the date of Pascha**, departing from the prescription of the Nicea I.

I don’t see this as a matter of fault either, just a matter of getting the facts right.

But the Orthodox do not view this as primarlily a matter of astronomical accuracy, but as a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, which, by the way, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, has historically been the Western view as well, its article on the Easter controversy states, “What is perhaps most important to remember, both in the solution adopted in 525 and in that officially put forward at the time of the reform of the Calendar by Gregory XIII, is this, that the Church throughout held that the determination of Easter was primarily a matter of ecclesiastical discipline and not of astronomical science.”

Charging the Orthodox with changing the date of Pascha simply makes no sense, historically speaking, and only serves to inflame their sensitivies, as well as those of Eastern Catholics who adhere to the Julian calendar. Furthermore, the West, in terms of astronomical accuracy, is nearly always wrong on the date as well, since they use a fixed date of March 21 for the vernal equinox, when, astronomically speaking, it nearly always falls on March 20. So, using your criterion of getting the facts write, the difference betweeen East and West is a matter of degree, not of kind. BTW, this issue of which calendar to use is not my particular axe to grind. Personally, I would rather see the East adopt the less astronomically inaccurate method of the West, as opposed to the West adopting the more astronomically inaccurate method of the East, but I recognize that many in the East see their use of the Julian calendar as being faithful to the tradition as they have received it. Personally, I would rather have unity in celebrating the central feast of our faith, even if it means sacrificing (near) astronomical accuracy in determining the date.

 

[dvdjs]

But the Orthodox do not view this as primarlily a matter of astronomical accuracy, but as a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, which, by the way, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, has historically been the Western view as well, its article on the Easter controversy states, “What is perhaps most important to remember, both in the solution adopted in 525 and in that officially put forward at the time of the reform of the Calendar by Gregory XIII, is this, that the Church throughout held that the determination of Easter was primarily a matter of ecclesiastical discipline and not of astronomical science.”

Yes, of course, that is true both in the East and the West even from the time of Nicea I. But that priority does not change the canonical date of Pascha, no matter how economically that canon is applied.

Charging the Orthodox with changing the date of Pascha simply makes no sense, historically speaking, and only serves to inflame their sensitivies, as well as those of Eastern Catholics who adhere to the Julian calendar.

It surely makes sense because it is true, independent of the sensitivities that one might have about this uncomfortable truth. Chesterton has written about conserving a white fence. To do that, every few year one must re-paint it. If instead, one simply take the position of doing the same thing every year, namely not painting the fence, then it will become dark. And yes the inaction, the failure to conserve, is the reason for the change. The west changed the calendar, the east did not and there has institutionalized a date for Pascha that is not canonically correct.

Furthermore, the West, in terms of astronomical accuracy, is nearly always wrong on the date as well, since they use a fixed date of March 21 for the vernal equinox, when, astronomically speaking, it nearly always falls on March 20. So, using your criterion of getting the facts write, the difference betweeen East and West is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Let’s be careful to be clear. When I wrote of “the date” I wrote of the date of Pascha. We have already agreed that, while the proposal has been made to use contemporary science in the reckoning, at the moment, everyone uses an approximation for that. The Western reckoning gives the canonical date of Pascha nearly all of the time, whereas the Eastern method gives the canonical date only occasionally. If you want to dismiss that fact as a mere “matter of degree” so be it. I suppose the difference between scoring a 99% on an examination and a 10% is also only a matter of degree. But most folks would agree that 99% is much, much better than 10%, and that the difference is significant.

BTW, this issue of which calendar to use is not my particular axe to grind. Personally, I would rather see the East adopt the less astronomically inaccurate method of the West, as opposed to the West adopting the more astronomically inaccurate method of the East, but I recognize that many in the East see their use of the Julian calendar as being faithful to the tradition as they have received it. Personally, I would rather have unity in celebrating the central feast of our faith, even if it means sacrificing (near) astronomical accuracy in determining the date.

I would like a common date as a well. But I see little chance of it until we first agree on the actual facts rather than indulge partisan distorted histories. Father Taft recently wrote that first steps to unity might reasonable involve an effort to shape a common, non-partisan view of history, after which other elements may fall into place more readily. I agree with him.

 

[504Katrin]

Prior to the West’s change from the Gregorian calendar, did East and West celebrate Easter on the same day every year? Yes. After the change to the Gregorian calendar? No. Who made the change? The West.

Both the West and the East use a selected calendar date for the vernal equinox, rather than the actual astronomical vernal equinox, and it was the West that changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar (to which I have no personal or theological objection), so I stand by my earlier statement. The Orthodox did not make the change. The West did by switching from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. I don’t see this as a matter of fault, so when I say that the West made the change, I do not do so in an accusatory manner. However, statements to the effect that the Orthodox changed the date-particularly in the critical way in which it was made earlier in this thread-are unsustainable.

I didn’t mean it in a critical way either. I was just very curious so asked a question assuming that you guys moved it. I’ve never heard about your Holy Fire before and I didn’t even know that we don’t celebrate Easter on the same day. When you corrected me and said that you guys didn’t move it I took your info for granted instantly and moved on.