Miracle of the Holy Fire...is this for real?

[linuxgeek71]

It seems right that you would put the word definitive in quotation marks, since I’m unsure of what definitive answers are in regards to miracles. “Yes this is real blood on this statue” “Yes, what’s in this monstrance is the cross section of a human heart”… no amount of investigation will prove a miracle beyond a shadow of a doubt; only eliminate obvious fraud. In the end it all comes down to faith.

I used it in quotes because we don’t consider those pronouncements to fall in the category of infallible statements the Magesterium or Pope can make. So I would agree, that we are never 100% certain a miracle is true. We are expected, however, to believe what the Church has declared credible, but don’t sin if we choose not too.

I know the word ‘commune’ doesn’t necessarily imply some sort of deviant desire, but it this context that you use it I worry it might give off the feeling of such an implication. That is definitely neither my intent nor my belief.

I certainly don’t mean to put words in your mouth.

“So, what exactly is your standard of determining these things that the above posters have not lived up to?” I’m not sure I understand the question, probably my fault. Could you expand?

You criticized the criticisms by saying people should leave this alone because so many Orthodox believe it, yet you say Fatima wasn’t a miracle. So given that you have criticized something believed by many Catholics you must have some standard to determine what is and is not a miracle. I want to know what that is. I want to see why the criticisms of other posters on this thread don’t meet the criteria you have for determining if something is a genuine miracle.

In other words, as I see it you are saying “You can’t criticize this miracle because it happened to the Orthodox, but I can claim Fatima was a fake since it happened to Catholics.” In what way are you not saying thing?

 

[Hesychios]

I meant absolutely no disrespect to the EO or the Orthodox faithful. Skepticism is healthy . My major problem (apart from the fact that the Catholic Church does not celebrate this event) is there is only one or two witnesses to this miracle. The faithful are not witnesses.

In 2003 the Armenian and Greek bishops celebrating this miracle got into a scuffle about who should receive the flame first. The Greek bishop blew out the Armenian bishop’s candle a few times!! and the Armenian bishop admitted later to using a lighter to relight it! What was he doing with a lighter in the Chapel???

The above is in one of the links by a poster in this thread. Sorry, I dont remember which.

Have your experienced this for yourself?

Peace and Blessings.

It’s kind of hard to get everyone down into that crypt. The only people who can experience the miracle have to be right there down inside, don’t they?

I know that Roman Catholics have not been involved for a few centuries, why…I don’t know for sure, except that someone posted that a Pope forbade Roman Catholics from participating (in the twelfth century?..I don’t know now ) . I am quite sure that the Orthodox were not disappointed to learn of that. Let’s face it, the two churches are on different calendars and there is a strict protocol in place as to who can do what and when at that temple. The crypt itself is as small as a some peoples closets.

BUT, we do have from your own post right here testimony that an Armenian bishop/Patriarch/what-ever was down in the with the Orthodox bishop of Jerusalem. In Catholic terminology he was Oriental Orthodox, a miaphysite and most definitely not part of my church or yours. How often are non-Orthodox allowed to be present for the event? Every time? Once in a blue moon? We see accusations that there has not been independent verification, and insinuations here that it is some kind of “secretive” happening, but really it does not seem to be the case from reading these posts. What the heck was that Armenian doing down in there if this is such a secret process?

Are Miaphysites present every year? That would seem to suggest hundreds of independent verifications.

I too would like to know why he brought a lighter in, but it appears he did not have the necessary faith. The Armenian was foiled (it is a very small space, crowded even, hard to pull out a knife or gun without getting noticed, a lighter would be equally alarming in this case) and the Holy Fire came anyway.

This annual experience has been going on “only God knows” how long and the Papal Catholic hierarchy never seems to make the insinuations of fakery some members of the board are bold enough to make. This need for further proofs on the part of some people seems to suggest that they bear animus over it.

 

[Ghosty]

BUT, we do have from your own post right here testimony that an Armenian bishop/Patriarch/what-ever was down in the with the Orthodox bishop of Jerusalem. In Catholic terminology he was Oriental Orthodox, a miaphysite and most definitely not part of my church or yours. How often are non-Orthodox allowed to be present for the event? Every time? Once in a blue moon?

Never. The Armenian Patriarch is never present inside the tomb when the “Holy Fire descends”. Only the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is allowed to be within the tomb itself at that time, though others enter afterwards to receive the fire.

Incidentally, Orthodox Bishops have even shed doubt on this phenomena, and recorded it as a “pious lie” according to one of the links provided above. We would have to read Russian to get the exact citations, since the journals are in that language, but it’s clear enough that there isn’t a unanimous opinion about this even within Eastern Orthodoxy.

I have my doubts about this event, which I’ve spoken of at length in previous threads on previous years, but not because it occurs for the Eastern Orthodox. I accept many Eastern Orthodox miracles as at least highly plausible, and some as worthy of belief. It’s just that this particular one has too many problems with it for me to accept. I wouldn’t accept it even if it occured in the Catholic Church, quite frankly.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I read of the episode involving the Armenian bishop last year or the year before on either this or another forum. From what I remember, the miracle did not occur for the Armenian Apostolic bishop, and the EO posters were all “See! See! See!” The incident really left a bad taste in my mouth for the whole “miracle.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

I read of the episode involving the Armenian bishop last year or the year before on either this or another forum. From what I remember, the miracle did not occur for the Armenian Apostolic bishop, and the EO posters were all “See! See! See!” The incident really left a bad taste in my mouth for the whole “miracle.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, there was a big disagreement about who would leave the Tomb first after the Fire had been passed to the Armenian Patriarch (who entered after the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, and who received the Fire from the Greek Patriarch at that point). The Armenian Patriarch said that he should exit first, the Greek Patriarch said he should. They bickered, with the Greek Patriarch blowing out the Armenian Patriarch’s candle (lit from the Greek Patriarch’s) several times. Finally the Armenian Patriarch lit his own candle with a cigarette lighter, and walked out of the tomb to pass on the Fire.

That’s the ongoing legacy of the “Miracle of the Holy Fire”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ufamtobie]

What do non-Orthodox people think about this Miracle of the Holy Fire? Atheists, how would you explain this scientifically? Is there such a fire on Earth that does not burn? Is this not evidence of the Divine? Has anybody experienced this miracle? I cant express how this discovery on the net has affected me but I would appreciate your views on this as a Jew, Muslim, Christian or atheist.

holyfire.org/eng/index.html

Where and when does the miracle occur?
The ceremony, which awes the souls of Christians, takes place in the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. The date for Pascha is determined anew for every year. It must be a first Sunday after the spring equinox and Jewish Passover. Therefore, most of the time it differs from the date of Catholic and Protestant Easter, which is determined using different criteria. The Holy Fire is the most renowned miracle in the world of Eastern Orthodoxy. IIt has taken place at the same time, in the same manner, in the same place every single year for centuries. No other miracle is known to occur so regularly and so steadily over time. No other miracle is known to occur so regularly and so steadily over time. It happens in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the holiest place on earth[2], where Christ was crucified, entombed, and where He finally rose from the dead.

And to Catholics…how come the Church is not involved in the celebration of this miracle?

Peace to all

Hi Iamasinner,

As you well know there is a Greater Miracle and it happens every day at every Mass across the Globe and that is TRANSUBSTANTIATION, the bread and wine becoming the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. AMEN

Ufamtobie

 

[imasinner]

Hi Iamasinner,

As you well know there is a Greater Miracle and it happens every day at every Mass across the Globe and that is TRANSUBSTANTIATION, the bread and wine becoming the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. AMEN

Ufamtobie

That I can’t deny!

My desire for this miracle to be true is tempered greatly by my desire to follow the Church Jesus established 2000yrs ago. One of the posters above called it a “pious lie” The Catholic Church does not recognize The Miracle of the Holy Fire and has not done so for centuries. The Church does not and will not condemn me for asking questions because of my doubting. Im satisfied this is not a true miracle but for the Orthodox it is a true miracle.

No Orthodox so far have claimed to be an eyewitness to the Holy Fire miracle or at least to having handled the “fire that does not burn” on this thread (one however has stated having a friend who has) so some of my questions will go unanswered. I find it incredible that the Orthodox Church would allow a “pious lie” to continue for so long. Unity between the Orthodox and Catholic Church seem further away them I previously thought.

Peace and blessing to all in Christ Jesus.

 

[Hesychios]

That I can’t deny!

My desire for this miracle to be true is tempered greatly by my desire to follow the Church Jesus established 2000yrs ago. One of the posters above called it a “pious lie” The Catholic Church does not recognize The Miracle of the Holy Fire and has not done so for centuries. The Church does not and will not condemn me for asking questions because of my doubting. Im satisfied this is not a true miracle but for the Orthodox it is a true miracle.

No Orthodox so far have claimed to be an eyewitness to the Holy Fire miracle or at least to having handled the “fire that does not burn” on this thread (one however has stated having a friend who has) so some of my questions will go unanswered. I find it incredible that the Orthodox Church would allow a “pious lie” to continue for so long. Unity between the Orthodox and Catholic Church seem further away them I previously thought.

Peace and blessing to all in Christ Jesus.

I think one has to take a step back for a moment, and not think of this as a “validating stamp” of anything. We have a right, as human creatures, to be skeptical. That’s what makes a miracle a miracle.

How many Roman Catholics on this board have touched the Shroud of Turin? How many have witnessed a healing at Lourdes? Does it matter?

Let’s not look for signs and wonders, or read our contemporary concerns into them. We have already been given the Sigh of Jonah.

 

[imasinner]

I think one has to take a step back for a moment, and not think of this as a “validating stamp” of anything. We have a right, as human creatures, to be skeptical. That’s what makes a miracle a miracle.

How many Roman Catholics on this board have touched the Shroud of Turin? How many have witnessed a healing at Lourdes? Does it matter?

Let’s not look for signs and wonders, or read our contemporary concerns into them. We have already been given the Sigh of Jonah.

If this miracle is not true it could spell the end to Orthodoxy. Catholics who choose to believe in the miracle healings at Lourdes do so because of the Church’s stance on Lourdes. Orthodox Christians who have not experienced (not that anyone CAN except Greek patriach officiating) the Miracle of the Fire believe it too because of the Orthodox approval.

I’m not looking for a miracle to believe in I know He is risen . Thanks for your response and yes to me it does matter.

 

[Hesychios]

If this miracle is not true it could spell the end to Orthodoxy.

It would take a lot more than that!

I was just thinking lately about the shroud of Turin, which if real, originated in that exact same spot.

I don’t know why the image on the shroud is a photographic negative, but some have explained the possibility of a very high level of energy, like a flash of lightening, coursing through the corpse of Our Lord.

We are all familiar with the many hoaxes perpetrated during the middle ages: fake relics and fake miracles, designed to attract pilgrims to monasteries and remote churches. Most of these were found out long ago and have long since ceased.

But the Church of the Resurrection (the Holy Sepulchre to Latins) needed no gimmicks to attract pilgrims. It always attracted crowds of pilgrims from thousands of miles just for being what it is. The last thing the Patriarch of Jerusalem needs is a recurring miracle, a tough act to follow. Every new Patriarch would fear deeply that he was not worthy, and might lose the sign. It is too much to ask of ordinary men.

NO one in the clergy or among the faithful really needed this. We do not need signs.

Why risk a monumental hoax that could be ‘found out’ at some point and give scandal which might hurt the whole church?

That would be like a sudden appearance of a recurring miracle at St Peter’s Basilica, to what purpose? How many more visitors would it attract? There is no need. Perpetrating a hoax there would be more trouble than it was worth.

A miracle of this type is too much of a burden.

 

[theistgal]

If this miracle is not true it could spell the end to Orthodoxy.

I think you should learn more about Orthodoxy before making a statement like that.

 

[imasinner]

I think you should learn more about Orthodoxy before making a statement like that.

No offense intended. Let me explain. I only meant that if this miracle is proven to be false the Orthodox Church will not propogate it as if it is and the faithful will have reason to question their faith in the Orthodox Church because of it.

You are correct…I know little of the Orthodox faith but I do know it is Apostolic and therefore this Miracle of the Holy Fire is relevant to their authority to teach the Truth. Pious lies is not Truth. It is either true (like the apparitions at Fatima and Lourdes is for Catholics) or it’s untrue and Apostolic Churches have no business teaching untruths.

 

[Morgo]

I am a Catholic.I believe it.I accept it in faith.Just as I accept the Resurection in faith for example.The Orthodox are part of the True Faith as is the Catholic Church.They just happen to be in schism,although I’m sure their position is that we are.They have the True Presence and all 7 efficacsious Sacraments.

It is not required that I believe this but I choose to do so.To me it is one more proof that the Orthodox are the other lung of Christianity.Apologies to Pope John Paul the Great.

Does the Catholic Church acknowledge the legitimacy of all 7 of the Orthodox sacraments? Do Catholics believe that EOs have the true presence of Jesus - body, blood, soul, divinity - in their Eucharist, since their clergy is not ordained by ours? I know this doesn’t relate a ton to the Holy Fire miracle but I couldn’t find any other treads about it and I am curious.

 

[Hesychios]

Does the Catholic Church acknowledge the legitimacy of all 7 of the Orthodox sacraments? Do Catholics believe that EOs have the true presence of Jesus - body, blood, soul, divinity - in their Eucharist, since their clergy is not ordained by ours?..

Yes.

 

[Morgo]

I’m glad to hear it, but how about the other way around? What do EO’s teach about Catholic sacraments? Do you know of any webpages I might be able to read comparing what they teach about each other?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I’m glad to hear it, but how about the other way around? What do EO’s teach about Catholic sacraments? Do you know of any webpages I might be able to read comparing what they teach about each other?

This is a good link on the sacraments: newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

Link to Orthodox teaching on the sacraments; pravmir.com/article_249.html

1. The Mysteries

Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics recognize at least seven Sacraments or Mysteries: The Eucharist, Baptism, Chrismation, Ordination, Penance, Marriage and Holy Oil for the sick (which the Latins have traditionally called “Extreme Unction” and reserved for the dying).

Concerning the Sacraments in general, the Orthodox teach that their material elements (bread, wine, water, chrism, etc.) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis). Roman Catholicism believes that the Sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts “in the person of Christ.”

At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct formula, changes their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible elements or this and all Sacraments are merely “signs” of the presence of God.

The Orthodox call the Eucharist “the mystical Supper.” What the priest and the faithful consume is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine, because it would be wholly repugnant to eat “real” human flesh and drink “real” human blood.

According to Roman Catholic teachings about the Sacraments (mystagogy), a person becomes a member of the Church through Baptism. “Original sin” is washed away. Orthodoxy teaches the same, but the idea of an “original sin” or “inherited guilt” (from Adam) has no part in her thinking. More will be said later on this matter.

Roman Catholics speak of “Confirmation” and the Orthodox of “Chrismation.” “Confirmation” is separated from the Baptism and is performed by the bishop and not the priest; but “Chrismation” is performed with Baptism by a priest who has received “chrism” from the bishop. The Sacrament of “Confirmation” and “Chrismation” both mean the giving of the Holy Spirit. The Latins delay “confirming” (with “first communion”) baptized infants not more than seven years, that is, until the time they have some appreciation of the gift of God.

The Orthodox Church links Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion, first the threefold immersion into sanctified water, the “new Christian” rising from the water into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit which leads to union with God. Such is the purpose of membership in the Church.

Ordination is the ceremony which, by the grace and calling of God, elevates a man to the priesthood. The sacerdotal priesthood has three orders: Bishop, presbyter (elder) and deacon. All Christians are priests by virtue of the baptism into Christ Who is priest, prophet and king - for which reason St. Peter refers to the Church as a “royal priesthood” (I Pet. 2:9). The bishop is the “high priest,” the "president of the Eucharist and all the Mysteries. Presbyters and deacons are his assistants. The Latins hold that the presbyter acts “in the person of Christ” when, in fact, he does no more than represent the bishop who is “the living icon of Christ.”

Strictly speaking, Penance - sometimes called “Confession” - should only be received by the believer as a means of re-admission to the Church. For a long time, Penance, or confession of sins, prayer and fasting was employed only for those who had been expelled from the Church (“excommunication”) or who had voluntarily departed (apostasy). The present practice is to receive Penance from a bishop or presbyter for some serious sin before receiving Holy Communion.

Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics consider Penance as a Sacrament. Each has different customs surrounding it, such as the confessional booth so common among the latter.

For Roman Catholics, Holy Matrimony is a binding, ostensibly an unbreakable, contract. The man and the woman marry each other with the “church” (bishop or priest) standing as a witness to it. Hence, no divorce under any conditions - no divorce but annulment of the marriage contract if some canonical defect in it may be found which renders it null and void (as if it never took place).

In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of “the whole People of God” through her bishop or his presbyter. Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human weakness, it is allowed for adultery. Second and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of mercy, a further concession to human weakness (e.g., after the death of a spouse). This Sacrament, as all Sacraments or Mysteries, is completed by the Eucharist, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite says.

As already mentioned, the Latins conceive Extreme Unction as the final Sacrament, the Sacrament which prepares the believer for death, purgatory and the Age to Come. In Orthodoxy, Holy Oil is received for healing. Often sickness is caused by sin; therefore, Holy Oil or Unction involved Confession of sins. At the end of the rite, the anointed receives Holy Communion.

The Orthodox Church also recognizes kingship, monasticism, blessings of the water, etc. as Mysteries.

From here ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

 

[thunderballs75]

How can it be done by Copts, Armenian, and Greek Orthodox? Aren’t some of these monophysites? If that is the case, that must mean this miracle has nothing to do with determining who is orthodox and who is heretical.

 

[Hesychios]

How can it be done by Copts, Armenian, and Greek Orthodox? Aren’t some of these monophysites? If that is the case, that must mean this miracle has nothing to do with determining who is orthodox and who is heretical.

Perhaps it is a sign to us that the Miaphysite-Diaphysite controversy is an illusion.

After all, theology is humankind’s struggle to understand the Divine, a flawed process. If we had perfect understanding we would be God!

Personally, I take the position that we do not need signs, and we need not break a sweat trying to figure it out. Let’s feel this faith in our hearts, and stop reasoning over it. If the Gospel accounts are not sufficient for us, will we believe in anything?

I still like my theory, as foolish as it may be, that the Holy Shroud at Turin was scorched with the image of Christ right there in that place through just such an energy.

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

I admit I’d probably be more likely to believe it, because Rome would not try to wrap the miracle in secrecy. The Catholic Church has always been open to direct scientific investigation of its miracles because we don’t believe there is opposition between science and faith. A “behind closed doors” miracle really stifles the purpose of a miracle, don’t you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, what is in your name? Do you represent the God Marduk?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marduk

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

Still no sign from Marduk?

You sign your name with a Babylonian god’s name.