Why is it worth discussing? The fact that it is happening is the only thing worth discussing, IMHO. If true, it is a miracle of God, NOT a miracle of the EOC. The fact that it is happening for the Eastern Orthodox doesn’t seem to be relevant, given all the other miracles that occur in the Catholic Church.
Thanks for the info, brother. I am skeptical of the claim because the whole ceremony happens behind closed doors. No one has actually witnessed (other than the celebrant) or recorded the first instance of the Holy Fire manifesting itself. A genuine miracle, IMHO, should not be done behind closed doors. A miracle, if it is from God, is intended to display the glory of God to the world as a witness.
The last paragraph in the article states
Here is the article.
Yes, unless the Church has allowed it since then. I honestly have no idea.
That’s strange. In lieu of my question of whether any other Apostolic Church has attempted the ceremony, brother Dzheremi indicated that EO claim that Catholics who have tried it have failed. Presumably, the Catholics must be bishops.
The science is rather shaky, and in fact contradicts the account given in the link given by the OP. The website linked by the OP states that the miracle occurs either immediately or within minutes of the prayer by the priest. Why did the scientist have to wait 6.5 hours before recording any phenomena? The phenomena observed could have been the result of ANYTHING (tremors, static discharge, weather, etc.). It is noble of the scientist to admit that no definite conclusions can be obtained from his experiment. We should wait at least two more years (i.e., at least two more times) to see if the recording of the “miracle” - if his instruments actually recorded a miracle and not some other natural event - can be repeated. That is, if the phenomena can actually be tied to the purported miracle.
At the heart of my concearn or misgivings about any discussion on the Holy Fire is that ultimately - if the goal is to prove or disprove a particular church’s claims or legitimacy - miracles are the last place to look for direction. Things falling under the category of “signs and wonders” are mostly convincing to those who already are of beleif, and mostly dismissed (often times with scorn, derision or hostility) by parties who are rivals or in disagreement with the theology of the folks who claim experience of a miracle.
Yup
It doesnt!
But I immediately felt that this miracle is believable for two reasons only.Not if it is a hoax.
I believe in the Holy Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope…both instituted by Our Lord Jesus. Im Catholic.
No…at least not for me
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.
and the Armenian bishop admitted later to using a lighter to relight it! What was he doing with a lighter in the Chapel???I don’t see what the number of believers has to do with whether or not one chooses to beilive it. As Catholics we prefer to have things investigated by Rome and give us “definitive” answer.
The Church would have investigated if it happened there every year, so probably. I don’t understand why you roll your eyes. You’ve made it quite clear you think we Catholics commune with demons when we see apparitions at Fatima and other places. So, what exactly is your standard of determining these things that the above posters have not lived up to?I’m willing to bet if it happened every year under similar circumstances at St. Peter’s in Rome you’d believe it?
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?Believe it or don’t, there’s certainly Catholic apparitions and “miracles” I think are phony or worse… it’s still no reason to disparage the belief of millions who do believe in this miracle which is thousands of years old by calling it a ‘hoax’. I’m willing to bet if it happened every year under similar circumstances at St. Peter’s in Rome you’d believe it?
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.
Hi PatrickBelieve it or don’t, there’s certainly Catholic apparitions and “miracles” I think are phony or worse… it’s still no reason to disparage the belief of millions who do believe in this miracle which is thousands of years old by calling it a ‘hoax’. I’m willing to bet if it happened every year under similar circumstances at St. Peter’s in Rome you’d believe it?