www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Holy light of Jerusalem

Arbannon not that I feel like arguing about this but it appears that you and I are substantially saying the same thing even if the form appears different. Remove your words and mine and we are both left with the same premises:

P1= and P2= therefore P3=

You seem to be inferring that since P1=The Holy Fire is given only to the Orthodox Patriarch and P2=inspite of the fact multiple church confessions are present therefore P3=the Orthodox Church is the true Church, nai?

Using your logic I substituted your words for P1=in 1854 the Pope declared ex cathedra that the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Mother of God was to be believed as dogma P2=Subsequently Our Lady appeared at Lourdes and confirmed this with words and miracles that continue up to the present therefore P3=The Pope is infallible ex cathedra as confirmed by the heavenly affirmations given by Our Lady at Lourdes to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception promulgated by Blessed Pius IX.

Removing your words and retaining the deductive logic that underlays your presentation what we're saying is exactly the same. According to your logic the apparations and miracles at Lourdes can be said to prove Papal infallibility. Because you were focussed on the form of my words and not the substantial premises it appeared as if we were both making contrasting claims but in truth we're not. Both my prior post and your first one make the claim that a miracle can act as evidence for the claim to having the pleroma.

Personally, though I believe Lourdes to be true and have read through many Lourdes miracles cases in the book The Healing Fire of Christ [amazon.com] I do not believe deductive logic can be utilised in the way you have employed it. I've never been the biggest fan of a priori reasoning and as we've both illustrated there are Catholic and Orthodox miracles still happening simultaneously, seeming to indicate that either we're both wrong or both right (the second conclusion being more favourable). However, to my knowledge miracles and signs do not merely happen within the Chacledonian or even Apostolic churches which causes further problems in attempting to validate the use of deductive logic in the way you have.

I do believe, as I said, that the miracle of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem is true. However, I do not believe that your premises stand up to closes scrutiny. Nor can they account for the existence of miracles in other sectors of Christendom. In my mind, if miracles prove anything, they prove God listens. They are signs of something greater and that something greater chooses when and how He'll employ them.

Myles,


First, I havent come forward with any kind of opinion. All I did was asking your opinion. Therefore I may say your conclusion is not correct.


Second, that miracle prove the right faith from the wrong one, we have examples from Scripture to every day church life. Prophet Ilia, Moses, saint Basilus versus Arians.


Third. Where your analogy doesnt suit is that:


We both accept Holy Fire as a miracle, but we dont accept both the Apparition of Lourd.


Lourd confirms the immaculate conception, and if the pope was right, Lourd is a confirmation of this and not infallibility.
for example, If i say, that I, based on my claim for infallibility as a lay person, proclaim that God is a trinity, that doesnt mean, that because I am saying the truth I am infallible.


Apparitions in Lourd is a exclusively catholic thing, whereas I may tell you other Apparitions which may contradict the conclusion of Lourd.

Moreover Apparitions of Saint Mary doesnt happen only in Catholic church.

Whereas Holy Fire is a miracle that goes on in the exacte manner each Pascha night in the presence of a multitude of all confessions. But the Fire is given ONLY to the orthodox patriarch, while the others FAIL to receive the same despite wanting it.


greetings

Arbanon:



We Catholics, also, believe in miracles!

But I think the above is an incorrect atatement of fact as far as the Holy Fire in Jerusalem is concerned:

(1) That the "fire" is given ONLY to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch has no basis in fact. There has been no picture or video clip that records this initial part of the miracle.

In other words, all that has been recorded, by still pictures and by individual video clips, is the "passing" of the fire FROM the Greek Orthodox Patriarch EITHER TO the Armenian Patriarch or TO the Coptic Patriarch, or to both in some instances, or to the those surrounding the enclosure.

Of course, nobody has dared to record the when and how the "fire" is given to the Orthodox Patriarch because he, ALONE, goes into the innermost chamber.

(2) This "gap" has led some to doubt the authenticity of the miracle or express disbelief that the "fire" is given only to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch. Remember that the miracle of the "Holy Fire" started when the Church was one!

I think this account has not been answered by the proponents of the "singularity" attributed to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch as it casts a shadow of dishonesty:

http://www.holyfire.org/eng/doc_Guardian2001.htm

The miracle of the "Holy Fire" does occur and it belongs to the entire Church.

But to assert continually that the Greek Orthodox Patriarch could only be the SOLE recipient of the "fire" is, to me, an insult to other apostolic Christians!

Amado

Amado,
Dear Brother in Christ,

I understand your point.

You quote .

You are quite correct in this statement. We are all one body of Christ, however, are we currently "one Church"? Through pride, sin, and evil, Satan has severed the Communion between the various parts of the One Church of Christ.

When I see miracles of this nature, which occur every year on the Orthodox Pascha, and the miracle of the Stigmata of Mina from Damascus, that only occurs when the Roman and Orthodox Churches celebrate the same Pascha that particular year, I must then reevaluate some of my personal beliefs regarding which Liturgical Calendar is correct. I was certain at one point that the Gregorian Calendar was correct, but to hear of these miracles and more importantly, when they happen, now leads me to feel that at least the Julian Calendar for movable feasts is the correct way to go. As a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church, I do not have an answer though on what to do next. I am going to pray hard for a unified Pascha, since that makes the most sense at the moment, for me.

In Christ,

Michael

The dates of the Calendar have been different long before the Gregorian Calendar was introduced arising out of the West's calculation of the paschal feast according to the synoptics and the East's according to John. Personally, I dont think it matters that much certainly St Irenaeus didnt--he upbraided Pope Victor for trying to force the churches of Asia Minor where he had grown up to adopt the Roman timing, but taught the Christians of his See in Lyon to calculate the pascha by Roman timing. Nonetheless I'm glad you've found your home in Byzantium and I'm glad the miracles continue also.

Actually, one of the fascinating things about the apparitions and subsequent healings at Lourdes is that they are not an exclusively Catholic thing. People from all over the world, of all faiths and no faith, have made pilgrimages there and been healed. It seems to be there for anyone who wants it.

Dear Michael - something you might do is seek out one or another of the remaining Greek-Catholic Churches where the Julian Calendar is still in use, and go there for the Holy Pascha. The experience should be joyful.

Incognitus

Dear Michael:

As to the unified celebration of Holy Week/Pascha, the messages of Our Lady of Soufanieh seem to be tilted in favor of the Latin celebration.

Our Lady even relayed the message that Her Son built the Church on Peter. And the stigmata on the visionary represents the passion of Christ, which is more Western than Eastern.

Perhaps, this is the reason why the apparitions at Soufanieh are more popular to Catholics than to the Orthodox.

The messages seem to declare that the "unicity" of Christ's Church should be achieved with the leadership of the Pope, the successor of Peter.

This seem to be the meaning of the message that Mirna and her "kin," her "generation," should stay Eastern but in union with the Pope.

What do you think?

Amado

Dear Amado, I don't recall messages that Myrna received specifically mentioning the pope or the Church of Rome. Can you be specific? Thanks, Vito

Dear Incognitus,

Bless.

Thank you. I will do my best to seek this out. We do have a UGCC in St. Petersburg, but I am unaware of the calendar that they use. If nothing else, then I can at least attend the Divine Liturgy at our Greek Orthodox Church or at the ACROD Church about 15 miles up the road. (Without partaking of communion, of course).

Michael

Dear Amado,

Also, we must remember that St. Peter founded the Church of Antioch prior to the Church of Rome. That would mean to me, logically, that the Patriarch of Antioch is also the legitimate successor to St. Peter.

Is this a correct conclusion? If so, then we have a Church that is on the Julian Calendar that meets the criteria stated Our Most Holy Theotokos' blessed words.

In Christ,

Michael

This Holy Fire vs. Lourdes stuff is driving me nuts.

Arbanon, the Catholic Church acknowledges the Eastern Orthodox Churches to possess Apostolic Succession and, therefore, valid Sacraments/Mysteries. It would seem to me that every divine action flowing out of a Sacrament is a "miracle." The transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is certainly a miracle, and occurs in non only Catholic churches, but within Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Polish National Catholic, and Sedevacantist churches. In short, we acknowledge that miracles occur outside the Catholic Church. So the Holy Fire really isn't a problem to Catholics because it doesn't prove anything other than what we already accept: miracles in all Churches possessing Apostolic Succession and true Sacraments.

On the other hand, it would seem to me that the Orthodox position is a bit more confusing. Seemingly, the Eastern Orthodox are silent about the action of grace outside of your Communion. What, then, are Orthodox to make of "miracles" at Lourdes, Eucharistic Miracles of the Catholic Church, et al.?

Logos Teen

Dear All,

It seems to me that our God is not a God of dissension and friction. Why in the world would He allow anyone other than the established Patriarch of Jerusalem receive the Holy Fire? Wouldn't that cause more friction and dissension in the Church?

Actually though, I heard that the Holy Fire sometimes appears in other places in the church of the Holy Sepulcher, so maybe He is trying to tell us something.

This reminds me of something I heard from someone quite close to me. When the Pope was planning his visit to Greece, the TV stations there were inviewing some priests. One priest said that only the Orthodox have miracles. Now this priest could only judge from his own experiences.

Now we know our God is a loving God, not a God of strife. Being a loving God, He would not give a profound miracle to a Latin church in Greece anymore than He would give a profound miracle to an Orthodox church in a Latin country. For what could anyone gain from that?

Zenovia

*nods*

Dear Vito:

I might have taken some liberty in paraphrasing the messages. But here they are as written on the Our Lady of Soufanieh website:

Amado