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


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?


I don’t know much about it, but I know it doesn’t necessarily mean that the EO is the true Church. It’s understandable for one to interpret it that way, but it’s not the necessary conclusion.

I can’t comment any further, though.


Could you provide a reference for this, please? I’ve never heard of this.



When did this happen?


Somewhere around 1100 A.D.


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.


It’s quite possible.


Because the mass was originally in Greek and Latin was the vulgar language


I’m not sure I understand how that fits in with the discussion. :slight_smile:


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! :grin:


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


Has it been proven that the whole white phosphorous idea is actually what the EO bishops are doing?


Please, no deflections.

Even if we think we have good reasons to dismiss the phenomenon, we cannot get ahead of ourselves and act as though it’s proven fact that a miracle isn’t taking place. If it hasn’t been proven that the EO bishops are doing what you say they are, then there is a chance you’re wrong.

Why are we so quick to defame an Eastern phenomenon which has undoubtedly brought many people closer to God?


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)


Of course. If we knew that the explanation was natural and not supernatural. But we don’t. One could just as easily say that the Virgin Mary wasn’t actually a virgin, but she lied to cover up her sins and accidentally created a new religion. Just because in a hypothetical world it could be true doesn’t mean it is true. But, I mean, hey, it’s a natural explanation, so according to your logic, it must take precedence over the supernatural explanation. Right?


Why would you assume that this fable is true?


It’s very real for many.

You are referring to this


People discount this like people discount Fatima


I meant to reply to the OP.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit