Miracles of Saint John Maximovitch

[The Liturgist]

Not really. Schizophrenia has voices that are not always audible.

Since I’ve not been diagnosed with schizophrenia that’s something of a red herring. Could I be in error about what transpired? Certainly. But you asked what you tendered as ah “honest question” and I gave you an honest answer, not anticipating that you would then use that answer as the jumping off point into an unwarranted speculation as to my mental health status.

 

[Berserk]

This post is inspired by my feelings of futility as I explore prayers to specific saints with no conviction that I'm being heard or that my new practice makes any difference. I don't want to prematurely give this new practice up.

EXTERNAL AIDS TO PETITIONARY PRAYER

Why should we believe that deceased saints are in a unique position to hear our prayers and intercede on behalf of our needs?
Can deceased godly parents who regularly prayed for us hear our request that we need their continued prayers?
Should we ask God to send specific angels to help us meet our needs?
Why isn't it sufficient to pray to the Father in Jesus' name?

 

[abacabb3]

Since I’ve not been diagnosed with schizophrenia that’s something of a red herring. Could I be in error about what transpired? Certainly. But you asked what you tendered as ah “honest question” and I gave you an honest answer, not anticipating that you would then use that answer as the jumping off point into an unwarranted speculation as to my mental health status.

Well, unless you can be more specific all I am saying there are more credible natural explanations. If you never sought a diagnosis, then not having one really does not seem that relevant. Mind you, I am not saying this is what occurred, but you just have not given us a basis here to really percieve that what was experienced was not some kind of hallucination or strong interior "suggestion" of an occurrence.

 

[Euthymios]

This was my interpretation of the event. Which I should note is all that was available considering that my relative ineptitude at vernacular Greek conversation would have made other communication impossible. Indeed this one occasion is the only time I met him, whereas I know his opposite numbers at the Coptic St. Anthony’s in California fairly well.

If a monastic were to provide a miraculous interpretation of one of these events my instinct would be to reject it as among Orthodox christians I am probably as incredulous as one you will find. For example, unlike Elder Ephrem I strongly doubt that the Holy Fire incidents in Jerusalem are anything other than the liturgical use of white phosphor, which is an extremely controversial opinion since many Orthodox including his monks are entirely convinced it is a miracle, but I myself am convinced that is a technological event related to Greek Fire. Perhaps if the words pyrotechnic and pyrophoric were not literally of Hellenic origin and perhaps if the Byzantine Empire’s most closely guarded state secret and also for many centuries their most effective strategic military capability were not literally a pyrophoric weapons system , I might be more credulous.

However I feel, controversially, that I can disagree with Elder Ephrem on issues like ecumenical relations with the Oriental Orthodox and whether or not Holy Fire is supernatural or merely a very impressive liturgical utilization of Byzantine pyrotechnics, while recognizing him as a great Christian who was authentically charismatic in a way that people of the Pentecostal churches claim but in fact are not, for what they claim to be speaking in tongues is plainly incoherent nonsense, and to suggest otherwise I might uncharitably but honestly describe as something I consider to be prelest.

You're giving a conspiracy theory, which is a fallacy. The Orthodox Church accepts the miracle of the Holy Fire. What is Greek fire and Byzantine pyrotechnics? The Holy Fire occurs in Jerusalem. And how would you explain the spontaneous ignition of candles inside and outside the church? This is multiply attested by independent witnesses. Your hypothesis lacks explanatory scope, because it doesn't account for all the data, so should be rejected.

 

[Euthymios]

This post is inspired by my feelings of futility as I explore prayers to specific saints with no conviction that I'm being heard or that my new practice makes any difference. I don't want to prematurely give this new practice up.

EXTERNAL AIDS TO PETITIONARY PRAYER

Why should we believe that deceased saints are in a unique position to hear our prayers and intercede on behalf of our needs?
Can deceased godly parents who regularly prayed for us hear our request that we need their continued prayers?
Should we ask God to send specific angels to help us meet our needs?
Why isn't it sufficient to pray to the Father in Jesus' name?

The Orthodox Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and accepts prayers to saints; and the history of the Church vindicates this practice. The saints are alive and deified in Christ. I wouldn't pray to any person unless he/she has been canonized.

 

[Euthymios]

Elder Ephraim believed in marital fasting. Apparently this has been blown out of proportion.

You're assuming that this teaching is the source of my concern. I read material where he allegedly stated that most married people go to hell, and he gave a demeaning and Gnostic type interpretation of marriage. But I am being honest when I say that I don't have proof that this information is accurate. Someone may have slandered him.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why should we believe that deceased saints are in a unique position to hear our prayers and intercede on behalf of our needs?

because you can see it in Scripture, and it’s a common practice from the beginning.

Can deceased godly parents who regularly prayed for us hear our request that we need their continued prayers?

if God so wills, yes.

Should we ask God to send specific angels to help us meet our needs?

yes.

Why isn't it sufficient to pray to the Father in Jesus' name?

who says it isn’t? but would you ask that if someone asked you for prayers?

 

[ArmyMatt]

You're assuming that this teaching is the source of my concern. I read material where he allegedly stated that most married people go to hell, and he gave a demeaning and Gnostic type interpretation of marriage. But I am being honest when I say that I don't have proof that this information is accurate. Someone may have slandered him.

seeing as how he had many married spiritual children, this is probably not accurate. when I met him in Arizona, I went there with a couple who were engaged and he was giving them marital counseling.

 

[The Liturgist]

You're giving a conspiracy theory, which is a fallacy. The Orthodox Church accepts the miracle of the Holy Fire. What is Greek fire and Byzantine pyrotechnics? The Holy Fire occurs in Jerusalem. And how would you explain the spontaneous ignition of candles inside and outside the church? This is multiply attested by independent witnesses. Your hypothesis lacks explanatory scope, because it doesn't account for all the data, so should be rejected.

I do not believe that Holy Fire is a conspiracy simply because I consider it to be accomplished using pyrotechnics; I regard it as a sacred liturgical experience that is at the very least an icon of the supernatural. Where I disagree with the monks at St. Anthony’s is that my own look at the subject causes me to suspect that Holy Fire is accomplished with a chemical reaction most likely involving white phosphor, but I do not believe this makes it wrong or fraudulent or some kind of pious fraud, if that is your concern.

Rather my position is based on a concern that atheists will try to embarrass us if we insist on Holy Fire being entirely supernatural, as opposed to being the result of a liturgical process, because all of the specific instances of it I have seen and am familiar with can be recreated using chemical reactions which have been well understood since antiquity.

However, I am not arguing against accepting Holy Fire even as a miracle, which it might be; my skepticism, which I would note does not actually anathematize me, is because the spontaneous ignition of candles can be accomplished pyrotechnically and the ancient Greeks were the masters of pyrotechnics, having developed a now lost weapons system known as Greek Fire which projected a burning pyrophoric liquid at enemy warships in battle which could not be easily extinguished (what the US Navy would call a class delta fire).

Now this all being said, the majority of recurrent miracles in the Holy Land I cannot explain, for example, the reversal of the Jordan, or the cloud that appears on Mount Tabor on the Transfiguration. These are very dramatic and lack a ready scientific explanation, which Holy Fire has.

Also, to reiterate, do not regard Holy Fire as fraudulent even though I suspect they are using pyrophoric chemicals, most likely white phosphor, but possibly something else (the exact formula for Greek Fire was a state secret, known only to the Emperor and a few persons trusted with preparing the weapon system, which the Byzantine Emperors came to believe was a gift of God for their military defense against the Saracens, which I would agree with, as this weapon was a great blessing which granted the Byzantine Empire a new lease on life and allowed it to protect its navy long enough for Orthodoxy to spread deep into the Slavonic lands and to saturate the Greek population so that Turkocratia would not exterminate the faith).

 

[ArmyMatt]

I do not believe that Holy Fire is a conspiracy simply because I consider it to be accomplished using pyrotechnics; I regard it as a sacred liturgical experience that is at the very least an icon of the supernatural. Where I disagree with the monks at St. Anthony’s is that my own look at the subject causes me to suspect that Holy Fire is accomplished with a chemical reaction most likely involving white phosphor, but I do not believe this makes it wrong or fraudulent or some kind of pious fraud, if that is your concern.

Rather my position is based on a concern that atheists will try to embarrass us if we insist on Holy Fire being entirely supernatural, as opposed to being the result of a liturgical process, because all of the specific instances of it I have seen and am familiar with can be recreated using chemical reactions which have been well understood since antiquity.

However, I am not arguing against accepting Holy Fire even as a miracle, which it might be; my skepticism, which I would note does not actually anathematize me, is because the spontaneous ignition of candles can be accomplished pyrotechnically and the ancient Greeks were the masters of pyrotechnics, having developed a now lost weapons system known as Greek Fire which projected a burning pyrophoric liquid at enemy warships in battle which could not be easily extinguished (what the US Navy would call a class delta fire).

Now this all being said, the majority of recurrent miracles in the Holy Land I cannot explain, for example, the reversal of the Jordan, or the cloud that appears on Mount Tabor on the Transfiguration. These are very dramatic and lack a ready scientific explanation, which Holy Fire has.

Also, to reiterate, do not regard Holy Fire as fraudulent even though I suspect they are using pyrophoric chemicals, most likely white phosphor, but possibly something else (the exact formula for Greek Fire was a state secret, known only to the Emperor and a few persons trusted with preparing the weapon system, which the Byzantine Emperors came to believe was a gift of God for their military defense against the Saracens, which I would agree with, as this weapon was a great blessing which granted the Byzantine Empire a new lease on life and allowed it to protect its navy long enough for Orthodoxy to spread deep into the Slavonic lands and to saturate the Greek population so that Turkocratia would not exterminate the faith).

what is white phosphor?

 

[The Liturgist]

what is white phosphor?

White phosphorus, sorry, also known as tetraphosphorus or P4. It’s quite an interesting substance particularly in terms of its pyrophoric properties. It was likely a component in Greek Fire, which was a weapons system; obviously Holy Fire is not a weapons system but it is something that from certain descriptions sounds to the casual reader like the sort of thing that would involve a pyrophoric reaction. Now the actual subject matter of whether or not Holy Fire involves tetraphosphorus is highly controversial, since the monks at St. Anthony’s were able to write an entire book on it, and my position to be clear is not that of the extremely skeptical Muslims who denied any divine action, but is rather based on the idea that Holy Fire is a legitimate liturgical process which likely involves some pyrophoric properties, but this does not make it fraudulent, which seems to be the reaction of some Orthodox Christians to any assertion of a technological component in the incident.

The main reason why I have this controversial opinion is because already incidents have occurred in which atheists and Muslims have tried to embarass us about Holy Fire, and I really would dread to see something such as a Mythbusters-like production targeting Holy Fire, and given the increasing Western opposition to Orthodoxy, well, all I can say to that is I am glad its the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem and not a Russian or Slavonic church which conducts that liturgy or else I suspect we would have already seen “exposes.” And as I see it the way to avoid such embarassment is to present Holy Fire in a strictly liturgical context, rather than insisting on using it as an apparent supernatural event and then compounding this mistake by trying to use it as a tool to assist in evangelism, which I fear could be disastrous.

I think the recurrent miracles of the Holy Land, including those which do not lend themselves to an easy explanation, such as the reversal of the Jordan, fall into the category of mysteries which should not be discussed with those outside the church or even very much discussed inside the church lest people attempt to accuse us of illusioneering.

And this thread offers some insight as to why I feel this way, considering that one member seems to be alleging me to be schizophrenic based on what i interpret as a miraculous experience I had with the late Elder Ephraim, who would have very much disagreed with me on this issue had we ever discussed us I expect based on the publication his monastery made claiming a purely supernatural cause for the Holy Fire. There is a danger any time we mention a miracle that someone might become suspicious of it, and for this matter I propose a liturgical interpretation is ideal, and then people can believe about the Holy Fire whatever seems most appropriate to them. The main focus as I see it ought to be on the extremely beautiful prayers that the Patriarch of Jerusalem makes during that liturgy, and the unity of the faithful during the service.

In this manner attempts by the Latins, and the Muslims, to discredit the experience can be reduced to the incoherent shrieking of the impious in strawman arguments against the divine worship, since there will be no actual claim about the phenomena for them to debunk, and they become reduced to characters like Ebeneezer Scrooge, condemned as it were by their own cynical misinterpretation of the worship that is taking place.

 

[The Liturgist]

seeing as how he had many married spiritual children, this is probably not accurate. when I met him in Arizona, I went there with a couple who were engaged and he was giving them marital counseling.

Indeed, the idea that he had a Gnostic interpretation of marriage is ludicrous. There were many married couples when I was there in 2015.

I think one reason why Elder Ephraim received ,and continues to receive after his repose in 2018, so much criticism, is because his monastery is a bastion of tradition within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America in that it is a transplant of an Athonite tradition into the deserts of Arizona. GoArch is known for having internal political controversies which are unfortunate and it is easy to see how some might get wrapped up in that, particularly given the disconnect between the worship at the monastery and the worship in some of the parishes (which comes down to a difference in the application of the Violakis Typikon; the monastery is not even using the Sabaite-Studite typikon in use on Mount Athos or the Julian calendar as these would likely cause an excess of confusion, but the mere style of worship there is quite a bit different from what one sees in the parishes, for example even the vestments are different since the monastery uses Athonite vestments, which have the raised collar like those in most of the OCA and in the Russian church, and GoArch parishes use the Byzantine vestments which simply hang over the shoulders.

 

[ArmyMatt]

White phosphorus, sorry, also known as tetraphosphorus or P4. It’s quite an interesting substance particularly in terms of its pyrophoric properties. It was likely a component in Greek Fire, which was a weapons system; obviously Holy Fire is not a weapons system but it is something that from certain descriptions sounds to the casual reader like the sort of thing that would involve a pyrophoric reaction. Now the actual subject matter of whether or not Holy Fire involves tetraphosphorus is highly controversial, since the monks at St. Anthony’s were able to write an entire book on it, and my position to be clear is not that of the extremely skeptical Muslims who denied any divine action, but is rather based on the idea that Holy Fire is a legitimate liturgical process which likely involves some pyrophoric properties, but this does not make it fraudulent, which seems to be the reaction of some Orthodox Christians to any assertion of a technological component in the incident.

The main reason why I have this controversial opinion is because already incidents have occurred in which atheists and Muslims have tried to embarass us about Holy Fire, and I really would dread to see something such as a Mythbusters-like production targeting Holy Fire, and given the increasing Western opposition to Orthodoxy, well, all I can say to that is I am glad its the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem and not a Russian or Slavonic church which conducts that liturgy or else I suspect we would have already seen “exposes.” And as I see it the way to avoid such embarassment is to present Holy Fire in a strictly liturgical context, rather than insisting on using it as an apparent supernatural event and then compounding this mistake by trying to use it as a tool to assist in evangelism, which I fear could be disastrous.

I think the recurrent miracles of the Holy Land, including those which do not lend themselves to an easy explanation, such as the reversal of the Jordan, fall into the category of mysteries which should not be discussed with those outside the church or even very much discussed inside the church lest people attempt to accuse us of illusioneering.

And this thread offers some insight as to why I feel this way, considering that one member seems to be alleging me to be schizophrenic based on what i interpret as a miraculous experience I had with the late Elder Ephraim, who would have very much disagreed with me on this issue had we ever discussed us I expect based on the publication his monastery made claiming a purely supernatural cause for the Holy Fire. There is a danger any time we mention a miracle that someone might become suspicious of it, and for this matter I propose a liturgical interpretation is ideal, and then people can believe about the Holy Fire whatever seems most appropriate to them. The main focus as I see it ought to be on the extremely beautiful prayers that the Patriarch of Jerusalem makes during that liturgy, and the unity of the faithful during the service.

In this manner attempts by the Latins, and the Muslims, to discredit the experience can be reduced to the incoherent shrieking of the impious in strawman arguments against the divine worship, since there will be no actual claim about the phenomena for them to debunk, and they become reduced to characters like Ebeneezer Scrooge, condemned as it were by their own cynical misinterpretation of the worship that is taking place.

as a former artilleryman, who shot a lot of white phosphorus, it’s nothing like the Holy Fire.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Indeed, the idea that he had a Gnostic interpretation of marriage is ludicrous. There were many married couples when I was there in 2015.

I think one reason why Elder Ephraim received ,and continues to receive after his repose in 2018, so much criticism, is because his monastery is a bastion of tradition within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America in that it is a transplant of an Athonite tradition into the deserts of Arizona. GoArch is known for having internal political controversies which are unfortunate and it is easy to see how some might get wrapped up in that, particularly given the disconnect between the worship at the monastery and the worship in some of the parishes (which comes down to a difference in the application of the Violakis Typikon; the monastery is not even using the Sabaite-Studite typikon in use on Mount Athos or the Julian calendar as these would likely cause an excess of confusion, but the mere style of worship there is quite a bit different from what one sees in the parishes, for example even the vestments are different since the monastery uses Athonite vestments, which have the raised collar like those in most of the OCA and in the Russian church, and GoArch parishes use the Byzantine vestments which simply hang over the shoulders.

plus, he was cool with people feeling the call to monasticism, dropping everything, and becoming monastics if he discerned that was their calling.

 

[The Liturgist]

as a former artilleryman, who shot a lot of white phosphorus, it’s nothing like the Holy Fire.

That’s good to know. If Holy Fire is pyrotechnic, I would not suspect it would just involve an unsubtle massive amount of white phosphorus because of the dangerous effects and the odor, but rather would have to be more sophisticated.

From the description of Greek Fire I doubt it was merely white phosphorus either due to the descriptions of it, but was rather much more harmful, whereas clearly Holy Fire is much safer.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That’s good to know. If Holy Fire is pyrotechnic, I would not suspect it would just involve an unsubtle massive amount of white phosphorus because of the dangerous effects and the odor, but rather would have to be more sophisticated.

From the description of Greek Fire I doubt it was merely white phosphorus either due to the descriptions of it, but was rather much more harmful, whereas clearly Holy Fire is much safer.

that still doesn’t explain the Holy Fire. Greek Fire still burned people, the Holy Fire doesn’t.

 

[The Liturgist]

that still doesn’t explain the Holy Fire. Greek Fire still burned people, the Holy Fire doesn’t.

If Holy Fire is a pyrotechnic, my thought is that it is derived from the same theoretical knowledge that allowed for Greek Fire, but intentionally engineered so as to minimize the risks of burning. I also doubt that it is still understood or even intentionally engaged in. From the reports I’ve heard and the research, I have an untested hypothesis as to what might be going on, which is in contrast to the reversal of the Jordan, which perhaps could be triggered by a sluice gate of some sort but this seems improbable due to the scale that would be needed; it would be a spectacular feat of civil engineering I should think.

My view is that we should regard the Holy Fire as sacred liturgy and simply not provide atheists with a vector to attack our faith, by not allowing the mechanism of its action to become subject to any official dogmatic or doctrinal interpretation, since this could expose us to attempts at debunking, and if, as I do believe is possible, Holy Fire actually is entirely supernatural (although I think it is not) I would not put it past atheists to try to discredit it anyway by demonstrating a similar phenomena and then perhaps using unethical approaches so as to introduce false or contaminated evidence to suggest Holy Fire is the same thing.

My belief, to clarify, is that it is probably pyrotechnic, but liturgically legitimate; possibly supernatural, but if it is supernatural, owing to the extreme sophistication of ancient Greek pyrotechnics and contemporary pyrotechnics, we have given atheists already a vector that they are using in blog posts et cetera to attack our faith, and as I see it the solution to this is a delicate one of characterizing it using liturgical terms which they cannot honestly debunk, and to avoid making a specific interpretation of Holy Fire a major doctrinai or dogmatic issue.

Additionally I think, controversially perhaps, that concerning our miraculous icons and relics that stream myrhh, as an example, since occasional icon fraud occurs, and also because of the danger of iconoclastic Protestants and Muslims trying to destroy these holy and precious relics and icons, that the Orthodox Church should try to avoid broadcasting the existence of these particular phenomena, which I have a very strong faith in. Rather the focus should be on the expeditious conveyance of the sacred myrrh from relics and icons that do provide it, such as the relics of St. Nicholas, to the faithful, as my experience is that the material is of very profound benefit.

I also really don’t want infidels, even if they are prevented from destroying or stealing or damaging myrhh streaming relics and icons, to have the motive or opportunity to desecrate it, but I believe clergy should make every effort to make it available to their parishioners. There retired ROCOR archbishop in Las Vegas, formerly of the OCA, Vladyka Nikolai who often has myrrh available for his people. The Coptic Orthodox monks in Yermo, CA are also very good about this.

 

[The Liturgist]

plus, he was cool with people feeling the call to monasticism, dropping everything, and becoming monastics if he discerned that was their calling.

Indeed, and I really love the brethren at his monastery. He was very good at receiving them and they were exceptionally kind, as was Fr. Paisios, his deputy, who was extremely kind to my mother.

Indeed the kindness of the monks at St. Anthony’s makes me particularly annoyed at attacks towards that monastery or the others founded by Elder Ephrem as well as against his character. I especially bristle at the accusation that he was a cult leader, which is totally false.

 

[Euthymios]

I do not believe that Holy Fire is a conspiracy simply because I consider it to be accomplished using pyrotechnics; I regard it as a sacred liturgical experience that is at the very least an icon of the supernatural. Where I disagree with the monks at St. Anthony’s is that my own look at the subject causes me to suspect that Holy Fire is accomplished with a chemical reaction most likely involving white phosphor, but I do not believe this makes it wrong or fraudulent or some kind of pious fraud, if that is your concern.

Rather my position is based on a concern that atheists will try to embarrass us if we insist on Holy Fire being entirely supernatural, as opposed to being the result of a liturgical process, because all of the specific instances of it I have seen and am familiar with can be recreated using chemical reactions which have been well understood since antiquity.

However, I am not arguing against accepting Holy Fire even as a miracle, which it might be; my skepticism, which I would note does not actually anathematize me, is because the spontaneous ignition of candles can be accomplished pyrotechnically and the ancient Greeks were the masters of pyrotechnics, having developed a now lost weapons system known as Greek Fire which projected a burning pyrophoric liquid at enemy warships in battle which could not be easily extinguished (what the US Navy would call a class delta fire).

Now this all being said, the majority of recurrent miracles in the Holy Land I cannot explain, for example, the reversal of the Jordan, or the cloud that appears on Mount Tabor on the Transfiguration. These are very dramatic and lack a ready scientific explanation, which Holy Fire has.

Also, to reiterate, do not regard Holy Fire as fraudulent even though I suspect they are using pyrophoric chemicals, most likely white phosphor, but possibly something else (the exact formula for Greek Fire was a state secret, known only to the Emperor and a few persons trusted with preparing the weapon system, which the Byzantine Emperors came to believe was a gift of God for their military defense against the Saracens, which I would agree with, as this weapon was a great blessing which granted the Byzantine Empire a new lease on life and allowed it to protect its navy long enough for Orthodoxy to spread deep into the Slavonic lands and to saturate the Greek population so that Turkocratia would not exterminate the faith).

I don't know how read you are in logic, but you made a mutually exclusive claim, and actually did in fact appeal to a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy theory to allege that the Holy Fire is not real. And it is mutually exclusive (contradictory) to claim that it is accomplished by pyrotechnics and sacred at the same time. If it is fake, then it is blasphemous, not sacred. You didn't respond to my point that the spontaneous ignition of candles, inside and outside the church, is multiply attested by independent witnesses. This fact refutes the hypothesis that it is accomplished by pyrotechnics.

Who cares what atheists think? They have never been able to disprove the Holy Fire. Let the facts speak for themselves.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't know how read you are in logic, but you made a mutually exclusive claim, and actually did in fact appeal to a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy theory to allege that the Holy Fire is not real. And it is mutually exclusive (contradictory) to claim that it is accomplished by pyrotechnics and sacred at the same time. If it is fake, then it is blasphemous, not sacred. You didn't respond to my point that the spontaneous ignition of candles, inside and outside the church, is multiply attested by independent witnesses. This fact refutes the hypothesis that it is accomplished by pyrotechnics.

Who cares what atheists think? They have never been able to disprove the Holy Fire. Let the facts speak for themselves.

I am well read in logic, and I do not believe I made a fallacious argument, although I may have explained it incorrectly.

Now, firstly, appeal to a conspiracy theory is not per se a logical fallacy, however, such an appeal would be an appeal to unqualified authority, but I did not appeal to that conspiracy theory as I do not agree with it, although I would not personally regard it as a conspiracy theory. Appeal to unqualified authority is of course a legitimate logical fallacy which should be avoided, along with appeal to ignorance.

Now, regarding mutually exclusive claims, I did not claim that the Holy Fire is not real or is fake. Rather I expressed a view that is somewhat more subtle than that. I disagree vehemently with the idea that if the Holy Fire is not entirely supernatural, it is therefore inauthentic and unholy or some kind of pious fraud, as I said before. Rather, my assertion is that it is liturgical and probably contains a technological component, but that it is a holy liturgy, a sacred liturgy, and very important. I believe furthermore that my understanding actually aligns with the prayers said by the Patriarch of Jerusalem at the Holy Fire service, which are written in Greek, but when translated can be interpreted as making an iconographic interpretation of the Holy Fire.

So just to summarize what I believe, for purposes of simplicity, my position is specifically that as defined in the following ten points:

1. The Holy Fire is Holy, specifically, a sacramental, because it is blessed within a liturgical context, much like Holy Water.
2. The specifics of its ignition and distribution are very likely the result of a pyrotechnical process, albeit one not conducted in a manner that is deliberately deceptive.
3. This being said, I cannot reasonably exclude the possibility that it is entirely supernatural, but based on my understanding of the prayers made by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, I think it is best understood liturgically and iconographically, specifically, the Holy Fire being an icon of the light of Christ and of His triumph over darkness and evil on the cross.
4. This iconographic understanding is the most important element of the Holy Fire, since the whole point of the liturgy is the spreading of the Light of Christ in celebration of His Resurrection.
5. Thus the Holy Fire is sacred regardless of the actual process by which it is ignited and distributed, which are in my view almost irrelevant, particularly considering that the Holy Fire is not itself one of the formally recognized Sacraments or Mysteries of the church, like the Eucharist or Baptism or Holy Unction or Holy Matrimony or Holy Orders, or indeed Chrismation and Reconciliation, all of which are sacred mysteries that are supernatural. Indeed the actual transformation of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of our Lord is the entirely supernatural, recurrent miracle par excellence.
6. That being said, sacramentals such as Holy Fire and also Holy Water and other blessings and consecrations are nonetheless sacred and of extreme importance to the faithful.
7. Ergo, if it is the case that the ignition and spreading of the Holy Fire are the result of a pyrotechnic process, this does not mean that the Holy Fire is not sacred or a blessing upon the people, because Holy Water begins as regular water and is consecrated, and once consecrated takes on the properties of a sacramental, and is known to have been involved in a great many miracles in terms of healing, and in terms of repelling demons, and otherwise for good and important ends.
8. A liturgical understanding of Holy Fire helps protect the Church from damaging attacks by atheists, whereas conversely insisting upon a belief that the Holy Fire is an entirely supernatural phenomenon and then making this claim outside of the church and using it as a means of trying to convert people to Orthodoxy is a very bad idea, for multiple reasons, not just because of the ease with which atheists could potentially discredit it, even dishonestly (for example, by replicating its effects as a means of debunking it, and perhaps by planting evidence in the Holy Sepulchre). So even if it is supernatural, the mystery of it should be protected.
9. Thus the Holy Fire is best communicated as being liturgical, a sacramental, similar to Holy Water. It, and the other repeating miraclous incidents in the Holy Land such as the reversal of the Jordan should furthermore be regarded as sacred mysteries of the Orthodox Church which should not be discussed with outsiders but rather reserved as a blessing for the faithful.
10. Likewise, to protect our myrhh-streaming icons and relics and especially the myrhh itself from desecration, their status should not be greatly discussed or emphasized in conversation with people outside of the Orthodox Church, however, every effort should be made to distribute the Sacred Myrhh to the faithful with maximum expiediency.