DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**boleroman** · 05-14-2011, 10:31 PM

The Church always leans towards skepticism and discernment, and I think it's much safer that way. For example, when an icon starts weeping in a church, the priest doesn't say: "Quick! Go tell all your friends and let everybody see this miracle so they can glorify God!" Rather they inform the presiding bishop and other clergymen, to discern if the miracle was from God.

It's better to mistakenly think that a miracle is a natural occurrence, than to mistake a natural occurrence or a prank for a miracle. As an example of how embarrassing it can be when we make such mistakes, a certain non-Orthodox church (name omitted) recently canonized a 16th century figure as a saint, and then shortly afterwards historians discovered that the 16th century figure didn't actually exist.

05-14-2011, 10:31 PM	#16
boleroman Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 571 Senior Member	The Church always leans towards skepticism and discernment, and I think it's much safer that way. For example, when an icon starts weeping in a church, the priest doesn't say: "Quick! Go tell all your friends and let everybody see this miracle so they can glorify God!" Rather they inform the presiding bishop and other clergymen, to discern if the miracle was from God. It's better to mistakenly think that a miracle is a natural occurrence, than to mistake a natural occurrence or a prank for a miracle. As an example of how embarrassing it can be when we make such mistakes, a certain non-Orthodox church (name omitted) recently canonized a 16th century figure as a saint, and then shortly afterwards historians discovered that the 16th century figure didn't actually exist.
	Quote