One of the great proofs of the truth of the Christian faith is that of miracles. Miracles, when witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people, cannot be gainsaid. It is often the case that dogmatic secularists or modernists will often scoff, and make some vague reference to “mass hypnosis” or some sort of fraud. More often, such events are deliberately ignored or misrepresented. Even if such miracles are not of Orthodox provenance (and are thus from the evil one), it matters very little, for at least, it still provides proof of the supernatural and its connection to human life.

My personal favorite is the appearance of the cross over Athens, September 14, 1925. Here, the Greek old calendarists were performing the vigil for the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. The Greek government had banned the old calendarists, and thus sent a detachment of police to break up the vigil and arrest the priest. Late that night, as the vigil was progressing, and the police had arrived, a miracle occurred: a huge cross appeared in the sky, lasting for about a half an hour, slowly fading away. As the church was packed, hundreds of people saw this event, and the police themselves refused to arrest the priest as a result. There can be no denying the historical veracity of such an event, and therefore, the Regime simply covered it up. Here is one eyewittness account:

At about 11:30 at night, we heard a loud and strange uproar coming from the shouts of the multitude. Without any delay, we ran to see what was happening - and we saw. The whole multitude of the faithful was in a state of excitement. Some were weeping and others, crying out “Lord, have mercy,” were kneeling and had turned their eyes toward heaven, and yet others were fainting, overwhelmed with great emotion. Then we too looked and beheld the marvel: an enormous radian Cross, very high above the church was illumining the whole area. At first, we were seized with fear, but immediately we came to ourselves and, forgetting the purpose for which we had been sent, we fell to our knees and wept like little children.

Of course, it is superfluous for me to tell you that, filled with emotion, we attended the rest of the vigil to the end--no longer as persecutors, but as faithful Christians. In the morning when we returned to the Institute, we told everyone about the great marvel which we had been deemed worthy to see. Afterwards there was an investigation and all of us swore under oath that we had seen the Precious Cross clearly, high in the sky.

John D. Glymis

Retired Police Officer, 78 years of age

73 Aristotle Street

Peristeri, Greece

What makes this appearance of the cross significant is that it appeared just a few years after the apparitions of Fatima in Portugal. And it occurred almost precisely at the same time such visions were beginning to become popular in the west. I might want to take a minute to explain the differences between the two apparitions. Firstly, the Greek appearance was that of a cross, a distinctly visible, three bared Orthodox cross. It remains the case that the fathers of the Orthodox church, long before this event, had made the claim (popular on Athos), that demons can never imitate the form of the cross. This was to aid monks who received visions, telling them that a cross was proof that the vision was true and should be followed. Demons can imitate all Christian forms except that one. Therefore, this apparition was designed to appeal to the widespread notion in Greece that crosses can never be a part of false apparitions. But, of course, all miracles, no matter what their cause, are proof of another, different and supernatural world. Therefore all miracles, regardless of their origin, remind us of our true home. The truth of one church as opposed to another, are the domain of dogmatic discourse and historical investigation, not of miracles.

The appearance of the cross was a direct answer to the apparitions at Fatima. Another significant difference, secondly, was that there was no “discourse” arriving from the apparition. This is a problem with Fatima: If “Mary” needed to provide new information to the children, prophesies about the future, etc., does this not imply the insufficiency of the Roman Catholic tradition? One might ask that if there are holy saints alive today, holy men and women in monastic orders who might shed light on our times, why is there any need for such apparitions? Is the tradition of the Scriptures, fathers, canons etc. sufficient for us? The appearance of the cross need tell us nothing except as a reminder of God’s care for us old-calendar resisters. Our tradition is sufficient. The appearance of the cross was a humble reminder, directed at a specific group of Orthodox traditionalists under persecution. It was connected with a prayer vigil at a time of uncertainty; it corresponded with a sacred feast, and connected with a form that demons cannot imitate. It was not a glorified “tourist attraction,” to be trumpeted in the newspapers. It appeared to a small group of worshipers in a small church, many of whom swore under oath of its reality. It deserves out attention and respect, and shows the radical differences between the Orthodox and Catholic description of miracles.

However, there is one miracle that is little known, and is found only in an 1893 edition of a Russian publication called The New Era. It concerns Metropolitan +PLATON, who lived during the time of Nicholas I, and had been bishop in southern Russia, on the Don river, the traditional location of the Russian Cossacks.

+PLATON was a rather well known Orthodox figure, a writer and polemicist, a defender of Orthodox teaching. He was in contact with some of the best writers of his era, and had known some of the most famous figures in Russian political history in the early part of the 1800s. The metropolitan, according to his own testimony as an old man, late in his career, was reading a sermon, one soon to be delivered by one of his priests, during the 40 day vigil after the Tsar’s death. It was late at night, and the metropolitan writes that “I was concentrating on reading and correcting some passages in a sermon,” which is another way of saying that he could not have been dreaming, as he was busy at his normal work as an archpastor. He continues:

I saw standing in the doorway His Majesty, Emperor Nicholas Pavlovitch in all his regalia and all his dignity. He seemed slightly bent to one side. His eagle gaze was directed at me. The appearance was not indistinct, foggy–not at all like a phantom. Not at all, I saw my unforgettable Tsar as if he were alive, the smallest details of his appearance was tangibly present. . . I kept looking at my beloved Tsar, who appeared to console my sorrow, and kept looking at me with a piercing gaze that was kind and regal. This lasted for quite a while. I asked myself: Should I bow? Does one bow to a ghost? Shouldn’t I bow to a Tsar regardless?. . .I don’t know if you will believe me. Don’t forget I’m an old man, and I am unworthy to serve at the Lord’s altar. I certainly have no need to lie or invent stories.

Therefore, if we are to be logical, scientific and empirical, we must conclude that this was a miracle. It shows that God is merciful, and sent his servant, the pious Tsar to the metropolitan, who had been grieving at his former friend and mentor. It proves that there is life after death, that salvation is real, and that God’s Community, the Orthodox people, Israel, is a reality, and that those who are saved take an interest in their pious friends in this fallen world. This is the only scientific, logical and empirical conclusion we may come to. If this metropolitan had written, instead, that he had seen a mouse run from his antechamber, we would have no problem believing him. We would not dogmatically seek to believe his was dreaming or drugged, or some other silly thing. Therefore, if we are to be consistent and scientific, we should believe the metropolitan, and come to the proper logical conclusions.

Furthermore, we also need to conclude that this pious Tsar is a saint, for he is clearly among the saved, and that he takes a personal interest in his Orthodox people here in this dimension, the dimension of causality, materialism and fallenness. Therefore, we should begin to celebrate his memory as a regular feast, as we do every year at this chapel on the date of his death. We should also take heart. As our faith in Jesus Christ often falters (not so much that he was a man, but that he was also divine), stories such as these serve well to strengthen our faith and in this supernatural proof of the righteousness of our cause, that of royalism and the Orthodox tradition.

Here are a few videos dealing with Orthodox miracles:

Can we make sense of this? Modern Americans see their relatives die. They see themselves getting older. They see changes happening on an hourly basis, and yet they maintain their faith solely in the promise of this world. Does this, from a strictly logical point of view, make sense? And not even “this world” in the sense of the world of matter and those who control it, but they believe in “this world” in the sense of the contemporary world, the ideological and scientific choices of 2007 only, to the exclusion of the choices available in 1907, 1807 and 1307. For them–the near whole of American humanity– their faith is in the choices available at their place and time–America, March, 2007, CNN–to the exclusion of all else. Their mode of speech, faith, dress, ideological baggage, etc. is all conditioned to this one, singular place and time. And they call themselves individualists? Is this all merely a coincidence? Again–we are the ones that need to be laughing.

Miracles are reported to us by the dozens, nearly all of which by intelligent, Orthodox people who have absolutely nothing to gain by such admissions except scorn and the nervous hatred of the world. Those who do have an axe to grind are normally torn apart by the press and quickly forgotten.

Fr. Augustine, an elderly priest of the Synod of Milan, has a severe eye problem. Just last year, after being anointed by oil from the lampada of St. John Maximovitch, this cataract problem disappeared, to the astonishment of his doctors. What should our reaction be? Do we assume Fr. Augustine is a “nut,” who waited many decades to invent stories that he knows will have the popular press labeling him a nut? Does he have a financial motive? Do his doctors? No, the only scientific conclusion that derives proportionally from the empirical evidence is that God exists, Orthodoxy is true and his saints, coupled with the faith of his clergy, can work cures that exist outside the fallen world of material cause and effect. What is the logical problem here?

As soon are you are treated to the scornful stares of the dumb American sheep, as soon as the Regime calls you filthy and dehumanizing names for believing in Christ, confront them–confront them with the righteous indignation seen among the prophets of the Old Testament, and ask them to kindly explain the cross over Athens in 1925. You will find that it is you that are the one laughing, which in all honesty, is the only rational response to the sickness of the modern world.