On August 6, we celebrate the Feast of the Transfiguration, when Christ ascended Mount Tabor with three of His disciples and was transfigured before their eyes.
Shining brightly with the light of His divine nature, Christ spoke with Moses and Elijah, who appeared alongside Him.
While an important event in Christ's life, the Transfiguration was added to the Christian calendar relatively late, and few people realize that it was not declared a universal feast of the Church until August 6, 1456. Even fewer know that it owes its place on the calendar, in part, to the courageous actions of Dracula.
Yes, Dracula—or, more precisely, Vlad III the Impaler, who is better known to history by the dreaded name. Pope Callixtus III added the Feast of the Transfiguration to the calendar to celebrate the important victory of the Hungarian nobleman Janos Hunyadi and the elderly priest St. John of Capistrano at the Siege of Belgrade in July 1456. Breaking the siege, their troops reinforced the Christians at Belgrade, the Muslim Turks were routed, and Islam was stopped from advancing further into Europe.
With the exception of St. John of Capistrano, Hunyadi could find no significant allies to accompany him to Belgrade, but he did enlist the help of young prince Vlad, who agreed to guard the passes into Rumania, thus cutting off the Turk. Without his aid, the battle might not have been won. Vlad was a brutal man whose actions earned him immortality as the fictional vampire, but some Orthodox Christians venerate him as a saint for confronting the Islamic threat to Christian Europe. As we celebrate the Feast of the Transfiguration, we might at least offer a prayer for his soul.
(Icon of the Transfiguration. Russian, 15th century; public domain.)
Connect With Scott: Facebook | Twitter | Newsletters
Catholics also venerate him as a saint! For an Eastern Catholic, there is no real distinction between Orthodox or Catholic saints!
For an Eastern Catholic, there is no real distinction between Orthodox or Catholic saints!
Well, yes and no. There are Orthodox saints that are not recognized by the Catholic Church, east or west, but they are primarily Orthodox saints who were involved in controversies with the Catholic Church.
I’m curious, though—I have never heard of Eastern Catholics who venerate Vlad Dracul, and not all Eastern Orthodox do. In fact, the origin of the vampire legend comes from the fact that many Orthodox regarded Vlad as an apostate, because he converted to Roman Catholicism in order to gain military assistance against the Turks. In folk legend (though not in Orthodox theology), such apostates could not leave this earthly realm after death.
Do you know which Eastern Catholics venerate Vlad? My guess would be Rumanian Catholics, but are there others as well?
I believe that when Vladimir defended the pass, he invented modern gun warfare. He used tactics similar to those of Francis Marion 300 years later.
That’s true, Michael. The story of the Siege of Belgrade is fascinating, yet sadly, it has never been the subject of a full-length book (at least, that I’ve been able to find).
And what an incredible cast of characters: John Hunyadi, John of Capistrano, Dracula, Mehmed II—each of them a towering figure in his own right.
Eastern Catholics recognize all Orthodox saints, regardless of any historical controversies. Many controversial anti-Latin Saints are on the official calendar such as Saint Photius the Great and Saint Gregory Palamas. Eastern theology and practice does not require any formal process concerning Sainthood.
If only one of the 23 Catholic Churches recognize someone as a Saint, then that person is in fact a Catholic Saint. Formal approval by Rome is in no way a necessary definition of Catholic Sainthood. Approval by Rome is an ‘extraordinary’ ministry. The only real difference is that Latin Catholics are not obligated to recognize him as a Catholic Saint, but a Catholic Saint he remains.
It is not just among Romanian Catholics; he seems to be a pan-Slavic Saint. Not just in the hills of the old country, but since he died in battle defending Christian lands against Islam he has a particular relevance to the modern world. Contrary to German and Hungarian propaganda, he was no more ‘bloodthirsty’ than any other ruler of the time. Just like many ‘approved’ Latin Saints, he built churches and monasteries and always received the Sacraments before going into battle.
Kapustin, I was hoping for something a little more specific than “seems to be.” As someone who has studied the Islamic incursions into Eastern Europe, I’ve long had a fascination with Vlad—both the historical figure and the legend. I agree that he was not too much different from other rulers who fought the Turks, though he was a bit more brutal—and, in my mind, understandably so, considering his geographic and political position, not to mention his personal treatment in the Ottoman court and the spiritual loss of his brother.
But in trying to track down how the Orthodox regarded Vlad, I’ve found that the situation is mixed historically, even among the Rumanians. That largely stems from the credible claim that Vlad converted to Catholicism while held captive by Matthias Corvinus in Hungary. His second wife was Corvinus’s cousin (and a Catholic); his descendants were Catholics who married Hungarian nobility. There is no doubt that his marriage to Corvinus’s cousin had a political element—he very much wanted Hungarian support in his attempt to recapture Wallachia—and, if he truly did convert to Catholicism, that was most likely a political move as well.
Despite years of trying, I’ve never been able to find a definitive account of how Vlad is viewed by the various Orthodox. If you can point me in the right direction, I’d greatly appreciate the help
I love this topic. I wonder what type of an event transfiguration is. As far as Vladimir goes, I’d be careful to credit him. He was evil and cruel. Even Hitler did great things, but he’s no St.
I, too, love this topic. This is amazing, and the first I’ve ever read about Vlad, other than the Dracula legend. Where can I go to read more about this?
Also, Scot: I was away from my Roman Catholic faith for about thirty years, so I’m behind and rusty on some things. I see you refer to “Eastern Catholics” and you also refer to “Orthodox” — is that Catholic or Christian?
I remember a Benedictine nun, back in 1961, who told us that there were some of the Eastern or Orthodox or Byzantine (my apologies for not knowing the difference) churches where we could go to Mass, if there were no Roman Catholic church or parish available.
But, later, I went on a tour of a Greek Orthodox church, and the tourmaster suggested that they didn’t want to be associated with “Catholics”.
I don’t understand all this.
Scott,
My Rusyn Byzantine Catholic priest would tell you flat out that he is a Saint, but it does not matter because there is no ‘definitive account’ of how he is viewed by Catholics or Orthodox. Is there a ‘definitive account’ of anything concerning Eastern Christians? We don’t ‘believe in’ top-down systematic theology.
My point is that formal Roman approval is an extraordinary ministry that exists in addition to the ordinary and historic recognition of Catholic Saints. Many well known and popularly venerated Catholic Saints would never qualify for Roman approval if the process was begun today.
In Romania, Dracula is a national hero and Saint to many Catholics and Orthodox. Other Slavs share that opinon and apparently Dracula is popular in sections of the modern Russian military currently fighting Islam. They identify with the Order of the Dragon and Crusaders and wear crosses into battle. If captured they are tortured and murdered if they do not renounce Christ!
Kapustin, I understand your point about formal Roman approval. I know about the adoption of saints by popular acclamation, and I’m well versed in the history and theology of the Christian East. Indeed, my wife and I were once in the process of changing rites (to the Byzantine Ruthenian Church), before our first daughter came along.
We don’t really disagree—I’m aware of how Vlad is treated in Russia and Rumania. But I’m also aware, having studied the history, that he hasn’t always been viewed so, and sometimes, as in the Rumanian Orthodox Church before the middle of the 19th century, he has been a polarizing figure.
As for not believing in systematic theology, don’t sell the Christian East short. The whole head/heart distinction that so many Orthodox and Eastern Catholics are fond of would be alien to the Eastern Fathers of the Church, whose systematic theology formed the basis of Catholic theology, and continues to be its chief support today.
Yeah but Vladimir impaled people and let them die slowly. Surely you can’t see this monster as a hero.?
Valdes,
Yea, Saint Dracula was such a monster that can’t be compared to Saint Louis that said, “A Christian should argue with a blasphemer only by running his sword through his bowels as far as it will go.”
Wow how terrible! How do these people become saints? Does the church bluntly choose to have poor judgment?
valdes,
Most monarchs that are recognized as Saints have quite a bloody career. They were either warriors or conducted wars and executed criminals as head of state. There were even active priests, bishops, and Popes that killed people on the battlefield! The Scripture itself is equally bloody, “Jahel took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, till it went down into the ground and his brains oozed out into the ground” Judges 4:21
It was a brutal time, but who knows how God works? What else did they do in there life? What is the moral of the story? How did God use them in spite of their bloody actions? It is not an easy study…
It seems to me that self responsibility is key. We cannot take these Scriptures as good examples to live our lifes. I personally believe that there can be no validity to any religion without personal responsibility. I cannot simply lool at the syllogisms and accept my lack of omniscience
That would be irresponsible.
If Vlad can be a saint then why Milosovic or the other guy they arrested? They are seen as heroes in their own countries by many people for attempting to eradicate islam.
I always thought it was rather unfair that the people who occupy the Baltic always had the onus of being forced to repulse the islamic hordes.
I think that Mohammed was the false prophet spoken of in Revelation and Daniel; he claimed to be prophet yet his birth was never foretold, he never really prophesied anything, except for terrorism vis-a-vis jihad and he committed blasphemy, i.e., making false claims about God by stating that Jesus Christ was a great prophet. Jesus never allowed the ‘door’ open for that claim. He always said He was the Son of the Most High.
islam is a blood-thirsty religion with no connection to God. They should not be allowed to settle in the US nor establish a mosque. We are inviting great evil by allowing them to live here.
Well Steve, I hope you are not a Catholic. If you are, you are a heretic because you hold views about Muslims that are contrary to the official teaching of the Church. The Catechism says:
“841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’.”
That same Council also declared the following:
“The Church regards with respect the Muslims, who worship the One, Living, Subsistent, Merciful, Almighty God who created the heavens and the earth, who spoke to men. They strive to submit wholeheartedly to God’s commandments…even as Abraham submitted himself to God, whose obedience is often recalled in the Islamic religion. Although they do not recognize Jesus as God, they do venerate him as a prophet and they honour his virgin mother, Mary…. They await the Day of Judgment, when
God will reward all those risen from the dead. They hold in high regard the moral life and worship God, particularly by prayer, charity and fasting.”
By the way, this is not a “new” teaching. Just look at what Pope Gregory VII said in 1076 in a letter he wrote to a Muslim prince in what is now Algeria:
“Almighty God, who desires that all men be saved and that none perish, appreciates nothing more highly within each of us than our love for him and our love for our neighbour and our intention to do unto others only what we would have them do unto us. We owe ourselves this mutual love because we acknowledge and confess–in different ways, it is true–the One God, whom we worship and praise every day as creator of the endless generations and as Lord of this world.”
The work of Vlad against the Turks should be seen for what it was: a military action against an invading army whose primary goal was territorial expansion, not religious hegemony.
Learn something new every day!! Interesting.
valdes,
Many of our most venerated saints led somewhat bloody lives. Joan of Arc killed people in battle. Saint Columba started a huge battle, in which thousands died. Even Saint Michael the Archangel is always pictured with a sword (Celtic Catholics refer to him as ‘Michael Militant’).
The thing is, while Christian love is important, we have really never been able to afford to be milk-sops. Follow Joan of Arc’s example– she mortally wounded men in battle, then listened to their dying confessions and prayed for their souls.
Joan of Arc never killed anyone, as she stated under oath at her trial.
Qalam,
THANK YOU!!! Finally, someone with sense that understands what Muslims actually are like–
Steve,
Just one question: you’ve never met a Muslim or read the Qu’ran, have you?