Why is Kaleb/Elesbaan venerated as a saint despite monophysitism?

Discussion · 17

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

• − opinion#3053 1 likes at the source

  The split over Chalcedon wasn't sudden. For a few hundred years it stayed an argument inside the Church. That's why St. Elesbaan is a saint for us and St. Theodora is a saint for the Monophysites. We hadn't yet broken into two fully separate communions. The same goes for the split over Ephesus, which is why St. Isaac the Syrian is a saint for us too, and there's a record of Assyrian priests coming to Constantinople and being received by the clergy there as being in communion, I believe sometime in the 8th century (I don't remember exactly).

  • − opinion#3061 1 likes at the source

    Well St. Theodora is a Saint for us OO because she genuinely was a Miaphysite and used her power to shield Oriental Orthodox from persecution.

    • − opinion#3062 1 likes at the source

      Then St. Isaac the Syrian is maybe a better example of a dyophysite Saint canonized in the OO, in this case by the Syriac church.

      • − opinion#3065 1 likes at the source

        Well St. Isaac the Syrian is honestly a bit of an anomaly since he was neither Eastern nor Oriental Orthodox, he was Nestorian, or at least he belonged to the Nestorian Church (Church of the East).

        • − opinion#3066 1 likes at the source

          Again, like it was said, schisms weren't clear cut for centuries. Yes he belonged to the Church of the East, but you can't call the whole Eastern Church the "Nestorian Church". Not at that point in history anyway.

          • − opinion#3067 1 likes at the source

            No, by the 7th century when St. Isaac the Syrian lived, the Church of the East had clearly separated itself from the rest of Christendom. He lived after Babai "the Great" had clearly laid out the Assyrian Church's Nestorian Christology.

            • − opinion#3068 1 likes at the source

              So now you're just ignoring the fact that Assyrian bishops and priests kept up relations with Byzantine bishops and priests, and Assyrian priests were actually received in Byzantium. Another guy literally talked about this a couple replies up.
            • − opinion#3069 1 likes at the source

              The Assyrian Church of the East had clearly taken a stand against the Council of Ephesus, and Isaac himself uses "Nestorian-isms" in places, like calling the heretic Theodore of Mopsuestia "the Interpreter." Still, Sebastian Brock in his book "Syriac into Greek at Mar Saba" reviews historical evidence that in the 7th century Catholicos Isho'yabb II was received peacefully at the imperial court in Constantinople even with the theological dispute acknowledged, and the bishop he sent to bring the relics of St. Anastasius the Persian martyr to Constantinople was received as fully Orthodox. So it seems communion between the Assyrian Church and the Byzantine Church only completely died out after the 7th century. Same for communion between the non-Chalcedonian churches and the Byzantine Church (Elesbaan and Theodora are both 6th century). I wonder if the spread of Islam is what made reconciliation finally impossible and locked in the separations.
    • − opinion#3063 1 likes at the source

      She couldn't have been a miaphysite the way the OO are miaphysites, because she was still in communion with a Church that accepted the Council of Chalcedon.
    • − opinion#3064 1 likes at the source

      She was definitely inclined toward the anti-Chalcedonian side and was an admirer of Severus of Antioch (and it seems St. Theodora and St. Justinian generally played "good cop, bad cop" trying to bring the anti-Chalcedonians back to the Eastern Orthodox position). But she was clearly in communion with her own husband and the Byzantine Church, and you still recognize her as a saint... because the separation between you and us wasn't finished yet and it was still treated as a dispute within the Church, not between two churches.
• − opinion#3054 1 likes at the source

  I don't know for certain but I'd guess it's because of his heroic acts defending Christians in Arabia and then giving up his crown to live as an ascetic. Interesting, since I'd never heard of him before this post.
• − opinion#3055 1 likes at the source

  A big part of it is that the schism wasn't really finished when he lived. Despite the neat historical dates, schisms weren't overnight events; they played out over decades or centuries after the triggering events, with many attempts at reconciliation before the point of no return. His defense of Christianity as a whole and his asceticism were enough to basically look past the ongoing schism.
• − opinion#3056 1 likes at the source

  There are a few saints on the calendar who may not have been in communion with the Church. St. Isaac of Nineveh would have belonged to the Church of the East (though in his case they were geographically cut off inside Sasanid territory so they couldn't have tried to restore dialogue with the Church even if they wanted to; plus he never wrote about Christology, so he can't be tied to Nestorianism) as one example. As for St. Kaleb, he joined Emperor Justin of Constantinople in intervening for persecuted Christians in modern day Yemen, and later retired to spend the rest of his life as a monk. In both cases it shows God's mercy and that He can save anyone. It's possible the prayers of other saints in Heaven helped too.
• − opinion#3057 1 likes at the source

  As far as I know, St. Elesbaan was quite close with the Byzantines and was in communion with our Church at the time. As others have said, the Chalcedonian schism didn't happen overnight, and it was only later that the modern Oriental synod in Egypt established itself, and even longer before it could exert influence over Ethiopia.
• − opinion#3058 1 likes at the source

  St. Kaleb (regnal name: Ella Atsbeha) was a Miaphysite, not a Monophysite. Monophysitism is condemned as a heresy in Oriental Orthodoxy. And as people have already pointed out, the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox split didn't happen overnight. St. King Kaleb reigned less than 100 years after Chalcedon, so the schism hadn't yet taken the form we see today.
• − opinion#3059 1 likes at the source

  It's the same reason we honor St. Isaac the Syrian even though he belonged to the "Nestorian Church" after Ephesus. Schisms aren't black and white. A church doesn't instantly lose all grace over a piece of paper. St. Elesbaan and St. Isaac weren't necessarily caught up in those harmful heresies and were clearly Orthodox in themselves.
• − opinion#3060 1 likes at the source

  So you have to make distinctions here. Sometimes a person isn't made a saint because of their errors but in spite of them. I'm not claiming Kaleb was a monophysite, just that the separation took a long time. Take St. Isaac the Syrian: Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Orientals all venerate him, even though he was part of a Nestorian church, because he was also a pillar of monasticism and hesychasm. You can only say someone rejected true theology once they actually knew it.