During the quarantine, I’ve been on a Church history binge. I’ve really gone about reading primary sources. This includes major histories from the patristic era but not only. There seem to be four main sources of the pre-Chalcedonian Church. These are Eusebius, Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen. Eusebius’ historical account goes from Jesus Christ to just before the Council of Nicaea. The other three didn’t feel a need to repeat the good work of Eusebius. Instead they continued from where he left off.
The one that I’m reading now is Socrates of Constantinople. I’m not quite done but I’ve found some pleasant news from his account of the events of Arian crisis in the middle of the fourth century. Opponents of Papal Infallibility point to a handful of papal “errors”. James White is a big critic of Papal Infallibility and he likes to bring out the case of Pope Liberius. Pope Liberius is accused of signing a heretical decree to get out of exile. While some sources state that he did, others do not. One of the sources that vindicate the Catholic position is the Eccelsiastical History of Socrates. A side note here, every single source that White uses on this issue is from the Anglican scholar George Salmon. Socrates writes:
And first Liberius, bishop of Rome, having refused his assent to that creed, was sent into exile; the adherents of Ursacius appointing Felix to succeed him, who had been a deacon in that church, but on embracing the Arian heresy was elevated to the episcopate. Some however assert that he was not favorable to that opinion, but was constrained by force to receive the ordination of bishop. After this all parts of the West were filled with agitation and tumult, some being ejected and banished, and others established in their stead. These things were effected by violence, on the authority of the imperial edicts, which were also sent into the eastern parts. Not long after indeed Liberius was recalled, and reinstated in his see; for the people of Rome having raised a sedition, and expelled Felix from their church, the emperor even though against his wish consented.
– Book II, Chapter XXXVII
Here we have a clear testimony of Liberius returning to his See without signing an Arian or Semi-Arian creed. The text shows that he was brought back because the people of Rome complained and rejected their imposed antipope. Now, there are other sources which vindicate Liberius as well. An obvious response to this is that there are sources that claim that he did sign a creed, probably under duress to return to Rome. It’s at best a hung jury and there is certainly reasonable doubt to Liberius signing this.
There are a lot of other good gems in this book. I’ll probably talk about some more of them later. Many of them have interesting implications for Muslims, though any follower of Islam has never had either church or secular history on their side.
I hope that all of my readers are safe and healthy. God bless!
Hey Allan. For your next video on your youtube channel, you should give a tour of all of your books.