I'm growing weary reviewing Protestant resources for use in my homeschool. I try to use Catholic sources, but my favorite Catholic history author hasn't come out with her third book in the series...yet. I've used the first two books, but without the third currently available, it's on to Plan B.
The very popular, Story of the World, has been used by homeschoolers of all different faiths for many years. I, myself, own the SotW CDs for the second series for children, but they have a definite Protestant bent and I haven't even played some of the chapters for my kids (ages 4 and 6) since my little ones need a better background in history, including Church history, to understand the full and complex context of the period. The British defeat of the Spanish Armada was not a good thing from a Catholic Perspective. The adjectives used for Martin Luther are not those I would've picked. Good Queen Bess?
But, it wasn't until I started reading the adult-version, The History of the Medieval World, by the same author, that I really bristled. My education in history was quite poor. I'm not a historian, but am trying to make up for lost time and stay ahead of the game to properly instruct my kids. The author and I do share that in common - we're not historians.
Leo did not depend only on this letter to establish his authority. He appealed to the throne, and in 445, Valentinian III (still dominated politically by his magister militum Aetius) agreed to make a formal official decree that recognized the bishop of Rome as the official head of the entire Christian church. Leo the Great, the bishop of Rome, had become the first pope.
The History of the Medieval World, p. 110
Guess many of the writings from the Church Fathers, like St. Clement, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, etc., are considered historically apocryphal and have been removed from the canon of time.
It continues along these lines.
Dioscorus was just as suspicious of Leo the Great, and he tried to flex some theological muscle in return. Although both men were monophysites ("one nature" supporters), Dioscorus's version of monophysitism was more extreme than Leo's; he insisted that "the two natures of Christ became a single divine nature at the incarnation," an interpretation that almost veered back over into heresy again, since it tended to remove Christ's humanity from view.
The History of the Medieval World, pps. 110-111
Really? Pope St. Leo the Great was a monophysite? Maybe a brief look at just one of Pope St. Leo's writings would've helped.
Time for Plan C.