Any Christian church, denomination, or sect that is not within the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Catholic Church or one of Eastern Orthodox churches must postulate and embrace some form of a massive apostasy on the part of those historic churches just mentioned above.
The extent and timing of the various theories of apostasy that have been promulgated by the hundreds of churches, denominations and sects who remain outside of RCC or EO churches are numerous. Concerning the extent, theories have fallen within a near total apostasy of professed disciples, through varying degrees of a less than majority. As for the timing, propositions I have read include the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eleventh, and sixteenth centuries, as the when the so-called “Great Apostasy occurred—I suspect other centuries may have been proposed. [See the threads here at AF under The Great Apostasy (LDS view) and The Great Apostasy (Protestant views) labels for some germane examples.]
With the above introduction in place, I would now like to disclose what has prompted this post. Back on October 17, 2025—the feast day of Ignatius for many Western churches—The Catholic World Report published a post under the title, ‘On St. Ignatius of Antioch and Catholic distinctives of the early Church’ (LINK). From that post we read:
>>Ignatius bears witness to the early provenance of Catholic distinctives. For instance, he emphasizes the importance of the episcopate again and again. (Here’s how you summarize three-fourths of Ignatius’ letters: Obey the bishop. Do nothing without the bishop. The bishop is to you as God is to Christ. The bishop is to you as Christ is to you. Obey the bishop. By the way, watch out for those nefarious docetae. Did I mention obey the bishop?) He also has a profound view of the Eucharist, famously calling it “the medicine of immortality.” And he repeatedly calls Christ “God,” showing that Jesus’ divinity was not a relatively late development.
For these reasons, fundamentalists often point to him as the figure with which Everything Went Wrong, as the one who instituted an ‘unbiblical’ model of the church. And so we’re left with a church fundamentally flawed from Ignatius to whichever reformer the one construing this narrative thinks revived real Christianity.>>
This ‘Everything Went Wrong’ assertion is hyperbolic. In the plethora of diverse apologetic writings from folk who maintain the view that the RCC and EO churches are apostate—e.g., Independent, Reformed and SBC Baptists; most Calvinistic churches, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons—Ignatius of Antioch is generally viewed as one of the earliest examples of the BEGINNING of the Great Apostasy.
So, what is the correct view of Ignatius: was he an exemplary, early expounder of the teachings he had received firsthand from the apostles Peter, Paul and John; or, was he corruptor of those teachings, an instigator of the Great Apostasy?
For me, the most important question that needs to be addressed is: if Ignatius was a corruptor, what was he motive for doing so?
Grace and peace,
David
1 comment:
I would suggest that the motive of most “corrupters” of Christian doctrine from Marcion (or Ignatius) to this day is that they really believe their own teachings. I cannot find that I can readily identify a motive from a heretic who really doesn’t believe his own false teaching. Sure, we have to admit that Henry VIII’s marriage situation was the catalyst to his breaking with Rome. But can we say that he actually believed that he was beholden to the pope and decided that even though he believed he was wrong, he would make the break anyway?
I was affiliated for almost twenty years with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a community that identifies itself as Catholic, but which has come to reject the modern teachings of the Second Vatican Council and separates itself from the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. Although I have subsequently returned to full communion with Rome, I would never question the motives of the SSPX founder, Abp. Marcel LeFebvre, or his followers.
Abp. LeFebvre was an admirable example of Catholic orthodoxy, including his doctrine on the nature of the papacy and the Catholic duty to “obey your prelates and be subject to them” (Heb. 13:17) until 1974, when he was ordered by legitimate authority not to ordain priests in his seminary. From that time forward events unfolded that convinced the Archbishop that he was following God’s will in disobedience to him who he believed was his pope. First, he began by remembering that the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. He was right about that. What he was wrong about, was in imagining that the salvation of souls will ever be dependent on disobedience to legitimate authority.
In the interest of brevity, I close for now by asserting that unless it was sinful, Abp. LeFebvre should have accepted a ruling from Rome that was repugnant because he found it imprudent, misinformed, or even unjust. I am proposing that by the time a heretic begins teaching heresy, they have already convinced themselves to disobey or disbelieve apostolic discipline or teaching. I highlight the career of a man with whom I am familiar and who I admire. It is a tragedy how it came to pass that Marcel Lefebvre gradually came to believe that his disobedience would further the kingdom of God and salvation of souls. I think apostasy is a process that begins with disobedience to church discipline or by daring to doubt fundamental and definitive doctrines of the Church. I have to believe that Abp. Lefebvre was a typical example. I doubt that Ignatius went through any such process.
Even if I thought Ignatius was guilty of promoting corruption of apostolic teaching, I would probably avoid trying to find false motives. Even if he wasn’t in danger of being brutally killed in a Roman amphitheater, he was already over eighty years old when he wrote his letters. There is nothing for Ignatius to gain by leaving behind a bunch of letters corrupting Apostolic teaching as his legacy. The question for me, is whether I can make a plausible explanation for how Ignatius could mistake the true Apostolic doctrines regarding what his letters say about the Eucharist, and the threefold office of priestly orders, and episcopal authority.
Post a Comment