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
21 comments:
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.
Hello David, hope all is well!
The topic of the "Great Apostasy" and LDS theology overall has become quite interesting to me recently. Especially given the increased attention LDS apologists have been given online (Jacob Hansen, etc.).
Anyway, I was curious if there is any good reading from a Catholic perspective on the "Great Apostasy."
In Christ, Ian
PS Recently, Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer debated Jacob Hansen (Thoughtful Faith) on the Great Apostasy. Might be worth checking out if you have not seen it.
Hi Ian,
First, I am doing well (thanks for asking). Second, one of the best books on Mormonism by a Catholic author is Isaiah Bennett's, "Inside Mormonism - What Mormons really believe".
You can borrow and read the book online at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/insidemormonismw0000benn
Amazon has used copies starting at $10.08: https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Mormonism-Isaiah-Bennett/dp/1888992069
And thanks for bringing to my attention the Joe Heschmeyer vs Jacob Hansen debate; will try to take it in later today.
Grace and peace,
David
Coming from a Restorationist Kingdom Christian background we point to the 4th century as having the earmarks of an apostasy of the corporate Church proper. Now, as a Latter-day Saint, I see not only those critiques as being valid but furthermore significant indicators in the 3rd century. From neither stance would I be inclined to see Ignatius as contributing to apostasy.
To give some counterpoint to David's recommendation of Isaiah Bennett's Inside Mormonism, I recommend the review by none other than Barry Bickmore, author of Restoring the Ancient Church, which can be read online here:
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1492&context=msr
Hi Errol,
So good to see you back.
Thanks much for providing the link to Barry's informative review of Isaiah Bennett's Inside Mormonism. As you probably already know, I have a lot of respect for Barry's contributions. Back in 2000, I did a review of his book Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, that was published by FARMS: A New Look at Historic Christianity.
Barry has also published an online debate with Steve Clifford (Catholic) that is quite good: Who Holds the Keys-Pope or Prophet.
In your post you wrote:
==Coming from a Restorationist Kingdom Christian background we point to the 4th century as having the earmarks of an apostasy of the corporate Church proper. Now, as a Latter-day Saint, I see not only those critiques as being valid but furthermore significant indicators in the 3rd century. From neither stance would I be inclined to see Ignatius as contributing to apostasy.==
What are your thoughts on Noel B. Reynolds' assessment "that the Christian apostasy occurred sometime during the first century—or before AD 100." ("What Went Wrong for the Early Christians", in Early Christians in Disarray, pp. 6-7.)
As for Ignatius, he taught at least two doctrines contrary to LDS teaching: apostolic succession—bishops received the authority of the apostles and real presence—Christ's body and blood are truly present in the Eucharist. This seems to indicate an early second century apostasy.
Hope you have the time to share some further thoughts...
Grace and peace,
David
David,
Typically when Latter-day Saints refer to a particular date on which "the Apostasy" occurred they're referring specifically to the loss of Apostolic authority. And while this is certainly a significant milestone in the gradual process which would be the Apostasy there are various other contributing factors such as the subsequent loss of lesser priesthood keys and etcetera. Indeed, Ignatius, for all of his emphasis on Bishops in the 2nd century, arguably didn't imagine that the bishopric was equal in authority to Apostleship:
“I do not command you as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles; I am a condemned man.”
(Ignatius, ca. 107, To the Romans 4, in Fathers of the Church 1:109-110)
Similarly I take no issue with the Real Presence as there's no Latter-day Saint dogma which would necessarily preclude all forms of such. All of the Bishops I've served under, for instance, have not saw fit to anathematize my inclination towards the pneumatic presence in the Eucharist, and rather where more concerned with whether this leads to worshipping the Eucharist.
Time to put the younger kids to bed. I hope you have been well since we last spoke.
Errol Amey
Hello again Errol,
Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my musings. Your comments on the apostasy from an LDS viewpoint brought to mind a cogent and informative essay writing by John Gee and published in BYU Studies: Ten Views on the Falling Away.
In addition to presenting what I would term the ‘traditional’ LDS understanding of the ‘Great Apostasy’, John also takes to task a number of the more recent attempts by ‘progressive’ LDS folk who have significantly softened the ‘traditional’ interpretation. [Interestingly enough, John shares some assessments that are quite similar to my own—see THIS LINK parts 1-4]
Hope you have the time and interest to read John’s timely contribution.
Grace and peace,
David
Received an email earlier this morning from Rory McKenzie informing me that he was having problems publishing a post in the comments section of this thread, asking me if I would publish the following for him:
>>Hi Errol Amey. As a Catholic, I find your unique approach to Apostasy as well as to what we both refer to as the Sacrament to be a fresh and interesting way of interacting with the parameters of your Church, with the early Fathers (S, but. Ignatius), and the Scriptures. You wrote:
"Typically when Latter-day Saints refer to a particular date on which "the Apostasy" occurred they're referring specifically to the loss of Apostolic authority. And while this is certainly a significant milestone in the gradual process which would be the Apostasy there are various other contributing factors such as the subsequent loss of lesser priesthood keys and etcetera. Indeed, Ignatius, for all of his emphasis on Bishops in the 2nd century, arguably didn't imagine that the bishopric was equal in authority to Apostleship:
“I do not command you as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles; I am a condemned man.”"
I would agree that it is more than arguable that one should draw a distinction between the Apostles and the bishops they ordained. Apostles were foundational to the Church inasmuch as they were sent directly by Christ Himself to evangelize the world. St. Paul, in defending his Apostolic authority works miracles and makes note of certain other marks which should affirm this. 1) Receiving their mission directly from Christ, 2) His successful mission work with the Corinthians.
Apostles were successful missionary bishops who demonstrated their authority, like Christ through signs and wonders after being directly sent by Christ for missionary activity. It is clear that the bishops the Apostles consecrated to succeed them lacked this. That makes it appear to me that it is difficult to understand how through a mere ceremony, where the ordained, without the marks of an apostle are truly apostles? Arguably not.
We know the names of bishops who also have the marks of an Apostle. Their names are written on the foundations of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14). It seems more in keeping to me with the Apostolic mission for them to have given to the Church everything in their power to continue what they began. They could not make apostles. Only Christ could do that. The Apostles gave the Church bishops, and arguably, those bishops ordained others in a chain that reaches to the present.
Thanks for your consideration.
Rory McKenzie>>
David, Rory (and Erol and Ian),
Hello! I have been away from the discussion for quite a while—I hope you still remember me. I remain, as ever, both stubborn and a LDS.
I recently thought about a book David once recommended and wanted to revisit it, but I could not remember the title. When I came back here to look for it, I instead found a discussion about the apostasy—oh boy!
Before addressing the main topic, a few unrelated comments.
Rory: I understand that you are no longer sympathetic to the teachings of the SSPX. I have several questions and thoughts about that development, but they may be better suited for another thread or a private discussion. I hope you are doing well in a less strained communion with Rome in any/all cases.
David: I cannot remember whether I read Isaiah Bennett’s book. I believe I did, though it has been many years. From what I remember—perhaps even from discussions with you—I concluded that it suffered from some of the common weaknesses found in many “anti-” books. I also recall that Bennett ultimately left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because he came to disagree doctrinally with the leaders he had previously regarded as prophets. Of course, that fact alone does not invalidate his arguments about the apostasy, so perhaps there is merit there.
Ian: I have interacted with A Thoughtful Faith a few times and have generally been pleased with it. I will need to watch the debate you mentioned. I very much enjoyed the debate between Barry Bickmore and Steve Clifford. It took an incredibly long time for the final installment to appear, and I nearly missed it, but overall I appreciated the discussion.
Erol: The quote you offered JUMPED out at me when I was reading Ignatius!!!
This thread concerns Ignatius of Antioch. I remember reading Ignatius, along with Clement and Polycarp, and being struck by the apparent absence of certain theological concepts that I thought should have been present. It was actually you, David, who introduced me to the idea of doctrinal development, which helped me reconsider whether those perceived absences were necessarily fatal flaws.
Regarding Ignatius specifically: while he clearly claims that the authority of bishops derives from the apostles, my recollection is that he does not claim that bishops occupy the same role in the Church that the apostles themselves held.
When discussing these questions, I usually recommend three books:
• Hugh Nibley — Apostles and Bishops in the Early Church (LDS perspective)
• Francis Sullivan — From Apostles to Bishops (Catholic perspective)
• Robert Eno — The Rise of the Papacy (Catholic perspective)
Nibley’s book treats two major questions:
1. The role of bishops in general
2. The role of the Bishop of Rome
Sullivan addresses the first topic, and Eno the second. All three works examine roughly the same historical period.
I admit that I am certainly biased—I frequently find myself nodding along with Nibley. While I understand the Catholic argument for doctrinal development, I personally do not find it as persuasive. There are areas where I recognize difficulties for LDS truth claims—for example, questions surrounding the origins of the Book of Abraham—but when comparing Nibley with Sullivan and Eno on early church governance, I think the evidence strongly favors Nibley’s interpretation.
In particular, the historical data suggests that early bishops were not apostles, but rather individuals who could trace their authority back to the apostles. Over time, however, the claims associated with episcopal authority appear to grow stronger.
Sullivan and Eno trace this gradual development. Nibley interprets the same developments as evidence of apostasy. Personally, I might soften that language somewhat: I would describe it as evidence that the full authority of the apostolic office had faded or disappeared and therefore needed to be restored.
________________________________________
David, in your argument you seemed to exempt the Eastern Orthodox from needing to accept some form of massive apostasy. I realize there are many points of contact between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology, but from my perspective—standing outside both traditions—this position seems weaker than it might first appear.
Catholics can at least appeal to doctrinal development as an explanation for how doctrines such as:
• the monoepiscopal structure of church leadership
• the doctrine of the Trinity
• the primacy of the Bishop of Rome
emerged over time.
But if you were defending Eastern Orthodoxy, how would you respond to a criticism that is often directed at Protestants—namely, that they accept doctrinal development up to a certain point and then arbitrarily decide that development must stop?
Protestants may indeed be on weaker ground here, since doctrines like the Real Presence in the Eucharist predate other doctrines they reject. But a similar question arises for Orthodoxy: if doctrinal development produced earlier doctrines, what went wrong with the authority that supposedly guided those developments when it came to rejecting the filioque or the primacy of Rome?
The Orthodox answer may be that the united voice of the bishops provides the proper authority for doctrinal development. But that would imply that Rome itself departed from the consensus and therefore fell into a form of apostasy.
From where I stand, the argument that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox together represent the true continuation of Christianity seems unstable. Either:
• Catholics are wrong about how Christ’s authority continues in His Church,
or
• Eastern Orthodox are wrong.
Both traditions cannot simultaneously be correct on these questions.
cont...
Returning to Ignatius: the article that originally prompted this thread praised Ignatius’s emphasis on the authority of bishops. I do remember that emphasis being present in his writings. However, I do not recall him explicitly claiming that bishops succeed the apostles in the same sense Catholics later claim.
One statement from Ignatius especially stood out to me when I first read him (this was also the statement Erol quoted):
“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man.”
When I first encountered that passage, I stopped reading and exclaimed something like:
“He doesn’t realize he now holds apostolic authority!”
Since then, I have come to see how the concept of doctrinal development provides a possible pathway from Ignatius’s views to later Catholic teachings. Even so, Ignatius himself still seems theologically underdeveloped compared to later doctrine.
Regarding the Ignatius and the Eucharist, I think the LDS position is weaker than for apostolic succession.
The early Church appears to have placed greater emphasis on the Eucharist than modern Latter-day Saints place on the sacrament. Here are two thoughts:
1. LDS practice may be lacking reverence and should place greater emphasis on the sacrament. I remember a powerful quote from Brigham Young.
2. Or the Eucharist truly holds a deeper theological significance—perhaps even involving something like Transubstantiation—which would challenge LDS claims to represent the fullness of truth.
I prefer the term Real Presence to Transubstantiation, but the question remains an important one.
As for what motivated the apostasy that I believe occurred: I do not see many villains in early Christianity.
Ignatius himself, for example, does not strike me as corrupt or malicious. He was not an apostle, and the developments that followed him may have arisen naturally rather than through conscious distortion.
Many developments in early Christianity seem to have been motivated by both positive and negative impulses:
• The primacy of Rome may have arisen partly from a genuine attempt to maintain unity and order (positive), and partly from institutional ambition (negative).
• The development of patriarchates may likewise have had mixed motivations.
• Claims about apostolic authority could have been both sincere attempts to preserve continuity and institutional assertions of power.
Even so, a Christian living in the ninth century may still have been largely well served by following the teachings of his bishop.
Likewise, doctrines such as:
• Transubstantiation may go beyond the full truth, but they are motivated by a desire to exalt Christ and His sacrifice.
• Creation ex nihilo, which I personally reject, is nevertheless motivated by a desire to exalt God.
In short, I do not see Catholic or Eastern Orthodox history as populated by villains. Yet I still believe an apostasy occurred.
I think the Bride of Christ—like Christ Himself—entered the grave and later rose again.
And of course, I readily admit that I am probably far less knowledgeable about these questions than you.
Charity,
TOm
P.S. David—if you remember the book you once recommended whose title involved the word “Justification” (perhaps in Latin or Greek), that is the one I was originally looking for. If it does not immediately come to mind, do not worry—I will probably track it down.
Hi Tom,
So good to have you back! You were certainly busy last night. Finished reading through all three of your posts; there is a good deal to reflect and comment on, but I am going to read through them again before sharing some of my musings. Until then, I would like to identify the book you were looking for; I think it may be Alister McGrath's, Iustitia Dei : A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. If this is the book, let me know; in addition to my hardcopies (first and third editions) I have a PDF of the third edition I can email you.
More later the Lord willing...
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Tom, good to “see” you. I like what you and Errol seem to believe about the Eucharist. For ease of communication with those drifting from correct doctrine a new expression is used instead of writing a series of sentences to say what we believe about the Real Presence of Christ, all of Christ, body, blood, soul, divinity. Christ is not merely with the Eucharist. It clarifies that through the authority of the ordained minister, an alter Christus, speaking the words of Christ, Christ becomes truly present. He said “This is my Body, This is the chalice of my Blood”...and the bread and wine are only an appearance. We believe in a miracle God does on Catholic altars through His priests. What is our answer to the question, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” The short answer is transubstantiation. The East believes it and much of the West while not using the term transubstantiation. But what it successfully does is to draw a vivid line which shows our differences with those who might go so far as you and Errol to believe in a lesser kind of Real Presence. It shows why that, while commendable and closer, is not satisfactory for the Catholic.
But if you believe that Christ is truly Present in the Eucharist in the way described, we are in agreement. The term can be off-putting and maybe there is often no need for it since I also have a preference for the warmer sound of a Real Presence. The problem has been that when a non-Catholic says they believe in the Real Presence, when we dig deeper, we usually find a form that shows more faith, which is not to be criticised. Errol said it was okay with his bishop unless he worshipped it. I am sure that is correct according to a possibly under developed LDS tradition. But for Catholics, hopefully you both can see why worshipping the Eucharist is highly appropriate given what we believe.
I find myself being very pleased that you and he are closer to the Catholic view than those who believe it is nothing more than a symbol. Might it be correct to say that you believe in a Real Presence that cannot be naturally explained? After all God is present everywhere. What happens to the Sacrament in a Latter-day Church that what begins as a bread product of some kind receives a much superior presence of Christ Himself, to be given as nourishment to faithful souls? Do you maybe think this is what Jesus meant when He proclaimed that “hard saying”, about consuming His flesh? If so, we are getting closer!
Tom, I wanted to make sure not to seem unimpressed with LDS folk who are open to belief in a Real Presence. It took the Catholic Church a thousand years and a determined heretic before we started understanding much of what the doctrine of the Real Presence necessarily implied. Benedictions, processions, worship, and even greater care of the Eucharistic species followed. It wasn’t for another two or three centuries that the Church made the Feast of Corpus Christi a first class feast in the Roman Rite. I am just saying that while I wish you and Errol would join us now, I think you could be on a journey which could be consistent with transubstantiation and worship of the Blessed Sacrament. Most Evangelicals make the Eucharist into an abstract intellectual exercise that is not heart warming in my experience. There are no hymns in their songbooks that express the joy felt when pondering our Lord’s desire to unite Himself so intimately with us through this symbol. I once heard the Tabernacle Choir singing Panis Angelicus (Bread of Angels). How can I not have hope for y’all?
Okay, now that we have settled that issue...heh...Apostles. A different post. Take care. God bless you my old friend,
Rory
"Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches...unless invited, bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business."
---First Council of Constantinople, Canon 2, 381 AD
Before Pentecost and His Ascension our Lord commissioned the Apostles to "...receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."
---Acts 1:8
The authority that Christ gave to the Apostles was universal. They could go wherever no other Apostle had been before to preach, "even to the uttermost part of the earth".
We all know that St. Paul did not receive his commission at the same time as the other Apostles. His apostolic credentials apparently underwent greater scrutiny as we see from a defense of his Apostolic authority that extends at least to the Corinthians:
"Am not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord. And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord."
---I Cor. 9: 1, 2
In this statement of St. Paul we see a hint of geographical limits to Paul's perception of Apostolic authority. At a certain point, "universal jurisdiction" begins to show evidence of diminishing as we can see also in a note in Paul's Roman epistle:
"For I dare not to speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the virtue of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Ghost, so that from Jerusalem round about as far as unto Illyricum, I have replenished the gospel of Christ. And I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation."
---Rom. 1:18-20
In the first text Paul provides one key qualification for an Apostle. He did not sojourn with Christ before the His death and resurrection. St. Peter's qualification for choosing an apostle from among the Lord's disciples to replace Judas was that they had actually seen Jesus. Peter hadn't reckoned with a special calling such as Paul had. But he certainly accepted it when it became known. But even St. Paul so could not have rightly called himself an Apostle if he had not seen Him on the Road to Damascus. In the second text we see another qualification, "signs and wonders".
---Continued from above
But in both texts we see Paul showing wariness of claiming apostolic authority in locations where others have already labored. After the Apostles die, we obviously see a continuing geographical restriction on Apostolic authority. While the Apostles were commissioned by Christ to go to the "uttermost parts", the Apostles commissioned their successors, the bishops, to minister within geographical boundaries. The Apostles are the foundation of the Church, and the bishops have no need to be preaching the Gospel where bishops are already placed.
It doesn't make sense for the bishops to freely wander around everywhere as the Spirit supposedly leads. The Apostles consecrated them to labor in the same place as the Apostle himself did. The Apostle consecrates the bishop with Apostolic authority to administer all the Sacraments and to govern the boundaries of one local church as he sees to be proper. But to give a bishop the authority to go everywhere was never in their minds. Apostles were itinerant. Not so the bishops.
This is not a disadvantage to the Church. Once established on a firm foundation, none of the bishops has apostolic jurisdiction except for his own particular episcopal seat. Ignatius was eager that the Romans would appreciate his knowledge that while he was a successor of the Apostles, he understood his jurisdiction to be limited. Especially, would he want the Roman faithful, some of whom had the privilege of seeing the illustrious Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul laboring in their midst a mere four decades earlier, to be so aware.
This logical reduction of apostolic authority into finite geographical locations may not have been ordered directly by Christ to the Apostles. But he said to them that whatever they should bind on earth will be bound also in heaven. Christ's Apostles never attempted to give any candidate for the bishopric the universal jurisdiction that Christ gave to them. Once the seed is planted and it begins to grow, the farmer doesn't need strangers tromping around in his fields.
The Apostles founded the Church successfully and it would be folly after its foundation to allow "universal jurisdiction to every successor of the Apostles" (except perhaps for the universal jurisdiction pertaining to Peter). From a Catholic perspective, this is a very satisfactory way of explaining why Ignatius would be loathe to issue commands to the Romans. It also explains why he wasn't commanding any of the other churches to whom he wrote. Rather he encouraged them, not to follow him, but to attach themselves with great trust to their own bishops.
Another day perhaps I could explain to Tom how this whole concept was an important factor in my determination to unite myself to the Archbishop of Kansas City, KS when he was tending his flock in my local parish a mile away on the First Sunday of Advent 2023. I am afraid that the Society of St. Pius X disrupts the peaceful governance of locally established bishops in violation of all the ancient canons that are based on the same concept which made St. Ignatius of Antioch know that he had no business using his apostolic authority outside very certain geographical limits.
(No ceremony. By returning to the "Novus Ordo Church" for the first time in about 18 years, I was consciously uniting myself with Archbishop Naumann and placing myself under his authentic apostolic care.)
Greetings David, Rory, and Tom. The busyness and illness have converged upon me, but I didn’t want to leave everyone hanging, so I’ll at least provide some responses to highlights here.
David,
Thank you for recommending John Gee’s ‘Ten Views on the Falling Away.’ Previously I had only had recourse to Gee’s works relating to Egyptology so I had not had occasion to read this article, but I’m glad to have done so now and am inclined to agree that it’s quite good. I can see why you may have been reminded of this as Gee, too, sees the same significance in the words of Ignatius which I noted above.
Rory,
In Latter-day Saint thought modern Apostles cannot be called outside of prophecy. This becomes a moot point for the earliest generations of Christians as there was something of a cessationist view regarding the gifts of the Spirit and especially that of prophecy, and hence why, not long after the martyrdom of the last known student of the Apostles, Polycarp, we see Montanus in nearby Phrygia starting the “New Prophecy” movement in order to fill a vacuum which had been created. Gone was the 1st century office of Prophets as seen in The Acts of the Apostles, The Didache, and The Shepherd. At that point it would therefore be a given that bishops would succeed bishops.
Tom,
When it comes to forms of the Real Presence I recommend David W. Bercot’s lecture, What the Early Christians Believed About Communion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiXPX7muxBM
David,
The book was/is actually Chris Vanlandingham’s book. At least that was the one I was thinking about. I am certain you pointed me to it, but if we discussed it much, I cannot remember what you thought. I remember thinking he his views on Justification are more difficult for Reformed/Protestant thought than even the New Perspective on Paul is.
Rory,
As you know LDS theology has not received the authoritative definitions Catholic theology has. It is my position that we cannot worship the LDS sacrament, but not because it is MERE symbol. More because the process of blessing and taking the sacrament delivers Christ into us, but does not create left over Christ on the alter. I think this creates a practice more like what a Lutheran might do. That being said, I think most LDS would say it is mere symbol. I once had a Brigham Young quote, but I couldn’t find it when I looked.
Does your embrace of the Bishop of Kansas City mean that if I found myself in Pacific Northwest, I would not be visiting you? Pope Francis caused me to become more sympathetic to the SSPX position. I have not looked closely at Pope Leo yet.
Rory and Erol,
Concerning Apostles and Bishops. I think Erol’s comments about revelation are very important. I know you (Rory) sometimes suggest that Supernatural Corporate (for the whole church/world) Revelation is not absent within Catholic leadership/circles, which I think is a positive way of thinking. I do think that in response to Montanus and others the Orthodox Bishops said, “this is not real revelation because nobody receives Supernatural Corporate Revelation after the apostles.” They could have said that this power/charism is present within validly ordained Bishops in communion with the whole church, but that wasn’t what they said. Patrick Madrid in his defense against his Protestant critics also said largely the same thing. I am pretty sure you and I have talked about this 14 times though.
I think I will close for now.
Charity, TOm
Hi TOm and Erol,
As it appears we might be wrapping up here, it seems like we should finish our evaluation of St. Ignatius' ideas on Apostolic Succession. If I understand you, both of you felt like the same passage from his Letter to the Romans, where he explicitly says he is not issuing them a command, makes it difficult to think that Ignatius held to the Catholic belief about his having any apostolic authority as a mere bishop.
I replied in perhaps too much detail and length with how as the Church began to be organized, the concept of jurisdiction came into play. If Ignatius had claimed authority to give command the Roman faithful it would have been usurpation of the authority of the Roman bishop. All of his letters admonish the faithful to follow their OWN bishop. He understood this jurisdictional order.
I gave examples of how in Paul's ministry we see where he is conscious of overstepping geographical boundaries. I thought that if even the Apostle Paul could speak of the possibility that his Apostleship was perhaps only to the Corinthians, that it might become more reasonable for you to see why, like Paul, Ignatius was unwilling to exercise authority over a Catholic flock assigned to be tended by someone else.
I don't think that we have talked about this fourteen times (!) and I was hoping for an evaluation of my recent musings by those who brought up this text, which I had never noticed in past readings.
----------
So TOm,
You would not find me in the Portland area anymore. It has already been a few years that we moved to Kansas. It was in November of 2018. I am kind of sorry you did not know I have moved, but I am glad that you discerned that I would not have sought out the Archbishop of Kansas City if I had been living elsewhere! Jurisdiction again.
We moved out here in part to be near family, to find lower housing costs, and most importantly to be near an SSPX priory. Faith, family, and finances in that order. I would love to visit with you in person again. You are still in Maryland? I was last out there in 1982. I will reach out if I ever make it back again. You do the same if you are ever out my way.
Rory
They also assert that t
Tom,
Ahhh, so it was Chris Vanlandingham’s book. I provided a quote from Chris's book over 17 years ago, in THIS THREAD.
And yes, his book is 'more difficult for Reformed/Protestant thought than even the New Perspective on Paul is', and this due to of the over emphasis that Reformed folk place on the penal/forensic view of the atonement, and the deemphasis of the transformative aspect of the dikai verbs in the NT.
BTW, Chris's entire book is now available online for reading: LINK.
Question, what brought Chris's book back to mind for you?
Grace and peace,
David
Rory,
I have in the past and am today sympathetic to Newman’s observation that “love dispenses with laws.” I would say that we can generally agree that Christ’s intention was to establish a church with Apostles who ordained Bishops who originally had much less authority/capabilities than the Apostles, but over time the Bishops would take over most of the apostolic functions other than receiving public revelation. The question is does that authority that came to reside within the Bishops mean that they have Christ’s authority OR does the fact that history evidences that they slowly took this authority to themselves (without claiming the ability to receive public revelation) mean that there was an apostacy that would lead to a restoration. This restoration would include a transfer of apostolic authority from those who we all agree had apostolic authority AND the restoration of the ability to receive public revelation to lead the church/world.
I do not dispute that Ignatius said follow the Bishop in a way that makes all Catholics and LDS very comfortable (and many Protestants less comfortable). I also do not dispute that there is clear evidence that Bishops were local authorities and the Bishop of Kansas City would not command the Bishop of Seattle today or in 100AD. I do believe Ignatius had zero idea that Bishops list in a few centuries would start with St. Peter or St. James or St. Mark. I think he would find this as weird as LDS might find it. Ignatius shows a monoepiscopal structure but does not yet show the later concept of bishops replacing apostles in a continuous list. His words suggest that he considers his authority less that that of the apostles in ways that the Bishop of Rome today doesn’t seem to evidence.
Paul subordinating himself to other apostles is a little more interesting, but I am not hugely moved by it. A LDS might say that Peter, James, and John are clearly in charge. Mark and Thomas and … are senior in the apostolic hierarchy. Mattias and Paul might be less senior still (though Paul is clearly gifted perhaps like may FAVORITE apostle Neal A. Maxwell).
Beyond JUST the authority piece, it is also clear to me that there is no expectation from Apostles and early Bishops that revelations would end. There was revelation in the Old Testament and revelation in the New Testament and the successors of the Apostles expected revelation to continue. The Pastor of Hermas was viewed by many at the time as scripture and was clearly a prophetic sounding document (which Barry Bickmore claims prophecies the APOSTASY). 1st Clement was also viewed by many at the time as scripture. But slowly and then abruptly revelation (public revelation) ceased and was declared to be no longer present. Montanus who the very important church Father Tertullian found credible was rejected by the leading authorities who claimed, “Montanus does not receive revelation because nobody does and it has ended.” This became the Catholic (and Eastern) view.
I cannot see the mind of God. Perhaps the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ. The path from Apostles to Bishops to Patriarchs to the Pope is what God knew would happen and was in no way a “falling away” or “apostasy” or the setting for a future “restoration.” The path from expecting revelation to continue to declaring it would not was what God knew would happen and also was not the setting for a future “restoration.” Or perhaps it does indicate something missing that God would restore. The Jews didn’t expect Christ to be a “suffering servant” and only a minority of the recognize their Savior. The Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox didn’t expect there to be a restoration and few of them have recognized it.
Charity, TOm
David,
At work I referenced something from Chesterton. A few days later a guy I work with asked me about it and turns out he has a theological degree. We spoke and he is a 5 point Calvinist. I thought about our discussion and decided that the NPP and Vanlandingham’s book would be interesting things to discuss with a 5 point Calvinist.
That is about it.
Charity, TOm
Post a Comment