Ignatius of Antioch: an early second century witness to the end of the apostolic age

My November 8, 2025 thread—The 'Great Apostasy' and Ignatius of Antioch—(link) saw renewed interest in March via some interesting and informative comments posted by two knowledgeable members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Errol and TOm). Their comments and responses from Rory and myself produced 23 new posts in the thread.  In this post, I want to emphasize a point that was not adequately addressed in the November thread: Ignatius of Antioch as an early and definitive witness to the end of the apostolic age.

Errol in his March 2, 2026-7:23 PM post (link) 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.” (Ignatius, ca. 107, To the Romans 4, in Fathers of the Church 1:109-110)>>

I concur with Errol's assessment that, "Bishops in the 2nd century, arguably didn't imagine that the bishopric was equal in authority to Apostleship".

In addition to Errol's above quote from Ignatius's letter to the Romans, we also read the following from his letter to the Trallians:

3.3 Because Ι love you Ι am sparing you, though Ι could write more sharply on his behalf. But Ι did not think myself qualified for this, that Ι, a convict, should give you orders as though Ι were an apostle. (Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 2007, p. 217)

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and High Anglican understanding of ‘Apostolic Succession’ also agrees with Errol—i.e. bishops are not ‘equal in authority’ to the Apostles. Bishops are not actual eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus Christ, they do not perform Apostolic ‘wonders and signs’, and they do not write Scripture. However, they have received authority from the Apostles to preach to the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, to appoint and ordain presbyters and deacons, and to teach ‘the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints’ (Jude 3).

Now to the main point of this post that I would like to make: in Ignatius’ seven authentic epistles we are given no evidence that any Apostles are still alive. We also have no indication that living Apostles were expected to be a continuing office that Christians could turn to. What we do find in Ignatius’ epistles is an adamant appeal to Christians that they are to look to and obey their local bishop, presbyters and deacons. All this indicates to me that the Apostolic office of the first century was foundational in nature, a foundation that succeeding generations of Christians would build upon, and not an office that was to be perpetuated.

 

Grace and peace,

David

The “Great Apostasy” and Ignatius of Antioch

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