What do you do when someone says Ignatious of Antioch was a heretic?


#1

Ok, this is more of a rant than anything else:

So, I was discussing the Mass with a Protestant, especially the prophecy in Malachi 1:10-11. When I quoted some ECFs speaking of the Mass, especially Ignatious of Antioch, the Didiche (which quotes Malachi), Justin Martyr (who also quotes Malachi), and Clement, this person responded by saying that’s where the great heresies originated.

How does one respond to this? Is there even a way? Or is this a dust off the sandals situation?

Sidenote: Funny thing was, this person quoted Wesley and other recent Protestant scholars to support his position against the Mass:rolleyes:

AND then said “I’ll take God’s word over the words of men:rolleyes:”


#2

[quote=Genesis315]Ok, this is more of a rant than anything else:

So, I was discussing the Mass with a Protestant, especially the prophecy in Malachi. When I quoted some ECFs speaking of the Mass, especially Ignatious of Antioch, the Didiche (which quotes Malachi), Justin Martyr (who also quotes Malachi), and Clement, this person responded by saying that’s where the great heresies originated.

How does one respond to this?

Sidenote: Funny thing was, this person quoted Wesley and other recent Protestant scholars to support his position against the Mass:rolleyes:

AND then said I’ll take God’s word over the words of men:rolleyes:
[/quote]

I had that problem with Angainor on the Protestant Ordination thread. I brought up Ignatius of Antioch and how he says that a Eucharist that is approved by the bishop is a proper bishop, pointing out that the Lutherans do not have a valid Eucharist. Her response was that Ignatius was a heretic.:eek:

I think the only way to respond is to show them that by calling Ignatius a heretic, they also call the apostle John(Ignatius’ teacher) a heretic. I would also say that they deny the bible by calling the early fathers heretics due to the fact that the early fathers canonized the scriptures. Without these “heretics” there would be no such thing as the bible or a knowledge of the scriptures.


#3

St. Ignatius was actually a deciple of St. John. John Wesley came along in the mid 1700’s need we say anymore? It always amazes me how Protestants know more about our Church than we do. In fact Ignatius was the first to use the phrase Catholic in 107 AD while speaking to the Christians of Smyrna.


#4

I find somebody else to talk to. Or maybe even a different party.


#5

[quote=tparsons]St. Ignatius was actually a deciple of St. John. John Wesley came along in the mid 1700’s need we say anymore? It always amazes me how Protestants know more about our Church than we do. In fact Ignatius was the first to use the phrase Catholic in 107 AD while speaking to the Christians of Smyrna.
[/quote]

Yes, it’s amazing how the Church instantly went into heresy and stayed that way until 1517:rolleyes: . It’s just sooo frustrating. You’re trying to show someone one of, God’s greatest gifts (if not the greatest) us, and they just don’t want to accept it.:frowning:


#6

How ironic that they would call St. Ignatius of Antioch a heretic. He has specific works when dealing with heretics and schismatics:

On heretics, from The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians:

**Chapter VI.–Abstain From The Poison Of Heretics. **

I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that ye use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death.

Chapter VII.–The Same Continued.

Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.

On schismatics from The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians:

Chapter III.–Avoid Schismatics.

Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].

PF


#7

Many of the Church Fathers wandered in-and-out of heresy. Why? Simply because virtually everybody, including the folks at this site, do the same thing.

I believe that sometimes even the Magisterium, in less solemn forms of Magisterial expression, falls into heresy.

Pope Liberius once condemned his own prior teaching on the Arian heresy.

Sometimes, the folks here at this site growl about my stuff, “He’s a heretic! He’s Satanic!”

I try to not do that because it’s hard to not diverge from Catholic teaching. [Relaaaaaaaaaax. Take it eeeeeeeeeeeeeasy. Be friends! Be happy. Don’t go slashing away with the “heresy” sword. I sometimes ask the folks doing that, “Okay, if I can prove you wrong, do you promise to publicly proclaim in a post that YOU are a ‘heretic,’ that YOU are ‘Satanic’? If not, *then don’t call others ‘heretic’ or ‘Satanic’!”]

There’s your answer, in the parenthetical section.


#8

Do what they do … ask for documentation. Let them prove to you that the ECFs went into heresy.

Peace,
Linda


#9

Wesley’s a bad person to quote (either of the Wesley brothers, actually), because while he did condemn the Catholic doctrine (in part out of prejudice), his own position was a lot closer to Catholicism than that of many Protestant. The hymns he and his brother wrote (most of them were by his brother but they were published under both names) on the Lord’s Supper speak of the smoke of Christ’s sacrifice ascending as Christians celebrate the Eucharist. I have no doubt that the Wesleys thought they were far apart from the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice, but I’m not sure they were (at least not from all possible interpretations of that view–of course Catholics back then weren’t very ecumenical either).

As for the Presence, the Wesleys taught that Christ is truly present and received in the Sacrament, but they didn’t think one should speculate how, and they didn’t believe that the substance of the bread and wine was changed into something else. So sure, this guy could quote the Wesleys as disagreeing with the Catholic view, but if he’s a typical fundamentalist (which you didn’t say) then he wouldn’t like what they actually believed either.

Finally, Wesley actually published a translation of St. Ignatius’s letters and other writings of the early (pre-Constantinian) Church. He would have disagreed emphatically with the statement that the 2nd-century Church was the source of heresy.

Edwin


#10

I want to know which Wesley did he quote? Because John was considered borderline heretical by many Anglicans in his day, for being too “Catholic”. (Yeah, I know, but true…).
Charles was very anti Catholic in many ways, so I can imagine quoting him. Their father, the Rev, Samuel Wesley, I can see, too. Or one of the next generation after.
If he was quoting John Wesley, check the context! He wrote so much…You could find anything, if you looked long enough & hard enough, but he would definitely not be anything like an obvious choice. Weird!


#11

What does this protestant person even mean by heresy? I know as a catholic that when we speak of heresy we mean able to choose between doctrine that is infallibly taught by the church and doctrine that is not taught infallibly by the Church. Canon law defines a heretic as any baptised catholic who obstinately refuses to accept any revealed doctrine taught by the church (canon 751).
St. Ignatius could not be considered a heretic by the catholic definition because he was upholding the truth of the church. To Bible reader, Pope Liberius, if he did sign the Arian formula it was not freely and it is even doubtful that he signed it at all. Though we are free to debate this. I personally don’t think its helpful when a catholic supports a doubtful position accusing a pope of heresy, but then i’m an ultramontanist.


#12

[quote=Genesis315]Ok, this is more of a rant than anything else:

So, I was discussing the Mass with a Protestant, especially the prophecy in Malachi 1:10-11. When I quoted some ECFs speaking of the Mass, especially Ignatious of Antioch, the Didiche (which quotes Malachi), Justin Martyr (who also quotes Malachi), and Clement, this person responded by saying that’s where the great heresies originated.
[/quote]

“that’s where the great heresies originated” - what is where they did ?

Quoting the ECFs ?
Or something else ?

Purely as a matter of fact, the ideas of the Fathers have given rise to all sorts of errors - as has the Bible; but that is not a reason for rejecting them, for there is nothing good which cannot become a snare. ##

How does one respond to this? Is there even a way? Or is this a dust off the sandals situation?

It’s your discussion, so you must do the research :slight_smile: He (or she) is your Protestant; and the conversation was between you; we weren’t there, so only you two know what was said - we don’t; so it’s rather difficult to give much help, as we know only part of one side of the discussion :slight_smile:

Sidenote: Funny thing was, this person quoted Wesley and other recent Protestant scholars to support his position against the Mass:rolleyes:

AND then said “I’ll take God’s word over the words of men:rolleyes:”

Nothing wrong with that - sources outside the Bible don’t replace it; they shed light on it, or can. There is nothing inconsistent in conceding supreme authority (under God) to the Bible as being “God’s Word written”, and then using commentators and other such writers to explain what is in it.

Just as the healing power of a bottle of medicine is not replaced by the piece of paper which explains how it should be taken in order for the person taking it to benefit from it. Reading the instructions that come with cough medicine doesn’t cure a cough - the medicine does, because it is made in order to do exactly that. As it may have side effects such as drowsiness, the patient should read the instructions.

So with the Bible - the ideas of authors outside it can’t replace it, but they can shed light on what the words God uses to “speak” the message of the Bible to us mean - which helps us to hear the “Word of God written”, and to take from it the message the Spirit Who inspired it, wills for each one of us; they are subservient to the Bible, which is itself subservient to God. Those helps open up the Bible’s meaning - they don’t become the Bible, any more the instructions with the cough medicine become the medicine. Using these helps can help us to avoid many errors. ##


#13

[quote=dafalax]What does this protestant person even mean by heresy? I know as a catholic that when we speak of heresy we mean able to choose between doctrine that is infallibly taught by the church and doctrine that is not taught infallibly by the Church. Canon law defines a heretic as any baptised catholic who obstinately refuses to accept any revealed doctrine taught by the church (canon 751).
St. Ignatius could not be considered a heretic by the catholic definition because he was upholding the truth of the church. To Bible reader, Pope Liberius, if he did sign the Arian formula it was not freely and it is even doubtful that he signed it at all. Though we are free to debate this. I personally don’t think its helpful when a catholic supports a doubtful position accusing a pope of heresy, but then i’m an ultramontanist.
[/quote]

“The mind like the mouth is not always meant to be open, like the mouth closes on food the mind closes on truth.” G.K.Chesterton


#14

[quote=dafalax]What does this protestant person even mean by heresy? .
[/quote]

Generally, it refers to something that is contrary to the creeds*. It might also refer to one of the classical heresies, such as Arian, etc.

*:yup: the same ones as Catholics use: Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian.


#15

[quote=Genesis315]Ok, this is more of a rant than anything else:

So, I was discussing the Mass with a Protestant, especially the prophecy in Malachi 1:10-11. When I quoted some ECFs speaking of the Mass, especially Ignatious of Antioch, the Didiche (which quotes Malachi), Justin Martyr (who also quotes Malachi), and Clement, this person responded by saying that’s where the great heresies originated.
[/quote]

Hello,

I will come to the person’s defense. It sounds like the person isn’t calling ECF’s heretics themselves, if he said “that’s where the great heresies originated”.

I’ve read some of Ignatious’ writings and he seems to over-emphasize bishop authority. This type of over-emphasis can lead to heresy over the centuries if each generation in turn over-empasizes the concept a little more.

I did once call Ignatious a heretic in haste, but this is my position now. It is probably similar to the fellow you were debating with.


#16

So I recently found out that there is a pious tradition that says the child in Luke 9:47 was a young Ignatius. If that were true, it would make his rejection by many quite interesting:

Luke 9:47 But Jesus seeing the thoughts of their heart, took a child and set him by him, 48 And said to them: Whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me. For he that is the lesser among you all, he is the greater.


#17

Catholics regard both Origen and Tertullian as heretics when they died.

The statement that there are no ECF heretics is simply a lie. The Church Fathers frequently broke with orthodoxy (from a Catholic position). Peter Abelard shows that the ECF also held a variety of opinions in hisa book “Sic et Non”


#18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.