John Henry Newman, erstwhile Anglican, then Roman Catholic Apologist, Cardinal and finally “Saint,” famously claimed in 1845 that “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” Ever since, that empty rallying cry has served as a substitute for actual scholarship, as ignorant Roman Catholics, clergy and lay, claim without justification to be “deep in history.” And yet a simple examination of the evidence reveals just how shallow in history the Roman Catholic actually is.

Joshua T. Charles, former White House speech writer and self-described historian, believes that he, too, is now deep in history, and has converted to Roman Catholicism. In his words — and there are plenty of them — he has read “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers, and was surprised to discover Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere.”

Yet, upon inspection it is clear that while he may have looked at tens of thousands of pages, he did not read them all, and those he did read, he interpreted though a medieval Roman Catholic lens instead of in their native historical context. And still others, heavily redacted by the scholars, are made to appear Roman Catholic while obscuring their very “Protestant” underpinnings. This fact the scholars freely and often admit, though Mr. Charles appears to be ignorant of it. And thus, skimming the Early Church Fathers, interpreting them through a carefully crafted medieval lens, swallowing whole the grotesque redactions and intentional mistranslations, Mr. Charles thinks to have arrived at the Church Jesus Christ founded. Instead he has arrived at a tasteless and extravagant imitation of it. And that, says Mr. Charles, is the church to which we should all convert.

In this series we will explore just one claim from his manifold twitter files: that on “point after point” Ignatius of Antioch (107 AD) taught “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine.” The claim is false, and Mr. Charles is not nearly so very “deep in history” as he imagines. But he is not alone. Cardinal Newman wasn’t very deep in history either.

Before we begin to assess Mr. Charles’ claim that Ignatius taught Roman Catholic doctrines, it will be of some value first to see how he evaluates the evidence. That will be our focus in this entry. To do this we will evaluate his use of Ambrose to support Roman Primacy, Ignatius to support episcopal apostolic succession, and Athanasius to support devotion to Mary. After demonstrating his questionable and inadequate methodology, we will then explore his claim that Ignatius taught Roman Catholic doctrines “point by point.”

Ambrose of Milan (340 – 397 AD)

Mr. Charles recently tweeted a citation from Ambrose indicating that the Early Church held to Roman primacy.

This is how St. Ambrose of Milan—the Church Father who converted and baptized St. Augustine—described the Roman Church to the Roman emperors, east and west:

“We would nevertheless have besought your Clemency not to allow disturbance to reach the Roman Church, head of the whole Roman world, and that sacred trust of the Apostles, whence flow all the rights of venerable communion upon all persons.”

St. Ambrose, “Letter No. 40: To Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius” (AD 381)

This late fourth century claim appears on its face to support Mr. Charles’ newfound admiration for and allegiance to a Catholicism that is, at its core, Roman. His expansive reading appears to have paid off, and he has found ancient evidence for his religion.

However, John Chrysostom, a contemporary of Ambrose, expressed in superlative terms a similar opinion of the city of Antioch. In an eulogy for his beloved predecessor, Ignatius, Chrysostom needed little more proof of Ignatius’ greatness than this: “The fact that he was entrusted with our own native city.” Continuing on that theme, Chrysostom spoke of Antioch in the same terms Ambrose spoke of Rome: 

And at any rate this city [Antioch] was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city [Antioch] was equivalent to the whole world. (Homily on St. Ignatius, 4)

The reader’s attention is invited to the premise upon which Chrysostom builds his case: Antioch “was of much account to God” as evidenced by the deeds He did there. “He bade Peter to tarry” there, and then placed Ignatius over it. A great city was worthy of great men—of so “much account to God” was Antioch.

Now what are we to do? If we are as thorough as Joshua T. Charles and have read “tens of thousands of pages,” surely it must occur to us that, because of the divergent and contrary descriptions of these cities, neither can prove that the ancient Church considered one of them in particular to be preëminent. Indeed, the Catholic Encyclopedia concedes that in all of Chrysostom’s writings, while he surely held Peter in great esteem, there is no evidence that he believed the same of Rome:

It is true that Chrysostom has some strange passages on our Blessed Lady [and] that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.”(Catholic Encyclopedia, Chrysostom)

Chrysostom may have loved Peter, but he clearly believed greater things of Antioch than he did of Rome.

We thought it might be of some value to get Mr. Charles’ opinion on the matter, and asked him how we were to choose between Antioch and Rome if two great contemporaries each considered different cities to be the greatest in the world. Surely they cannot both be right, and we cannot simply flip a coin. How do we choose? Charles responded that Chrysostom clearly meant that Antioch was only “equivalent to the whole world” so long as Peter remained there:

You aren’t quoting that whole quote. I just quoted that recently. Chrysostom very clearly speaks of St. Peter’s superior authority, and says that WHILE HE WAS IN ANTIOCH, Antioch was the head of the world, that Peter had been given the keys by Christ, and that Peter was the “master of the whole world.” So what he says is actually strongly supportive of what the Catholic Church has always claimed about Peter and his successors in Rome.

The reader’s attention is now invited to the premise upon which Charles builds his case: According to Chrysostom, Charles says, Antioch was only great “while Peter was in Antioch.”

We need not wonder on this point. Chrysostom settles the matter for us by saying not only that Antioch’s greatness preceded Peter’s arrival and remained after Peter’s departure, but also that God sent Ignatius to Rome to teach the people there because Rome needed more help. Antioch, on the other hand, being great even after Ignatius’ departure. In other words, Antioch was great on its own, but Rome was not — Peter’s prior residence there notwithstanding. We continue now where we left off in our last citation from Chrysostom:

Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man [Ignatius] succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor. … For not to those alone who dwell in Rome, but to all the cities lying in the intervening space, he [Ignatius] went forth as a wonderful teacher … . And when he [Ignatius] arrived at the city, even that he instructed in Christian wisdom. … For we by the grace of God need henceforward no evidence, being rooted in the faith. But they who dwelt in Rome, inasmuch as there was great impiety there, required more help. (Homily on St. Ignatius, 4)`

From this fascinating citation from Chrysostom we learn two things: first, he believed God Himself had established Ignatius in Antioch as “a great stone … equivalent to Peter” so that the Church in Antioch would not be diminished by Peter’s departure; and second, he believed that Antioch was so “rooted in faith” that it still would not be diminished even by Ignatius’ departure. Clearly Rome was in such need of wisdom and instruction — even after Peter’s and Paul’s work there — that the Lord saw fit afterward to send Ignatius to teach them! Whatever the bishops in Rome had done since Peter’s martyrdom, it obviously paled in comparison to what Ignatius had done in Antioch. From this, Mr. Charles concludes that Chrysostom’s homily on the magnificence of Ignatius and Antioch “is strongly supportive of what the Catholic Church has always claimed about Peter and his successors in Rome”!

We will not dwell much longer on Joshua Charles’ shockingly ignorant assessment of Chrysostom’s homily except to point out that reading “tens of thousands of pages” has left Mr. Charles no wiser than when he started. In his response to a simple question on disparate and inconsistent data from the early Fathers, he immediately interpreted the contrary evidence to support his own position, concluding exactly the opposite of what Chrysostom plainly taught. Where Chrysostom states explicitly that Ignatius was equivalent to Peter, Mr. Charles claims that Chrysostom considered Peter superior to him. Where Chrysostom claims that Peter went to Antioch because Antioch was great, Mr. Charles says Chrysostom thought Antioch became great because Peter went there. Where Chrysostom says the Lord appointed the “great stone” Ignatius as an “equivalent to Peter” so that Antioch’s position would in no way be diminished by Peter’s departure, Charles claims Chrysostom believed Antioch’s position was diminished by Peter’s departure. We mean this as respectfully and gently as our frail human abilities can allow, but while Mr. Charles makes serious claims, he is not himself a serious man.

Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD)

In his blog series called Becoming Catholic, Mr. Charles appeals to Ignatius of Antioch, one of the earliest Christian Fathers, who lived and wrote within living memory of the Apostles. We appeal to Ignatius as well and have done so repeatedly. But one must do so cautiously because of the condition of the data available to us. He is alleged to have written many letters, some of which  have long since been dismissed as spurious, of dubious origin. Of his works that are considered authentic, there are six letters to the early churches, and one to Polycarp:

• • To the Ephesians
  • To the Magnesians
  • To the Trallians
  • To the Romans
  • To the Philadelphians
  • To the Smyrnæans
  • To Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna

Of these seven ostensibly authentic letters, they exist in two versions: the long version and the short version, or what are called the larger and shorter Greek recensions. Of these, only the shorter is considered genuine, according to Philip Schaff, who compiled one of the most extensive collections of Patristic writings in the English speaking world:

Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day. (History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325.,“Introductory Note to the Epistles of Ignatius” (emphasis added)). 

Even the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia concedes that the longer recension is by an unknown author dating from the latter part of the 4th century, “incapable of bearing witness” to the original letters:

Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the “long recension”. This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Ignatius) (emphasis added)

Thus, Protestant and Roman Catholic scholarship concede that the long recension is not the work of Ignatius and does not bear witness to his thoughts or teaching. However, the later discovery of a Syriac version of three of the epistles—To Polycarp, To the Ephesians, and To the Romans — militated positively for the authenticity of the shorter Greek recension (Schaff, “The Ignatian Controversy,” 3). For this reason, when we cite him, we cite the shorter recension. The longer recension is “incapable of bearing witness” to Ignatius’ thoughts or to the subapostolic church.

Now, with that information in mind, we return to Mr. Charles’ use of Ignatius. As a Roman Catholic, Mr. Charles believes that the bishops of the Roman Church have succeeded in a continuous line since the Apostles, who were themselves appointed by Christ. That is not something he believed when he was a Protestant. That is why Ignatius “startled” him so.

In his fifth entry in his series, Becoming Catholic, Charles quotes Ignatius’ testimony of the authority of the bishops and the hierarchy of the Church. He describes his surprise when he first realized that this first century Christian, a disciple of the Apostles, “a mere 75 years after Christ,” affirmed what is plainly a Roman Catholic belief:

As Ignatius continues [in his epistle to the Ephesians], he again repeats claims about the hierarchy of the Church, primarily the bishops, that startled me, as a protestant — claiming they were, in some sense, directly appointed by God (as Paul does in Acts 20:28), and then using Christ’s language to refer to an actual Christian priesthood—again, a mere 75 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. (Charles, Becoming Catholic #5: Church Authority) (emphasis added)

The specific statement that started him on episcopal authority was that the bishops were appointed by Christ and, as His priests, spoke with His authority. Here is Mr. Charles’ citation of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians:

Do ye, beloved, be careful to be subject to the bishop, and the presbyters and the deacons. For he that is subject to these is obedient to Christ, who has appointed them; … The Lord also says to the priests, “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that heareth Me, heareth the Father that sent Me. He that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.” [Luke 10:16] (Charles, (Charles, Becoming Catholic #5, citing Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians (emphasis in original))

So here we have Ignatius, a Christian from the first century, who was personally familiar with the Apostles, attesting to the succession of the bishops from Christ, claiming that Luke 10:16 warns us that to reject the bishops is to reject Jesus and His Father. Upon reading this, Mr. Charles was convicted of his offense, and is now warning Protestants to repent of rejecting Jesus and His Father by rejecting the Roman Catholic bishops.

But there are several problems with Mr. Charles’ argument, not the least of which is that he has appealed to the longer Greek recension. Of this recension, the Catholic Encyclopedia says it dates to the late fourth century (so it cannot attest to an ancient first century belief), its author is unknown (so it is not the teaching of Ignatius), and is incapable of bearing witness to him. By way of illustration, instead of citing Luke 10:16, the shorter recension merely concludes with, “Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God” (Ignatius, Ephesians 5) — a sentiment, by the way, with which we do not disagree (1 Peter 5:5-6). Our point is that Mr. Charles quoted the longer recension without qualification or caveat, claiming falsely that it recorded the words of a first century bishop who knew the Apostles personally. It clearly does not. But that is the least of Mr. Charles’ problems here.

We imagine that if a man has read “tens of thousands of pages,” some of those pages ought to have been Bible pages, and in this case, one of those Bible pages ought to have been the one that has Luke 10:16 on it. In that verse Christ states, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” We believe this passage to be true, and we believe Ignatius of Antioch did, too. But the passage does not support the allegations of the longer Greek recension for the simple reason that Jesus did not say it to the Apostles. He said it to the Seventy, and there was not an Apostle among them.

In the 9th chapter of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus sent the Twelve out “to preach the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:2), whereupon they returned telling Him “all that they had done” (Luke 9:10). In the 10th chapter, Jesus appointed Seventy others, also sending them forth:

After these things the Lord appointed other (ἑτέρους) seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. (Luke 10:1)

The reader’s attention is invited to the explicit indication in the text that the Seventy were not the Twelve. They were “other” than the Twelve. It is to these, not to the Apostles, that Jesus said, “He that heareth you heareth me …” (Luke 10:16).

Now, in light of this information — namely, that Luke 10:16 was not addressed to the Apostles — Mr. Charles has several options before him. First, he may conclude that while Luke 10:16 was addressed to the Seventy, there existed an oral Apostolic tradition that corrected the Scriptures, and clarified that Luke 10:16 was really addressed to the Apostles and their successors, “primarily the bishops.” Or, secondly, he may conclude that Ignatius, though he meant well, misunderstood Luke 10:16, and incorrectly applied it to the Apostles whom he was alleged to know personally, and so he has not really conveyed an authoritative Apostolic Tradition. Or, third he may recognize that maybe it was not such a good idea to try to make an argument for Apostolic Tradition from a spurious letter from an unknown author three centuries removed from them. From a Roman Catholic perspective, these are all viable options since her scholars freely acknowledge the third, her apologists have all but canonized the first, and as for the second option, nobody honestly believes Ignatius was infallible.

Or perhaps Mr. Charles may strike out on a fourth path: uphold the Scriptures, accept that Luke 10:16 was addressed to the Seventy, but (as he has already thrown down the gauntlet on its successional implications) conclude as well that there must be a continuous line of successors from the Seventy and we should obey their words lest we reject the Father. In that case, Mr. Charles must seek out the original Seventy in the historical record, find their successors, sit at their feet and attend to their infallible teachings, lest he inadvertently reject them and thereby reject the Seventy, and thereby reject Jesus and thereby reject His Father. If he chooses that option, he’ll have our respect, but he will have a lot of work ahead of him, and we wish him well on his arduous and fruitless journey.

We do not believe Mr. Charles will opt for any of these, but will instead double down on his claim, maintaining that an unknown author from the late fourth century who did not personally know the Apostles, has passed on an authoritative Apostolic Tradition from them. That will be Mr. Charles’ response, because Mr. Charles is not a serious man.

Athanasius of Alexandria (293 – 373 AD)

Mr. Charles recently tweeted a citation from Athanasius, lauding the great greatness of Mary’s exceptional greatness, which was exceedingly great. Mr. Charles credits the likes of Athanasius for turning him from his former Protestant Mariological poverty to embrace the rich heritage of Roman Catholic Marian devotion:

The Church Fathers taught me to love and be devoted to the Mother of God. No one is a greater prayer warrior than She, and no one has helped me draw closer to Christ than Her.

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O [Ark of the New] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.”

St. Athanasius the Great, “Homily of the Papyrus of Turin” (300’s AD)

The citation, known to be spurious, exhibits explicitly or implicitly all the late-fourth century trappings of Marian devotion: hyperlatria, prayer to Mary, her perpetual virginity, her identity as the Ark of the Covenant, etc… . (The curious reader may see the full “homily” in all its ridiculous and unseemly adulation here.) Mr. Charles’ credulous and unqualified attribution of this citation to Athanasius betrays a lack of familiarity with the authentic writings of the real Athanasius. An examination of Athanasius’ actual writings on Mary reveals Mr. Charles’ citation to be a sadly comical misattribution.

Mary, Aeiparthenos

We first observe that Athanasius is indeed alleged to have called Mary by the Greek title, Aeiparthenos (ἀειπάρθενος) or “Ever-Virgin.” (The significance of that title will be come relevant in a moment). Evidence for this comes from Athanasius’ second Discourse against the Arians (356 AD), in which he insists that Jesus truly had taken on human flesh:

Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin (ἀειπάρθενος). (Against the Arians, Discourse II, 70; Migne P.G. vol 26, c. 296))

On the basis of this quote, many Roman Catholics believe Athanasius thought Mary was a perpetual virgin, antepartum, in partu, and postpartum. However, while his alleged use of “Aeiparthenos” comes to us from a late medieval manuscript, ancient manuscripts did not attest to it. For example, within a century of Athanasius’ Discourse, Theodoret of Cyrus (393 – c. 458 AD) quoted this very passage from it, and instead of “Mary Ever-Virgin,” Theodoret simply has, “the Virgin Mary”:

Therefore let them that deny Him to be naturally of the Father, and own Son of His substance, deny too that He took very flesh of man from the Virgin (παρθένου) Mary. (Theodoret, Dialogue 2 (Migne 83, col 177))

In Migne’s series on the Greek Fathers, he includes a discreet footnote alleging that Theodoret must have just misquoted Athanasius (Migne, PG 83, col 178n). Migne’s preferred translation of Athanasius’ second Discourse against the Arians comes to us from a copy of manuscript more than a millennium removed from Athanasius, but Theodoret (c. 446 AD) was copying from one less than a hundred years old. Clearly, Theodoret’s was more accurate and Athanasius did not really call Mary “Ever-Virgin.” This will become obvious in a moment.

Athanasius’ Mariology

As we examine his Mariology, we find that while Athanasius saw Mary as sexually pure, he did not consider her sinless or incorruptible. The end of a long line of mortality and corruption from Adam ended not with Mary, but with Christ. Indeed, Christ “had taken a body corruptible and mortal” from Mary (Discourse III, 33). What is more, he believed that Christ had “opened Mary’s womb” and that He had “been naturally brought forth” from her (Letter 59, 5). Those are not the words of a man who thought Mary was an “ever-Virgin” and the “Ark of the New Covenant.”

On this point we ask that the reader participate with us in a brief comparative analysis between Athanasius’ sober assessment of Mary and the shameful adoration heaped upon her in the spurious citation, above. To that end, we invite the reader’s attention to the fact that Athanasius’ references to Mary were almost always in response to the Arians’ claim that if Jesus was begotten of the Father, then there was a time that He did not exist. In response, Athanasius frequently emphasized that while eternally begotten of the Father, Jesus nevertheless received His body from Mary, whom he called, to the dismay of the Roman Catholic, “the Mother of His body.” We catalogue a summary his teachings on Mary below, with links for the curious reader:

• “He prepares the body in the Virgin … taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death” (On the Incarnation of the Word, 8). Here he calls Mary “a spotless and stainless virgin,” not because she was sinless, but because her body was “in very truth pure from intercourse of men.”
• God “took from the undefiled Virgin Mary our humanity … For nothing new was created in woman, save the Lord’s body, born of the Virgin Mary without intercourse” (Statement of Faith, 1 & 3)
• “He took on Himself a body from the Virgin Mary” (De Decretis, 14)
• “He had taken that which He had to offer on our behalf, namely His body of the Virgin Mary” (De Sententia Dionysii, 11)
• “…so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body” (Discourse II Against the Arians, 7 (c.f. p. 43).
  “He took very flesh of man from the Virgin Mary. (Discourse II, 70, citing Theodoret’s Dialogue 2 (Migne 83, c. 177))
  “He put on our body, which He severed and took from Mary” (Discourse II, 74)
• “Mary, bearer of God” (Discourse III, Against the Arians, 14)
  “…afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man” (Discourse III, 29 (c.f. 31-32))
  “…man remained mortal and corruptible …  But now the Word having become man and having appropriated what pertains to the flesh, …. Whence also, whereas the flesh is born of Mary Bearer of God, …in order that He may transfer our origin into Himself” (Discourse III, 33)
  “For in the incorporeal, the properties of body had not been, unless He had taken a body corruptible and mortal; for mortal was Holy Mary, from whom was His body.” (Discourse III, 56)
• “the Word took a body from Mary” (Letter 59)

Lest the uninitiated think for a moment that, for all this, Athanasius still left room for Mary’s Assumption, let him remember that he called her “mortal … Mary” (Discourse III, 56) and “while all other men from Adam down to this time have died and remained dead, He only rose in integrity from the dead” (Discourse I, 44).

What is evident in Athanasius’ Mariology is that he believed Mary, the Mother of Jesus’ body, necessarily possessed our sinful, corruptible, mortal nature in order that the Messiah, Who received His body from her, could take on our nature in order to conquer our sin, mortality and corruptibility. If Athanasius really believed Jesus was born naturally, and that Mary was corruptible and mortal and sinful like us, “under penalty of the corruption of death”, and was “mortal … Mary” who “remained dead,” neither would he have called her “Aeiparthenos,” nor prayed to her as “O noble Virgin,” nor as  “Ark of the New Covenant.” The person addressed in that spurious prayer is not the Mary of Athanasius’ writings, and the person praying that prayer to her is not the Athanasius of history — something Mr. Charles would know if he had paid attention to those “tens of thousands of pages.”

“Point by Point” with Ignatius

We will end Part 1, by returning to Joshua T. Charles’ claim that he could find Roman Catholic doctrines in Ignatius of Antioch. It was important that we first examine his methodology. He repeatedly ignores clear evidence while relying on spurious and fraudulent writings, claiming unscrupulously that they reflect ancient, Apostolic truths.

Having demonstrated his predilection for inauthentic writings and his willingness to force-fit evidence into his narrative, we shall next subject his handling of Ignatius’ letters to similar scrutiny.

Mr. Charles recently tweeted that Ignatius had “red pilled” him into the truth:

The Church Father who “red pilled” me about my protestantism, and finally got me to look into the claims of the Catholic Church, was a disciple of the Apostle John, St. Ignatius of Antioch.

On point after point, this disciple of an Apostle was teaching profoundly Catholic doctrine most (sometimes all) of my protestant forebears had abandoned, supposedly in the name of being “biblical.” But for this disciple of an Apostle, Catholic doctrines were biblical, and protestant ideas are nowhere to be seen in his writings. Here are 10 points he affirmed that shocked me into reality:

1. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist;

2. The New Testament ministerial priesthood;

3. Christian worship = the sacrifice of the Eucharist;

4. We become Christians through being spiritually regenerated in baptism (baptismal regeneration);

5. Christians can forfeit their salvation through grave sin, including heresy/schism;

6. Authority in the Church is exercised by bishops who are successors of the Apostles (apostolic succession);

7. Lay Christians must be under a successor of the Apostle’s authority, and cannot start their own independent congregations;

8. The Church of Rome has greater authority than other churches;

9. Schism and heresy from the one true Church possessing the one true Faith is not of Christ, and always unacceptable;

10. This one true Church is called the “Catholic Church.”

All of this was apparent in just seven short letters written as he proceeded to his martyrdom in Rome.

St. Ignatius of Antioch forever changed my life. He gave me a glimpse into the truth that the biblical Church was and has always been the Catholic Church, and that my inherited protestantism, far from being a “restoration” of the primitive Church and gospel, was a complete departure from it.

We shall see who departed from whom in this brief series on Joshua T. Charles’ flawed interpretation of Ignatius.