You should definitely stop.
There are probably very little, if any, such writings since early Christianity deviated from the Biblical paradigm of "apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, pastors" (Ephesians 4:11) early on.
Period-appropriate evidence of the early Church lacking any of these, please.
Early Christianity moved to the "bishop, priest, deacon" paradigm even those there is no backing for such in the Bible.
bishops (
episkopos; lit. 'overseer') and deacons (
diakonos; lit. 'servant'),
Philippians 1:1 --
Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons
priests (presbyteros; lit. 'elder'),
Titus 1:5 --
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you
Note what Jesuit scholar Francis Sullivan writes:
As was noted in the first chapter, most Christian scholars from both sides of this divide agree that the threefold structure of ministry, with one bishop along with a number of presbyters and deacons in each local church, does not appear in the New Testament. (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg. 217)
The New Testament is when that entire structure is being set up (see Titus, above), so observations like this are not really telling us anything.
Catholics and others will claim that Bishops are the successors to the Apostles.
They are.
This notion is plainly refuted by Ignatius of Antioch who didn't believe himself to be the equivalent of an Apostle.
Being a successor doesn't mean that you consider yourself equivalent. HH St. Ignatius had the proper humility and fear of God to not consider himself to be the equivalent of his predecessors the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and HH St. Evodius. It is the same to this day, wherein none of our bishops would think of themselves as worthy of being called 'equivalents to the apostles', and yet some have been called that (e.g., HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic), and more importantly for this conversation they still recognize themselves as being entrusted to carry on the shepherding of the Church which began on the preaching of the actual apostles and disciples of Christ (whichever arrived at whichever apostolic see: Sts. Peter and Paul in Antioch, St. Mark in Alexandria, Sts. Bartholomew and Thaddeus in Armenia, St. Thomas in India, etc). That's what being their successor means, in practical terms: as they once shepherded the Church, successive generations after them have been entrusted to do the same, down to this very day.
Seeing that I love you I thus spare you, though I might write more sharply on his behalf: but I did not think myself competent for this, that being a convict I should order you as though I were an Apostle. (Ignatius of Antioch quoted in The Apostolic Fathers, 73)
The fact that you read this as though he is refuting the fact that he has the leadership position that he very clearly has at the time in which he wrote them tells me that your reading of the holy saint's letters is motivated not by a desire to understand the historical circumstances in which they were written, nor the theology or ecclesiology contained in them, but out of a desire to buttress Mormonism, and to write it into the historical record where it has absolutely no business being. Just as with your other coreligionists when they try this same claptrap, I will not let that happen unopposed.
The same holy saint who you are quoting in support of your view also wrote the following (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Cyril Richardson trans.;
pdf here):
You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God’s law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop’s supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid.
+++
Seeing as how HH was a bishop himself at the time of writing this, and he here exhorts the people that they are to
follow the bishop as Jesus Christ does the Father, do you
really think that his use of the phrasing "as though I were an apostle" is somehow meant to diminish the place that the bishop has in the Church? If you do, I have some Edenic land to sell you in Missouri.
At the very least Ignatius' comment supports the Latter-day Saint belief that Bishops are not Apostles, and not on the same level as Apostles. I hope this helps...
Nobody claims that they
are apostles in the first place, although some certainly have been given the honor of being called 'equal to the apostles' in light of their work in spreading and strengthening Christianity (I mentioned HH St. Athanasius earlier, since this is what we call him in the Coptic Orthodox Church in particular; the Eastern Orthodox also have many people they also apply this title to), so you're wrong about that last claim.
What would be truly helpful is if Mormons wouldn't come here claiming to know what the Fathers said and meant based on what some later Jesuit has to say (who for all I know has probably been put through the same Mormon thought-grinder as HH St. Ignatius is in your reply). As it is, the members of your parasitic pseudo-church have nothing to do with any Christian figures prior to 1830, thanks be to God, and really nothing to do with any of them afterwards, either, since Mormonism is a non-Christian religion based on its founder's distortions of various strains of 19th century American Protestantism. It has no formative period that dates back to anywhere close to any of the Early Church Fathers. That's the
real reason why you don't find Mormon ideas in their writings. The restorationist mindset that is required for Mormonism to even exist in the first place does not predate the various movements in the Roman Catholic Church like the Lollards or the Hussites (14th-16th century) which eventually led to the Protestant Reformation, which of course Mormonism itself significantly postdates.
Mormonism has no history prior to the 19th century, and I'm sure our Protestant friends here will disavow the association of Mormonism with Protestantism in a historical context, and with reason, as JS went from preaching something that was at least vaguely in conformity with mainstream Protestantism (as you can see with the Trinitarianism of the 1830 edition of the BOM) to by the end of his life preaching something that was way out of bounds with that, thereby cutting his religion off from whatever roots it may have once had in the various Protestant revival meetings his family is said to have attended prior to the start of his prophetic career.
