There are a number of what we believe to be spurious. Frankly, I think there is little doubt that some of them are fakes and the product of agendas, especially the letters to Panagia and +John. Even the Latins admit these are fakes. But the letter to the Smyrneans, which I referenced, is pretty generally accepted as being authentic.
"I don’t worship the so-called “Church Fathers”."
Neither do I. I don't worship a book either.
I don't know anyone who does.
If you're believing the false accusations of those who are simply reacting to their idolatry exposed by making a counter claim, you'll end up falling for all kinds of deceptions.
Since non-Catholics are accused of worshiping a book simply because it's held as the standard for truth and people believe that it is adequate for knowledge pertaining to salvation, but that *logic* any who follow the pope, or tradition, can likewise be accused of worshiping the pope or tradition.
If any of the letters of Ignatius were really authored by a historical Ignatius (doubtful) they would remain his opinions, nothing more.
But which one? The Short, the Mid, or the Long Recension?
They can't all be authentic can they?