John Ahern writes,

I’m not going to be needlessly apologetic about this, but do understand that I neither claim this to be original nor do I claim this to be the prior idea of anyone else. I’m communicating ideas I happen to think are important, and they may be either too crazy to be the work of anyone else or too profound to be mine.

Yes, yet again, my attention is focused on that petty issue of ecclesiology. You’ll notice Christians often assume that Protestantism began as a completely new doctrinal strand of the 16^th century, and was vaguely connected to the early Church. Somewhere along the way, however, at a vague point, Christians started doing papist stuff.

Or, to put it anecdotally, I was watching a lecture series by Anthony Rizzi, who is really quite excellent at presenting Thomism in a modern day application. One of the conclusions he came to gave me convulsions – he said that the Catholic Church was really the founder of modern science.

That’s true. There’s nothing wrong with that statement, as far as my own research and his oratory go. But the context he put it in makes us think of the Roman Catholic church, and this is really what makes me peeved. I’ve come across somewhat the same attitude in Philip Schaff.

Delve with me, if you would, into the meaning of the word Catholic. It means universal?—?something most people may be familiar with. I do wonder when Peter Kreeft, who does always have helpful insights into the issue, says we’re all small “c” Catholics. Does that help? Does it do anything aside from forming, blissfully and naively, some sort of ecumenical connection between Protestants and Roman Catholics?

Let’s look at the proper name of those under the headship of Rome. We call them Roman Catholics. That is to say, the Roman Catholic church is the Catholic church under the headship of Rome. I must beg all the Roman Catholics reading this to correct me if I’m wrong. This name, Roman Catholic, is an assertion (and one that I have no intention of trying to deny here) that the Catholic church is defined by Rome. Not sure if that’s a good way of putting it, but there it is.

Now, a Classical Protestant would acknowledge this – would further the point by saying that, actually, Protestants are Catholics too. Not small “c”. Capital “C”. We should consider ourselves within the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. It’s because we refuse to define the Church by Rome?—?indeed, by an institutionalized or infallible entity, other than the Word. If we really believe in sola Scriptura, this is premise with which to be begin. We are Protestant Catholics. (All thanks, Douglas Wilson.)

Post Israeli-split of 1^st Kings 12, the story of Ruth did not exclude itself from being told to the children of the tribe of Reuben, just because it happened in Judah, and that wasn’t Israel. To put it in a mundane way, I, the Protestant, want in on the fun too.

The idea that Protestants of the Reformation were trying to suppress and confine the proper roll of the Church is really quite off the mark, I think. (Funny thing is it’s an idea probably originating with Protestants.) If what we say is true, and obviously, no good Roman Catholic could say it was, then the Protestant ecclesiology is much, much bigger and broader than anything defined by an infallible institution. I’m not trying to do Protestant apologetics here, either, but that’s something to understand about the nature of Protestantism.