So, it’s ok when schismatics from Anglicanism do it (praiseworthy, to hear them tell it), but when Rome does it, it’s a “mess”? Do you have any idea how condescending and disingenuous this sounds? No self-respecting Catholic would read this and respond with “sign me up.” No one uses language like “Popery” or “Papist” anymore. They’re linguistic relics of a bygone era best left in their own time.
I've never viewed any reference to the "Tiber" as derogatory. As Rexlion pointed out "swimming the Tiber" is a common term used by converts to Roman Catholicism. I actually have a t-shirt with "Tiber swim team" on the front. I also don't see "Papal" as being derogatory though some may intend it that way. I have seen Anglicans as well as other protestants using "Papist" in a derogatory way but most Anglicans I know use it with me in a joking manor and I don't take offense.
I think the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have retained quite a lot of Christian 'truth' between them, so it's not unnatural that there is a certain amount of two way 'swimming' traffic between the two. They do have a lot in common, but also a lot of quite important differences. It's usually the differences though that stimulate the 'swimming' in either direction. Dissatisfaction with where one is usually a greater impetus than a perception that the grass just might be a little greener on the other side. For most it is about as relevant to true discipleship as changing your bicycle for a tricycle might be to your ability to travel.
I do see reasons. It depends how this word is used. And in many cases I see it used as derogatory for any member of the RCC. I am not speaking of this forum now, but of of all possible cases anywhere.
Yes, it can be both. It all depends. I know such things from Germany as well. In Germany, when you out yourselves as a Roman Catholic, you may hear things like: "So you are one of those brainless sheeps that does anything that your Pope orders you to do ..." Or worse things. Or if you bring up the topic of name days, you might hear: "Don't talk of such Popish rubbish ..."
One of the problems with fora such as this one is that a significant part of human communication is lost. We do not communicate solely by words. The tone of our voice, our facial expressions and our body language all help to communicate our message as well. The problem with internet fora, and it happens with emails, too, is that the whole message is not conveyed. We need to look at the context in which words are used before we can start to make a judgement they have been used in a pejorative sense or not. Perhaps instead of simply assuming that a person means a certain thing I believe it would be charitable to enquire of them exactly what they mean. Sometimes people use terms without knowing they cause offence to others. When they do this is, surely it is better to educate them rather than get into a rage with them. Explain why the terms are offensive. I believe when such offence is explained to people the majority accept this and will alter their lexicon accordingly.
False equivalence. Anglicans don't put their archbishops up on a pedestal the way the RCC does with their pope. Anglicans view archbishops and bishops as ordinary men, servants of God, but fallible and at times weak as we all are; RCs traditionally (but many make an exception for Francis) viewed the pope as someone more special and much closer to God than the ordinary person; the pope is believed capable of speaking inerrantly on matters of faith and morals (although he rarely if ever does so). As a former RC, I well recall the extreme reverential attitude my relatives had for Paul VI and John Paul II when I was younger; it was only a half-century ago that RCs viewed their popes as men who 'could do no wrong,' almost superhuman in a spiritual sense. In fact, the bishops and even the priests used to be seen by the laity as having an aura of holiness and untouchability, as if they didn't put their pants on one leg at a time the way ordinary humans do. That view has eroded in recent times, and I thank God for it! If they don't like my language, that's just too bad. I see what a disaster the papal system has been throughout history and the lengths Christians had to go through in order to escape it. The more RCs recognize the reality of that situation, the better off they will be. Many of my own (older) relatives continue to have this exaggerated opinion of the RC clergy and institution despite all the evidence. I will continue to engage in 'tough love' as needed. (Note: I don't recall actually using those terms "Popery" or "Papist" on this forum; I merely said, "If I were to speak of..." as a hypothetical.)
Well, we don't. When did you form your picture of the RCC? In the times of Martin Luther - or when? I see that the RCC gets attacked here as something very wrong and very bad again and again. I don't know of any Catholic Forum where all Anglicans are seen as very wrong and very bad again and again.
You seem to have identified a problem. Did apostles argue amongst themselves over religion though? The answer found in scripture might surprise us. .
Exactly! That's the way I feel it! "No popery" may be said by John Knox or by Protestant fanatics in Northern Ireland. Our age is a age of reconciliation. The War of Thirty Years is over. But as it seems, not all have heard the bell of peace yet.
If you have any feeling, you do NOT call us "Papists". You should know that this was used as an insult usually.
How about that! I did use the word, and forgot. But as I posted in the other thread from whence the above reference came, I'm not insulting the laity. The papal system stinks, and with Francis in charge everyone's getting a first-hand view of how lousy a pope can be.
I have it on the best authority that Romish is a perfectly acceptable word and Anglican badge owners will back me up; won't you? XXII. OF PURGATORY THE Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
The Oxford English Dictionary states it is a derogatory term for Roman Catholics. Personally, I would consider it obsolete and use 'Roman' instead. I cannot ever imagine describing anyone or anything from Rome as 'Romish'. I would use 'Roman'.
Would you favor updating the Articles with modern, politically-correct language? (I'm not sure I would want that.)
Then you may want to reconsider your Anglican badge! You did read the contract when you signed this statement? ----"I, A.B., Do here declare my unfeigned assent, and consent to all, and every thing contained, and prescribed in, and by the Book intituled, The Book of Common Prayer...."
I am a little confused by posts 38 and 39. Can someone please direct me to a valid source where it is the official doctrine of the Church of England, of which I am a member, or of any member church of the Anglican Communion, to refer to non-Anglican Christians, non-Christians or non-believers in derogatory terms.