<< I Love the Word "Popish"
. . . along with Romanist, Romish, Popery, and Papist. Not because it is a legitimate word, with proper etymological pedigree, mind you, but because it is so patently ridiculous and, well, downright idiotic (would anyone say "fatherish" or "fatherist"?). Just when you think no Protestant is silly enough to actually use this linguistic monstrosity (along with the others in the anti-Catholic catalogue), sure enough, Reformed Baptist apologist Steve Hays (the guy who thinks Catholicism is officially as liberal as American Episcopalianism is), brings it back from retirement.
He has (quite predictably) used the other similar words, too:
Both Romanist and popery.
I never knew that Dave Armstrong learned English as a second language, but then, it’s always a full moon over at Cor ad cor loquitur, so one comes to expect the unexpected.
Okay, I guess I have to give Mr. Armstrong a mini-course in remedial English. Using the “–ish” suffix to turn nouns into adjectives is a grammatically unimpeachable feature of standard English, viz., Amish, British, childish, Danish, English, Finnish, Israelitish, Jewish, Polish, priggish, Rhemish, Scottish, Spanish, &c.
Likewise, use of the “–ist” suffix serves a similar adjectival function, viz., Adventist, alchemist, Baptist, Buddhist, Calvinist, classicist, Congregationalist, coreligionist, cultist, deist, Donatist, evangelist, Hellenist, humanist, Jansenist, liturgist, Latinist, Marxist, Methodist, Molinist, monotheist, Novatianist, Occamist, polygamist, polytheist, psalmist, Redemptorist, Satanist, Scotist, Talmudist, theist, Thomist, Trappist, tsarist, Vedantist, &c.
The late JP2 was fond of these sorts of coinages as well, to wit: Yahwist, Elohist.
It would be best, therefore, if Armstrong avoided words like “idiotic,” as these are apt to recoil on the head of the disputant.
No, we don’t employ “fatherish” or “fatherist.” But we do employ “paternal” and “paternalistic” to express the same relation. It’s just that in that particular case, English usage favors Latin derivatives over Anglo-Saxon.
I suppose a Roman Catholic would object to “Romanist” or “Papist” on the same grounds as a Muslim to “Mohammedan.” Just as a Muslim will protest that he is a follower of Allah, not of Muhammad, a Roman Catholic will protest that he is a follower of Christ, not of the Pope—I guess. But isn’t the Pope the vicar of Christ?
In any case, I reserve the right to use designations which reflect my theological viewpoint, and not the outlook of my theological opponent.
A Romanist is someone who adheres to the primacy of Rome. A papist is someone who adheres to the primacy of the Pope. And so forth.
Since a Calvinist takes no offense at being denominated a Calvinist, I don't see why a Catholic should take offense at being denominated a papist or Romanist.
Hence, I will continue to opine on the papistical popery of papistically papizing papists in the thrall of papistry and popedom.