The Anonymous One (TAO): an active anti-Catholic Calvinist polemicist, has been using these terms (long considered insulting and inappropriate in gentlemanly theological discourse, and certainly not "scholarly") for some time. I thought it would be interesting to document it:
Dave Armstrong is himself a papist . . .
( 7-7-08 )
My papist colleague's rebuttal is due August 1, 2008.
( 7-2-08 )
Wycliffe received martyrdom for his troubles, and the papist authorities sought to destroy the copies of the Bible that he printed. . . . the papists dug up Wycliffe's bones and burnt them . . .
( 6-3-08 )
Thus, without animosity or without intent to disparage, you may find reference in the debate to the church that confesses, as its earthly head, Benedict XVI, variously as the “Roman Catholic” (RC) church, the Romanist church, or the papists. I don’t mean to use those terms jeeringly, and I hope no unnecessary offense will be taken at them. I recognize that papists prefer the term “Catholic,” but that term is misleading and inaccurate – and putting it in quotation marks in every instance would seem to be at least as much a distraction as using the descriptive term “papist” to describe those who hold to the supposed infallibility of the Roman pontiff, or “Romanist” to describe those who view Rome as being the seat of government of the entire Church of God. In any event, I trust that the learned reader who is himself a Roman Catholic, whether of Latin rite, Byzantine rite, or Chaldean rite, will look past the labels involved and search the Scriptures to see whether their church is in error.
( 6-1-08 )
The fact that it has come to be accepted by the papists doesn't make Purgatory any more orthodox than the idea of successful intercession on behalf of souls in hell.
( 5-20-08 )
Even the papists recognize that the command was not absolute.
( 5-17-08 )
. . . the papist notion that Mary, as "Queen of Heaven," is the queen of Mercy . . .
( 5-14-08 )
Now doubtless those advocating the papist position today might argue that there is no better advocate before Jesus than Mary - and not simply no better advocate than Mary.
( 5-13-08 )
I have to be consistent, using the same arguments defending the faith against Muslims as against Mormons and Papists.
( 5-5-08 )
Dave's demonstration of his ignorance of Reformed theology or the valid objections to Romanist soteriology . . .
( 3-27-08 )
Please keep the author of this post in your prayers, that he may be set free from the bondage of papist superstition by the light of the gospel!
( 12-9-07 )
Here's some sermon audio as to some reasons why it may be honoring to God to abstain from celebrating Christmas this year. (link) But, if you are going to celebrate it, do so to the Lord, without (as the papists attempt) making it an obligation on your Christian brethren.
( 12-8-07 )
Guy Fawkes Day is a great chance to commemorate the defeat of a treacherous Roman Catholic plot to kill King James and much of Parliament. Proposed mode of celebration: 1) The traditional fireworks in mockery of the papist explosive and incendiary plot; . . .
( 11-5-07 )
Here's a great example of why I am not an Evidentialist, Quasi-Evidentialist, or - for that matter - Romanist: . . .
( 9-19-07 )
Polemical Papist, Dave Armstrong, took personal offense today, at the critique of his recently released book, "One Minute Apologist."
( 6-14-07 )
Romanist Apologist - Sippo Lampoons Self [title]
( 6-9-07 )
Contrary to your assertion, the Papist view of works is quite different from the Reformed perspective on works, . . .
( 5-28-07 )
Comments by a Romanist, "Fred," Responded To [title]
( 5-28-07 )
There are arguments against independency, but the idea that Independents are outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is pseudo-papist propoganda, and nothing more.
( 3-23-07 )
* * * * *
Now, TAO wouldn't be an anti-Catholic (and this term is a scholarly one, as I have copiously documented) worth his salt, if he didn't exhibit a blatant double standard, in objecting to being called something himself, while continuing to use terms that he knows full well (see his entry for 6-1-08 above) are objectionable to the recipients of them. And so we plainly see his manifest hypocrisy:
Dave publishes a list of recommended books, but cannot pass up the opportunity to bash "anti-Catholic" books (link).
( 7-2-08 )
Dave directs his charity to Carrie, insisting (irrationally) that she is unaware of his sophistical distinction between Protestants in general and "Anti-Catholics" (which, as we have explored, is about as silly as suggesting that the pope is "Anti-Semitic" because he prays for the conversion of the Jews in his "Good Friday" prayer) (link to post).
( 5-13-08 )
Dave continues to mislabel his theological opponents, with such ultra-charitable descriptions as: "rabid anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists like Steve Hays and David T. King and Kevin Johnson and TAO [yours truly, apparently Dave does not like to call me by my screenname], and now in this Lutheran quasi-anti-Catholic."
( 5-7-08 )
It is too easy to drown out the message with a hymn - it is too easy to write off the messenger as a "rabid anti-Catholic." The mockery in the Catholic blog post above demonstrates both of the ways in which the message will be minimized. . . .
I'm not in favor of this sort of apologetic methodology, at least not in the society in which we live. I am not trying to judge the man in the video: I don't know his heart, his motivation, or his intent. Perhaps he simply longs for the Catholics in his community to be saved. Calling him an "anti-Catholic" for that it is wrong.
(4 -6-08 )
Dave finds fresh reason to. . . misuse his favorite word, "anti-Catholic" . . .
( 4-1-08 )
Some Roman Catholics will still call us names like "anti-Catholic" (see this example). Nevertheless, such characterizations show that they missed the point of the dialog as much as the Jews missed the point of the Catholic-Jewish dialog.
( 2-13-08 )
But we should go further, because Dave has asked a slightly different question than the justification question. In the process, though, he has stumbled about a bit, striking out a doctrines that are not representative of the Christian position that he openly opposes (calling it names, like "anti-Catholicism," on many of his web pages).
( 2-11-08 )
P.S. Dave's maturity and honesty in dealing with this situation is illustrated by his response to this post as evidenced by his description of this post on his inappropriately titled "Anti-Catholicism" web page: . . .
( 10-29-07 )
If the point is to be able to label me as an "anti-Catholic" the debate is pretextual; . . .Far from being "anti-Catholic" we continue to call on Rome to reform her ways, remove the corruption, and embrace the gospel of Christ. We call those Christians who are in the Roman Catholic church to consider whether Reformation is still possible, and - if not - to leave for an evangelical church, where the gospel is preached.
( 10-27-07 )
Misuse of "Anti-Catholicism" Documented [title]
Peter Pike (as quoted by Dave Armstrong) wrote:
Calling someone an anti-Catholic is like calling someone an anti-semite. The connotations are the same, and Armstrong fully knows that. . . .Dave knows the connotations and uses the term anyway.
Dave, you know full well it's an inflammatory label. So please - stop making excuses. [his bolding and larger font size; the red color is added presently]
You've received numerous complaints about it from those you so label, so you cannot plead ignorance.
P.S. And there are also self-serving reasons for you to limit your use of such inflammatory labels.
1) Overuse Weakens the Negativity of "Anti-Catholic"
When someone brings up documents like "The Aweful Disclosures of Maria Monk," (link) you may want to assert that she was an Anti-Catholic in order to cast aspersions on her testimony regarding the extreme wickedness of the convent in which she lived. If, however, you just mean she is in the same class as Dr. White and Mr. Pike, the force of your negative labeling will be significantly abated.
2) Using a Narrow Definition may Prevent Arguably Legitimate Use of the Term
Furthermore, if you limit yourself to the definition you provided, you may be unable fairly to call Mrs. Monk an Anti-Catholic, as she does not give any indication of asserting that "Catholicism is not a Christian system." Likewise, if you limit yourself to your narrow definition, you will not be able to call many legitimate Catholic-hating Atheists and Agnostics "Anti-Catholics" because they would probably fully agree with you that "Catholicism is a Christian system."
3) You Look Foolish, Asking Us to Believe Something You Don't as a Prerequisite to Avoiding your Label
Your standard that: "Catholicism is a fully Christian belief-system, every bit as legitimately Christian as any other brand of Protestantism" is not even something that you hold to. You don't believe (assuming you bought Ben16's recent comments) that Catholicism is "as legitimately Christian" as "other brand[s] of Protestantism" (let's overlook the grammatical irregularity). You believe that Roman Catholicism is MORE legitimately Christian than at least some of the "other brand[s] of Protestantism." At least, I think you do. If you don't, please say so, because more than a few people are leaving their "brand of Protestantism" for "Roman Catholicism" because they believe it is more legitimately Christian. If you don't share their view, please say so.
4) Finally, Applying the Same Standard to your Beliefs would Produce a Result You Wouldn't Like
If I'm correct about what you believe than you have set yourself up as an "Anti-Protestant" (using the reasoning you yourself provided, but applied in reverse to "any other brand of Protestantism"). I don't suppose you'd like to be called an Anti-Protestant (though who knows), so perhaps you could try not to call Dr. White and Mr. Pike "Anti-Catholics," even if you feel your reasoning is legitimate, based on placing yourself in their shoes.
( 10-4-07 )
Notice that Steve Ray has taken the "label 'anti-Catholic' rather than debate sensibly" page from Dave Armstrong's book.
( 9-24-07 )
* * * * *
And of course (with complete, droning ultra-predictability), TAO joins his anti-Catholic cronies (I've documented their similar uses over and over) in inconsistently using his own set of "anti" terms, while continuing to object to our perfectly acceptable, scholarly use of "anti-Catholic":
Dave turns to one of his perennial favorites, Steve Hays, falsely accusing Hays of hypocrisy over Hays' appropriate use of the classification "anti-Calvinist." (link)
( 5-19-08 )
This odd ability, which is - by definition - never ever used, is made up from thin air. It is itself the conclusion and the premise of many anti-Calvinistic arguments.
( 3-25-08 )
One rather aggressive non-Calvinist (even to the point of being an anti-Calvinist) recently (maybe two years ago, by now) sent a challenge (shown below). . . . The distortion of the Scripture by this Anti-Calvinist starts immediately. . . . Yet the Anti-Calvinist foolishly claims that all can hear. The Anti-Calvinist also asserts that Jesus declares that there are no chosen or predestined ones. . . . So, not only does Jesus not declare the Anti-Calvinist's message, He and his apostles and evangelists declare the opposite. Furthermore, the Anti-Calvinist's paraphrase (“Any person in the world, Hear my message. I want to save each and every one of you”) is dead wrong. . . . completely fabricated by the Anti-Calvinist, . . . The Anti-Calvinists concluding remark that predestination is a myth is clearly wrong, . . . the Anti-Calvinists' final word . . . we can justly reject the lies of this Anti-Calvinist, and his perversion of the gospel of Christ . . . the Anti-Calvinist says: . . . It is ironic how well Christ's methodology works even today, and on this Anti-Calvinist. . . . The Anti-Calvinist's final comment . . . But the Anti-Calvinist says: . . .
[I counted 109 further uses of this term (and its close variations) in the same paper before I got tired of counting. There was much more paper to go. TAO quite possibly could have used the term as many as 300 to 400 times! It was almost like a mantra.]
( 1-12-08 )
Shiny New Anti-Calvinist Web Site [title]
Here is the latest anti-Calvinist propaganda site put forth by Dan Corner (link), . . . P.S. Special note to "anti-" misusers Hidden One and Dave Armstrong: lest you think I'm misusing the term, note that the web address is "No Calvinism" and that in the "audio" page of the website, the website states: "Visit our favorite anti-Calvinism site." (with that link being to Dan Corner's main web page, "Evangelical Outreach").
( 1-5-08 )
A number of writers who are not Calvinist in the conventional sense have desired to be called Calvinist, for one reason or another. Some anti-Calvinists will find this hard to believe.
( 12-1-07 )
I had already thoroughly documented his hypocritical use of these "anti" terms prior to 9-24-07: Anti-Catholic "Turretinfan" Joins His Cronies in Exhibiting "Anti" Language Hypocrisy and Double Standards (+ Discussion).