In Anglican usage the term papalist is not a derogatory one. Nevertheless, it has always been looked on as a somewhat illogical view by those who do not share it.
It seems that Anglicans have always included amongst them some with a taste for ‘things Roman’ and in extreme cases they became known as papalists, sometimes spelt with a capitol P, as if to indicate a more extreme view. Yet, papalism does have its own internal logic not always understood. It involves complete obedience to the Roman line in all things except Anglican Orders.
Commenting on this Father Colin Stephenson says
There is the remarkable example of Bishop Goodman of Gloucester, so heartily disliked by Archbishop Laud, who was such a convinced papalist that he even went so far as to enquire from Rome if he might be received as a Roman layman while remaining an Anglican bishop. He recited the Roman Breviary and ordained from the Latin Ordinal, but one fears that his continuing in the Church of England was not entirely unconnected with the emoluments of his See.
As far as the internal logic of papalism as an Anglican's theological position goes it seems to me to be valid. After all the C. of E. is as much part of the Western Church as anyone. At least up to the time of the 'women's measure'.
As to whether or not papalist can be a dergatory term I think it does indeed depend on the context and, probably more importantly, on intention.
It only occured to me later that Eastern Catholics are papalists but NOT Roman Catholics. Of course, ECs retain their eastern liturgy married clergy etc etc yet are in communion with the Pope of Rome.
