A secretary is not a petThe usage giving rise to the double-entendre presumably entered the language well after AC Gilbert first marketed his product in 1913. The same with "Anglo-Papalism". I have heard that uninstructed Americans are incapable of understanding that Anglo-Papalists can only be members of a particular movement in the Church of England, not The Episcopal Church or the "Continuum". The Wikipedia entry I cited yesterday notes that it, in contrast to "Anglican Papalism", is a locution of US origin, and, per the contexts I cited yesterday (and could no doubt continue to cite) is at root a vague and confusing term.
Nor an e-rector set.
It happened to Charlie McCoy, boy:
They fired him like a shot
The day the fellow forgot
A secretary is not a toy.
After all, the whole concept, how Anglicans might become Catholic or otherwise place themselves under the authority of the Pope, is subject to numerous interpretations. A uniate liturgy would be just one possibility. In the US, an Anglican can go in via RCIA, via Anglican Use, or via the US-Canadian Ordinariate. Are all, some, or none who go in this way "Anglo-Papalists"? I'm puzzled that anyone would want to insist on a single, exclusive definition for the term -- dictionaries, to deal with multiple meanings, have definitions listed 1, 2, 3, etc.
On the other hand, I heard the story once of an undergraduate who got a paper back from a professor who'd made angry red marks to the effect that he'd misused a certain word. The student took out his dictionary, went to see the prof, and pointed out definition 3, which matched his own usage. The prof, unfazed, took out his pencil, seized the dictionary, and crossed out definition 3.
When dealing with the Ordinariates, sometimes I'm reminded of that mindset.
