Help with terminology

GarIT

If anyone knows can they please tell me the word that means a religion that has to believe everything in the bible and the word that means the religion can pick and choose what it wants to believe.

Brer Fox

GarIT wrote: »

If anyone knows can they please tell me the word that means a religion that has to believe everything in the bible and the word that means the religion can pick and choose what it wants to believe.

Christian Fundamentalists claim to take everything literally (but don't in reality).

'A la carte catholics' believe the teachings of Catholicism they like and discard the rest.

Onesimus

Brer Fox wrote: »

Christian Fundamentalists claim to take everything literally (but don't in reality).

'A la carte catholics' believe the teachings of Catholicism they like and discard the rest.

Yes but it is not a ''religion'' though, just a disobedience. I think the poster is looking for the theological terms which I'm afraid I dont have.

GarIT

Thanks but thats not what I was looking for, I probably explained what I was looking for wrong. If im correct in what im thinking Catholics have to believe what the pope says but in some other denominations the members of the religion can choose to believe the leader if they want to. Theres a word for it I just cant find.

georgieporgy

freethinkers

GarIT

I think I just came up with a better description, all religions are classed into two categories, those where you must believe every teaching and the other type where you can choose to believe a teaching or not. There is a name for each but I can't think of them at all.

Onesimus

GarIT wrote: »

Thanks but thats not what I was looking for, I probably explained what I was looking for wrong. If im correct in what im thinking Catholics have to believe what the pope says but in some other denominations the members of the religion can choose to believe the leader if they want to. Theres a word for it I just cant find.

Catholics do not have to believe what the Pope says. We are ''obedient'' to what the Pope says as long as it does not contradict Faith and Morals. The Pope simply ''protects'' the faith and has only exorcised his infallibility twice in the 2000 history of the Church and that was to complete two dogmas that were already believed by the Early Church fathers and surrounding faithful. But to cancel out any confusion he made them dogmas.

Anything the Pope says can be questioned respectfully.

Onesimus

GarIT

Onesimus wrote: »

Catholics do not have to believe what the Pope says. We are ''obedient'' to what the Pope says as long as it does not contradict Faith and Morals. The Pope simply ''protects'' the faith and has only exorcised his infallibility twice in the 2000 history of the Church and that was to complete two dogmas that were already believed by the Early Church fathers and surrounding faithful. But to cancel out any confusion he made them dogmas.

Anything the Pope says can be questioned respectfully.

Onesimus

Its not what the pope says, just teachings in general, leave it at that.

Onesimus

GarIT wrote: »

Its not what the pope says, just teachings in general, leave it at that.

They are not his teachings but of the Holy Spirit. His interpretation of those teachings is something that can be challenged or thrashed out with respect by theologians though.

Run_to_da_hills

Onesimus wrote: »

Catholics do not have to believe what the Pope says. We are ''obedient'' to what the Pope says as long as it does not contradict Faith and Morals. The Pope simply ''protects'' the faith and has only exorcised his infallibility twice in the 2000 history of the Church and that was to complete two dogmas that were already believed by the Early Church fathers and surrounding faithful. But to cancel out any confusion he made them dogmas.

Anything the Pope says can be questioned respectfully.

Onesimus

when we were in school we were always led to believe that the Pope was infallible (inflammable as we use to say.)

Onesimus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

when we were in school we were always led to believe that the Pope was inflammable.

hhahaha well just about anyone is inflammable Rtdh. :pac:

Manach

Historically, the non-theological pronounces of the Papacy have been and can be called into question and their personal morals (eg of Great Schism and the Medici Popes).However my understanding that the Papal infalliblity process only comes into effect in certain circumstances. These relate to Catholic teaching, and then usually when there is a clarification to be made and not on settled doctrine. To a lesser degree Church councils have a high measure of standing on matters of faith and morals.

Brer Fox

Manach wrote: »

Historically, the non-theological pronounces of the Papacy have been and can be called into question and their personal morals (eg of Great Schism and the Medici Popes).However my understanding that the Papal infalliblity process only comes into effect in certain circumstances. These relate to Catholic teaching, and then usually when there is a clarification to be made and not on settled doctrine. To a lesser degree Church councils have a high measure of standing on matters of faith and morals.

There's an interesting table here about infallibility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#Levels

philologos

GarIT wrote: »

If anyone knows can they please tell me the word that means a religion that has to believe everything in the bible and the word that means the religion can pick and choose what it wants to believe.

First: I think I would say Bible focused. The position that every Christian belief must have roots in the Bible is Sola Scriptura (the word alone). Personally, I hold to Sola Scriptura in respect to the Bible.

Second: a la carte I guess.

Some people have misunderstood the word fundamentalist. The word fundamentalist only means that you focus on the fundamentals of Christianity, I.E What is Biblical.

Slav

GarIT wrote: »

I think I just came up with a better description, all religions are classed into two categories, those where you must believe every teaching and the other type where you can choose to believe a teaching or not. There is a name for each but I can't think of them at all.

The former would be religious confessionalism (or confessional theology, confessional religion, dogmatic religion); the later would be religious liberalism (or liberal religion, liberal theology).

This division is not however as black and white. In liberalism there are still a number of basic beliefs and if you reject them you put yourself outside of this religion. Similarly in confessionalism in practice there is a certain degree of theological pluralism where different (and sometimes even conflicting) opinions called theologoumena (sg. theologoumenon) can be accommodated under the same confession if they meet certain criteria.

In Christianity, the vast majority of denominations can be considered confessional with Roman Catholicism being (arguably) the strictest in its confessionalism. An example of Christian-related liberal religion is Unitarian Universalism.

kelly1

Guys, eveyone know the Pope is inflammable!

martinedwards

I know some fundy prods around here who would be willing to try though......

as to the OP, Id say Fundamental for the full belief, and liberal for the "loose leaf bible" brigade.

Benny_Cake

martinedwards wrote: »

I know some fundy prods around here who would be willing to try though......

as to the OP, Id say Fundamental for the full belief, and liberal for the "loose leaf bible" brigade.

Generally I find very few denominations would describe themselves as fundamentalist or liberal (with the Unitarians being an exception). Bible-believing or progressive are the two most common descriptions used, although it effectively means the same thing as fundamentalist or liberal.

HamletOrHecuba

Slav wrote: »

In Christianity, the vast majority of denominations can be considered confessional with Roman Catholicism being (arguably) the strictest in its confessionalism. An example of Christian-related liberal religion is Unitarian Universalism.

No way can Roman Catholicism be considered to be stricter in terms of confessionalism than the Greek Old Calendarists or the Russian Old Ritualists!

Slav

That's why I said arguably.

The reason why I consider Roman Catholicism to have stricter confessionalism is because it dogmatises on more things then other Christian traditions so technically it leaves (relatively) less space for theological pluralism.

Brer Fox

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

No way can Roman Catholicism be considered to be stricter in terms of confessionalism than the Greek Old Calendarists or the Russian Old Ritualists!

Are they both so old that they no longer exist? :pac:

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

Are they both so old that they no longer exist? :pac:

No the Greek Old Calendarists as a separate entity only came into existence in the 1920s when a Freemason who had become the Patriarchate of Constaninople together with the Greek government changed the old Church calendar as part of a move to unite the Greek Orthodox with the Anglicans. I was madly in love with one (we are still friends but I dont think I could ever go her way) and they are seriously hardcore- the SSPX is very mild in comparison. They do have a tendency to anathemize each other though. Her Bishop considers other Bishops we was with just a decade or so ago as "Neo-Frankist Barlamites" for instance.