# Cartoon Says it all about Roman Catholicism



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 7, 2009)

Received this series of cartoons from a Roman Catholic acquaintance. For him it summed up the meaning of the Cross:


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 7, 2009)

Wow, that is sad.


----------



## ClayPot (Dec 7, 2009)

These cartoons make me feel thankful that I am justified on the basis of Christ's righteousness and not the righteousness that I "merit" by "cooperating" with the grace God has worked in me. I hope your friend can realize that these cartoons point to the inadequacy of the Roman Catholic "gospel".


----------



## earl40 (Dec 7, 2009)

This is more like a cartoon depicting arminianism. That is how I saw it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 8, 2009)

I don't think any cartoon fully captures any theology. Perhaps my thread title says too much. My point is that Roman Catholicism, like many religions that add man's work, has affected the individual's thinking so he looks at the cartoon and thinks: "How true that is."

There's a lot that can be said about what comes before that thought but it's always instructive to me to see how certain ideas or "pictures" strike people. It often says more in how a person thinks about a small thing than an extended conversation might produce.

I have no doubt that if I showed this cartoon to a majority of Christians they would think: "Right on." It's kind of the "Footprints in the sand" thing.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 8, 2009)

Whoa.

Or, more fitting, 'Woe'.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 8, 2009)

earl40 said:


> This more like a cartoon depicting arminianism. That is how I saw it.


 Me too. 

The bad thing is that many will see this cartoon as truth and heed it. They will think that bearing the cross will earn them salvation so they must endure, instead of enduring because He already bore our sins on the cross.


----------



## Theogenes (Dec 8, 2009)

Salvation through suffering...that's why they invented purgatory. Truly a sad and dark religion.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 8, 2009)

The cartoon might work (theologically) if someone was trying to whittle down Jesus' cross and find out that _it_ was too short to close the gap (i.e. man made redemption is insufficient) but even that would be inaccurate for no one can destroy what Christ has done. 

Good thing we don't need pictures to tell us the truth:

*Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 98*



> Q. But may images not be tolerated in the churches as "books for the laity"?
> A. No, for we should not be wiser than God. He wants His people to be taught not by means of dumb images but by the living preaching of His Word.


----------



## johnbugay (Dec 8, 2009)

I appreciate your bringing Roman Catholicism to the attention of the board here. I do see how "the meaning of the Cross" can be shown as the only way to cross the great chasm between God and man. (I first saw the gospel in a small tract on the "four spiritual laws" that used a graphic of the cross in a similar way.)

On the other hand, Catholicism does "make the cross too small" -- indeed, it obscures it as well. (The "one sacrifice of Christ" is "re-presented" on a daily basis, completely robbed of all its salvific effect, except for its ability to provide some satisfaction for the temporal punishments of those in purgatory).

I agree too that your thread title says too much -- there is much, much to say about Roman Catholicism today, starting with the idea that, even though many of the basics are the same, the outward face truly has changed a great deal, almost to the point that it's not the same RCC as the one Luther and Calvin faced. In that regard, I think a lot of Reformed believers will really be surprised at the coherence and the winsomeness of what's being portrayed as "The Church" today.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 8, 2009)

Well this board certainly does not lack for more full-orbed critiques of the system of doctrine in the Cults and World Religion forum. It wasn't my intent to bring the full problem with RCC in this thread per se but simply to express sadness that this is how one very dear to me misapprehends the Cross.

I was raised Roman Catholic and very devoutly so. My entire family is still very much devoted to the religion and it is very grievous to me.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 8, 2009)

I'm too literal - they all look too short!

Good cartoon, Rich!


----------



## johnbugay (Dec 9, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Well this board certainly does not lack for more full-orbed critiques of the system of doctrine in the Cults and World Religion forum.



And I am grateful for such discussions, but even today, there are many things in flux, presenting opportunities for the Gospel on one hand, and genuine dangers for Reformed believers on the other hand, but many of the discussions here focus on the Council of Trent.

I think there is much need, for example, to talk about the current (post-1995) trends on discussions about the papacy. Pope JPII (in "Ut Unum Sint") asked for proposals on "a new situation" regarding the papacy. But I am not familiar with anything from the Reformed world that discusses this. 



> It wasn't my intent to bring the full problem with RCC in this thread per se but simply to express sadness that this is how one very dear to me misapprehends the Cross.



And I was, in my own limited way, simply trying to be agreeable.



> I was raised Roman Catholic and very devoutly so. My entire family is still very much devoted to the religion and it is very grievous to me.



It seems as if a lot of people are in this position, but once they leave the RCC, it's easier just to find a home in a Reformed church, without going back and revisiting (and re-thinking) what's actually going on in the world of the RCC. But a case could be made that the RCC is, almost 500 years after the Reformation, not only unreformed, but is doctrinally far worse than it was at Trent, and it is continuing present many, many snares and dangers to Reformed believers. 

For example, nobody here, aside from myself (that I am aware of), is actually interacting with Scott Hahn's latest book. Though it evidently is highly recommended by Michael Horton. (I seem to have more critics than Hahn does, though I am grateful for individuals here who seem to be interested in discussing this.) 

Nobody here seems even to have mentioned "Called to Communion," but that is a work by some pretty smart people, most of whom are formerly Reformed, many of whom either have or are working toward advanced degrees, and their sole mission seems to be to "win Reformed believers back home to Rome."


----------

