On JohnMark's Blog, I originally thought this "flow chart" was made tongue in cheek. Apparently I was wrong. "That is the flowchart from James McCarthy's _The Gospel According to Rome_. Good book. Great flowchart." According to Rhology.
So, if you are Roman Catholic, enjoy figuring this out.
12 comments:
Its is amazing the length people will go to poke fun at the Catholics. You obviously don't have much experience with flow charts. Flow charts are mainly used in maufacturing to show or define a process or a peticular part of a process, such as how the raw material starts and ends up finished product. Or to show personal responisbility throughout a process. I have had to make many charts over the years as well as decipher others. Believe me when I tell you this flow charts is extremely simple. To the laymen that doesn't know how to read one it may seem complicated. Squares actually mean one thing, triangles mean another and so on. If I were to create a flow chart to show you how to cut a turkey successfully, or how a farmed turkey lives it life,it would look similar to what you have here. I could easily make a flow chart on chewing a stick of bubble gum appear way more complex than what you have here. If you want me to, I will, but you must post it underneath this blog if I do. Up to the challenge?
After really reviewing this, I can see this was make to look complicated on purpose. For instance, Box 4 and 5 (Box shows action) should be one box. The decision box (diamond is decision or multiple result) that says "end of life" then is answered "no" goes to the eucharist. So as if to say you either die or go to the echarist over and over until you die, or decide to die. this really does not make sense. Also instead of ending the flow with heaven or hell it goes into degree of heaven and degree off hell as if Catholics have different heavens for different people. Perhaps they say this, but I have never heard of this in the Catholic church. I'm not sure if the author of this chart is Catholic or not but I doubt it. If he is then He needs to learn more about Catholisism and about flow charts
"You obviously don't have much experience with flow charts."
????
"Believe me when I tell you this flow charts is extremely simple."
"After really reviewing this, I can see this was make to look complicated on purpose."
Which is it? After all, cooking turkeys or chewing gum is even more complicated?
"The decision box (diamond is decision or multiple result) that says "end of life" then is answered "no" goes to the eucharist."
The chart at this point is explaining how the RC dosctrine of justification works. Justification is a process and therefore, when a RC does a sacrament such as the Eucharist, he gains more of the merits of Christ. So I see nothing wrong with the chart at this point.
"degree of heaven and degree off hell as if Catholics have different heavens for different people"
The chart didn't show that at all. Perhaps different rewards as refered to by "degree" of puhnishment.
"I'm not sure if the author of this chart is Catholic or not but I doubt it."
I am curious where you see that he is in error. He was actually trying to simplify the RC system to the layman and no, he is not RC.
To be honest, I put this on not because I thought the chart was complex, but that the system itself would even need a flow chart. RCs have tons (quite literally) of material to review in order to truly understand the system. Therefore the system is quite complex and that the flowchart would be helpful for some.
I'll take John 3 anyday over a system that denies the sufficiency of Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria
p.s. "If you want me to, I will, but you must post it underneath this blog if I do. Up to the challenge?"
If you feel you must.
"Its is amazing the length people will go to poke fun at the Catholics."
I did wish to deal with this one separately. I do not go to great lengths to poke fun. Neither did the author of this flow chart. In fact, the author of this flow chart is doing anything but "poking fun". He takes the souls of men as seriously as any RC.
I do however believe humor is a great way to break the ice so to speak and get people to look at themselves and what they believe. As you know, I used to be an avid fan of Saturday Night Live.
The humor I did see in the flow chart was not the comlpexity of it, but the fact that it actually needs to exist for people to understand RCism.
One last point, if you have followed this Blog with any regularity whatsoever, you know that I have "poked fun" at more Protestants than any other group combined.
In fact, I have been arguing against the anti-Calvinistic crusading of several Protestants including Dave Hunt and Adrian, Rogers and Jerry Falwell. I have even had debates with King James Only Fundamentalists.
The idea that I am going out of my way to get Catholics while ignoring my own house (that is on fire) is simply not the case.
Anyone remember the term "evanjellycal"?
The chart at this point is explaining how the RC dosctrine of justification works. Justification is a process and therefore, when a RC does a sacrament such as the Eucharist, he gains more of the merits of Christ. So I see nothing wrong with the chart at this point.
The chart shows a decision box stating if you die then you go in one direction if you dont then you go to the eucharist. As if somehow wheather or not you make it through the week alive tells you if you should recieve communion. If thats how you look at it then a flow chart for your religion would be the same except it would be communion intstead of eucharist. Presenting it in this way is meant to make the eucharist look silly. Any action that is performed by any religion on a regular basis (if your not dead)could be shown in the same way.
"degree of heaven and degree off hell as if Catholics have different heavens for different people"
The chart didn't show that at all. Perhaps different rewards as refered to by "degree" of puhnishment.
The chart most certainly show a decision box after heaven. Stating that RC's believe there is some step after heaven, and there is somehow defferent degrees of grace for different people.
"Believe me when I tell you this flow charts is extremely simple."
"After really reviewing this, I can see this was make to look complicated on purpose."
Which is it? After all, cooking turkeys or chewing gum is even more complicated?
My point is that a flow chart presented to the laymen for something very simple will appear complicated, that is obviously the intention of the author. I seriously doubt he was really trying to simplify RCism for people so that it could be discussed. I say to you it is simple. When reading a flow chart it is best to look at starting point, ending point, then decision boxes, then actions before decision boxes. This allows you to simplify it in your head and break the chart into segments. So I am telling you since this chart only has 7 or 8 decision boxes it is very simple, But to the laymen it appears very complex. Since it also not accurate it appears more complex than nessisary. I could give you a flow chart on RCism half the size and twice the accuracy.
"If thats how you look at it then a flow chart for your religion would be the same except it would be communion intstead of eucharist."
If you wish to compare apples and pickle juice. You must understand meaning of terminology between Protestants and RCs is as different as night from day. Terms have meaning and until you come to a place where you understand the differences, we will be arguing past each other.
"Presenting it in this way is meant to make the eucharist look silly. Any action that is performed by any religion on a regular basis (if your not dead)could be shown in the same way."
I never saw it as silly. I do not know why you think so. RCs take the Eucharist seriously and so did the author of the flow chart. There was nothing silly about it.
But again, what is meant by the author is meant by the RC system to achieve (notice achieve is not something that can even be thought of in the Reformed Tradition) justification. A vastly different system indeed.
"The chart didn't show that at all. Perhaps different rewards as refered to by "degree" of puhnishment."
You misunderstood the chart. Although the author shows getting to heaven first. This would perhaps signify what happens before a person is judged as to what degree of rewards he will get while there. You are simply reading something the author did not intend. The decision is made by Christ Himself based on your merits.
"Since it also not accurate it appears more complex than nessisary. I could give you a flow chart on RCism half the size and twice the accuracy."
Where is the author being inaccurate? In order for you to be able to make a better flow chart, you would need to know doctrine.
I have been debating RCs for almost 15 years. I think I have come to grasp some understanding of what it is they believe. I am not claiming to be an expert, but I do know one thing, you are just starting on your journey. Trust me when I say you have not yet even begun to learn the major differences that should be obvious to everyone.
Keep studying though. If you make a chart that is accurate to RCism, then I'll post it.
Soli Deo Gloria
If you wish to compare apples and pickle juice. You must understand meaning of terminology between Protestants and RCs is as different as night from day. Terms have meaning and until you come to a place where you understand the differences, we will be arguing past each other.
Your missing my point, I understand the ucharist and communion are not the same. What I'm saying is any action could be shown the same way. Having wheather you live or die be some kind of decision as wheather or not the ucharist is performed is no more accurate than it would be for communion.
"The chart didn't show that at all. Perhaps different rewards as refered to by "degree" of puhnishment."
Yes Howie, that is exactly what the chart shows. If you think that it should be shown before heaven than that is how it should be written. Hence the "Flow Chart" shows what comes first.
You say that I do not understand the differences between RCism and Protestent. All the more reason to show the flow accurately.
Where is the author being inaccurate? In order for you to be able to make a better flow chart, you would need to know doctrine.
I have been debating RCs for almost 15 years. I think I have come to grasp some understanding of what it is they believe. I am not claiming to be an expert, but I do know one thing, you are just starting on your journey. Trust me when I say you have not yet even begun to learn the major differences that should be obvious to everyone.
I am not here saying I know more about the doctrine than you. What I am saying to you is I know Flow charts, and to use a flow chart to try to show someone the Catholic religion is no different than trying to flow chart Jesus's teachings.Its the wrong tool for the job. Religion is not an actual process than can be charted. You can chart specific processes within a religion such as how communion is performed, but to lump Rcism into a flow chart is absurd. I came to this realization as I tried to create a flow chart myself. It hit me, this is no more of a process than a car accecident. So then I ask myself, why was someone trying to apply a tool used to chart a process to RCism. FLow charts are used to Stream line processes, assign personal responsibility ect... Is that why the author created this chart? So then why was it created? To try to make it look unnessisarly complex is my guess.
Apples and pickle juice? oh I get it, yours is the apples and RCism is the pickle juice. You wont win any Cathilics over with moral superiority. Is that the purpose of the chart to evangilize?
"Apples and pickle juice? oh I get it, yours is the apples and RCism is the pickle juice. You wont win any Cathilics over with moral superiority. Is that the purpose of the chart to evangilize?"
Do you really think I was saying that RCism is pickle juice. I was simply taking a common phrase and trying to show that the differences were much greater.
The purpose of the chart is to show how a RC believes he is justified.
As for moral superiority, the RC/Protestant debate has been over the truth of the Gospel, not who thinks he is morally better. The RC system is a system of merits by faith earned by sacraments. The Protestant "system" is justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This is what the Bible teaches.
"FLow charts are used to Stream line processes, assign personal responsibility ect... Is that why the author created this chart? So then why was it created? To try to make it look unnessisarly complex is my guess."
The author was trying to demonstrate "how" a man is "justified" in the RC system. The flow chart was created for that purpose.
"Your missing my point, I understand the ucharist and communion are not the same. What I'm saying is any action could be shown the same way. Having wheather you live or die be some kind of decision as wheather or not the ucharist is performed is no more accurate than it would be for communion."
Point taken. But I think the author is simply communicating that for the RC, in order to gain justification, he must by faith gain the merits of Christ. You do this through the Eucharist until you die. I don't think he was trying to say anything more.
In the end, you don't think the flow chart is accurate. I personally see it as fairly accurate as to how one gains the merits of Christ in the RC system.
The author was trying to demonstrate "how" a man is "justified" in the RC system. The flow chart was created for that purpose.
My opinion is that it is a little deeper than that. I believe the author is trying to make RCism appear more complex than it actually is. As if it is full of unnessisary steps. For instance, he could have easily had one starting point then go to baptismal. Instead he choose to have two starting points. One for newborn, one for adult, If you follow the adult path it goes through [first actual grace] then [faith] then [good works] and so on. Do these steps need to be there. Can't the adult be baptised first then move on. So the adult and newborn could be the same starting point. So if you follow the adult path it goes through grace, faith, good works two seperate times. Now, am I to believe if he charts his own religion that he makes two seperate starting points, one for adults and one for newborn. To my point this was created more to confuse than to clarify in my opinion. On your origional post you even say "so if your a RC, enjoy figuring this out". So in your own opinion this is somehow complex and that is why you posted it.
God Bless, Jim
P.S. what the heck is first actual grace anyway. I looked up grace on different catholic web sites because I didn't understand what it meant. I found grace and what the Catholics believe it is, but I can't find the term "first actual grace" anywhere. Since it is the first step on the chart(seperate from grace) I figured it must be important.
"On your origional post you even say "so if your a RC, enjoy figuring this out". So in your own opinion this is somehow complex and that is why you posted it."
I said that tongue and cheek, simply because the system is far more complicated than the Bible teaches. Justification according to the Scripture is by Christ's work and His alone. RCism does not believe this.
"My opinion is that it is a little deeper than that. I believe the author is trying to make RCism appear more complex than it actually is."
This assumes the intentions of the author. That is fine. Personally I find the system more complicated than it needs to be. Salvation is plainly taught throughout Scripture. But when Rome is your ultimate authority, Scripture means whatever they say it means.
" Instead he choose to have two starting points."
Yes, these two starting points are necessary. Remember that you are dealing with a sacramental system in order to gain the merits of Christ. In the RC system, baptism is what saves you from original sin. That is why RCs have such a concern for infant baptism when babies die. I simply reject the idea. The Bible in no way teaches that some human work (such as physical baptism) is what saves.
"If you follow the adult path it goes through [first actual grace] then [faith] then [good works] and so on. Do these steps need to be there. Can't the adult be baptised first then move on."
I agree. This I think was difficult for the author. I am not sure how to improve on it without consulting a RC. But I am sure there would be a variety of opinions there too.
"what the heck is first actual grace anyway"
I agree that the author went a little shallow here. He was trying to take a difficult conept with difficult terminology and simplify it. Again, I am not sure how he could improve on it.
This first actual grace has also been called prevenient grace. It is the grace that is available to all men. We must cooperate with that Grace in order to be baptised and get saved.
This was at the heart of the debate in the Reformation and still is today. Is the Gospel where God's grace comes to sinners who must of their own free-will cooperate in oder to be saved? Or is it that men are DEAD in their sins and UNABLE to cooperate with God's grace for salvation, therefore God's grace must save and save alone.
The Protestant position does not deny prevenient grace. We (those of use who still adhere to Scripture Alone) simply believe prevenient grace saves no one. God must save and save alone.
Soli Deo Gloria
Oh how I miss the days from long ago, when we would all sit around in the Fisher basement and listen to the sweet, sweet sounds of the two Fisher boys debating over life’s greatest issues and then deciding if we should take Dave’s Capri or Howie’s Yellow Banana. Oh how life was so simple then.
rotfl...who is this?
:-)
Post a Comment