The Pharisees were proud of their long history and their illustrious forefather Abraham, proclaiming,
“We (speaking only of themselves, not that “accursed people”) are Abraham's offspring and have never been slaves to anyone” and “Our father is Abraham”. (John 8:33, 39).
Yet Jesus said their ACTIONS showed them to be children of their real father, the Devil. (John 8:44)
All that fell on deaf ears even though some of the Pharisees did become followers of Jesus. Yet to do so they had to give up being Pharisees.
The Pharisees said they were “disciples of Moses” (John 9:28) and arrogantly asserted they needed no one to instruct THEM, unlike those “altogether born in sins”. (John 9:34)
But were these just a few “bad apples that don't spoil the whole barrel” or were they a few drops of kerosene in a jug of wine that did spoil the whole?
Jesus was not talking to the few when he said,
“Look!, your house is abandoned to you”. (Matt. 23:37)
What could that possibly mean? The nation of Israel had a covenant with God, it had the only acceptable center of worship and sacrifice, it had THE Temple of God, it had a priestly line, the Law “transmitted by the hand of angels”.
The religious leaders had learned nothing from what took place in 607 b.c. so now the covenant would be fulfilled by someone other than that “house” and 70 c.e. made clear what being “abandoned” by God meant. Those who disregarded Jesus’ warning about “getting out of her” perished.
The lesson is inescapable. God doesn't abandon His people but He alone defines who constitutes “His people”.
Rusty pipes or sewer pipes? It makes a difference.
Certainly it does. Let's look at the analogous situation which you bring up, that of the scribes and Pharisees:
Matthew 23:2,3Also, if we're going to pretend to rigor, let's be careful. Our Catholic scoundrels are REAL scoundrels. But not all the pipes are rusty. Some might seem to be solid gold.(2) "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
(3) so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."
There's a kind of temptation to circularity which starts with the perception that there are some abuses in the Catholic Church, then disagres with the teaching because of the abusers, and then finally discounts the good pipes because they teach what was taught by the rusty ones.
It seems like a reasonable process, BUT the data are obscured. Sometimes purposefully.
For example I just watched a National Geographic video which attributed the destruction of Mayan codices to "The Spanish Inquisition." Now there may have been Spaniards and there may have been an inquisition, but it wasn't the Spanish Inquisition.
But in this way, the persistent cultural unexamined concepts form an impressions so strong and fixed that when I mention my friends who actually look into the Spanish Inquisition, I am met not with historical counter-argument but with scorn.
"Everybody KNOWS" that the Spanish Inquisition was the focus of evil in its time, so not only does no one need to check it out, but those who do won't be listened to.
In this context, I am not swayed by tales of a few wicked clerics. I personally KNOW wicked non-Catholic clerics whose denominations were as cluck-headed as any Catholic bishop in dealing with them.
AND, I don't believe the liberal media, so I don't believe all the nonsense people take for granted about us.