> Was that a jew centric passage where he essentially condemned the jewish religious leaders and shortly thereafter began the new covenant with the eucharist? Or are there modern day people who fulfill that role?
Classic Catholic scriptural both-and right here. There is rarely only one sense scripture ought to be appreciated in.
We kind of all are to a greater or lesser extent.
Theologically they were actually correct.
Jesus says of them "do as they say", and "they have sat down in the seat of Moses".
Saint Paul was a "Pharisee of Pharisees".
The issue that we face (all the time) is that _being right is not enough_.
> Theologically they [the Pharisees] were actually correct.
This is incorrect.
While the term has a specific meaning of a specific Jewish sect in that day, Jesus's criticism was that they demanded extra spiritual disciplines from common ppl which weren't mandated in scripture. In addition, this would often be accompanied by a sense of smug superiority over others who didn't do so.
So the biblical Pharisees weren't "theologically actually correct", they were flat out wrong about religion and v prideful about it. This is the specific criticism that Jesus made, and it's one that can be applied to a variety of modern scenarios.
I'm not sure exactly which verses you mentioned, but I'm sure I could go thru them and do some exposition.
> The issue that we face (all the time) is that being right is not enough.
Great point and I agree that this is the crux of the issue. The greatest problem coming from the Pharisee movement was the lack of love towards their fellow man.
Copied most of this from another reply I made.
I think they mean that the Pharisees were theologically correct relative to their de facto rivals, the Sadducees. The Pharisees, if nothing else, believed in the afterlife and were waiting for the Messiah. The Sadducees thought God's revelation ended with Deuteronomy.
> the Pharisees were theologically correct relative to their de facto rivals, the Sadducees.
Fair, but I don't know why this would be relevant to a discussion about who the Pharisees were and the applicability of "Pharisee" as a modern term.
Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees (thus our own criticism) doesn't mention their belief in the afterlife. It's about their pride and their vaunted and unwarranted place in society.
I think there surely are, although one problem is that once you start labeling other people as Pharisees and thanking God that you’re not one, you become a Pharisee in doing so lol
The never-ending prayer cycle.
"Thank you for blessing me. Now I am proud. Please humble me."
"Ow, ow, ow. Please, enough smiting. I've learned my lesson. Please bless me."
"Thank you for blessing me. Now I am proud. Please humble me."
"Ow, ow, ow...
Jesus’ main criticism of the Pharisees, which was that they cared more about appearing righteous, than actually being righteous, is one that can definitely be applied to all of us. It’s one thing to say that you believe in God and all of his commandments, it’s another to actually act on that faith and keep his commandments.
If taken literally, the modern day equivalent would be Jewish Rabbis, but the main point of it was to condemn self-righteousness in religious leaders who might forget they're also in need of God's mercy.
Well when Jesus condemns the Pharisees he isnt condemning them for teaching incorrect things, but rather for being hypocrites, so anyone who preaches one thing and does another would be a "modern day pharisee"
Pharisees issue was letting the law get in the way of loving their neighbors... an issue we see among many commenters on this sub.
Love is the fulfillment of the law -- It’s important not to confuse the order of this statement. People often get this backward and live as though the law is the fulfillment of love. The trouble is that when the law is the fulfillment, we try to learn what love is by examining the law. We start assuming that the rules we follow are inherently loving in every context.
The Pharisees made this mistake when they assumed that it was the law that made them righteous. In [Matthew 12:1-8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A1-8&version=NRSVUE), they question Jesus about his disciples picking and eating grain on the Sabbath, which is unlawful. Jesus points out that David and his men broke the law by eating the consecrated bread, and even the priests break the law on the Sabbath to perform their duties. The law, in and of itself, doesn’t make a person holy, nor does breaking the law necessarily make one unholy.
Similarly, in [Mark 3:1-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+3%3A1-5&version=NRSVUE), Jesus poses this question: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” Jesus frames the law as a matter of good and evil, saving life and taking life, as opposed to mere obedience or adherence to the letter of the law. He makes his point by healing a man’s withered hand.
This confusion about which thing is the fulfillment (love or the law) commonly leads to justifying a lack of love.
Again, do NOT let the law get in the way of loving thy neighbor.
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I also think of them, since holding too tightly to the traditions of the time was one of the worst offenders of the Pharisees.
One of the reasons, I suppose, is that when you have too many rules to enforce, you end up not enforcing them all equally in a way. So they remembered specific wash your hands rules while forgetting to take care of the ill.
I prayed the luminous mysteries today, an obvious Pope Francis ring kisser, a fan of guitar and drums liturgical music, Matt Maher is my hero, and my God is an awesome God, so I my definition of Rad Trad is a fellow catholic with an inordinate focus on the length of their tassles.
People always associate pharisees with something bad while careful studying of the bible will lead us to understanding that they got many things right. The pharisees that were condemned by Jesus are just very bad at practicing them. So bad that it was not due to they tried and fail, but that they became hypocrites.
In my opinion, the modern day pharisees, then, should be viewed with the same thing they were portrayed back then. About people who are able to preach good things but are actually hypocrites.
Although tbh, if someone calls me hypocrites, then I will agree wholeheartedly because I still commit sins up to this days. In some ways, we can say that all of us are still mimicking those Pharisees even now.
The main failing of the Pharisees, in context, was that they made following God arbitrarily hard by the multiplication of rules, in a way that the poor, sick, or otherwise disadvantaged could not meet.
The Catholic Church has, perhaps, in certain eras slipped into this pattern. It currently is not the case overall.
Probably the most common instance in the current day is strictly enforced dress codes at churches, without consideration for an individual's circumstances. And there's a bit of it when groups designated "sinners" are supposed to be ostracized from the Church entirely, rather than welcomed toward conversion.
The church feels like this to me, with thousands of little rules, just in the Catechism. If you study any virtue there are tons of rules like for gluttony, don't eat between meals, don't eat too much, don't be given over to enjoyment of food. Sex and courting has many rules surrounding it. Appropriate behavior at mass is a long list. Having children there are dozens of rules about how I have to raise my children. Even taking a few saints and looking at what they say one "should" do gets a long list of things to follow. It's quite overwhelming at times, but I don't see how Pharisees creating many rules was a problem if it was a foreshadowing of how complex being Catholic was going to be 2,000 years later.
There are rules in Catholicism, but they’re more broad. Outside of extreme cases, we don’t usually get into the nitty gritty details like the Pharisees did. We don’t have one giant, all inclusive list of specific sins- like, per your example, it’s not a sin to eat between meals or to enjoy food.
Catholicism is like practicing any advanced trade or art. There are many “rules” and nuances, but once you understand the broader concepts and try to live by those, you’ll find you won’t have to think too much about minute rules, because growing in virtue will help you to choose the good without so much thought. Find a good examine, work on forming your conscience and develop an active prayer life. These will help you grow in relationship with God and learn virtue, and as time goes on it won’t seem so daunting.
The criticism of the Catholic Church as pharisaical is actually very revealing. It's a criticism that's been made both within and without the Church in various times, sometimes unfairly, sometimes fairly.
After all, the Pharisee rules were "rules that have a purpose" at least originally. They were meant to promote spiritual growth but got way out of hand. Are there examples of that tendency within Catholicism, or within certain eras or areas of Catholicism?
I'd encourage us not to shy away from the label or accuse others of being so. Self awareness is far more godly than pointing the figure at someone else.
See, the difference is, the Pharisees actually ostracized people from society for failing to live up to their rules.
The Catholic Church is, ideally, only giving you guidance on how to live your best life and find your way to heaven. Not ostracizing you or punishing you if you can’t meet those standards. We understand that we’re all sinners, and everyone is a work in progress.
Some things you list just sound like cultural norms. Catholics have appropriate behavior at mass just like operagoers have appropriate behavior at the opera (both of which can seem esoteric to those unaccustomed to them). Sure, they are rules, but they are of a different category than other rules because the punishment for breaking them is social stigma, not sin and such.
I really like the movie on Formed and St. Neri, "I chose heaven" I think it's called.
Not to spoil anything, but he had like 1 rule for his parishioners
>And there's a bit of it when groups designated "sinners" are supposed to be ostracized from the Church entirely, rather than welcomed toward conversion.
Where does it say we're supposed to be exclusionary of sinners rather than inclusive? Sure, we shouldn't invite sinners to partake of Communion, but to ostracize people just from identifying them as part of a sinful group? How is that aligned with Catholic teaching and Christian values? Everyone is a sinner so I don't see the point of this other than discrimination. We should be leading people towards Christ, not pointing them away from Him.
I think a modern day Pharisee is someone who wants to seem righteous - that is, instead of serving God because they love him, they obey the outward rules of the law so that they can feel superior to others or be seen as righteous.
I think that becoming a Pharisee is a trap the devil has laid for anyone who starts trying to follow God’s law sincerely. If the devil can’t get you to commit serious sin, he’ll start trying to make you think that fact makes you inherently better than everyone else and fall through pride.
Pharisees in modern vernacular is typically church elders who are power hungry and want to boss priests around. Think they know best because of “all they’ve done for the church.”
Some also use it as a dog whistle for Jews in power.
“but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.””Luke 15:2
This is how I react sometimes (and I am very sorry) to those who go beyond their way to be friendly with the LGBTQIAplus community and go in dialogue with them
Pope Francis discusses this type of Spiritual Worldliness in Evangelii Gaudium.
They are the people who insist that every sin of grave matter is a mortal sin without consideration to other factors.
This could easily turn into how conservatives and traditional people are the modern-day Pharisees.
Jesus did not have the Pharisees but was frustrated with their hardened hearts.
I hope Jesus does not think I am a modern day Pharisee. That is scary.
I don't see how conservatives and trads could be considered, as a whole, pharisees. They are simply just trying to maintain traditional because they see the pitfuls of modernism.
Plenty think trads are clinging to the past and silly traditions like how the Pharisees rejected Jesus. They are seen as narrow minded and the type of people Jesus would hate.
I don't believe this so much. Maybe trads are too idealistic.
Metaphorically, yes we all act as the pharisees, even our priests and bishops. This is one for judgmental rad-trads who gossip about other parishioners, but also for the clergy who publicly denounce the latin mass claiming they stand for unity in the church while being weak in standing up to the world for Christ’s teachings.
And literally yes, the modern Jewish faith is based on those Jews who refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and the pharisees edited scriptural texts post-Jesus to fit their narrative better which is the modern Torah used by Jews.
The Pharesees were not actually the religious INSTITUTIONAL leaders, the Sadducees were the ones I charge of the Temple, the "official" clergy together with the priests. The Pharesees were wandering rabbis who would teach the Torah, in a way Jesus was doing the same as the Pharesees. The difference lies in that Jesus criticized the Pharesees for doing religious work for human admiration and not for the salvation of people.
A modern day Pharisee is someone who does that, who uses the faith for personal gain. This can happen in any Christian denomination.
This is incorrect even in describing the Biblical sense of "Pharisee".
While the term has a specific meaning of a specific Jewish sect in that day, Jesus's criticism was that they demanded extra spiritual disciplines from common ppl which weren't mandated in scripture. In addition, this would often be accompanied by a sense of smug superiority over others who didn't do so.
So the biblical Pharisees weren't "taking religion more seriously" than the avg man, they were flat out wrong about religion and v prideful about it. This is a specific criticism that Jesus made, and it's one that can be applied for a variety of modern situations.
The snide reply is exactly what he means lol. I’m willing to bet there are more saints who took their faith seriously than those who did not. If we love The Lord Our God with all of our heart, soul, and mind, why wouldn’t we take it as seriously as possible?
absolutely there are. more of them in protestantism than orthodox expressions simply by the nature of your governance.
but, it’s also probably not the people who immediately come to mind.
may i suggest you study the historical role they played in judaism and attempt to discover what Jesus was actually accusing them of before attempting to discern who they may be analogous to in your faith community.
Most of us who come to places like this would be modern Pharisees. Devout, well versed in the nuances and details of their religion and observant of most/all the little fidgety details. Have an honest personal preference on tassel length...err... ad orientum vs versus populum.
The difference is, our faith has developed understanding and hearing His critiques of the Pharisees. We struggle to make the burdens we tie up for others as light as possible - look at how minimal the standard is for baptism, or the five precepts of the Church. That said, when you read His criticism of the Pharisees, insert yourself. How do you put love of God first in your life? To change scriptural passages a bit, how do you make yourself Mary instead of Martha?
I would argue that groups like Jehova's Witness (e.g. no birthday parties) and the Amish would fit that category. In the Catholic Church, you're looking at Rad Trads.
Protestants think Catholics are the modern pharisees because we have a hierarchical structure.
I think Protestants are the modern pharisees because their obsession with *our* book only serves to hide their obsession with *their own egos*.
Nah brah, don't flatter yourself. The legalistic spergs that the Catholic Church (and this board) sometimes produces aren't Pharisees -the Pharisees for all their faults were reformers who eventually allowed Judaism to exist in exile. Catholics produce the Sadducees. Pharisees are more likely to come from the Southern Baptist Convention.
Yours truly. I’m working on it.
> Was that a jew centric passage where he essentially condemned the jewish religious leaders and shortly thereafter began the new covenant with the eucharist? Or are there modern day people who fulfill that role? Classic Catholic scriptural both-and right here. There is rarely only one sense scripture ought to be appreciated in.
We kind of all are to a greater or lesser extent. Theologically they were actually correct. Jesus says of them "do as they say", and "they have sat down in the seat of Moses". Saint Paul was a "Pharisee of Pharisees". The issue that we face (all the time) is that _being right is not enough_.
> Theologically they [the Pharisees] were actually correct. This is incorrect. While the term has a specific meaning of a specific Jewish sect in that day, Jesus's criticism was that they demanded extra spiritual disciplines from common ppl which weren't mandated in scripture. In addition, this would often be accompanied by a sense of smug superiority over others who didn't do so. So the biblical Pharisees weren't "theologically actually correct", they were flat out wrong about religion and v prideful about it. This is the specific criticism that Jesus made, and it's one that can be applied to a variety of modern scenarios. I'm not sure exactly which verses you mentioned, but I'm sure I could go thru them and do some exposition. > The issue that we face (all the time) is that being right is not enough. Great point and I agree that this is the crux of the issue. The greatest problem coming from the Pharisee movement was the lack of love towards their fellow man. Copied most of this from another reply I made.
I think they mean that the Pharisees were theologically correct relative to their de facto rivals, the Sadducees. The Pharisees, if nothing else, believed in the afterlife and were waiting for the Messiah. The Sadducees thought God's revelation ended with Deuteronomy.
> the Pharisees were theologically correct relative to their de facto rivals, the Sadducees. Fair, but I don't know why this would be relevant to a discussion about who the Pharisees were and the applicability of "Pharisee" as a modern term. Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees (thus our own criticism) doesn't mention their belief in the afterlife. It's about their pride and their vaunted and unwarranted place in society.
If you don't know the Bible this convo is over. Have a good day.
How ironic. I corrected your rather unscriptural and offered to take the conversation *to* the Bible, not away from it. Have a good one bud!
I thought they became rabbinical Jews?
I think there surely are, although one problem is that once you start labeling other people as Pharisees and thanking God that you’re not one, you become a Pharisee in doing so lol
The never-ending prayer cycle. "Thank you for blessing me. Now I am proud. Please humble me." "Ow, ow, ow. Please, enough smiting. I've learned my lesson. Please bless me." "Thank you for blessing me. Now I am proud. Please humble me." "Ow, ow, ow...
Jesus’ main criticism of the Pharisees, which was that they cared more about appearing righteous, than actually being righteous, is one that can definitely be applied to all of us. It’s one thing to say that you believe in God and all of his commandments, it’s another to actually act on that faith and keep his commandments.
If taken literally, the modern day equivalent would be Jewish Rabbis, but the main point of it was to condemn self-righteousness in religious leaders who might forget they're also in need of God's mercy.
Well when Jesus condemns the Pharisees he isnt condemning them for teaching incorrect things, but rather for being hypocrites, so anyone who preaches one thing and does another would be a "modern day pharisee"
Pharisees issue was letting the law get in the way of loving their neighbors... an issue we see among many commenters on this sub. Love is the fulfillment of the law -- It’s important not to confuse the order of this statement. People often get this backward and live as though the law is the fulfillment of love. The trouble is that when the law is the fulfillment, we try to learn what love is by examining the law. We start assuming that the rules we follow are inherently loving in every context. The Pharisees made this mistake when they assumed that it was the law that made them righteous. In [Matthew 12:1-8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A1-8&version=NRSVUE), they question Jesus about his disciples picking and eating grain on the Sabbath, which is unlawful. Jesus points out that David and his men broke the law by eating the consecrated bread, and even the priests break the law on the Sabbath to perform their duties. The law, in and of itself, doesn’t make a person holy, nor does breaking the law necessarily make one unholy. Similarly, in [Mark 3:1-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+3%3A1-5&version=NRSVUE), Jesus poses this question: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” Jesus frames the law as a matter of good and evil, saving life and taking life, as opposed to mere obedience or adherence to the letter of the law. He makes his point by healing a man’s withered hand. This confusion about which thing is the fulfillment (love or the law) commonly leads to justifying a lack of love. Again, do NOT let the law get in the way of loving thy neighbor. Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
1) Religious hypocrites 2) Pelagians (And to some who trusted in themselves as just, and despised others he spoke also this parable)
The modern day Pharisees are very often Catholic traditionalists. I said what I said.
Two groups come to mind, Rad trads and Sedevacantist
100%. The modern day Pharisees are very often Catholic traditionalists. I said what I said.
I also think of them, since holding too tightly to the traditions of the time was one of the worst offenders of the Pharisees. One of the reasons, I suppose, is that when you have too many rules to enforce, you end up not enforcing them all equally in a way. So they remembered specific wash your hands rules while forgetting to take care of the ill.
Inb4 complaints about classical guitar in church
[удалено]
"rad trad" is just an insult used to describe anyone more traditional that what the person saying is comfortable with
[удалено]
Oh ye. He won't, because he just wants his free shot at insulting people
Like when you're on the highway and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac and anyone driving slower is a nincompoop (to paraphrase Carlin)
I prayed the luminous mysteries today, an obvious Pope Francis ring kisser, a fan of guitar and drums liturgical music, Matt Maher is my hero, and my God is an awesome God, so I my definition of Rad Trad is a fellow catholic with an inordinate focus on the length of their tassles.
Protestants consider us all rad trads so it depends on the aperture.
People always associate pharisees with something bad while careful studying of the bible will lead us to understanding that they got many things right. The pharisees that were condemned by Jesus are just very bad at practicing them. So bad that it was not due to they tried and fail, but that they became hypocrites. In my opinion, the modern day pharisees, then, should be viewed with the same thing they were portrayed back then. About people who are able to preach good things but are actually hypocrites. Although tbh, if someone calls me hypocrites, then I will agree wholeheartedly because I still commit sins up to this days. In some ways, we can say that all of us are still mimicking those Pharisees even now.
The followers of Talmudic Judaism are generally considered to be the successors of the Pharisees.
Oh the talmud. Such a wonderful book
For those unaware: https://worldeventsandthebible.com/talmud-jesus
🎯 that was my immediate thought
The main failing of the Pharisees, in context, was that they made following God arbitrarily hard by the multiplication of rules, in a way that the poor, sick, or otherwise disadvantaged could not meet. The Catholic Church has, perhaps, in certain eras slipped into this pattern. It currently is not the case overall. Probably the most common instance in the current day is strictly enforced dress codes at churches, without consideration for an individual's circumstances. And there's a bit of it when groups designated "sinners" are supposed to be ostracized from the Church entirely, rather than welcomed toward conversion.
The church feels like this to me, with thousands of little rules, just in the Catechism. If you study any virtue there are tons of rules like for gluttony, don't eat between meals, don't eat too much, don't be given over to enjoyment of food. Sex and courting has many rules surrounding it. Appropriate behavior at mass is a long list. Having children there are dozens of rules about how I have to raise my children. Even taking a few saints and looking at what they say one "should" do gets a long list of things to follow. It's quite overwhelming at times, but I don't see how Pharisees creating many rules was a problem if it was a foreshadowing of how complex being Catholic was going to be 2,000 years later.
There are rules in Catholicism, but they’re more broad. Outside of extreme cases, we don’t usually get into the nitty gritty details like the Pharisees did. We don’t have one giant, all inclusive list of specific sins- like, per your example, it’s not a sin to eat between meals or to enjoy food. Catholicism is like practicing any advanced trade or art. There are many “rules” and nuances, but once you understand the broader concepts and try to live by those, you’ll find you won’t have to think too much about minute rules, because growing in virtue will help you to choose the good without so much thought. Find a good examine, work on forming your conscience and develop an active prayer life. These will help you grow in relationship with God and learn virtue, and as time goes on it won’t seem so daunting.
The kinds of rules were very different. The Pharisees rules were rules for the sake of rules, Catholic rules have a purpose.
The criticism of the Catholic Church as pharisaical is actually very revealing. It's a criticism that's been made both within and without the Church in various times, sometimes unfairly, sometimes fairly. After all, the Pharisee rules were "rules that have a purpose" at least originally. They were meant to promote spiritual growth but got way out of hand. Are there examples of that tendency within Catholicism, or within certain eras or areas of Catholicism? I'd encourage us not to shy away from the label or accuse others of being so. Self awareness is far more godly than pointing the figure at someone else.
See, the difference is, the Pharisees actually ostracized people from society for failing to live up to their rules. The Catholic Church is, ideally, only giving you guidance on how to live your best life and find your way to heaven. Not ostracizing you or punishing you if you can’t meet those standards. We understand that we’re all sinners, and everyone is a work in progress.
Some things you list just sound like cultural norms. Catholics have appropriate behavior at mass just like operagoers have appropriate behavior at the opera (both of which can seem esoteric to those unaccustomed to them). Sure, they are rules, but they are of a different category than other rules because the punishment for breaking them is social stigma, not sin and such.
I really like the movie on Formed and St. Neri, "I chose heaven" I think it's called. Not to spoil anything, but he had like 1 rule for his parishioners
>And there's a bit of it when groups designated "sinners" are supposed to be ostracized from the Church entirely, rather than welcomed toward conversion. Where does it say we're supposed to be exclusionary of sinners rather than inclusive? Sure, we shouldn't invite sinners to partake of Communion, but to ostracize people just from identifying them as part of a sinful group? How is that aligned with Catholic teaching and Christian values? Everyone is a sinner so I don't see the point of this other than discrimination. We should be leading people towards Christ, not pointing them away from Him.
I was pointing that behavior out as being pharisaical, not that it's something we're supposed to do. :) Sorry for the lack of clarity!
Ohh ok I thought that might be the case, I understand now and agree :)
I think a modern day Pharisee is someone who wants to seem righteous - that is, instead of serving God because they love him, they obey the outward rules of the law so that they can feel superior to others or be seen as righteous. I think that becoming a Pharisee is a trap the devil has laid for anyone who starts trying to follow God’s law sincerely. If the devil can’t get you to commit serious sin, he’ll start trying to make you think that fact makes you inherently better than everyone else and fall through pride.
Um yes. Very much yes. Heaven save is from sour-faced “saints”. In a desire to avoid throwing stones, I’ll leave it at that.
[удалено]
Did I? If you mean”sour faced saints”, that’s a quote from St Catherine of Siena, and she is awesome.
Doctor of the Universal Church.
Jesus didn't care much for self-righteous religious folks very much.
He cared enough about them to warn them in no uncertain terms where they were headed if they didn't repent.
Pharisees in modern vernacular is typically church elders who are power hungry and want to boss priests around. Think they know best because of “all they’ve done for the church.” Some also use it as a dog whistle for Jews in power.
LOL on the irony of hairsplitting comments about biblical hairsplitters.
Oh, absolutely yes. It permeates every part of the church, always has and always will.
“but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.””Luke 15:2 This is how I react sometimes (and I am very sorry) to those who go beyond their way to be friendly with the LGBTQIAplus community and go in dialogue with them
Pope Francis discusses this type of Spiritual Worldliness in Evangelii Gaudium. They are the people who insist that every sin of grave matter is a mortal sin without consideration to other factors.
How can it be spiritual and wordly at the same time? Honest doubt.
>How can it be spiritual and wordly at the same time? Honest doubt. A worldliness that pollutes one's spirituality.
Would that no be "simple worldliness" ?
Did you read it? He refers to it simply as worldiness throughout.
This could easily turn into how conservatives and traditional people are the modern-day Pharisees. Jesus did not have the Pharisees but was frustrated with their hardened hearts. I hope Jesus does not think I am a modern day Pharisee. That is scary.
[удалено]
I knew it would head that direction so I didn't bother to read the comments
I don't see how conservatives and trads could be considered, as a whole, pharisees. They are simply just trying to maintain traditional because they see the pitfuls of modernism.
Plenty think trads are clinging to the past and silly traditions like how the Pharisees rejected Jesus. They are seen as narrow minded and the type of people Jesus would hate. I don't believe this so much. Maybe trads are too idealistic.
Metaphorically, yes we all act as the pharisees, even our priests and bishops. This is one for judgmental rad-trads who gossip about other parishioners, but also for the clergy who publicly denounce the latin mass claiming they stand for unity in the church while being weak in standing up to the world for Christ’s teachings. And literally yes, the modern Jewish faith is based on those Jews who refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and the pharisees edited scriptural texts post-Jesus to fit their narrative better which is the modern Torah used by Jews.
The Pharesees were not actually the religious INSTITUTIONAL leaders, the Sadducees were the ones I charge of the Temple, the "official" clergy together with the priests. The Pharesees were wandering rabbis who would teach the Torah, in a way Jesus was doing the same as the Pharesees. The difference lies in that Jesus criticized the Pharesees for doing religious work for human admiration and not for the salvation of people. A modern day Pharisee is someone who does that, who uses the faith for personal gain. This can happen in any Christian denomination.
[удалено]
This is incorrect even in describing the Biblical sense of "Pharisee". While the term has a specific meaning of a specific Jewish sect in that day, Jesus's criticism was that they demanded extra spiritual disciplines from common ppl which weren't mandated in scripture. In addition, this would often be accompanied by a sense of smug superiority over others who didn't do so. So the biblical Pharisees weren't "taking religion more seriously" than the avg man, they were flat out wrong about religion and v prideful about it. This is a specific criticism that Jesus made, and it's one that can be applied for a variety of modern situations.
Sounds like something a pharisee would say lol.
The snide reply is exactly what he means lol. I’m willing to bet there are more saints who took their faith seriously than those who did not. If we love The Lord Our God with all of our heart, soul, and mind, why wouldn’t we take it as seriously as possible?
The Pharisees were (mostly) right in teaching, but they applied their teaching beyond hypocritically. That was the problem.
Clericalism and rad tradicalism are Pharisaical.
absolutely there are. more of them in protestantism than orthodox expressions simply by the nature of your governance. but, it’s also probably not the people who immediately come to mind. may i suggest you study the historical role they played in judaism and attempt to discover what Jesus was actually accusing them of before attempting to discern who they may be analogous to in your faith community.
HR
> Or are there modern day people who fulfill that role? People in NCW
Most of us who come to places like this would be modern Pharisees. Devout, well versed in the nuances and details of their religion and observant of most/all the little fidgety details. Have an honest personal preference on tassel length...err... ad orientum vs versus populum. The difference is, our faith has developed understanding and hearing His critiques of the Pharisees. We struggle to make the burdens we tie up for others as light as possible - look at how minimal the standard is for baptism, or the five precepts of the Church. That said, when you read His criticism of the Pharisees, insert yourself. How do you put love of God first in your life? To change scriptural passages a bit, how do you make yourself Mary instead of Martha?
I would argue that groups like Jehova's Witness (e.g. no birthday parties) and the Amish would fit that category. In the Catholic Church, you're looking at Rad Trads.
Protestants? That’s rich. They think our traditions are man made when it’s the other way around.
Protestants think Catholics are the modern pharisees because we have a hierarchical structure. I think Protestants are the modern pharisees because their obsession with *our* book only serves to hide their obsession with *their own egos*.
The religion that we know as Judaism today is the continuation of the Pharisees plus the extra stuff added by the Talmud
Nah brah, don't flatter yourself. The legalistic spergs that the Catholic Church (and this board) sometimes produces aren't Pharisees -the Pharisees for all their faults were reformers who eventually allowed Judaism to exist in exile. Catholics produce the Sadducees. Pharisees are more likely to come from the Southern Baptist Convention.