Difference between CCC 1832 & Galatians 5:22-23 (about Modesty as The Fruit of The Spirit)

[francisca]

Then you should ask in the Sacred Scripture forum.

I don’t mind if moderator move this thread there. I would be really happy if someone can explain what happened to the vulgate so that it lists 3 more fruit-of-the spirit compared to other translations and even the greek manuscripts of Gal 5:22-23.

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t mind if moderator move this thread there. I would be really happy if someone can explain what happened to the vulgate so that it lists 3 more fruit-of-the spirit compared to other translations and even the greek manuscripts of Gal 5:22-23.

Since the nature of the question has changed and there is already so much baggage in this thread, it would probably be best to just start a new one.

 

[francisca]

He did not turn around and deliver a new Law three chapters later.

I don’t know what you mean by this one

I have addressed this several times already. I really don’t understand how you get “show off” out of “modesty.” They are antonyms.

Anyone can go to any shop, buy a set of modest clothes, wear them like a “holy man/ woman”, without having to change a single cell of his/ her evil hearts, while condemning/ demeaning those whose clothes aren’t as modest as his/ hers, and with what reason? Because he/ she can’t control his/ her own “lust-oriented” way of thinking.

It surely doesn’t look like the-fruit-of-the holy spirit.

All that is necessary for the Catholic is to accept that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to know that the three additions are indeed genuine and Inspired.

You “test the inspiration” by “its fruit”
By its fruit you know whether something comes from the holy spirit or from other spirit.

You can ask St. Jerome how the additional terms got there.

Jerome may combine several versions of old latin translations of Gal5:22-23, thinking that adding more nuances will translate the greek words better. Alas, the latin nuance “modesty” was taken away from the context of main-greek-word resulting in a shallow-teaching-of modesty.

Unless there is better explanation than the above… I am keeping my mind open.

 

[francisca]

Since the nature of the question has changed and there is already so much baggage in this thread, it would probably be best to just start a new one.

 

[francisca]

Ach mein Gott, you are a heretic
That wasn’t decreed infallibly.

Galatians 5:
18 Let the spirit lead you: this has nothing to do with submitting to the law

Galatians 5:
4 All you who pretend to become righteous through the observance of the law have separated yourselves from Christ and have fallen away from grace.

The word “separated” in the Galatians 5:4 above shows who has condemned themselves: those who insist on the promulgation of the vulgata, or those who sincerely looking for the truth. Ironic huh

 

[SonCatcher]

Unless there is better explanation than the above… I am keeping my mind open.

Really? It looks more like you are rejecting every attempt of catechesis.

May I ask why you object to modesty being enumerated among the Fruits?

I don’t mean “because certain people make a show of external modesty and condemn others either implicitly or explicitly for lacking similar show.”

I mean: is there some other reason you object?

This is an anonymous forum. You can be candid.

 

[francisca]

Really? It looks more like you are rejecting every attempt of catechesis.

May I ask why you object to modesty being enumerated among the Fruits?

Because “modesty” was one of those three which aren’t listed in the greek manuscripts, therefore I ask from where those has sprung up.

I don’t mean “because certain people make a show of external modesty and condemn others either implicitly or explicitly for lacking similar show.”

I can guarantee you those people you condemn, they do not even know that some onlooker is condemning them. So no, I don’t think so. It doesn’t work vice versa. It works only ONEWAY: from the shallow-religious-puritantism condemning normal people, not the other way round.

Let me give you an example. People who live in hot places, their local-dress-code used to be according to local wheather. Anywhere you go in the world, people’s native dresses were according to the local weather. Until one day, some religion/ puritanism condemn those people and force them to wear what is not their custom.

I mean: is there some other reason you object?

This is an anonymous forum. You can be candid.

Yes. In my opinion, if there are some of you who think that there’s just too much temptation at the beach, then what you should do is NOT going to the beach. It is very illogical to ask people to swim with their clothes on. Trust me, even if people were to follow you, those wet clothes will still tempt you anyway, because the temptation is in your head.

The attitude of some people who demand others to swim with their clothes on remind me of my university days:

I remember when I was in my second year (univ), a group of moslem students demanded that the university close all the canteen during moslem fasting month. So the univ really closed all the canteen. My friends who were not moslems said to one another “they (the moslems) supposedly control themselves during fasting month. Instead, they force others to fast while they had their early-meal, Truly, they don’t really fast for they only move their meal from one time to another, and we are the ones to fast the whole month”.

Just because some people have lusty mind, doesn’t mean others do too. If you have repented from your old ways, you would not have that kind of mind anymore. From what I read, some who claim to have been repentant, actually, they only “feel guilty of their past”. That is not repentant yet. If you still have lusty mind, you haven’t change a bit, you need Christ to change you. You don’t try to build the world standard based on your own temptations, or your gulty feelings, or your prejudice toward humankind. That was the mistake of “the followers of some other religion”. They allow some man created for them a standard on how to dress and even how to live their life. We are not the disciples of this kind. You don’t let somebody with lusty mind to build “dress-code” or any other code, because if you do, then your society value will be based on prejudice toward humankind and prejudice toward our good sexuality, turn it into lust-oriented way of thinking. That is the last thing Christianity should do to save people. The church should NEVER allow people relate their worth based on their clothes alone, because such is exactly where the lust get its power from.

To demand formal clothes for formal occatsion is not the same thing as to relate nakedness with the persons worth. The first one is custom oriented, the latter is religious-condemnation toward dignity of a person (in God’s eye) based on sexual prejudice (lust).

 

[SonCatcher]

So no, I don’t think so. It doesn’t work vice versa. It works only ONEWAY: from the shallow-religious-puritantism condemning normal people, not the other way round.

Obviously it is not a one-way condemnation as you have no problem condemning them. Quite hypocritical, actually.

you must assume innosence on the part of the person who practice them.

 

[SonCatcher]

BTW - swimmers and beachgoers dress very differently.

Male swimmers wear less than typical male beachgoers. Female swimmers wear more than typical female beachgoers. Male and female surfers typically wear more than everyone else. Compare this summer’s Olympians with any beach and you will see this plainly.

 

[francisca]

Obviously it is not a one-way condemnation as you have no problem condemning them. Quite hypocritical, actually.

1. I was giving my argument why such doesn’t look like the fruit of the spirit, in relation to my questioning the accuracy of the vulgate.
2. It was my reaction to an unjust accusations toward women in a generalization based on sexual prejudice of some. Society that victimize women will jeopardize their future generation too. It is possible that in the future, humans (including women) can’t tell the difference between good treatment and mistreatment toward women and their children, THAT IS IF religion condonde condemnation toward women based on prejudice toward their sex. None is guilty for being their own sex.
   ** Despite of some womens imperfections in behavior, the church has to-- persevere in faith-- to insist on teaching to forgive women, just as society has been forgiving towards men, IN ORDER that the church teach mankind how to love.
   Prejudice toward human sexuality should NOT be the bases of religious teaching. **
   Human virtue is good as long as it is loving. Mere human virtue is evil. Prejudice toward human sexuality will takeaway love from mens (and womens) heart, and replace it with mere shallow-external piety-of-human virtue.

 

[SonCatcher]

It looks like your issues go far beyond scripture and the catechism and have little to do with either.

I will pray for you.

Bye.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hello, sister in Christ!

You are thinking of generosity and modesty as discreet acts, rather than as interior virtues. You are also giving instances of hypocrisy and using them as weapons against these gifts of God. You can do the same thing with all of the rest of God’s gifts if you try. But if you try to view them all in the same way, all as interior virtues, as they really are, you will see that there is no law against any virtue, i.e., you can always grow in the virtue of Christ by the grace of God through faith with the hope of eternal reward. Paul says that we each have “gifts that differ according to the grace given to us,” and says to let “the one who contributes” do so “in generosity” (Romans 12:8; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:1-11). He says that “women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control” (1 Timothy 2:9). As you’ve pointed out, men and women can dress “in respectable apparel” without being modest, and this is why Paul says to do so “with modesty.” We are called to “make every effort to supplement [our] faith with virtue” (2 Peter 1:5), and generosity and modesty are virtues and gifts from our heavenly Father (cf. James 1:17). You will not be able to grow in true modesty and generosity without the power of God’s Spirit working in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Have a blessed day, my sister.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[francisca]

Hello, sister in Christ!

You are thinking of generosity and modesty as discreet acts, rather than as interior virtues.

I do not know whether you have read “modesty threads” in Moral Theology forum. I am not the one to see modesty as “exterior virtue and not interior virtue”. There, in those threads, it is qutie obvious that there are people who take the teaching of modesty as “a teaching about how to dress”. Dress is obviously “exteriorr” and not necessarily “a virtue”.

In the same way one may be generous outwardly and not necessarily a virtue. The pharisees of Jesus time were the good example in the bible.

Not the same case with the 9-fruits.

You are also giving instances of hypocrisy and using them as weapons against these gifts of God.
{/quote]

It is a fact that peoplw use this teaching more for “exterior”

You can do the same thing with all of the rest of God’s gifts if you try.

Give me an example.

Say, KINDNESS. Can one be kind, without being really kind?
Say, LOVE. Can one love, without loving?
Say, UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS. Can one understand others, without understanding?
Say SELF CONTROL. Can one have self-control without controlling himself?

I can dress modest without being modest in my heart.
I can share my riches for a show or a profit.

In fact true generousity requires KINDNESS. True modesty requires SELF CONTROL and UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS…

Take these contexts away, and lo, modesty and generousity are no longer a virtue (let alone the fruit-of-the spirit).

But if you try to view them all in the same way, all as interior virtues, as they really are, you will see that there is no law against any virtue,

YOu are wrong in this one. Our virtue will be judged and tested by fire. If your virtue can stand the test, it will not be burned. Otherwise, you will see that you will have no virtue to be proud of-- and only God’s virtue in redeeming you – the only one you can show off at the presence of The Most High God…

Our virtue will be judged by the law of God.

Our virtue is NOT necessarily identical with the fruit of the spirit. IF you have holy Spirit in you, only then your virtue is the fruit of the spirit. And you can see it whether it is from the spirit or from the wisdom of men without any spirit.

i.e., you can always grow in the virtue of Christ by the grace of God through faith with the hope of eternal reward.

I agree with this one.

Paul says that we each have “gifts that differ according to the grace given to us,” and says to let “the one who contributes” do so “in generosity” (Romans 12:8; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:1-11).

!Corinth 12:1-11 talks about “Spiritual Gifts”. This is different. “Spritual Gifts” are NOT “the-fruit-of-the spirit”. Spiritual Gifts are “tools” given to each person for his/ her ministery, The Fruits-of-The Spirit are more of “results” in each person. Fruits aren’t tools, they are what you “harvest”. I hope you can understand what St. Paul was trying to teach. Those are two distict topics.

He says that “women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control” (1 Timothy 2:9). As you’ve pointed out, men and women can dress “in respectable apparel” without being modest, and this is why Paul says to do so “with modesty

.”

Do you notice the word “SELF CONTROL” being the context of “modesty”? That is one of the 9-fruits. Without it, modesty is not even a virtue !

We are called to “make every effort to supplement [our] faith with virtue” (2 Peter 1:5), and generosity and modesty are virtues and gifts from our heavenly Father (cf. James 1:17).

Yes, but not to be taken out of context. Human virtue needs contextual teaching. Modesty and Generousity needs contextual teaching.

You will not be able to grow in true modesty and generosity without the power of God’s Spirit working in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

What is TRUE modesty by the way? Isn’t it about self-control & understanding-of-others? Is there anything else? Let’s see, something regarding “how to dress” may be? I hope you can see, how it becomes too easy to trip into the same hole again. The teaching of modesty is being “suggestive” regarding “judging people from their exterior”

Let me quote from James regarding “people exterior as our standard”:

James 2:
2 Suppose a person enters the synagogue where you are assembled, dressed magnificently and wearing a gold ring; at the same time, a poor person enters dressed in rags.
3 If you focus your attention to the well-dressed and say “Come and sit in the best seat”, while to the poor one you say “Stay standing or else sit down at my feet”
4 **have you not, in fact, made a distiction between the two? **Have you not judged, using a double standard?

Have a blessed day, my sister.

With love in Christ,
Pete

God bless you brother in Christ.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I do not know whether you have read “modesty threads” in Moral Theology forum. I am not the one to see modesty as “exterior virtue and not interior virtue”. There, in those threads, it is qutie obvious that there are people who take the teaching of modesty as “a teaching about how to dress”. Dress is obviously “exteriorr” and not necessarily “a virtue”.

In the same way one may be generous outwardly and not necessarily a virtue. The pharisees of Jesus time were the good example in the bible.

Not the same case with the 9-fruits.

It is a fact that peoplw use this teaching more for “exterior”

Give me an example.

Say, KINDNESS. Can one be kind, without being really kind?
Say, LOVE. Can one love, without loving?
Say, UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS. Can one understand others, without understanding?
Say SELF CONTROL. Can one have self-control without controlling himself?

I can dress modest without being modest in my heart.
I can share my riches for a show or a profit.

In fact true generousity requires KINDNESS. True modesty requires SELF CONTROL and UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS…

Take these contexts away, and lo, modesty and generousity are no longer a virtue (let alone the fruit-of-the spirit).

YOu are wrong in this one. Our virtue will be judged and tested by fire. If your virtue can stand the test, it will not be burned. Otherwise, you will see that you will have no virtue to be proud of-- and only God’s virtue in redeeming you – the only one you can show off at the presence of The Most High God…

Our virtue will be judged by the law of God.

Our virtue is NOT necessarily identical with the fruit of the spirit. IF you have holy Spirit in you, only then your virtue is the fruit of the spirit. And you can see it whether it is from the spirit or from the wisdom of men without any spirit.

I agree with this one.

!Corinth 12:1-11 talks about “Spiritual Gifts”. This is different. “Spritual Gifts” are NOT “the-fruit-of-the spirit”. Spiritual Gifts are “tools” given to each person for his/ her ministery, The Fruits-of-The Spirit are more of “results” in each person. Fruits aren’t tools, they are what you “harvest”. I hope you can understand what St. Paul was trying to teach. Those are two distict topics.

Do you notice the word “SELF CONTROL” being the context of “modesty”? That is one of the 9-fruits. Without it, modesty is not even a virtue !

Yes, but not to be taken out of context. Human virtue needs contextual teaching. Modesty and Generousity needs contextual teaching.

What is TRUE modesty by the way? Isn’t it about self-control & understanding-of-others? Is there anything else? Let’s see, something regarding “how to dress” may be? I hope you can see, how it becomes too easy to trip into the same hole again. The teaching of modesty is being “suggestive” regarding “judging people from their exterior”

Let me quote from James regarding “people exterior as our standard”:

James 2:
2 Suppose a person enters the synagogue where you are assembled, dressed magnificently and wearing a gold ring; at the same time, a poor person enters dressed in rags.
3 If you focus your attention to the well-dressed and say “Come and sit in the best seat”, while to the poor one you say “Stay standing or else sit down at my feet”
4 **have you not, in fact, made a distiction between the two? **Have you not judged, using a double standard?

God bless you brother in Christ.

The peace of Christ be with you.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[francisca]

and be with you.