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

[francisca]

Actually, all of the fruits can be acted upon from the prompting of the Holy Spirit or mere natural impluse.

Well, we are spiritual beings, but also natural bengs. Sometimes we can’t tell the difference between the prompting of the spirit and our own desire to be virtuous in our own way. To believe in Christ is to have the spirit, and the fruits will follow. If one do not believe in Christ redemptive works, he will try to be virtuous on his own merit. The latter is mere human virtue as you said.

What St. Paul is talking about is the supernatural prompting of the Holy Spirit not mere human virtue.

Agree. I would like to add that mere human virtue is NOT necessarily the fruit of the Spirit.

If we read it from that understanding, it makes more sense and brings all the fruits into line with what St. Paul is saying about doing these things through the Holy Spirit nor merely to fulfill an obligation/or from mere human desire.

Yes.

 

[Della]

Well, we are spiritual beings, but also natural bengs. Sometimes we can’t tell the difference between the prompting of the spirit and our own desire to be virtuous in our own way. To believe in Christ is to have the spirit, and the fruits will follow. If one do not believe in Christ redemptive works, he will try to be virtuous on his own merit. The latter is mere human virtue as you said.

Yes, trying to be virtuous on one’s own merit is what St. Paul is warning against. Because it’s futile. Sure, all of us have some natural virtues of one kind or another, but to be virtuous in all of them is a work of the Holy Spirit. It requires our complete trust in God rather than in ourselves. So, no one can say he has the fruit of the Holy Spirit who is not obedient to Christ.

Agree. I would like to add that mere human virtue is NOT necessarily the fruit of the Spirit.

Yes, St. Paul’s point exactly.

 

[francisca]

There are nuances in various languages where it becomes necessary to be more verbose in one language than another to capture the full meaning. This may be one of those.

I think so too. May be the twelve was a version of translation in which it tries to be more clear by adding nuances. I don’t have any expertise to assert this though. I only know that some use the teaching of generousity and modesty and even chastity in a legalistic way. The latter is in direct contradiction of “the fruits of the Spirit is of no law and punishment”.

1. 
   *]Any expectation of return is not generosity.

1. 
   Yes. However, even one do not expect anything in return, generosity sometimes still come with some priviliges (such as attention, social status, and so on) in return causing inferiority, envy from others, despite the innocent heart of the generous person.
   

   *]One does not “need” the Spirit for any of these fruits.

   I disagree here. They are called the fruits of the spirit because the spirit is necessary in order to get the fruit.
   

   However, if one has the Spirit, it will show by the presence of all these fruits.

   Yes.
   

   *]The risk of envy should not prevent one from being generous. However, one should not flaunt his generosity as that would be immodest (recall the Widow’s Mite)

   Lol. you manage to mix (generosity and modesty) the two and get me agree here.
   

   Modesty is not merely about style of dress. It is in not calling attention to yourself. Any “modesty” that envelops a condemnation of others is by definition immodest.

   Yes. However, in reality, it is a fact that many use the teaching of modesty in particular to condemn others. It is a teaching that causes people to fall into legalistic thinking.

 

[francisca]

Yes, trying to be virtuous on one’s own merit is what St. Paul is warning against. Because it’s futile. Sure, all of us have some natural virtues of one kind or another, but to be virtuous in all of them is a work of the Holy Spirit. It requires our complete trust in God rather than in ourselves. So, no one can say he has the fruit of the Holy Spirit who is not obedient to Christ.

Yes.

 

[SonCatcher]

Yes. However, even one do not expect anything in return, generosity sometimes still come with some priviliges (such as attention, social status, and so on) in return causing inferiority, envy from others, despite the innocent heart of the generous person.

Envy is its own problem and it is the problem of the one who envies (the one who wishes he could give as much as so-and-so), not the one who is envied (the one who gives as much as he does). However, the truly generous person would likely follow the Gospel instruction to let giving be secret (let not you left hand know what your right hand is doing).

I disagree here. They are called the fruits of the spirit because the spirit is necessary in order to get the fruit.

There are plenty of people who manage to attain some or even several of the fruits of the Spirit without the benefit of any religion. Would you care to explain them?

Yes. However, in reality, it is a fact that many use the teaching of modesty in particular to condemn others. It is a teaching that causes people to fall into legalistic thinking.

The actions of a few immodest purveyors of false modesty are not sufficient to indict true modesty when it occurs. Every one of the Spiritual Fruits can be falsified similarly with similar results.

 

[francisca]

Envy is its own problem and it is the problem of the one who envies (the one who wishes he could give as much as so-and-so), not the one who is envied (the one who gives as much as he does). However, the truly generous person would likely follow the Gospel instruction to let giving be secret (let not you left hand know what your right hand is doing).

Sure. However,

Love, Joy and Peace, Patience, Understanding of Others, Kindness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-Control

these Nine-fruits of the Spirit, DO NOT incite envy as “generosity” and “modesty” do. I guess these two are not of the same “class” of the nine.

Besides, in the case of modesty, one can’t keep secret his “modest” clothes.

There are plenty of people who manage to attain some or even several of the fruits of the Spirit without the benefit of any religion. Would you care to explain them?

Jesus said “I give you the joy the world can’t understand”. People who don’t believe in Jesus, they do not have the exact same joy like those whp put their trust in the Lord. The former usually say they are “happy”, they don’t sing about “joy in the Lord”. The joy of the Spirit is different kind of joy. Even in the church, many people lose their joy because they don’t really believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is still working for real, and that His work is more important than mere following rules.

People of different religion may put their trust in God (not in the name of Jesus Christ), in some moments they can “relate to the Higher Place” and they “acheive some joy” in some of their meditation. Even this is not the same kind of joy in the Lord. We do not need to follow through some meditaion steps in order to receive the joy. The joy of the Lord is always present to take care of those who believe in Him.

Similar case (with Joy) are the rest of the Nine-Fruits of the Spirit. They are called “fruits” because they are the result of the Spirit action in a person. If one do not put his trust in the Lord, he can’t have any of the fruits.

The actions of a few immodest purveyors of false modesty are not sufficient to indict true modesty when it occurs. Every one of the Spiritual Fruits can be falsified similarly with similar results.

Please give your example on how people may falsify the nine-fruits of the Spirit. Please note that you must assume innosence on the part of the person who practice them. Please show how the fruits bring about some negative consequence despite the innosence of the person who practice them.

 

[SonCatcher]

Sure. However,

Love, Joy and Peace, Patience, Understanding of Others, Kindness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-Control

these Nine-fruits of the Spirit, DO NOT incite envy as “generosity” and “modesty” do. I guess these two are not of the same “class” of the nine.

Sure they do! More likely, however, is that they can “encourage” others to hate, abuse, faithlessness, licentiousness, etc.

Besides, in the case of modesty, one can’t keep secret his “modest” clothes.

Again, modesty is NOT how you dress but how you carry yourself. Aboriginal tribes are frequently noted for how little they wear, yet modesty of a different type does exist in them.

Jesus said “I give you the joy the world can’t understand”. People who don’t believe in Jesus, they do not have the exact same joy like those whp put their trust in the Lord. The former usually say they are “happy”, they don’t sing about “joy in the Lord”. The joy of the Spirit is different kind of joy. Even in the church, many people lose their joy because they don’t really believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is still working for real, and that His work is more important than mere following rules.

I think it was “peace” but no matter. This is exactly correct. The World cannot understand the Joy that comes only in Christ. Likewise, Love, Peace, Patience, Understanding, Kindness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self-control, Modesty, Generosity and Chastity.

Some of them even vilified Blessed Theresa of Calcutta because they could not understand. Does that mean she should not have done these things?

People of different religion may put their trust in God (not in the name of Jesus Christ), in some moments they can “relate to the Higher Place” and they “acheive some joy” in some of their meditation. Even this is not the same kind of joy in the Lord. We do not need to follow through some meditaion steps in order to receive the joy. The joy of the Lord is always present to take care of those who believe in Him.

Similar case (with Joy) are the rest of the Nine-Fruits of the Spirit. They are called “fruits” because they are the result of the Spirit action in a person. If one do not put his trust in the Lord, he can’t have any of the fruits.

I never implied that people of other religions could attain the same fullness of these spiritual fruits. Just that they can attain them to some degree.

Please give your example on how people may falsify the nine-fruits of the Spirit. Please note that you must assume innosence on the part of the person who practice them. Please show how the fruits bring about some negative consequence despite the innosence of the person who practice them.

There is no need. You have directly undercut your own premise with the bolded section. Meanwhile, the underlined section is a non sequitur.

 

[francisca]

Again, modesty is NOT how you dress but how you carry yourself. Aboriginal tribes are frequently noted for how little they wear, yet modesty of a different type does exist in them.

I agree. Nevertheless CCC speaks about dress in paragraphs about modesty. People talk about dress when they talk about modesty.

 

[Della]

SonCatcher;8829781:

Again, modesty is NOT how you dress but how you carry yourself. Aboriginal tribes are frequently noted for how little they wear, yet modesty of a different type does exist in them.

I agree. Nevertheless CCC speaks about dress in paragraphs about modesty. People talk about dress when they talk about modesty.

Modesty is reflected in how we dress, it’s not the essence of modesty. If one is modest in one’s heart and mind that will be reflected in how one dresses and behaves.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The Council of Trent established that the authorized version of the Vulgate is free of doctrinal error, the authorized version was the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate which lists twelve Fruits. To argue that using those other three is bad is not only wrong, but heresy!

 

[francisca]

The Council of Trent established that the authorized version of the Vulgate is free of doctrinal error, the authorized version was the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate which lists twelve Fruits. To argue that using those other three is bad is not only wrong, but heresy!

Vulgate was seen as the most consistent translation of its own time.

Not anymore.

Time has change, technology develop, we know more now.

Tradition must progress. Life goes on.

 

[francisca]

Modesty is reflected in how we dress, it’s not the essence of modesty. If one is modest in one’s heart and mind that will be reflected in how one dresses and behaves.

That’s the tricky part. Some people may dress modestly (such as the pharisees of Jesus time), however their dress do not really represent their hearts.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Vulgate was seen as the most consistent translation of its own time.

Not anymore.

Time has change, technology develop, we know more now.

Tradition must progress. Life goes on.

The pronoucement was infallible, you would still be a heretic and anathema.

 

[francisca]

The pronoucement was infallible, you would still be a heretic and anathema.

How about the fact that in the past the church declared that “the earth was the centre of the universe” ?

Things we don’t know now, we will know in the future. None is guilty for not knowing the future.

In the same way, people of the past aren’t guilty of not knowing what we know now.

We shall not deny the truth we know now for the sake of the past. The reason is the same as the above: people of the past didn’t know what we know now. They weren’t guilty of not knowing the things we know now.

If we deny the truth we know now for the sake of the past, we are guilty of denying the truth that has been revealed (entrusted) to us.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

How about the fact that in the past the church declared that “the earth was the centre of the universe” ?

Things we don’t know now, we will know in the future. None is guilty for not knowing the future.

In the same way, people of the past aren’t guilty of not knowing what we know now.

We shall not deny the truth we know now for the sake of the past. The reason is the same as the above: people of the past didn’t know what we know now. They weren’t guilty of not knowing the things we know now.

If we deny the truth we know now for the sake of the past, we are guilty of denying the truth that has been revealed (entrusted) to us.

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

 

[Della]

How about the fact that in the past the church declared that “the earth was the centre of the universe” ?

Things we don’t know now, we will know in the future. None is guilty for not knowing the future.

In the same way, people of the past aren’t guilty of not knowing what we know now.

We shall not deny the truth we know now for the sake of the past. The reason is the same as the above: people of the past didn’t know what we know now. They weren’t guilty of not knowing the things we know now.

If we deny the truth we know now for the sake of the past, we are guilty of denying the truth that has been revealed (entrusted) to us.

The Church NEVER declared anything about the position of the earth in relation to the universe–the Church is not in the business of making scientific pronouncements. It is only concerned with matters of faith and morals. Wherever did you get the idea that the Church said this?

What has what people didn’t know in the past have to do with how many fruits of the Spirit there are? Frankly, I have no idea where you are going with this. The fruits of the Spirit are evident, that’s all St. Paul was trying to get across. Arguing over how many there are and whether or not you think certain ones “qualify” is simply pointless. God doesn’t care what we think. He wants us to produce good fruits no matter how many or what kind for the benefit of all those we come in contact with and the world.

 

[SonCatcher]

Vulgate was seen as the most consistent translation of its own time.

Not anymore.

Time has change, technology develop, we know more now.

Tradition must progress. Life goes on.

The Vulgate has been infallibly declared to be infallible. While it may not be the best resource for translating into modern languages, its value in the formation of doctrine cannot be diminished.

How about the fact that in the past the church declared that “the earth was the centre of the universe” ?

Things we don’t know now, we will know in the future. None is guilty for not knowing the future.

In the same way, people of the past aren’t guilty of not knowing what we know now.

We shall not deny the truth we know now for the sake of the past. The reason is the same as the above: people of the past didn’t know what we know now. They weren’t guilty of not knowing the things we know now.

If we deny the truth we know now for the sake of the past, we are guilty of denying the truth that has been revealed (entrusted) to us.

The Church never claimed to teach science.

One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: “I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.” For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.

St. Augustine​

 

[francisca]

I believe in following what is true.

You guys may believe in “the written law”. I believe more in what is true. Eventhough the letters sounds like “modesty”, but in real life it is more about “show off of clothes”, I would not buy the letters.

I really want to know from where the vulgate/ CCC get the additional 3.

 

[Della]

I believe in following what is true.

You guys may believe in “the written law”. I believe more in what is true. Eventhough the letters sounds like “modesty”, but in real life it is more about “show off of clothes”, I would not buy the letters.

I really want to know from where the vulgate/ CCC get the additional 3.

Then you should ask in the Sacred Scripture forum.

 

[SonCatcher]

I believe in following what is true.

As do I

You guys may believe in “the written law”.

Incorrect. St. Paul discussed the Law in Galatians 2:16
[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 2:16[/BIBLEDRB]

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

Eventhough the letters sounds like “modesty”, but in real life it is more about “show off of clothes”, I would not buy the letters.

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

I really want to know from where the vulgate/ CCC get the additional 3.

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