Questions from Spe Salvi by Benedict PP. XVI

[Quaeso]

Thank you, in your opinion is that more effective than a simple noun like nihil...sermonem?

 

[Pacifica]

Nihil sermonem would be ungrammatical. Nullum sermonem or nihil sermonis would work, but usually wouldn't express quite the same idea. Sermonem habere typically means to talk or have a conversation.

 

[Quaeso]

Oh yes, pardon me. I wasn't separating the participle use from the so called gerundive use (which seems identical to a noun, like the gerund). So that nihil habebant dicendum wouldn't have a future or obligatory connotation and would be quite similar to nullam habebant orationem.

Ita verus philosophus desiderabatur ille qui viam vitae vere docere sciebat. Tertio exeunte saeculo primum Romae super sarcophagum cuiusdam infantis, in contextu resurrectionis Lazari, Christi figuram reperimus uti veri philosophi qui altera manu Evangelium, altera vero baculum viatoris proprium philosophi tenet. -Spe Salvi ch.6

All the more, then, the true philosopher who really did know how to point out the path of life was highly sought after. Towards the end of the third century, on the sarcophagus of a child in Rome, we find for the first time, in the context of the resurrection of Lazarus, the figure of Christ as the true philosopher, holding the Gospel in one hand and the philosopher's travelling staff in the other.

Does primum modify reperimus? Any idea why the two words would be so far separated from one another in the text?

 

[Pacifica]

Oh yes, pardon me. I wasn't separating the participle use from the so called gerundive use (which seems identical to a noun, like the gerund). So that nihil habebant dicendum wouldn't have a future or obligatory connotation and would be quite similar to nullam habebant orationem.

I'm not sure what kind of usage you're referring to there.

Classically, the gerundive denotes obligation: "needing to be [verb]ed" or "which must/should be [verb]ed". That's the meaning we have here.

In late Latin, it occasionally functions as a future passive participle: "going to be [verb]ed" or "about to be [verb]ed".

There are some indications that in very early Latin, it could function as a bit of a present participle, but that was over by the time of classical Latin except for a few fossilized forms that had basically become adjectives, such as secundus (= sequendus), meaning "following" and hence "next", "second", etc.

gerundive use (which seems identical to a noun, like the gerund)

The gerund is a noun, but the gerundive is an adjective.

Does primum modify reperimus?

Yes.

Any idea why the two words would be so far separated from one another in the text?

Because the author wanted the idea of "for the first time" to come early in the sentence.

 

[Quaeso]

Philosophus potius erat ille qui artem essentialem docere sciebat: artem vi cuius homo recte se gerit, artem vivendi et moriendi. Profecto, homines pridem perceperunt plerosque eorum, qui tamquam philosophi vagabantur, veluti magistri vitae, tantummodo vaniloqui erant qui per suas fabulas sibi pecuniam conficiebant, dum e contra de vera vita nihil habebant dicendum. -Spe Salvi ch.6

Rather, the philosopher was someone who knew how to teach the essential art: the art of being authentically human—the art of living and dying. To be sure, it had long since been realized that many of the people who went around pretending to be philosophers, teachers of life, were just charlatans who made money through their words, while having nothing to say about real life.

Thank you, but what is your reading of the grammar (AG 500-503)?

It seems like the two (noun vs. participle) are separated there. -- "the participle in -dus, commonly called the Gerundive, has two distinct uses:" Also in the Gerund/Gerundive sections (502 ff.) I don't see any mention of obligation.

Gerundive (Future Passive Participle)

• Note- the participle in -dus, commonly called the Gerundive, has two distinct uses:--
• 1) Its predicate and attribute use as Participle or Adjective
• 2) Its use with the meaning of the Gerund (503). This may be called its gerundive use...

500. The gerundive when used as a participle or an adjective is always passive, denoting necessity, obligation, or propriety.

502. The gerund expresses an action of the verb in the form of a verbal noun. As a noun the gerund is itself governed by other words; as a verb it may take an object in the proper case.

503. When the gerund would have an object in the accusative, the Gerundive is generally used instead. The gerundive agrees with its noun, which takes the case that the gerund would have had.

 

[Pacifica]

Dicendum here is used as an adjective to nihil, and has the basic meaning mentioned at 500: "denoting necessity, obligation, or propriety".

 

[Quaeso]

Thomas Aquinas, philosophicae traditionis usurpans verba in qua reperitur, ita rem explanat: « fides est habitus mentis, quo inchoatur vita aeterna in nobis, faciens intellectum assentire non apparentibus ». Ideo conceptus « substantiae » mutatus est eo sensu quod per fidem, initiali modo, dicere possemus « in germine » – proinde secundum « substantiam » – inesse iam in nobis res quae sperantur: omnia, veram vitam.

Saint Thomas Aquinas[4], using the terminology of the philosophical tradition to which he belonged, explains it as follows: faith is a habitus, that is, a stable disposition of the spirit, through which eternal life takes root in us and reason is led to consent to what it does not see. The concept of “substance” is therefore modified in the sense that through faith, in a tentative way, or as we might say “in embryo”—and thus according to the “substance”—there are already present in us the things that are hoped for: the whole, true life.

Thank you, how do we get "in a tentative way" from initiali modo?

 

[Pacifica]

I'm not sure.

 

[Quaeso]

Me neither! I thought that you might not like that. Have you ever heard of the expression though, initiali modo? I would have said "in an original/true/perennial manner"

 

[Pacifica]

No, I have never come across it. On the face of it, it sounds like "initially".

 

[Pacifica]

If what is meant is indeed "tentatively", it may be a bit far-fetched but perhaps I can see how one would come up with initiali modo: in a "beginning" manner --> in a way that constitutes a start or attempt --> tentatively.

Is the Latin the original, or was the text initially (!) written in another language (Italian, German)?

 

[Pacifica]

I've found the phrase in another Vatican document (PDF here):

Baptismus hominem a culpa originali et ab omnibus peccatis personalibus abstergit, eum in filium Dei regenerat, Ecclesiae incorporat atque Sancti Spiritus donis sanctificat, charactere indelebili in anima impresso eum initiali modo Christi muneris sacerdotalis, prophetici et regalis participem facit.

I can's swear that this is what is meant, but something like "tentatively" could make sense here as well: the baptized person becomes all that "tentatively", but they can still fall from grace.

 

[Clemens]

I've found the phrase in another Vatican document (PDF here):

Baptismus hominem a culpa originali et ab omnibus peccatis personalibus abstergit, eum in filium Dei regenerat, Ecclesiae incorporat atque Sancti Spiritus donis sanctificat, charactere indelebili in anima impresso eum initiali modo Christi muneris sacerdotalis, prophetici et regalis participem facit.

I can's swear that this is what is meant, but something like "tentatively" could make sense here as well: the baptized person becomes all that "tentatively", but they can still fall from grace.

Possibly, but even a baptized person who falls from grace still has the indelible character on their soul, so I'm not sure if "tentatively" is meant here. Based on the paraphrase from the Aquinas text, where he equates initiali modo to in germine, I think it means more like "in an incipient manner" or just "incipient." In other words, the baptized person is invited to participate in Christ's threefold ministry of priest, prophet and king, but not in the fulness that Christ exercises these ministries, but as a beginner, in an incipient way. If so, I don't think tentative is a good translation in either text.

By the way, I was quite amused to see in the document regenerat written as régénérât, as if it were a French imperfect subjunctive. I'm wondering if their autocorrect mistook which language the text is written in.

 

[Pacifica]

You're likely right.

 

[Pacifica]

I meant regarding the interpretation of initiali modo, but you're likely right about the French autocorrect as well!