In nomine Patri

Which of the following is more correct?

a.) In nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti

b.) In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti

c.) both are the same

The first seems more accurate to me (and just sounds better), but the second is what appears in the 1962 Missal, to my knowledge.

Hello :),

Actually, b.) is correct. “Patris” comes from “pater” (which, I’m sure you know means “father”). And the form of pater which means “of the father” is patris. If a) were correct, it would be translated something like “In the name ** to ** the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

Or, in technical language:

Pater is a third declension noun and -is the genitive singular ending of third declension nouns. In b) pater is in the dative, which makes no sense.

[quote=Archbishop 10-K]Which of the following is more correct?

a.) In nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti

b.) In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti

c.) both are the same

The first seems more accurate to me (and just sounds better), but the second is what appears in the 1962 Missal, to my knowledge.
[/quote]

By the same token, “Filius” is a second-declension noun, so the genitive singular is “Filii”, as shown here. Now comes the confusing part. Since “Spiritus” (Spirit) is also a second declension noun, the adjective “Sanctus” (Holy) appears in the second declension. Like many adjectives, this one can take a masculine, feminine, or neuter ending to match the noun being modified. In the genitive singular, then it appears as “Sancti”. Why, then does the noun not take the genitive ending and become “Spiritui”? It seems odd. Perhaps someone knows the reason.

Good question…
“Spiritus” sounds like a 2nd declension noun but it is a 4th declension noun. And the genitive of the 4th declension is -us.

It’s that pesky 4th declension - all its nouns look like 2nd declension - that always throws me for a loop. :stuck_out_tongue:

But, I actually use the sign of the cross to help me remember it.

Egad, that’s confusing!

Thanks for the answers, though. Looks like I’ll need to re-train myself to the second one.

peregrinator_it:

I believe that “In nomine Patri” is a case of the Dative of Possession. I could argue for “Spiritu” as another dative, based on an entry in Bennett, “New Latin Grammar” (1908), section 49.2. [Bolchazy-Carducci reprinted this volume.] But that would dictate “Spiritu Sancto” in order to create agreement, and while many formulations may have been used (“Fili” can also be correct ~ Bennett 25.2), this does not seem to be one of them.

I have seen Niermeyer’s Medieval Latin Dictionary in what I assume was an unabridged form, and it seemed like a thing of beauty to me. I had not heard of Stelten’s “Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin” until I started to research this answer.

Anyone up for a discussion of whether the “doulos” (a transliteration from Greek) of the high priest whose ear is struck off in the Garden of Gethsemane, then reattached by Jesus, is a really slave or, as it is often translated, a “servant”? [My bias shows in the quote marks.] My Attic Greek dictionary (Liddell and Scott, abridged) does not permit “slave” as a translation. I don’t have access to a copy of the Bauer Lexicon, the great resource on biblical Greek.

The Vulgate (about 400 AD) uses “servus”. The Golden and Silver Age of Latin Literature (ending about 100 AD), as documented by Charlton Lewis’s great dictionary, permits both translations, but “slave” appears first. Niermeyer, cited above, covers 500-1150 AD (I think), and encourages “servant”.

Even by the time “servus” has become “serf” in the Russia of the 1800s, “servant” is not an acceptable translation. I believe that this translation appears so often because translators are not comfortable with the ethical situation in the original text. The NRSV uses “slave”, and the HarperCollins Study Bible of this translation does not seem to feel that the choice is worthy of a footnote.

Whoa! Thanks for saying that. This will help me in my Latin class.

Matthew 28:19, in the Vulgate, Weber-Gryson, 5th Edition:

“euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti”

In the sign of the cross, the genitive “Patris” is used.

In the creed, the dative “Patri” is used (“consubstantialem Patri”) but translated as a “with the Father.” In one of the older missals, it was translated “consubstantial to the Father.”

This is a very old thread, by the way.

Thank you very much, ProVobis.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.