# gratissimum feceris Deo optimo maximo ecclesiaeque suae



## Tonoy

Dear Sir,
I am confused of the translation of the highlighted part of this sentence.
Source: ecclesiastical Latin (XVI century)

"If......,I would die joyfully and Your Paternity *gratissimum feceris Deo optimo maximo ecclesiaeque suae sponsoque suo,* of which this [religious] Order is."

Thank you very much!


----------



## bearded

Hello
I feel that perhaps something is missing in your quotation.. Can you please provide a longer excerpt (especially of the preceding words/sentences)? Thank you.


----------



## Tonoy

bearded said:


> Hello
> I feel that perhaps something is missing in your quotation.. Can you please provide a longer excerpt (especially of the preceding words/sentences)? Thank you.



Unfortunately this is a mix of two languages (Latin and Portuguese): I try to explain the context in brackets.

"_Eu, se vejo porta aberta per isso, morrerei contente_ (If I could see the door opened for these, I would die happily: the question is regarding the reception of foreign nationalities to a religious order) _e V.P_ (and Your Paternity= the Superior of the Order) *gratissimum feceris Deo optimo maximo ecclesiaeque suae sponsoque suo, *cua hé a Ordem (of whom the Order is)."


----------



## bearded

The highlighted part means:
''You will have done a thing/something most appreciated by (or: most welcome to)  God the best and the greatest, and by/to his Church and his/her spouse''
There remain some difficulties (for me, at least): ''you will have done'' doesn't seem to have a meaningful connection with the preceding words, and ''sponsoque suo'' is masculine and sounds like ''and his(her?) husband'' - maybe the church's husband is meant, (ecclesia/church is feminine), but I'm not sure.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!

In Paul's _Letter_ to the Ephesians (5:21) stands a reference to Christ as 'husband' to the (as bearded correctly notes) grammatically feminine Church (_ecclesia_, both in Greek and Latin), or the Church as the 'Bride of Christ'. Does this help?

Σ

Edit: a theologian of my acquaintance tells me that the imagery goes back to the Old Testament. Somewhere in Isaiah, Jahweh is metaphorically espoused, or wedded, to Israel. The Rabbi Paul will of course have known this—though I did not when I wrote the above message.


----------



## bearded

Thank you, Scholiast: it certainly helps - but is ''to his Church and to her (=the church's) husband'' plausible in such a 'tight' coordination sequence? 'Suae' and 'suo' sound as if referring to just one subject ..This puzzles me.


----------



## Tonoy

@bearded @Scholiast. Thank you for your responses" After reading them, I tried this one, and it fits the bill."
"...and Your Paternity would have done a thing pleasing, the best and the greatest, to God and to his church, and to his bride."  Yes Ephesians (5:21-23) alludes to the origin of the idea!


----------



## bearded

Tonoy said:


> and to his bride


The problem is that the text says ''husband/bridegroom'', not bride._  And to his bride_ would be 'sponsaeque suae'.


----------



## Pietruzzo

bearded said:


> The problem is that the text says ''husband/bridegroom'', not bride._  And to his bride_ would be 'sponsaeque suae'.


To me is quite clear that they're talking about the spouse of the Church, i.e. Jesus, as you had said previously.


----------



## Tonoy

Pietruzzo said:


> To me is quite clear that they're talking about the spouse of the Church, i.e. Jesus, as you had said previously.


@Pietruzzo Excellent discovery! "...and Your Paternity would have done a thing pleasing, the best and the greatest, to God and to his church, and to his spouse, of whom is the Order [Society of Jesus]."
I am so happy with this discovery!!!! A very fuitful discussion. Thank you also to bearded!


----------



## Tonoy

@bearded. Your observation of the gender question in the sentence was great. Thank you very much!


----------



## bearded

Pietruzzo said:


> To me is quite clear that they're talking about the spouse of the Church, i.e. Jesus, as you had said previously.


That would mean in ''ecclesiaeque suae sponsoque suo'' a sudden reference change for the possessive  adjective 'suus' : first_ his_ Church, then_ her_ husband. Semantically it would perhaps fit (you are lucky to find it ''quite clear''), but it seems to be bad Latin to me - even if late Latin.
(I would have expected ''ecclesiaeque suae eiusque sponso'').


----------



## Tonoy

bearded said:


> That would mean in ''ecclesiaeque suae sponsoque suo'' a sudden reference change for the possessive  adjective 'suus' : first_ his_ Church, then_ her_ husband. Semantically it would perhaps fit (you are lucky to find it ''quite clear''), but it seems to be bad Latin to me - even if late Latin.
> (I would have expected ''ecclesiaeque suae eiusque sponso'').


@bearded Yes Sir. It should be a mistake of Latin, especially given a writing style in which the author mixed up many languages of the sixteenth century.


----------



## Pietruzzo

bearded said:


> (I would have expected ''ecclesiaeque suae eiusque sponso'').


Why not "eius" in both cases then? As far as I can understand neither suo or suae refer to the subject of the sentence, which is "tu (feceris)".


----------



## bearded

Theoretically you are right, Pietruzzo. However,  "ecclesia sua" (to indicate "his own Church") seems to be an established formulation from phrases like "Deus amat ecclesiam suam".
What is inconceivable (to me) is using the same adjective in such a sequence (even  the pronoun "eius" for that matter). How would you understand in Italian "alla sua chiesa e al suo sposo"?At least it should be "alla sua chiesa e al di lei sposo", if you have to differentiate.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete de nouo!

I entirely agree with Pietruzzo's, and bearded's, remarks here (## 9, 12, 14, 15). I think we have to consider the possibility that the (presumably Portuguese?) author of the text under discussion was a little careless of the finer niceties of gender and the possessive adjectives in Latin.

But such mistakes (if this is the correct diagnosis) are all too easily made. At a wedding in which I was involved in German-speaking Switzerland some time ago a speech was made, in not quite perfect English, congratulating (much to everyone's mirth) the 'bride and bridesmaid' on their union.

Σ


----------



## Pietruzzo

Tonoy said:


> @Pietruzzo Excellent discovery! "...and Your Paternity would have done a thing pleasing, the best and the greatest, to God and to his church, and to his spouse, of whom is the Order [Society of Jesus]."


Two small remarks:
"The best and the greatest" should refer to "God" (Deo optimo maximo).
Jesus is "sponsus ecclesiae"  so "his spouse" doesn't sound correct. If you can't consider "church" feminine in English, I suggest to say "to God, good and great, to his Church and to the spouse of the Church (Jesus).
Provided I got the whole thing right.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more

Three meagre footnotes to Pietruzzo's latest (and worthwhile) contribution here (# 16).

(1) '[Iuppiter] Optimus Maximus' was already long in use in pre-Christian Roman times as an honorific address or title for the top god, and has clearly been adopted (not inappropriately) for use in a specifically Christian context;
(2) In English,  the word 'spouse' is grammatically common, referring equally to a married partner of either sex;
(3) Though 'church' in English, as it developed in mediaeval times from Anglo-Saxon, has for most purposes lost its sense or use of gender, the closely related German _Kirche_ is grammatically feminine still, and I must assume therefore that its A-S antecedent was too.

Σ


----------



## Pietruzzo

Scholiast said:


> Though English, as it developed in mediaeval times from Anglo-Saxon, has for most purposes lost its sense or use of gender, the closely related German _Kirche_ is grammatically feminine still, and I must assume therefore that its A-S antecedent was too.


Are you saying that "her spouse" (of the Church) would be correct  in English?


----------



## Tonoy

I do not know whether this translation will work: "..Your Paternity would have done a thing pleasing to God, good and great, and to his Church, and to her [Church] spouse [Jesus], of whom is the Order [Society of Jesus]."
Yes, Pietruzzo, as far as I know, as Scholiast pointed out at the comment 18, _spouse _is applied to either sex.


----------



## Tonoy

Or    "Your Paternity would have done a thing, pleasing to the good and the greatest God, to his Church and to her spouse, of whom is the Society [of Jesus]"
her spouse=the spouse of the church (feminine)=Jesus


----------



## Tonoy

Scholiast said:


> Greetings once more
> 
> Three meagre footnotes to Pietruzzo's latest (and worthwhile) contribution here (# 16).
> 
> (1) '[Iuppiter] Optimus Maximus' was already long in use in pre-Christian Roman times as an honorific address or title for the top god, and has clearly been adopted (not inappropriately) for use in a specifically Christian context;
> (2) In English,  the word 'spouse' is grammatically common, referring equally to a married partner of either sex;
> (3) Though 'church' in English, as it developed in mediaeval times from Anglo-Saxon, has for most purposes lost its sense or use of gender, the closely related German _Kirche_ is grammatically feminine still, and I must assume therefore that its A-S antecedent was too.
> 
> Σ


Excellent observations!!!


----------

