An Example of the Future Passive Participle?

[MichaelJYoo]

Would the bolded section of these sentences be an example of the future passive participle, not being used as a passive periphrastic or gerundive?

Totum & adaequatum fidei istius objectum, omnia istius objecti adtributa necessario credenda, omnes atque universi fidei istius actus, antecedens, formalis, & consequentes, istis continentur.

My translation is:

The whole and adequate object of that faith, all things associated with that object and necessary to be believed, and every act of that whole faith, the antecedent, the formal, and the consequences, are contained in them.

Is there a hard and fast rule to help determine if the future passive participle is being used to imply necessity or obligation and is not being used as a gerundive (or a periphrastic)?

 

[Pacifica]

Credenda is here used as a regular gerundive, i.e. conveying obligation or necessity rather than mere futurity. If it were used as a future passive participle, it would mean "which will be believed" rather than "which must be believed". "To be believed" here means "which must be believed".

The gerundive conveying mere futurity is relatively rare, but does occur in later Latin, so I guess it could occur in the stuff you're translating. The only way to differentiate it from the classical usage is by context — just see what makes sense.

Note that universi modifies actus, not fidei (mind the gender).

 

[MichaelJYoo]

Credenda is here used as a regular gerundive, i.e. conveying obligation or necessity rather than mere futurity. If it were used as a future passive participle, it would mean "which will be believed" rather than "which must be believed". "To be believed" here means "which must be believed".

The gerundive conveying mere futurity is relatively rare, but does occur in later Latin, so I guess it could occur in the stuff you're translating. The only way to differentiate it from the classical usage is by context — just see what makes sense.

Note that universi modifies actus, not fidei (mind the gender).

Thank you. Is the gerundive the exact same as the future passive participle? Because the book I use distinguishes between the two saying that while the forms are identical, the future passive participle conveys obligation or necessity, whereas the gerundive is often used in place of a gerund that would have taken a direct object. On the other hand, others, as I think you did in your post, say that the gerundive refers to both uses.

 

[Pacifica]

Your book says strange things.

The gerundive and the so-called future passive participle are the same thing. It originally, and most often, denotes obligation or necessity or is used in place of a gerund that would have taken a direct object, and its occasional use as a future passive participle (i.e. denoting futurity rather than obligation or necessity) developed only later.

Some people choose to call it "future passive participle" in all cases even though that's not really what it is most of the time, but calling it "future passive participle" when it has its original function of denoting obligation or necessity and "gerundive" when it's used in place of a gerund is a totally new idea to me.

 

[Bitmap]

I would use a different book.