NH Latin Prose Composition

[Matthew Gendzwill]

"In the following sentences Latin requires the dependent verb to be in the subjunctive."

They have come in order that they may conquer us.
Veniunt nos vincant.


They sent money that we might buy our freedom
Pecuniam miserunt libertatem nostris emeremus.

We had already succeeded so well that we had hoped to win.
Iam procificiebamus tam bene vincere speremus.

[bedwere]

There are several problems. The exercise only requires you to choose the right tense without translating. So you should first understand the consecutio temporum (Rule 1, page 2). If you want to translate, you should apply Rule 2, page 4 (for final sentences) and Rule 3, page 8 for consecutive sentences. Also you should refresh English morphology. What tense is they have come? What tense is we had succeeded? To what Latin tenses do these English tenses correspond?

[Matthew Gendzwill]

Exercise 1, page 3

There are several problems. The exercise only requires you to choose the right tense without translating. So you should first understand the consecutio temporum (Rule 1, page 2). If you want to translate, you should apply Rule 2, page 4 (for final sentences) and Rule 3, page 8 for consecutive sentences. Also you should refresh English morphology. What tense is they have come? What tense is we had succeeded? To what Latin tenses do these English tenses correspond?

The primary sequence uses in the main clause the indicative: present, future, or perfect tense (with auxiliary) with either the present or perfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause.

The secondary/historical sequence uses in the main clause the indicative: imperfect, pluperfect or perfect tense with either the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause.

The pluperfect indicative tense which is formed with the auxillary "had" and the past participle.
English grammar: Pluperfect. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2016, from http://www.tolearnenglish.com/free/news ... erfect.htm

The pluperfect indicative tense for Latin is formed by joining to the third principle part of any verb the imperfect of "sum": eram, eras, erat, eramus, eratis, erant.
http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php? ... 1=9&H1=109

"Final" senetences show final cause, that purpose to which some verb/action is ended.

1) They have come in order that they may conquer us.
Venerunt ut nos vincant.

"They have come" is in perfect indicative tense.
i, isti, it, imus, istis, erunt and so it is "venerunt" not "veniunt".


2) They sent money that we might buy our freedom
Pecuniam miserunt ut libertatem nostris emeremus.

The perfect indicative in the main clause doesn't have the auxiliary and the dependent subjunctive is imperfect.


3) We had already succeeded so well that we had hoped to win.
Iam procificeramus tam bene ut vincere speremus.


"We had...succeeded" is in pluperfect indicative tense but the dependent verb is imperfect subjunctive...? Well, at least according to the answer key, it is. But am I wrong about the independent verb?

[bedwere]

"Final" senetences show final cause, that purpose to which some verb/action is ended.

1) They have come in order that they may conquer us.
Venerunt ut nos vincant.

"They have come" is in perfect indicative tense.
i, isti, it, imus, istis, erunt and so it is "venerunt" not "veniunt".


2) They sent money that we might buy our freedom
Pecuniam miserunt ut libertatem nostris emeremus.

The perfect indicative in the main clause doesn't have the auxiliary and the dependent subjunctive is imperfect.


3) We had already succeeded so well that we had hoped to win.
Iam procificeramus tam bene ut vincere speremus.


"We had...succeeded" is in pluperfect indicative tense but the dependent verb is imperfect subjunctive...? Well, at least according to the answer key, it is. But am I wrong about the independent verb?

nostris really? What case is it?
procificeramus What's the perfect stem?
speremus What tense is it?

Notice that in the book it is:
We had already succeeded so well that we hoped to win.
Otherwise it would be strange.

It is imperfect subjunctive because the dependent indicates something contemporary with a historic sense:

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

"Final" senetences show final cause, that purpose to which some verb/action is ended.

1) They have come in order that they may conquer us.
Venerunt ut nos vincant.

"They have come" is in perfect indicative tense.
i, isti, it, imus, istis, erunt and so it is "venerunt" not "veniunt".


2) They sent money that we might buy our freedom
Pecuniam miserunt ut libertatem nostris emeremus.

The perfect indicative in the main clause doesn't have the auxiliary and the dependent subjunctive is imperfect.


3) We had already succeeded so well that we had hoped to win.
Iam procificeramus tam bene ut vincere speremus.


"We had...succeeded" is in pluperfect indicative tense but the dependent verb is imperfect subjunctive...? Well, at least according to the answer key, it is. But am I wrong about the independent verb?

nostris really? What case is it?

I like to think I am not lazy but also I am thinking that there is no other explanation for my not knowing that nostris is first person plural adjective dative/ablative and not...some kind of genitive form, an idea which occurs to no one else but me. Noster, Nostra, Nostrum, masc., fem., neuter.

Pecuniam miserunt ut libertatem nostram emeremus.



procificeramus What's the perfect stem?
"To form the pluperfect indicative active of any verb, first construct the pluperfect base: remove the ending -i from the third principle part to isolate the...perfect active stem..." Collins, pp 89
Proficio, proficere, profeci, profectus, a, um
For the imperfect subjunctive: "...the entire second principle part...is used as the base; to this are added the personal endings." Collins, pp183
m, s, t, mus, tis, nt, r, ris, tur, mur, mini, ntur

speremus What tense is it?

Iam profeceramus tam bene ut vincere speraremus.

Notice that in the book it is:
We had already succeeded so well that we hoped to win.
Otherwise it would be strange.

It is imperfect subjunctive because the dependent indicates something contemporary with a historic sense:

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

Next, I'm going to just review the above four definitions.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

The perfect auxiliary in the main clause makes a secondary/historical tense and in the subordinate clause either the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive will be used.

I am going to the city to buy bread
Ad urbem eo ut panem emam

He went to the city lest he should see his father.
Ad urbem ivit ne patrem videret.

We have gone home to see our friends.
Domum ivimus ut amicos videamus

We shall go to Caesar to ask for peace.
Ad Caesarem ibimus ut pacem rogemus.

Do not send me to ask for peace.
Ne me miseris ut pacem rogem.

We were running fast that we might not be caught.
Celeriter currebamus ne caparemur.

"If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive."
Question: For the following how is the action in the dependent precedent to that of the independent clause?
I have bought a horse that I may not be tired.
Equum emi ut non fessus sim.

Give him a sword that he may not be killed.
Gladium da ei ne interficiatur.

[bedwere]

The perfect auxiliary in the main clause makes a secondary/historical tense and in the subordinate clause either the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive will be used.

I am going to the city to buy bread
Ad urbem eo ut panem emam

He went to the city lest he should see his father.
Ad urbem ivit ne patrem videret.

We have gone home to see our friends.
Domum ivimus ut amicos videamus

We shall go to Caesar to ask for peace.
Ad Caesarem ibimus ut pacem rogemus.

Do not send me to ask for peace.
Ne me miseris ut pacem rogem.

We were running fast that we might not be caught.
Celeriter currebamus ne caparemur.

"If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive."
Question: For the following how is the action in the dependent precedent to that of the independent clause?
I have bought a horse that I may not be tired.
Equum emi ut non fessus sim.

Give him a sword that he may not be killed.
Gladium da ei ne interficiatur.

Check typo in bold word. Ut non for a final (but not in a consecutive) may raise some objections from the purists of classical Latin.
As for your question, principal and dependent are contemporary in either case. The perfect in this case is used as a primary tense to indicate a present condition.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

We were running fast that we might not be caught.
Celeriter currebamus ne caparemur.

"If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive."
Question: For the following how is the action in the dependent precedent to that of the independent clause?
I have bought a horse that I may not be tired.
Equum emi ut non fessus sim.

Give him a sword that he may not be killed.
Gladium da ei ne interficiatur.[/quote]

Check typo in bold word. Ut non for a final (but not in a consecutive) may raise some objections from the purists of classical Latin.
As for your question, principal and dependent are contemporary in either case. The perfect in this case is used as a primary tense to indicate a present condition.

The bold indication is a typo. I did read the answer key as I typed it's sentences... It is strange and shameful to state the poverty of my intellect but that condition is the motive of my persistence.
"caperḗmur"

Question:
"Ut non for a final (but not in a consecutive)"... A final clause signifies the end from which an action is defined. Does not a consecutive clause show the necessity of an effect from a cause?

[bedwere]

The final implies a purpose in the mind of the agent.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

You had gone to Italy to see the king's son.
ieratis ad Italiam ut regis filium videratis

If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.
So in the preceding is written a final sentence showing the purpose of a going, existing in the mind of agents prior to their going and signified in it's dependent clause.

We were sent to ask for peace.
Missi sumus ut pacem rogaremus.

If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
In the preceding I don't understand why the action in the dependent is contemporary with the action of the independent.

[bedwere]

You had gone to Italy to see the king's son.
ieratis ad Italiam ut regis filium videratis

If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.
So in the preceding is written a final sentence showing the purpose of a going, existing in the mind of agents prior to their going and signified in it's dependent clause. 

We were sent to ask for peace.
Missi sumus ut pacem rogaremus.

If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
In the preceding I don't understand why the action in the dependent is contemporary with the action of the independent.

In the first sentence the dependent is contemporary with the principal, which is in a historic tense. So wrong tense and wrong mood in the dependent. Or maybe it's just a typo?

We were sent [in the past] to ask [in the past] for peace.
The second sentence too shows a principal in a historic tense and a dependent contemporary with the principal. So the imperfect conjunctive is correct.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.

"In the first sentence the dependent is contemporary with the principal, which is in a historic tense. So wrong tense and wrong mood in the dependent. Or maybe it's just a typo?" Bedwere

The imperfect subjunctive is made by adding to the infinitive active of any verb the personal endings.

ieratis ad Italiam ut regis filium videratis

No, there is not a typo in the sentence. There is a confusion. The principle is imperfect indicative/historic. The dependent must be imperfect subjunctive. The confusion is conceptual and visual since I am not certain about how to see the relation of time and so put the imperfect indicative into the dependent and my visual difficulty is an accident: Videratis is imperfect indicative.

You went to Italy that you might see the king's son.
Ad Italiam ieratis ut regis filium videretis.

[bedwere]

The imperfect subjunctive is made by adding to the infinitive active of any verb the personal endings.

ieratis ad Italiam ut regis filium videratis

No, there is not a typo in the sentence. There is a confusion. The principle is imperfect indicative/historic. The dependent must be imperfect subjunctive. The confusion is conceptual and visual since I am not certain about how to see the relation of time and so put the imperfect indicative into the dependent and my visual difficulty is an accident: Videratis is imperfect indicative.

You went to Italy that you might see the king's son.
Ad Italiam ieratis ut regis filium videretis.

A final dependent, which is expressed with to+infinitive in English, is always contemporary with the principal.

Videratis, dear sir, is not imperfect indicative. What tense is it really? What is the imperfect indicative of video?

[Matthew Gendzwill]

"Videratis, dear sir, is not imperfect indicative. What tense is it really? What is the imperfect indicative of video?"

The imperfect indicative of video is videbam.
"Videratis" is made with the third principle stem and the imperfect of sum, i.e., the pluperfect indicative.

I don't know what to say! I know how to make the imperfect and pluperfect of both indicative and subjunctive moods! Anyway... I better go away from any thing I post, return to it after at least and hour, review it for the obvious and then post it with corrections.

[bedwere]

That may help. Also, try to read some easy Latin every day to get a deeper feeling of the language. The Gospels would be perfect.

[rothbard]

That may help. Also, try to read some easy Latin every day to get a deeper feeling of the language. The Gospels would be perfect.

I find the Android app "Latin Bible Free" very useful for this. If one is stuck, the English translation can be displayed by tapping on each verse. For the English text, one can can choose between the Douay-Rheims and the Catholic Public Domain Version.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

Thank you. I have VulSerch4 with the Douay-Rheims. Also the Liber I have and practice from it frequently for the Ancient Rite. I'll just keep on keepn' on! The Collects of the Mass are even becoming more clear as a result of working in this forum. But I'm not a young man anymore. But I cannot not persist in this.

[rothbard]

Thank you. I have VulSerch4 with the Douay-Rheims. Also the Liber I have and practice from it frequently for the Ancient Rite. I'll just keep on keepn' on! The Collects of the Mass are even becoming more clear as a result of working in this forum. But I'm not a young man anymore. But I cannot not persist in this.

In addition to the Vulgate, I have also been reading chapters from Caesar's "De Bello Gallico". I like the fact that there are several annotated versions. One of them, the 1907 edition by Ewing, Lowe and Thomas (available here) is fully macronised and has an extensive grammar appendix which refers to passages from the book. I often read it on the way to or from work, and I don't progress to the next chapter until I think I've understood all the grammar (although I often find out I missed something). Re-reading earlier chapters also helps.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

Final Sentences
The final implies a purpose in the mind of the agent.
A final dependent, which is expressed with to+infinitive in English, is always contemporary with the principal.

Dumb question: In a final sentence is an active infinitive in the dependent always contemporary with the action in the principle?


If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

Exercise 4

If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
I was sent to ask for peace.
missus sum ut pacem rogarem
A final dependent, which is expressed with to+infinitive in English, is always contemporary with the principal.

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
I shall do this in order to help my friends.
Hoc faciam ut amicos juvem.

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
They have gone away lest they should be seen.
Abierunt ne videantur
The use of the perfect auxiliary signifies the primary tense.

[bedwere]

Dumb question: In a final sentence is an active infinitive in the dependent always contemporary with the action in the principle?

You may have some rare case of past intention. Also a final dependent in English could also have a passive infinitive, but it's (nearly) always contemporary. Of course, not all dependents are final.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

[Matthew Gendzwill]

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

Exercise 4


If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
They had gone away that they might not be seen.
Abierunt ne vidererentur.

Because the English has "had", I thought the pluperfect was in the primary. When I looked at the key I saw that considering whether the pluperfect were in the primary is irrelevant. Also the use of that auxiliary may not sign the English pluperfect.

[mwh]

I’m not sure what the problem is, but the following should help.

“They had gone away” is pluperfect, abierant. Pluperfect is a historic tense.
Abierant ne viderentur (imperfect subjunctive) means “They had gone away in order that they might not be seen” (“They had gone away lest they be seen”),
i.e. “They had gone away to avoid being seen.”

You wrote “Abierunt ne vidererentur.” For vidererentur (a non-form) read viderentur.
abierunt is perfect tense. Here it’s followed by imperfect subjunctive. That tells us that the perfect is here being used as a historic tense, meaning “they went away” (not as a primary tense, meaning “they have gone away”).
So this means “They went away in order that they might not be seen”,
i.e. “They went away to avoid being seen.”

You may be making things more complicated than they are.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

Yes. I am. So for now, one sentence at a time. I can't explain my confusion. But it will resolve.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.
"I’m not sure what the problem is...."

Pluperfect indicative: Third principle stem plus the imperfect indicative of sum.
ab-ire. ire, eo, ii, itum. Third principle stem: i , so, abieram, abieras, abierat, abieramus, abieratis, abierant.

Historical tense: Pluperfect indicative.

Therefore: Abierunt ne vidererentur. is wrong because the dependent requires an historical tense in the primary.

[bedwere]

Matthew, read again carefully what Michael wrote.

Abierunt is not pluperfect, but perfect.
vidererentur is wrong in any possible circumstance because it's not Latin.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

Matthew, read again carefully what Michael wrote.

Abierunt is not pluperfect, but perfect.
vidererentur is wrong in any possible circumstance because it's not Latin.

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

Exercise 4
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.

1) "You wrote 'Abierunt ne vidererentur'”. For vidererentur (a non-form) read viderentur.".

2) "abierunt is perfect tense. Here it’s followed by imperfect subjunctive. That tells us that the perfect is here being used as a historic tense.".

Therefore: Abierunt ne vidererentur. is wrong because the dependent requires an historical tense in the primary.

Also looking again at the answer key:
3) Abierunt ne videantur. Perfect indicative and present subjunctive
4) Abierant ne viderentur. Pluperfect indicative and imperfect subjunctive

[Matthew Gendzwill]

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

The pluperfect subjunctive is the joint of the third principle stem of a verb with the imperfect subjunctive of sum

20 Tunc cœpit exprobráre civitátibus, in quibus factæ sunt plúrimæ virtútes ejus, quia non egíssent pœniténtiam 

If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

Coepit exprobare...quia non egissent...

Question: Is the dependent in the above sentence precedent to a historic tense? If it is, I fail to understand how/why.

[bedwere]

Coepit here is historic. It is perfect in the sense of action completed in the past. This is also called aoristic perfect, to be distinguished from the perfect proper that indicates a complete action in the present time.
Egissent precedes the action associated with coepit and must be in the pluperfect subjunctive.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

Coepit here is historic. It is perfect in the sense of action completed in the past. This is also called aoristic perfect, to be distinguished from the perfect proper that indicates a complete action in the present time.
Egissent precedes the action associated with coepit and must be in the pluperfect subjunctive.

He began to upbraid because they had not done.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

eram, eras, erat, eramus, eratis, erant.
essem, esses, esset, essemus, essetis, essent.

Question: May the aoristic perfect be used with both imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive?

Exercise 4

5) Aegros relinquemus ne impediamur.
Present indicative, present subjunctive.



6) Ut amicos juvemus dolorem pati volumus.
Present indicative, present subjunctive



7) Ut nos juvarent celerrime contenderant.
Pluperfect indicative, imperfect subjunctive


8 Hoc fecit ut consul fieret.
Aoristic perfect, imperfect subjunctive

[bedwere]

I

Question: May the aoristic perfect be used with both imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive?

Better question: May both the imperfect and the pluperfect subjunctive be used in a clause dependent from a principal in the aoristic perfect? The answer is yes. The aoristic perfect is a historic tense. If the dependent is contemporary with it, you write the present subjunctive, if it is precedent, you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

5) relinquemus is not present but...

[Matthew Gendzwill]

I

Question: May the aoristic perfect be used with both imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive?

Better question: May both the imperfect and the pluperfect subjunctive be used in a clause dependent from a principal in the aoristic perfect? The answer is yes. The aoristic perfect is a historic tense. If the dependent is contemporary with it you write the present subjunctive, if it is precedent you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

5) relinquemus is not present but...

FINAL SENTENCES....
Contemporary action or precedent action in the dependent clause related to action in the primary clause

May both the imperfect and the pluperfect subjunctive be used in a clause dependent from a principal in the aoristic perfect?

3rd conjugation
relinquo, relinquere, reliqui, relictum.

Future indicative, primary tense in final sentences
relinquam, relinques, relinquet, relinquemus, relinquetis, relinquent.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

Re: NH Latin Prose Composition

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

FINAL SENTENCES

Et factum est, cum consummásset Jesus parábolas istas, tránsiit inde.

The pluperfect is in the clause dependent of the primary in which is the aoristic perfect. But this is not a final sentence. My next dumb questions are: Can this sequence occur in other kinds of sentences and may the sentence above belong to a kind of sentences?

[bedwere]

Et factum est, cum consummásset Jesus parábolas istas, tránsiit inde.

The pluperfect is in the clause dependent of the primary in which is the aoristic perfect. But this is not a final sentence. My next dumb questions are: Can this sequence occur in other kinds of sentences and may the sentence above belong to a kind of sentences?

Yes, this is a classic example of application of the consecutio temporum in a temporal, half-causal clause.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

If the dependent is contemporary to a primary tense you write the present subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a primary tense you write the perfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is contemporary to a history tense you write the imperfect subjunctive.
If the dependent is precedent to a historic tense you write the pluperfect subjunctive.

FINAL SENTENCES
I think the following sentence involves the active participle nominative with the imperfect subjunctive in the dependent and makes an action contemporary with the action (not aoristic) of the primary whose verb is perfect indicative.

Et congregátæ sunt ad eum turbæ multæ, ita ut navículam ascéndens sedéret 

How must I see the use of the infinitives in the following: "...nec ad Deum se erigere potis est nec illius exsistentiam, utut per ea quae videntur, agnoscere."

It seems the use of "nec...utut" is a kind of mode for construction.

[bedwere]

First it's not a final but a consecutive. Yes, the action in the dependent is contemporary with the primary. However the perfect indicative congregatae sunt in the primary is aoristic (action completed in the past). In fact the original Greek (Mat. 13:2) has συνήχθησαν, which is aorist indicative passive. In Latin we use the perfect to translate both the Greek aorist (action completed in the past) and the Greek perfect (action completed in the present). Hence in Latin it is only the context that tells you when the action is actually completed.

Regarding the second (Pascendi dominici gregis, Denzinger 3475 2072), it reads:

Quare nec ad Deum se erigere potis est, nec illius exsistentiam, utut per ea, quae videntur, agnoscere.

You could rewrite the second part as "non potis est agnoscere illius [i.e., Dei] exsistentiam

So agnoscere depends on potis est

Please provide sources next time.

[Matthew Gendzwill]

Thank you

The final and consecutive clauses are kinds of adverbial clauses.

The consecutive clause acts as the result of the action of the independent clause.
"Nemo tam potens est ut omnia efficere possit."
"Nobody is so powerful as to be able to perform everything."
It is not possible for one to perform everything as a result of being so powerful.

(Mountford, Arnold, & Bradley, 2006) pp76


"...nec ad Deum se erigere potis est nec illius exsistentiam, utut per ea quae videntur, agnoscere."

"...Can neither reach God nor come to know of his existence by means of visible things."

This clause sounds as though "to reach" or "to know" would not be possible by the action of seeing. It is not an independent clause. But the action of the infinitives seems to be dependent upon the indicative passive, as though being a result of the indicative passive.

Amerio, R., Italian, J. P. P., Roman, A., & Parsons, J. P. (1996). Iota unum: A study of changes in the Catholic church in the XXth century (5th ed.). Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press., pp373

Within the context of paragraph 163, it seems the author is showing the proposition that, after all, the intellect cannot have truth as a specific object and that this had begun to be prevalent thinking after the Council?

Final Sentence
Ut amicos juvemus dolorem pati volumus.

the deponent infinitive with present indicative, first person plural, in the independent clause, a primary tense, with purposing action in the dependent clause given in the present subjunctive, contemporary to action in the independent