--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
<lafaustus@y...> wrote:

> L. Arminius Faustus Tribunus Plebis S. P. D.
>
> Citizens!
>
> The Tribuneship is a so sacred function we, Tribunes, should fear
> nothing, except offending the gods by not acting!
>
> >
> VIII - In summa. Neither Fabia Vera Fausta is guilt, neither Modius
> Athanasius is guilt. Causa finita. Let´s come back to better
> discussions for our Res Publica.
>
> > Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus
> Tribunus Plebis
>

Salvete Quirites;
I called upon the Tribunes of the Plebs, and Lucius Arminius
Faustus, came forward.
I am satisfied, I absolutely accept Tribune Gaius Modius
Athanasius's explanation and apologize that I thought otherwise. I
can only add that I respected his position and authority and shall
continue to do so.
bene valete in pace deorem
Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta

A. Apollonius Cordus to all his fellow-citizens and
all peregrines, greetings.

I previously wrote, referring to Senator Fabius
Maximus' decision to withdraw from the discussion:

> It is heartening to see that there is still one in >

the republic who, seeing the forum slide from

> civility and good sense into acrimony and nonsense,
> takes the statesmanlike and conscientious decision
> to duck out of the whole business. I, being a
> statesman of far inferior calibre, am sadly
> incapable of such uprightness, but instead feel
> compelled to intervene to try to help set things
> right.

It has since been brought to my attention that there
is a danger that some people might read this and, not
realizing that I was being deeply sarcastic, fear
(quite justifiably) that I had gone completely off my
rocker. My apologies to anyone who thought I was being
sincere. ;)





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend the Consul Cn.
Equitius Marinus, and to all his fellow-citizens and
all peregrines, greetings.

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with you on
this issue. It is easy for a magistrate to forget that
he wields considerable power, but it is harder for
other people to forget it, particularly when it is
brought explicitly to their attention. A magistrate
may know in his own mind that he has no intention to
exercise undue influence or to abuse his power, but
that knowledge alone is not enough to ensure that
others will not feel intimidated by the possibility of
such abuse. Even though he may be careful never to
abuse his power, he may unintentionally and
unwittingly abuse it nonetheless.

This is, indeed, precisely how power becomes excessive
and oppressive. When Octavian became Augustus he had
an unprecedented constitutional position, but it was
nonetheless theoretically founded in law and
susceptible to legal challenge. Yet on several
occasions he acted beyond his strict legal powers, and
no one challenged him. Why was this? Not because he
would have killed any challenger - we can never know
whether he would have done so or not - but because
people feared that he might, and were not prepared to
take the risk.

It is the duty of every magistrate not only to refrain
from abusing his power but to make every effort to
avoid giving the slightest impression that he might do
so. There is every difference between 'I would like an
apple' and 'I, the Emperor, would like an apple'.

I do not suggest that Tribune Athanasius had any
conscious intention to intimidate, or to imply an
official command; but it is clear that by making
mention of his office, which was not strictly
relevant, in the midst of an otherwise private and
unofficial communication, he inadvertantly achieved
precisely that. Magistrates must recognize that they
may have such effects on others without meaning to,
and must therefore be careful not only to avoid
coercion but also to avoid the slightest suggestion of
coercion; to do less is merely coercion in a subtler form.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

A. Apollonius Cordus to Quaestor Diana Octavia
Aventina, and to all his fellow-citizens and all
peregrines, greetings.

> But I am ashamed but not of myself but of those
> magistrates who couldn't care less about our
> Gods-- who publicly swear to the Gods one day and
> then let it slip that they were not sincere at
> all.
>
> Read below-- did someone hi-jack the Junior consul's
> computer on his first day off office or did
> he not swear to uphold the religio?

You are verging on making a serious accusation. If you
believe that the Consul has violated his oath of
office, then you have a duty to prosecute him for it
after his term of office has ended. If you do not
believe it, then it is your duty to say so.

The third alternative - to make implications and
insinuations but never a clear and honest statement -
is a sadly common tactic in some quarters of our
community, but is not your style and would be quite
uncharacteristic in view of your usual candour and
honesty; I hope you will not choose it on this occasion.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus
<c.minucius.hadrianus@n...> wrote:

> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Quiritiubus S.P.D.

> every e-mail (official or otherwise) and others only listing thier
> office(s) on offical e-mails (I've done both in the past myself).
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> Valete,
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix

Salve,

When I was rogator, when I made a post acting in that capacity I
always put Rogator under my name. As scriba censoris this year, if it
is official business I put Scriba Censoris under my name. If it's a
public statement I'm making that is just purely my point of view I
write Q. Cassius Calvus. If its between people I'm friends with in
Nova Roma or general forum chit-chat it's just plain Calvus.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

G. Iulius Scaurus Gn. Equitio Marino salutem dicit.

Salve, Marine mi amice.

>g_iulius_scaurus wrote:
>
>
>>I posted this to Yahoo and have yet to see it appear, so I am sending
>>it again.
>>
>>
>
>The unreliability of Yahoo is becoming a problem that we ought to
>address. But that's a topic for another discussion.
>

True enough.

>>I see nothing whatsoever in the remarks of Consul Gn. Equitius Marinus
>>which would sustain a charge of blasphemy or which encourages other
>>citizens to resign their citizenship.
>>
>>
>
>Thank you Gai Iuli. I appreciate your recognition of this.
>

You are entirely welcome. What you wrote seemed clear to me and I have
never had a reason not to take you at your word.

>> He said that if animal
>>sacrifice were officially offered in the Religio Publica, he would
>>resign because he could no longer honour his oath to support the state
>>religion. I think that would be an entirely honourable recourse,
>>although I would counsel my friend to earnestly seek an alternative to
>>resignation.
>>
>>
>
>Upon further reflection, and consideration of your own action earlier
>this year which I didn't (and don't) find particularly objectionable, I
>think I've acheived a clearer understanding of exactly what I would (and
>would not) object to.
>

I am truly glad to hear it.

>Going back to what spawned this tangent in the first place, we were
>having a discussion of taxes and the need for revenue when you brought
>up the high costs associated with religious rituals. From that a
>reasonable person would infer that you expect tax revenues to pay for
>the costs associated with sacrifices at some point in the future. Is
>that a correct inference?
>

Yes, it is. Even a modest temple with precincts large enough to
accomodate a few hundred people is going to cost hundreds of thousands
of dollars to build. Such a temple would require an altar of
appropriate size, which is likely to cost ten thousand dollars or more
if it is of a suitable stone and decorated with with appropriate
reliefs. I'd dearly like to pay for the whole enterprise myself, but I
doubt I shall ever be able to do so. Perhaps pooling large donations
from several citizens could accomplish it without taxation, but
maintaining the structures over time will almost certainly require tax
support. Since the NR constitution does not permit the Collegium
Pontificum to forbid any citizen from conducting an animal sacrifice as
part of his Religio Privata so long as it is in accordance with the mos
maiorum, and sacrifices of the Religio Privata were commonly performed
at temples, even if the Collegium were to prohibit animal sacrifice in
the Religio Publica (something which I doubt will happen, but let's
grant the hypothetical), eventually an animal sacrifice conducted as
part of the Religio Privata of a citizen will be performed in a
structure at least maintained, if not paid for outright, by tax money
will happen. And there is nothing we can do about it without voiding
the religious freedom guarantee of the constitution. This is the
minimalist scenario which is almost certain to happen regardless of the
preferences of either of us.

It is also both my personal preference as a practitioner and my
considered judgment as a Pontifex that, as circumstances permit (and
this may well be long after I am a shade -- or a few years from now, if
I win the lottery :-), the full cultus of the Religio Publica should be
reestablished in accordance with the mos maiorum and those expenses of
the cultus which were borne by the state in antiquity should be borne by
taxation and contributions. This includes the training of temple
attendants, the construction of sacred instruments used in sacrifice,
the accomodations necessary for epula, and the maintenance of herds of
sacrificial animals.

>As we wait for the answer to that, and the implications that using
>public funds for such sacrifices would entail, let's look at the rest of
>your letter.
>
>
>>the Collegium Pontificum holds that animal sacrifice is neither
>>mandated nor forbidden at the current time
>>
>>
>
>I'll note that a review of the NovaRoma.org website reveals no decretum
>from the Collegium Pontificum on this question. The only documentation
>I can find there which touches on this question is:
>
>http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/DomesticSacrificeTemplate.html
>
>Where it says, in part:
>
>"This part only applies to blood sacrifices, i.e. when the offering is a
>living creature. As the Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma has many
>reserves towards this type of sacrifice, the information in this section
>should be regarded as informative only with no intentions of motivating
>its practice."
>
>I don't know when that page was last updated, but right now it is the
>closest thing to an official statement on the matter that we have. As
>it is also likely to be the only thing available to most people
>contemplating joining Nova Roma, then it would seem to be misleading
>given the sense of intent that I've gotten from you and several other
>members of the CP over the past few days.
>
>I would encourage you and the Collegium Pontificum to update that page
>to reflect current policy. I'd also ask that you consider issuing a
>decretum reflecting current views of the CP on this matter.
>

My description of the Collegium's position was predicated on many
conversations with my fellow Pontifices on how this statement should be
practically interpreted, conversations which I initiated because it
seemed problematical to me to have on our website instructions on how to
do something while telling people not to do it. The "neither mandated
nor prohibited" formulation came out of these discussions. The
Collegium is currently preparing a decretum to express this position as
clearly as possible.

>>and, thus, sacerdotes of
>>the Religio Publica are permitted to make animal sacrifice to
>>celebrate those feriae for which it is appropriate according to the
>>mos maiorum if the sacerdos is qualified to do so humanely and has
>>appropriate facilities to conduct the sacrifice without vitium (I
>>shall return to this latter condition shortly). If Gn. Equitius
>>mistook my report of the supplicatio I made to Concordia, which
>>involved the sacrifice of a chicken, I apologise, but any report of an
>>official ritual action I have taken on behalf of the respublica I sign
>>as Flamen Quirinalis and Pontifex and the caerimonia always includes
>>prayers for Senatus Populusque Novaromanorum Quiritum.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, I understand the situation under which you acted. (And since you
>bring up the point, have you noticed any long-term improvement in terms
>of Concordia? Seems to me that the worst offenders against Concordia
>are still at it.) I didn't find anything especially objectionable then,
>and if you felt the need to conduct another such offering today I still
>wouldn't object. But that has a lot to do with my respect for and trust
>in you.
>

Let me be more clear in my explanation. I realised after the fact that
I had made an unintentional error, a vitium, in a non-animal sacrifice
to Concordia which I celebrated on her feria in the Religio Publica as
Flamen Quirinalis. I immediately proclaimed the fact, repeated the
caerimonia without error and offered a piaculum to Concordia for the
vitium. It was about this time that controversy over Senator Drusus
erupted. I was concerned that I had helped precipitate the situation by
my error as a sacerdos of the Religio Publica and, since the vitium had
occurred in an official caerimonia of the Religio Publica which I had
performed, I acted on my own authority as Flamen Quirinalis and a
Pontifex to proclaim a public supplicatio to Concordia. In accordance
with the mos maiorum that supplicatio involved an animal sacrifice.
Although I performed the sacrifice privately on my property, it was an
act of the Religio Publica because it was intended as a religious act to
supplement the piaculum I had already performed for a vitium in a
caerimonia of the Religio Publica. I would like to think that the
supplicatio contributed to the resolution of the conflict between
Senator Drusus and the Censores. I am deeply grateful for your respect
and trust and I take my duties as a Flamen and Pontifex as seriously as
possible. I try constantly to act in accordance with the mos maiorum
and to exercise prudent care for the respublica even as I do for the res
sacrae.

>>Second, I think that it is a fundamental error to argue that the
>>reconstruction of the Religio Romana should be governed by a desire to
>>offer no offence whatsoever to non-practitioners of the Religio.
>>
>>
>
>Of course, nobody has suggested this. Some (as we know from right here
>in our Forum) will take offense at any imagined slight. But I'm
>concerned with the revulsion of reasonable people who would be otherwise
>sympathetic to our message and who might otherwise be drawn into Nova
>Roma as active and tax-paying citizens.
>

I understand that now. It has simply been my experience that most bad
publicity received by polytheist organisations has been as a result of
provocations or campaigns by fundamentalist Christian groups who would
be satisfied by nothing but the extirpation of polytheism. In the
county in which I live students who practice Wicca have been expelled
simply for their religious beliefs; two secondary school teachers have
been dismissed because they practice Wicca in their private lives (and
have never mentioned the fact in class). I have been physically
assaulted by Christian fundamentalists for no more than carrying a sign
supporting one of those students in a demonstration at a courthouse
after she and her parents sued to have her reinstated in school. I,
obviously, am not a Wiccan, but I support religious freedom and am an
activist for the legal rights of polytheists.

I recognise that there are other people who might be offended by or
revulsed at animal sacrifice and I have tried to set out my response to
some of those groups in my reply to Pompeia Cornelia's comments on my
original posting, so I shan't repeat them here. I sincerely want to
drive no one from Nova Roma, but there are points at which people simply
have to decide whether or not they want to be associated with the full
reestablishment of the Religio Publica which is Nova Roma's ultimate
objective. I do not support compelling citizens to be present at any
caerimonia of the Religio Publica and would counsel those who are
repulsed by animal sacrifice to simply not attend such a caerimonia.
If, as I argued above, it will be impossible to prevent the use of
public facilities, maintained by taxation, for animal sacrifice in the
Religio Privata of citizens without abandoning the constitutional
guarantee of religious freedom, then citizens will simply have to decide
whether or not to remain assidui. If a citizen's conscience does not
permit him to accept the fact that prayers Senatui Populoque
Novaromanorum Quiritum will be said in a caerimonia of the Religio
Publica involving an animal sacrifice, then he should follow his conscience.

>Touching now on several points raised by others and answered by Scaurus:
>
>
>>The suggestion that Nova Roma should ban animal sacrifice because
>>Romans engaged in human sacrifice in a handful of cases in antiquity
>>and consistent faithfulness to the mos maiorum would require both
>>human and animal sacrifice is blatantly a strawman argument.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, it is, and it's utterly unworthy in this discussion. I certainly
>accord it no particular worth beyond the standard "slippery slope" kind
>of argument.
>

We agree, although I see it less a "slippery slope" than an almost
inconceivable chasm. I find it beyond my ken that the Collegium would
ever require such a thing and I cannot imagine a prodigy which would
occasion such a decision. If such a decision were to be made, and it
would have to be made over my adamant opposition, I would offer myself
to the Di Immortales, following the example of Decius Mus, before I
would permit another to be sacrificed.

>>... A Tribunus Plebis who attempts to
>>interpose intercessio against a ritual practice [...]
>>[...] In Nova Roma I'd simply tell him to get out of the
>>sacred precincts since he has precipitated a vitium in the caerimonia.
>>
>>
>
>A reasonable response. I think the Tribune in question made his
>statement in good faith, but we know he is given to florid rhetoric at
>times. He does love our Republic, and I know he acts sincerely out of
>both an understanding of history and his desire to see our Republic
>flourish. I ask that you forgive him his excess of enthusiasm in this
>instance.
>

I know that Faustus can be a bit fiery in his rhetoric, but I do not
doubt his good intentions. I should, however, point out that actually,
intentionally disrupting a caerimonia is an impietas prudens dolo malo
for which no expiation is possible and which makes the intentional
disrupter the enemy of the Gods for eternity. And that is apart from
anything any other Nova Roman could do about it -- it adjourns, as it
were, the case to a tribunal on which no mortal sits.

>>I find it particularly galling to be told that I must hide a ritual of
>>the Religio Publica or Privata because it might create bad publicity
>>and offend those who hate polytheism to begin with.
>>
>>
>
>I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest that the only people we're
>talking about here are those who hate us. There are many, many people
>who would be attracted to Nova Roma and who find the idea of polytheism
>attractive, but who would be put off by a requirement for regular blood
>sacrifices as part of the Religio Publica. Ignoring them, and focusing
>on the extremists, is folly.
>

That was not the only argument I was making, as I hope I've clarified
here and elsewhere. The specific context which prompted the sentence
you quote was a posting by someone who announced himself a Christian and
then proceeded to denounce practitioners of the Religio who engage in
animal sacrifice as barbarians unfit to exist in the 21st century. One
of the reasons I found that so galling is that I have always fought for
the right of Christians or practitioners of any other religion to serve
as magistrates so long as they are willing to delegate responsibilities
of the Religio Publica associated with public office to a practitioner
of the Religio who will perform them appropriately. To have a
Christian citizen then tell me that I have no place in "NOVA Roma," as
he chose to emphasise it, because I follow the mos maiorum is extremely
galling.

Vale, mi amice.

Scaurus

>
>

Ave,

I know it shock you, but as you are probably not on the Orthodox path it is logical for you to be shocked. As I have been learning Judisam from Orthodox individuals, they tend to keep to the straight and narrow ie. following the Mitzvahs as they were given with very little to no adaptation. As you have noted Maimonides disregarded it but that was primarily (from my understanding) that he was born when there was no Jewish State and the likelihood of the Temple being rebuilt was an impossible thing for him to imagine. Now that there is a Jewish State and preparations being made for the Temple underway and a much better likelyhood that the 3rd Temple might be established the question of animal sacrifice and (at least) most branches of Judiasm have been answered. And that answer is that when the Temple is rebuilt animal sacrifice will once again be carried out as it is in the Torah.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: Sp. Fabia Vera
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:23 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The revival of the Roman religion- Jewish animal sacrifice


Yes, it did shock me. but that was one Rabbi's answer
Now tell me do you think Rabbi Kook of Israel knows more than your
online Rabbi or Maimonides?
I sincerely doubt it, and as to those who are preparing for the
Jewish Temple, on the Temple Mount, I regard them as most Jews do as
fanatic.
vale Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta




and got the answer that shocked you.
>
> Anyone can go to www.templeinstitute.org to view how they have begun
> preparing for the Temple and anyone can go to Yeshiva to view my
acutal
> question and response from the Rabbi (or you can go to the NR
Jewish list
> and it is posted there as well.)
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Sp. Fabia Vera rory12001@y...
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:40:40 -0000
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The revival of the Roman religion- Jewish
animal
> sacrifice
>
>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> Salvete Quirites;<BR>
> as a Jew who had this discussion with Sulla before, first let me
<BR>
> say there are many rabbis and disagreement some more ifluential by
<BR>
> intellect and example than others.<BR>
> Rabbi Abraham Kook the 1st Chief Rabbi of Israel was considered
an <BR>
> extremely holy and wise man and was a vegetarian as well as two <BR>
> subsequent Chief Rabbis of Israel.<BR>
> Jews traditionally are adjured to treat animals kindly and
humanely <BR>
> and vegetarianism is considered a moral ideal.<BR>
> The great Maimonides " the sacrifices were a concesssion to <BR>
> barbarism."<BR>
> for more chapter and verse from the Hebrew Bible and Talmud
please <BR>
> go to:<BR>
> <a
>
href="http://europeanvegetarianorg/evu/english/news/news974/jewish.htm
l">htt
>
p://europeanvegetarianorg/evu/english/news/news974/jewish.html</a><BR>
> <a
>
href="http://jewishveg.com/torah.html">http://jewishveg.com/torah.html
</a><B
> R>
> valete<BR>
> Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "alexious@e..." <alexious@e...>
wrote:<BR>
> > Avete Omnes,<BR>
> > <BR>
> > As a Jew, let me clarify the Jewish position on animal sacrifice,
<BR>
> since I<BR>
> > was questioned on it before and consulted a number of Rabbi's.
<BR>
> When the<BR>
> > Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem it is a Mitzvah (commandment) that
<BR>
> animal<BR>
> > sacrifice will resume. This means that once the Temple is <BR>
> established you<BR>
> > can expect the Orthodox Jews to resume the practice of Animal <BR>
> Sacrifice.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > Respectfully,<BR>
> > <BR>
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > Original Message:<BR>
> > -----------------<BR>
> > From: Michael Cerrato mlcinnyc@y...<BR>
> > Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:12:14 -0700 (PDT)<BR>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<BR>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] The revival of the Roman religion<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <html><body><BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <tt><BR>
> > G. Equitius Cato Novoromanis S.P.D.<BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > valete omnes!<BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > Ummmm....I'm new, and I am as enthusiastic as anybody about NR.
<BR>
> I'm also<BR>
> > an Anglican, and I think that even as accepting as the Anglican
<BR>
> Church is,<BR>
> > it may frown upon its members becoming involved in animal <BR>
> sacrifices to the<BR>
> > Roman gods. In the first two centuries of the Church's
existence, <BR>
> my<BR>
> > brothers and sisters in Christ were slaughtered for not even <BR>
> sprinkling<BR>
> > incense before the image of the emperor.<BR><BR>
> > Technically, today not even Judaism can claim to be practiced <BR>
> fully, as<BR>
> > Mosaic Law absolutely requires blood sacrifices to appease God;
<BR>
> since<BR>
> > Judaism has found a way of surviving without the Temple and its
<BR>
> attendant<BR>
> > ceremonies, I would very strongly urge the citizens of NR, of <BR>
> whatever<BR>
> > rank, who choose to worship the Roman gods to do so in a manner
<BR>
> that will<BR>
> > not involve this kind of activity. If someday we can actually
<BR>
> build a<BR>
> > Forum, and a Senate House, etc., I would not find it acceptable
to <BR>
> have<BR>
> > them stained with the blood and entrails of animals. <BR><BR>
> > If I cannot be assured that there will not be blood sacrifices in
<BR>
> the name<BR>
> > of NR, I will have to give up my citizenship immediately.<BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > valete<BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > Cato<BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > That's my formal statement. My informal one is: ZOINKS! Guys,
<BR>
> c'mon! <BR>
> > This is absurd! ANIMAL SACRIFICES? It is wonderful to consider
the<BR>
> > possibilities of NR but for Pete's sake we live in the 21st <BR>
> century. <BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > ---------------------------------<BR><BR>
> > Do you Yahoo!?<BR><BR>
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th<BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]<BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > <BR><BR>
> > </tt><BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --><BR>
> > <BR>
> > <br><BR>
> > <tt><hr width="500"><BR>
> > <b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br><BR>
> > <ul><BR>
> > <li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a<BR>
> > href="<a
> href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-
">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nov
> a-</a><BR>
> Roma/"><a
>
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/grou">http://groups.yahoo.com/grou</a><B
R>
> > p/Nova-Roma/</a><br> <BR>
> > <li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a<BR>
> > href="mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?<BR>
> subject=Unsubscribe">Nova<BR>
> > -Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br> <BR>
> > <li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a<BR>
> > href="<a
>
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/te
rms/</
> a>">Yahoo! Terms of <BR>
> Service</a>.<BR>
> > </ul><BR>
> > </tt><BR>
> > </br><BR>
> > <BR>
> > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --><BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > </body></html><BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--<BR>
> > mail2web - Check your email from the web at<BR>
> > <a href="http://mail2web.com/">http://mail2web.com/</a> .<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
>
>
>
>
> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
>
> <br>
> <tt><hr width="500">
> <b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br>
> <ul>
> <li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a
> href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-
Roma/">http://groups.yahoo.com/grou
> p/Nova-Roma/</a><br>
> <li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a
> href="mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe">Nova
> -Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br>
> <li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
Service</a>.
> </ul>
> </tt>
> </br>
>
> <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salus et Fortuna Omnes,

As many know, I am an adherent of the Religio Septentrionalis, that is
Heathenry, Germanic Paganism, Asatru, the Northern Folkway, etceteras...

Within the religious practices informed by my faithway, animal sacrifice is a
rare, but not uncommon, occurrence.

We of the North (being the Religio to which I can speak most authoritatively)
consider this to be one of the Holiest acts we can perform. The words Blessing
and Blót come from the root Blood. Such a Deed is tied to one's personal Luck
(Fortune), as well as that of one's Kindred (Gens), and even one's Tribe (Nation).

This Deed MUST be performed well, or not at all. I could do it, as I am a
hunter, am familiar with how an animal is put together, and how to make it dead
swiftly and humanely. I likewise know how to properly prepare the carcass for
eating.

I have not done this, for I am not ready: spiritually or emotionally.

The folk I know of, who have and do Hallow the Slaughter, are men and women in
whom I place full trust and confidence, save for a few who are deluded fools who
think the Holy Powers "demand sacrifice."

Sacrifice, whether animal, vegetable, drink, votive artifact or ephemeral words
and song, is a serious business. That which I do sacrifice in my Worship,
contains a bit of me; either in effort or in wealth.

Castigate not those who can and do offer Life, in right mind and good will.

Castigate, rightly, those who would kill in the name of Faith, but are butchers,
not Blótere (qualified Blood Givers).

If we are going to give full Honor and Respect to the Religio (Roman, Northern
and other) we must be willing to accept that there are ways of acting in Sacral
Rites, which do not line up with the so-called "modern" sensibility.

Here is a song I write a couple of years back. It gathers in the ideas and
recollections I have of animal sacrifice, within the usages of my Faithway.

Lay of the Good Beast (first stanza is repeated as the Burden [chorus])

Sing me a Song, Solemn and Sweet
Bloody Deed, Bravely Tried
Swiftly it Sings, Sharp, Worthy Sword
Boarson's Death, Brightly Trú

Holy Ones old, sit in High Halls
Look down upon, Midgard so green
Folk's Word and Deed, building Orlay
Wyrding and Worth, Luck of the Land

Styjarl's son, chosen at birth
Spotless and white, goodly of line
Soft skinned is he, and clear of eye
Raised with kind hand, Sacral to be

Comes the Doom Day, Blót will be made
Folk from afar, gather in Stead
Spill drink to Wights, Needfire lit
Altar is raised, Holy Vé set
-Burden-

Blótgoði stands, before the Folk
Swine is led out, scrubbed nice and clean
Ribbon bedecked, given last meal
Meadhorns are raised, Boar Oaths are pledged

To Place of Deed, Goði, Thanes, Swine
Wend their way, Ordeal to pass
Boar is prepared, held calm and still
Blood maker acts, with lightning stroke

With single cut, Death comes Right Quick
Blood darkens Hórgr, Blessing is sought
Severed head raised, Runestave neath tusks
Swine Spirit Soars, Skyheim bespeaks
-Burden-

Carcass is flayed, meat is prepared
Feast for the Folk, Honor to Gods
Remnants are Burnt, Smoke flies aloft
Blót has been made, Pleasing and Good

Holy Ones old, sit in High Halls
Look down upon, Midgard so green
Folk's Word and Deed, building Orlay
Wyrding and Worth, Luck of the Land
-Burden-
-Burden-

I know a lot of the terminology is unfamiliar. Send me inquiries and I'll
compile a glossary.

But, I hope to convey that the Sacred Slaying of a Beast, is just that, a Sacred
Deed; solemn, private, and done only when needful

--
In amicus sub fidelis -
Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus

------------------------------------------------------------

May the Holy Aesir and Vanir smile on our efforts.
May the Holy Ancestors of our family lines nod in approval.
May we be of Worth to our fellow Heathens.

In Frith under Troth
Stefn Ullarsson Piparskeggr
Catamount Grange Hearth - Husband
Oak Shadow Kindred - Skald

013 By Gift of Blót and strength of Deed
Our Kinship ties with Holy Ones
Are forged anew and tempered true
And build Orlay within the Well

054 Ritual done, without Trú Heart
Is hollow play, upon a stage
To mouth some words, and move about
Is but an act, a mummer’s jest

072 When calling Gods, be sure of self
Be clear in Mind, have Right Good Will
To gain Their Sight, when need is false
Does harm the Luck, and lessens Weal

- The Sayings of Piparskeggr

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Today is ante diem XV Kalendae Maii; the day is nefastus.

Tomorrow is ante diem XIV Kalendae Maii; the day is nefastus.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

Ludicrous, unnecessary, and wasteful. If a known magistrate is making a
statement as a magistrate then he or she needs to address their email in a manner
consistent with the use of his or her office. Also, it strikes me as somewhat
dishonorable to continue to insist that a person spoke as a magistrate when
he or she has said that they did not. Where is the honor and trust for
individuals in Nova Roma? Unless an individual regardless of his or her position as
a pontiff, Senator, or magistrate has publicly proven to consistently act in a
deceitful, two-faced manner OR the individual is known to be unbalanced, most
citizens should accept their word or ask for clarification in private.

While recently doing some research on the Religio Romana site, I noted that
between 2000 and the present, there were four major threads and several smaller
ones on the question of animal sacrifice. On the ML, there has been one or
two every year. Up to now, we have had one, and ONLY one, genuine animal
sacrifice practiced by one of the current Curile Aediles. Based exclusively on the
traditions of the ancient Religio and under the Laws, Edicts, Constitution,
and other documents of Nova Roma, this was correctly done from a religious and
spiritual standpoint. In regards to the practice of the Religio, let us hear
from an old Roman, Cornutus, who said,

"True religion is to honor the gods fitly in accordance with ancestral
custom."

If it is viewed from many other standpoints--religious, ethical, modern,
moral, logical--it can be considered objectionable but why bother? As Q. Aurelius
Symmachus said in 1148 a.u.c.

"Everything is full of God. Whatever men worship, it can fairly be called
one and the same. We all look up to the same stars; the same heaven is above us
all; the same universe surrounds everyone of us. What does it matter by what
system of knowledge each one of us seeks the the truth? It is not by one
single path that we attain to so great a secret."


F. Galerius Aurelianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Romans

A reminder of what we are suppose to be about

from our website:

The Roman Virtues

Personal Virtues
These are the qualities of life to which every Citizen (and, ideally, everyone else) should aspire. They are the heart of the Via Romana - the Roman Way - and are thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world. Today, they are the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and character, and we can strive to better understand and practice them in our everyday lives.

Auctoritas: "Spiritual Authority" The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.

Comitas: "Humor" Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.

Clementia: "Mercy" Mildness and gentleness.

Dignitas: "Dignity" A sense of self-worth, personal pride.

Firmitas: "Tenacity" Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.

Frugalitas: "Frugalness" Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.

Gravitas: "Gravity" A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.

Honestas: "Respectibility" The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.

Humanitas: "Humanity" Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.

Industria: "Industriousness" Hard work.

Pietas: "Dutifulness" More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.

Prudentia: "Prudence" Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.

Salubritas: "Wholesomeness" Health and cleanliness.

Severitas: "Sternness" Gravity, self-control.

Veritas: "Truthfulness" Honesty in dealing with others.

Public Virtues
In addition to the private virtues which were aspired to by individuals, Roman culture also strived to uphold Virtues which were shared by all of society in common. Note that some of the virtues to which individuals were expected to aspire are also public virtues to be sought by society as a whole. These virtues were often expressed by minting them on coinage; in this way, their message would be shared by all the Classical world. In many cases, these Virtues were personified as deities.

Abundantia: "Abundance, Plenty" The ideal of there being enough food and prosperity for all segments of society.

Aequitas: "Equity" Fair dealing both within government and among the people.

Bonus Eventus: "Good fortune" Rememberance of important positive events.

Clementia: "Clemency" Mercy, shown to other nations.

Concordia: "Concord" Harmony among the Roman people, and also between Rome and other nations.

Felicitas: "Happiness, prosperity" A celebration of the best aspects of Roman society.

Fides: "Confidence" Good faith in all commercial and governmental dealings.

Fortuna: "Fortune" An acknowledgement of positive events.

Genius: "Spirit of Rome" Acknowledgement of the combined spirit of Rome, and its people.

Hilaritas: "Mirth, rejoicing" An expression of happy times.

Iustitia: "Justice" As expressed by sensible laws and governance.

Laetitia: "Joy, Gladness" The celebration of thanksgiving, often of the resolution of crisis.

Liberalitas: "Liberality" Generous giving.

Libertas: "Freedom" AVirtue which has been subsequently aspired to by all cultures.

Nobilitas: "Noblility" Noble action within the public sphere.

Ops: "Wealth" Acknowledgement of the prosperity of the Roman world.

Patientia: "Endurance, Patience" The ability to weather storms and crisis.

Pax: "Peace" A celebration of peace among society and between nations.

Pietas: "Piety, Dutifulness" People paying honor to the gods.

Providentia: "Providence, Fortethought" The ability of Roman society to survive trials and manifest a greater destiny.

Pudicita: "Modesty, Chastity." A public expression which belies the accusation of "moral corruptness" in ancient Rome.

Salus: "Safety" Concern for public health and wellfare.

Securitas: "Confidence, Security" Brought by peace and efficient governance.

Spes: "Hope" Especially during times of difficulty.

Uberitas: "Fertility" Particularly concerning agriculture.

Virtus: "Courage" Especially of leaders within society and government.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Tribunus Plebs






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Apollonius Cordus,


<If you believe that the Consul has violated his oath of
<office, then you have a duty to prosecute him for it
<after his term of office has ended.

In my opinion, he hasn't violated his Oath of Office because the Religio has not made any changes
which would cause him to break his Oath of Office.

That said, IF the Pontifices made a statement like 'everyone has to do animal sacrifices' and the
Junior Consul then resigned from Nova Roma, it wouldn't be necessary or possible for me or anyone
else to prosecute him after his office.

To be honest, I simply think that Marinus didn't realize the connations of his 'from the hip'
statement. Again I think it was posturing for posturings sake. I don't believe that our Junior
Consul would ever resign from NR no matter what.

Regarding prosecution: I've said this before but now I will posture a bit for any new citizens
reading this: My big gripe with the current state of affairs is that I simply *hate* any type of
prosecution and I will not -ever- prosecute anyone for speaking their mind. This is an email list
after all... I believe in freedom of speech and I feel that the way that this 'forum' is handled
now with constant threats of lawsuits whenever a citizen speaks his/her mind is a terrible thing.
Our Praetores used to keep things civil and it worked. Now the Praetores don't say a word and
leave it to the citizens themselves to file lawsuits against eachother in attempts to stifle those
citizens who do not say/act in what our current administration finds politically correct. And the
ridiculous thing is that IF I now call you a jerk (and don't misunderstand because I am not) and
you laugh at it, another citizen can file a lawsuit against me. Amazing.

Vale,
Diana

Salvete omnes,

I would like to sincerely thank all who have voiced support for me in the
campaign for quaestorship : Your kind words haven't gone unnoticed ;-)

C Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
Candidate for Quaestor
www.members.aol.com/cornmoraviusl/welcome/index


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete,

Let me express my support for all kind of animal sacrifices in an effort to
bring the good old religion back to life. While we're at it, shall we make a
provision in our constitution that in time of danger we should be able to kill a
couple of greeks and a couple of gauls ? That' ll be fun ! Modius and Drusus
could start laying bricks while we all chant and dance for our salvation ;-)

Optime valete

C Moravius L A

PS : Never taste blood. You may start to like it....


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This may have gone over your head, but I didn't state a postion on
Sacrifices, only that If the mater comes before the collegium that I
will not consider any threats of resignations when I debate the mater.
The same goes for emotional outbursts about it on this list.

If any of you wish to present something based on research of the
ancient rituals to the Pontiffs, either pro or con, or considerations
regarding the logistics of Sacrifices, then I will take that into
consideration. The mailing address is on the main page of the web
site. If you wish to engage in threats, temper tantrums, slurs, or
dragging the usual strawmen out on this list, you are wasting your
time. I will not take that sort of thing into consideration, nor am I
aware of any other Pontiffs who will consider them worthy of debate in
the collegium.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, cornmoraviusl@a... wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> Let me express my support for all kind of animal sacrifices in an
effort to
> bring the good old religion back to life. While we're at it, shall
we make a
> provision in our constitution that in time of danger we should be
able to kill a
> couple of greeks and a couple of gauls ? That' ll be fun ! Modius
and Drusus
> could start laying bricks while we all chant and dance for our
salvation ;-)
>
> Optime valete
>
> C Moravius L A
>
> PS : Never taste blood. You may start to like it....
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete Omnes!

As a Stoic and a Deist, I take no side on the issue of religion. I
am however an ethical vegetarian and as such do have grounds from
whence to speak which others do not share.

In this missive I draw no line between the killing of humans and
animals as the Romans did not. The legal differences between animal
and slave were in many ways fewer than those between citizen and
slave.

Some here oppose the shedding of blood for any reason. They have
good classical philosophical ground upon which to stand.

Some freely advocate bloodshed for many reasons; for food, for
sacrifice, for military action. They too are on solid classical
footing.

I have borne with and recognised validity in all these arguments,
all having solid, classical precedent. Many of us find them
reprehensible and not compatible with our personal system of belief,
but they are grounded in precedent.

But I for one must draw the line when it comes to the drinking of
blood and joking about it in public forum.

--Sabina Equitia Doris

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, cornmoraviusl@a... wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> Let me express my support for all kind of animal sacrifices in an
effort to
> bring the good old religion back to life. While we're at it, shall
we make a
> provision in our constitution that in time of danger we should be
able to kill a
> couple of greeks and a couple of gauls ? That' ll be fun ! Modius
and Drusus
> could start laying bricks while we all chant and dance for our
salvation ;-)
>
> Optime valete
>
> C Moravius L A
>
> PS : Never taste blood. You may start to like it....
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve L. Arminius Faustus TRP,

You said, 'NR SITE IS WRITTEN: "Dedicated to the restoration of Classical
Roman
religion, culture, and virtues "

Roman religio do not need money. A lararium can very cheaply be built
in each house. Prayers costs nothing. Pietas as well. We don�t want
to make �bloodly� sacrifices, so no need of expensive white oxes or
gold corned lambs. Like Seneca said �the gods are poor and have
nothing� or when the ancient worshipped mud/clay gods with much
pietas than a solid gold statue of the Empire. Are we beliving really
the roman religio or only playing role play games and perhaps
building a classic temple just to enhance the play?'

It may be true that we do not need funds, if we want to remain an internet
discussion group. As you say, prayer, and virtue cost nothing but time and
will. However, you are neglecting the part of the NR constitution which
states:

"The primary functions of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and
practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the
founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of
Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion,
culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy."

And the part of the NR declaration which says:

"We acknowledge ancient Roman territory to be our cultural and religious
homeland, and claim historical rights to all sites and territories which
were under the direct control or administration of the ancient Roman
Republic and Empire between 753 BCE and 395 CE.

We recognize the modern political realities which make the restoration of
such ancient lands to us impossible. Therefore we limit our active
territorial claim to an amount of land at least equal to that held by the
sovereign state of Vatican City; 108 contiguous acres. On this land a world
capital for the admistration of our culture will be founded in the form of a
Forum Romanum. The exact site for this New Roman governmental and spiritual
capital is to be determined."

That statement, "...to be determined" is very telling. To me, it speaks of
an intent to purchase land and establish a corporal living and worship space
for Nova Roma. Specifically, the intent to purchase 108 contiguous acres
and build the modern equivalent of a Forum Romanum, at the very least.

Recently, in discussions about taxes, some have stressed that the tax laws
were not completely apparent upon applying for Nova Roman Citizenship. I
can accept that. However, I find it hard to believe that prospective
citizens did not read the declaration and the constitution, and therefore
missed the intent of the founding of Nova Roma as a sovereign nation.

Vale,
LCSardonicus (who really needs to get the hang of the structure of a Roman
letter)

>From: "Lucius Arminius Faustus" <lafaustus@...>
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Money... lots of money for Nova Roma... for what?
>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:37:22 -0000
>
>Salve, oh Iulius Caesar,
>
>This Tribune thanks a lot your answer.
>
>"Without money, Nova Roma fails. Without an "enormous" amount of
>money Nova Roma will never truly prosper and grow."
>
>Why?
>Why really?
>Do want to build a new Capitolium?
>Or hire ten legions?
>
>
>Remember the �money� happened only on the middle times of the Ancient
>Res Publica. Lack of money has not prevented virtues to grow, has not
>prevented the pietas of Father Romulus and Numa. Lack of money has
>never been a barrier to the Horacius, to Publicola, to Quincius, to
>Fabius, to Torquatus.
>
>NR SITE IS WRITTEN: "Dedicated to the restoration of Classical Roman
>religion, culture, and virtues "
>
>Roman religio do not need money. A lararium can very cheaply be built
>in each house. Prayers costs nothing. Pietas as well. We don�t want
>to make �bloodly� sacrifices, so no need of expensive white oxes or
>gold corned lambs. Like Seneca said �the gods are poor and have
>nothing� or when the ancient worshipped mud/clay gods with much
>pietas than a solid gold statue of the Empire. Are we beliving really
>the roman religio or only playing role play games and perhaps
>building a classic temple just to enhance the play?
>
>Roman culture do not need money. Public libraries can provide us as
>many free books as we need. Alas there is more books we have to read
>than our life remaining... or worst, or patience to read. The
>internet has the majority of the ancient sources online, on latin or
>english. This list is source of many scholar information coming for
>the four cornes of the world. And free. Are we sharing really roman
>culture or dreaming with superficial roman disneyworlds?
>
>Roman virtues cannot be bought. You can ask any philosopher or
>teologian. Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Lucrecius or Saint Thomas
>Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Saint Benedict - choose one according your
>taste. Where money can be applied here? Are we really desiring to
>make roman virtues on our life or just acting under a three �-ius
>ended� roman name?
>
>SO, WE DO NOT NEED MUCH MONEY TO ACCOMPLISH NOVA ROMA GOALS.
>Alas, we are still very far away of them. But working.
>
>"We cannot rebirth a civilization with our pocket change."
>
>We never ever want to rebirth a �civilization�. The romans are over.
>They merged and turned onto ourselves nowadays. What Nova Roma wants
>is bringing back the best of their heritage.
>
>
>Vale bene in pacem deorum,
>L. Arminius Faustus TRP
>
>
>--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
><gnaeus_iulius_caesar@h...> wrote:
> > Re: Money for what? posted by L. Arminius Faustus
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Concerning this "obsession" which you seem to feel is present in
> > these discussions; I don't feel I am in the grip of some "gold
> > fever". I see money as a tool by the use of which we can progress.
> > No more and no less. Without money, Nova Roma fails. Without
> > an "enormous" amount of money Nova Roma will never truly prosper
>and
> > grow.
> >
> > Corruption? Well there are always individuals in all walks of life
> > that will fall prey to the temptations of easy gain. For these
> > people, as Nova Romans we of course have total contempt. We should
> > not fear the growth in our Treasury (even if it is by enormous
> > leaps) through fear of abuse and corruption. When it happens, if
> > that happens (and that is still a big "if") we will deal with it
>but
> > until then I would urge all citizens not to become concerned that
>an
> > increase in revenue for the Treasury = Corruption. There is no
> > linkage between the two.
> >
> > There is however an established linkage between:
> >
> > Empty/almost empty Treasury = insignificant inconsequential
>oblivion.
> >
> > Money should be for the promotion of Nova Roma and Romanitas. The
> > tasks, projects and goals of Nova Roma are staggering in the
> > immensity of their scale. Therefore the money that flows into Nova
> > Roma has to be equally staggering. We cannot rebirth a civilization
> > with our pocket change.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar � FREE!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/

Reply to: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus

Salve,

Re. official or non-official business and how to distinguish. In my
province acting with the Legate for my region we have designed, in
addition to a Provincial flag, a banner for the office of
Propraetor. It terms of size it is exactly the same dimensions as a
military banner.

The computer version of this banner can be included inserted into a
pre-signed email which can then be saved as a draft to be used over
and over again. Rather than text the banner would stand out.

I suspect that 99% of citizens would spot a banner and go "oooh an
official message" - hopefully not with the same dread that we open
posts from the IRS, CCRA or Inland Revenue :)

Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

Ave Fauste!

One of the few poems of Catullus I actually enjoy. In fact, I just wrote a report on it. Though the Latin is easier for me to understand than that stilted old fashioned English. I appreciate you posting it, and I appreciate the sentiment!

Vale,
Drusus Corvus Camillus

Lucius Arminius Faustus <lafaustus@...> wrote:
Salve,

On, a weekend to be out on the villa, after a terrible and tiring week on the forum. I invite you, citizens, to supper, but only the supper of Catulus:



Thou'lt sup right well with me, Fab�llus mine,


In days few-numbered an the Gods design,


An great and goodly meal thou bring wi' thee


Nowise forgetting damsel bright o' blee,
With wine, and salty wit and laughs all-gay.


An these my bonny man, thou bring, I say


Thou'lt sup right well, for thy Catullus' purse


Save web of spider nothing does imburse.


But thou in countergift more loves shalt take


Or aught of sweeter taste or fairer make:
I'll give thee unguent lent my girl to scent


By every Venus and all Cupids sent,


Which, as thou savour, pray Gods interpose


And thee, Fab�llus, make a Naught-but-nose.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Catul.+13.1

None of politics! Just rest!

Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Fale com seus amigos online. Instale agora!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete,

I've been a casual observer over the past few months, thinking
perhaps that I'd eventually make a comment, but always too scared to
do so. Fortunately, I can now comfortably speak my mind since the
topic of the day is the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's
back."

I hear a lot of blustery comments on here. Most of which come from
some overblown sense of "right" or the need to exact revenge for
some miniscule offense. It seems that half the people on here are
living out some "power trip" fantasy and taking it out on those that
they should be sharing the experience with. I could understand such
oafish behavior if our community was much, much larger. Positions of
power would demand more time and effort at the expense of limited
patience. However, we are a very small group, and the fact that
nearly every casual remark turns into an electronic fist-fight makes
me realize that some of us are not very good at dealing with
reality. I cannot stress enough how idiotic this appears to
outsiders. I have had two very close friends decide against joining
because of what they read here. I know of a third that joined, but
won't be coming back anytime soon. They feel as if everyone is
living out some roleplaying fantasy, rather than participating in
serious adult discussion. I don't think this bodes well for the
organization or for advancing any aspect of it. Feel free to comment
to the contrary, but I think, deep down, we know this is more or
less accurate

As for the need for blood sacrifices... I find it kind of silly to
strip out half of what made a Roman a Roman, allow exceptions for
most of the rest, yet cling desperately to this need for animal
sacrifices. Where's our forum? Where are our temples? Where are the
real gladiators? What tribes have we subjugated and how many slaves
do we own? Where are the baths, vomitoriums and aqueducts? Where is
our New Rome? The answers are obvious. These things either aren't
practical, serve no purpose, or are antiquated notions that are
better off dead. Why can our Gladiators fight with fake weapons and
shed no blood? Why can't animals be afforded the same courtesy? Just
going through the ritual motions of sacrifice does more honor to the
gods than they've seen in over a millenium. Don't you think they'd
be happy knowing someone was remembering the spirit of the offering?
Don't you think they're wise enough to understand our situation? If
you truly believe in them, you definitely do not give them much
credit. If they can't grow and change (because all religions do)
then they are still dead. Only by updating the religio in a modern,
practical form do we truly stand a chance of reviving it. Everyone
who's had Anthropology 101 knows that a religion that doesn't
conform and adapt will certainly die, perhaps this time for good.

I'm sure some of the zealots will accuse me of all sorts of
blasphemy and feel the need to lash out. Truly, I don't mind. I
think some of you aren't happy unless you feel some sort of
indignation from each and every post. Those of you that are fed up,
however, may feel free to email me.

G. Equitius Cato Novoromanis S.P.D.

Salve, G. Iulius Scaurus:

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:
>That was not the only argument I was making, as I hope I've clarified
>here and elsewhere. The specific context which prompted the sentence
>you quote was a posting by someone who announced himself a Christian
>and
>then proceeded to denounce practitioners of the Religio who engage in
>animal sacrifice as barbarians unfit to exist in the 21st century.
>One
>of the reasons I found that so galling is that I have always fought
>for
>the right of Christians or practitioners of any other religion to
>serve
>as magistrates so long as they are willing to delegate
>responsibilities
>of the Religio Publica associated with public office to a
>practitioner
>of the Religio who will perform them appropriately. To have a
>Christian citizen then tell me that I have no place in "NOVA Roma,"
>as
>he chose to emphasise it, because I follow the mos maiorum is
>extremely
>galling.

CATO: Illustrissimus Pontifex, that is NOT what I said. I remind
you that I specifically stated that what a citizen does in private is
his or her own business; that I personally believe that everyone is
utterly free to do, in private, whatever his or her conscience leads
them to do in faithful obedience to their spiritual beliefs. My
concern is the PUBLIC actions of the religio.

NOR did I claim that you or anyone else "have no place" in NR for any
reason, and in fact made a point of saying that I would not dream of
telling you (in particular) what you can or cannot do in your private
worship. I merely asked if it were not somehow possible for the
state to recognize the serious misgivings that many citizens have
regarding blood sacrifices on their behalf, and instead incorporate
into the Public Religio non-bloody offerings instead, as a way of
showing respect for those citizens' wishes. It is you, who in your
refusal to accept any view of the Religio Publica other than your
own, who have suggested repeatedly that those of us who do not
approve of blood sacrifices in the public expressions of the religio
need to "examine [our] conscience" and perhaps leave.

I chose to emphasize the NOVA for reasons that I made clear; because
we do live in the 21st century and cannot pretend that the past 2000
years (and their attendant social, political, and moral changes)
simply haven't occurred.

While I appreciate your "fight" to "allow" Christians their private
freedom of worship, it is in the Constitution of NR; unless the
Constitution changes, you do not need to "fight" for it anymore, as
those of us who practice Christianity privately are perfectly capable
(and at least in my instance) willing to "fight" for ourselves. I am
perhaps capable of expressing what a Christian thinks to a greater
degree than you are. And, again, I remind you that I have not, ever,
made a "Christian" case against your private worship. The comment
about the Anglican Church was meant humorously, but this has
obviously been lost on you.

The "mos maiorum" is not an immutable thing, cast in unyeilding
marble. The "way of our ancestors" changes as our ancestors are
added to and our perspective on what makes Rome unique evolves and
grows. The Romans were not a stagnant, lifeless group of inflexible
will; they were curious, innovative, and adaptive in the extreme to
the world around them. I am asking you to consider mirroring them in
this, too.

Vale, Pontifex, et valete omnes.

Cato

Salvete,

The Pontifex Maximus stated, �There is not a single ancient primary text
which states that the life energy of an animal had anything to do with the
purpose of Religio ritual. The point of the rituals were to gain the
attention of the Gods through a sharing of a meal. The death of the animal
was merely a step in the process toward the consecration of valuable, fresh
and pure food to be shared between the Gods and their worshippers.�

I don�t understand how anyone can object to the slaughter of an animal for
food. Anyone who purchases meat from a store must be aware that this food
came from a living animal. Most of these animals are slaughtered without
regard or thanks. Isn�t it so much the better that we thank the Gods for
providing us with sustenance and ask them to partake with us?

I am confused by the arguments coming from people who do not practice the
Religio Romana and have no intent to do so. Statements such as, �I'm also
an (insert appropriate religious affiliation here), and I think that even as
accepting as (my religion) is, it may frown upon its members becoming
involved in animal sacrifices to the Roman gods� make me wonder why the
speaker is here in the first place. Would you rather discuss the idolatry
inherent in catholic beliefs or the symbolic cannibalism in the rite of
communion? I don�t condemn your religious practices. Please stop
questioning mine, especially here.

I am becoming increasingly frustrated at Christian indignation of the
Religio spouted on this list.

Valete,
LCSardonicus

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee�
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

G. Equitius Cato G. Iulius Scaurus Pontifex Quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve, illustrissimus Pontifex.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus Pompeiae Corneliae Straboni salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, Pompeia Cornelia Strabo.
>
> I appreciate your reasoned reply to my posting. I couched by
response
> in the first place to arguments which seemed to be religious in
nature
> because they seemed very much to me like advice to keep the
Religio's
> profile low and its rituals inoffensive because otherwise we shall
be
> marginalised by bad publicity led by people who oppose, indeed
hate, all
> polytheisms. I recorgnise that there are other arguments which can
be
> made against animal sacrifice of essentially four sorts
>
> The first is the vegan or vegetarian view that it is immoral to
kill and
> consume animals. My response to them is that they are absolutely
free
> to offer to the Di Immortales what ever non-animal sacrifices they
see
> fit in their Religio Privata. However, I believe that a person
with
> such a belief (a) should not apply for a priesthood in the Religio
> Publica for a cultus for which the mos maiorum indicates animal
> sacrifice to be the norm and (b) if as a matter of conscience
cannot
> bear the thought that a sacerdos of the Religio Publica conducts an
> animal sacrifice on behalf of the respublica in accordance with the
mos
> maiorum, should consider whether citizenship in Nova Roma is
consistent
> with his or her conscience. It is not, however, the place of such
a
> person to demand that the religious authorities of the state ban a
> practice which is confirmed by milions of instances in the
historical
> Religio Publica of Roma and the mos maiorum because of an
individual
> moral qualm.

CATO: I'm assuming, pontifex, that you would then have sided with
the Vatican in the matter of its silence in the face of the
atrocities committed by the Nazi regime? After all, throughout the
centuries, millions of Jews had been slaughtered in Germany's (and in
general, Europe's) history, from the Crusades onwards. The National
Socialists really simply re-wrote laws that had their roots 6 and 7
centuries before the Nuremburg Law Code was promulgated. They were
following time-honored precedents.

>
> The second is that animal rights activists might fixate on animal
> sacrifices in Nova Roma and seek to discredit Nova Roma by bad
> publicity. I think this is unlikely. They have made few inroads
> against a meat slaughter and packing industry which continues to
profit
> handsomely while slaughtering animals with far less dignity and
humane
> concern that a Roman sacrifice involves. They have been equally
> unsuccessful at prohibiting kosher slaughter by Jews (although
there
> they have the disadvantage of sounding rather like Joseph Goebbels
and
> Julius Streicher on the subject). If such groups were to invade my
> property to disrupt a sacrifice to the Di Immortales, they would
rapidly
> find themselves in jail for trespass and vandalism and subject to
> additional civil suit for substantial damages. Frankly, even in
> fundamentalist Christian Oklahoma I suspect that a Roman polytheist
> would receive more popular support than PETA when it came to
defending
> private property rights.
>
> Third, there is another aspect to this situation to which no
mention has
> been made. The Collegium Pontificum cannot constitutionally
prohibit
> any practitioner of the Religio Romana from inviting his local
newspaper
> and television stations to cover an animal sacrifice on his
property,
> while he smiles at the camera and announces that he is a citizen of
Nova
> Roma, that Nova Roma is an organisation dedicated to the
reconstruction
> of the Religio Romana, and that he is exercising his right as a
citizen
> of Nova Roma to conduct a public sacrifice as part of his Religio
> Privata. I think I would have several fingers left over if I tried
to
> count on them the number of journalists in the US who know what the
> difference between the Religio Publica and the Religio Privata
is. If
> we got national television coverage of the incident that proclaimed
that
> this person was a citizen of Nova Roma, that Nova Roma is an
> organisation dedicated to the restoration of the Religio Romana,
and
> that this citizen broke no current law of Nova Roma -- even if the
> footage portrayed the sprinkling of the ox with mola salse, the
> poleaxing of it and the slitting of its throat, the opening of its
body
> to remove and examine the exta, the cooking of the exta and their
> immolation on the altar, the profanation of the remaining meat, its
> butchering, cooking and consumption of the meat at the epulum -- we
> could honestly deny none of it, even if it were to happen tomorrow.
> Would the legal statement that the caerimonia was part of the
Religio
> Privata of the citizen rather than an act of the Religio Publica of
Nova
> Roma make much real difference? I doubt it.


CATO: But WE (citizens of NR) would know. WE would understand the
difference. And WE (or at least I) would support you in your PRIVATE
practice of your beliefs. Is that not as important, especially in
view of several citizens' declarations that they don't care what
the "outside world" thinks?


The only way to prevent
> such a scenario would be to prohibit citizens who are practitioners
of
> the Religio Romana from conducting animal sacrifice in their
Religio
> Privata. How would that differ from the Collegium Pontificum
> prohibiting Christian citizens from partaking of the eucharist in
their
> private participation in Christianity?


CATO: Because, first of all, only priests can say the Mass in
private; other than that, Christian worship is communal and public.
Second, as Christians (or at least Christians in the Traditional
Churches, as there are many denominations which do NOT partake of the
Eucharist), we understand what it is, and have made a choice to
either believe or not believe, and act upon that choice. I can always
find a Christian Church in which the Eucharist is not offered, if I
choose to do so. Forcing the blood sacrifice on me in the name of
the state is something I am not being given the choice of avoiding.


I would no more support as a
> Pontifex such a prohibition on Christian citizens than I would
prohibit
> animal sacrifice in the Religio Privata of practitioner citizens.
My
> underlying point is that the freedom of private religion our NR
> constitution guarantees does not permit us to prevent the worse
case
> scenario of an animal sacrifice in the Religio Privata being
broadcast
> 24/7 on CNN and our only response being trying to make what most
> non-practitioners of the Religio Romana would regard as the arcane
> distinction between the Religio Privata and the Religio Publica. I
> think someone who would do such a thing would be monstrously
stupid, but
> there isn't a legal thing I or any other member of the Collegium
could
> do to prevent it. By comparison the chances of such a sacrifice in
the
> Religio Publica conducted by a vetted sacerdos of the Religio
Publica
> precipitating such a public relations disaster are vanishingly
slow. We
> honestly try not to elevate idiots to religious magistracies.
>
> The fourth objection is one which I take very seriously. I deeply
> respect our Pontifex Maximus, although I remind some who have
posted on
> these matters that the Pontifex Maximus is only primus inter pares
and
> it is the collective responsibility of all the pontifices to
> collectively set religious policy. However, anyone who did not
> seriously consider the opinion of M. Cassius Iulianus on religious
> matters is a fool. His argument is that animal sacrifice is a
> sociological artifact of the rural origins of the Religio and the
> technology of meat consumption in antiquity. Thus modern advances
in
> industrial meat processing and refrigeration make animal sacrifice
> unncessary. And, further, there is textual evidence which claims
that a
> prominent figure in the origins of the Religio, Numa Rex,
supposedly
> prohibited blood sacrifices. I do not find this argument persuasive
for
> several reasons. First, if one is attempting to reconstruct an
ancient
> religion, the only certainties are those pieces of evidence which
> explicitly disclose the practices of that religion. This is
> particularly the case in a religion, like the Religio Romana, in
which
> orthopraxy is enormously more important than orthodoxy. The
> overwhelming majority of literary and epigraphic texts, as well as
the
> extant religiouc iconography, and the physical evidence of
archaeology
> confirms that animal sacrifice was the near universal practice of
the
> Religio Publica. The only argument against this mass of evidence
which
> would be persuasive to me as both a historian and a priest of the
> Religio is that the Di Immortales have given a clear, prodigious
sign
> that what had pleased them throughout Roman history no longer does.
> That is a matter for proof, not for assumption. I do not claim to
know
> the minds of the Di Immortales, but I am not prepared to say that
what
> pleased them for a thousand years has changed without the most
> compelling evidence.

CATO: The very fact that you are struggling uphill to gain
acceptance of the re-creation of these sacrifices could be as clear
and compelling a sign as the Di Immortales are ever going to give
you. This is why I state that you cannot simply ignore two thousand
years of social evolution without assuming (or pretending) that the
Di Immortales have been asleep or somehow absent from the world while
the world changed. Either they see the change, and choose to accept
it, or they are powerless to stop it. For the sake of the religio, I
would say they have accepted the change. I would not defame them by
saying they could not allow it.


The argument about Numa Rex strikes me as
> something of a red-herring. The textual evidence usually cited
suggests
> that some Romans believed that Numa was a Pythagorean, and
Pythagoreans
> opposed blood sacrifices. There are profound chronological
problems
> with that belief, since positing that Numa was a contemporary of
> Pythagoras requires abandoning the traditional king list and its
> chronology or completely redating Pythagoras in contravention of
the
> Greek sources. Furthermore, the most explicit statement in
Plutarch's
> Life of Numa of his prohibition of animal sacrifice is explicitly
> contradicted six paragraphs later in Plutarch's claim that a law of
Numa
> required the sacrifice of a pregnant cow and its fetus. I do not
for a
> moment deny the mos maiorum requires that some cultus of the
Religio
> Publica not include animal sacrifice, but that is not the
majoritarian
> case. Nor do I accept that the speculations of a handful of
ambiguous
> sources outweigh the mass of evidence that animal sacrifice was a
near
> universal component of the Religio Publica.
>
> Ritual orthopraxis is the single most important characteristic of
the
> Religio Romana.

Before I would agree to abandon the orthopraxis of the
> maiores, it would take a great deal more than the existence of
> industrial meat processing and refrigeration. The idea that we
should
> abandon the religious orthopraxis of antiquity is a particularly
> non-Roman one; there are a plethora of references in classical
texts to
> the fact that practitioners of the Religio during the republic did
not
> know the meaning of some of the rituals they performed, that the
> original meanings of the rituals were lost in antiquity, but the
> consistent response of Romans to that situation was to continue the
> orthopraxis, even if they no longer understood the words the Salii
sang
> as they danced. This is a part of Roman pietas which we too often
forget.

CATO: So you are saying that blind acceptance of a faith they did
not understand is a particularly Roman ideal? That it is more
important to act blindly without faith, than to have your faith guide
your actions? It is true that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that
the Eucharist is effective whether or not someone in the presence of
a Mass understands it or not, but I cannot imagine that you would
look to the RC Church for support in this case. I would rather see
the citizens of NR freely and willingly partake, as a whole body, in
a process of public worship that they can both understand and accept
as beneficial to the state.
>
> Vale.
>
> Scaurus

vale bene, illustrissimus pontifex, et valete in pace deorum, omnes.

Cato

Salve Doris,

I must apologise for having a sense of humour that doesn't recognise the
political correctness that our modern societies are so fond of. My post was very
provocative indeed but is only a reflection of the point you make : Where do we
draw the line ?

In advocating a hard core return to the religio of the ancients, one must
consider the implications of such an act. And that means offering a view on human
sacrifice as well as animal sacrifice.

I do not condone either of these and believe that sometimes shock therapy is
a way of pointing at the shortcomings of our reasonings.

Once again I am sorry if I offended you in any way : Perhaps one can joke
about everything; Just not with everybody...

Optime vale

Moravius Laureatus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete omnes;
Doris, Gaius Moravius was joking, but not to your taste, I'm veg too
and I find him funny as well as an excellent person whom I like and
respect .
Dear Amorice I suggest you visit us at the BackAlley we are having
just such a rude, funny discussion under 'Phoenician Revivalists'
WARNING! not for the squeamish!!!
bene vale Sp.Fabia Vera Fausta


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, cornmoraviusl@a... wrote:

> Salve Doris,
>
> I must apologise for having a sense of humour that doesn't

recognise the

> political correctness that our modern societies are so fond of. My

post was very

> provocative indeed but is only a reflection of the point you make :

Where do we

> draw the line ?
>
> In advocating a hard core return to the religio of the ancients,

one must

> consider the implications of such an act. And that means offering a

view on human

> sacrifice as well as animal sacrifice.
>
> I do not condone either of these and believe that sometimes shock

therapy is

> a way of pointing at the shortcomings of our reasonings.
>
> Once again I am sorry if I offended you in any way : Perhaps one

can joke

> about everything; Just not with everybody...
>
> Optime vale
>
> Moravius Laureatus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gaius Modius Athanasius Gaio Equitio Cato SPD

I understand that it must be diffult as a Christian being in Nova Roma. I once was a Christian, and understand the theological implications of much of what Nova Roma stands for can cause some Christians distress of conscious. However, Pontifex Scaurus is a Priest of Nova Roma -- as am I. As priests we have an obligation to honor the Gods on behalf of the Senate and People of New Rome. Just like Lucius Equitius as Pater Familias of Gens Equitia will make offerings to the Gods for those within Gens Equitia (which I am sure he does), and as I do for Gens Modia as Pater Familias of Gens Modia. If a priest of Nova Roma conducts a ritual AS a priest they are duty bound to make the offering/sacrifice for the community of Nova Roma. The Religio is a communial Religion, and the Gods are a part of our Community - they are the Patrons and we, the citizens, are thier clients.

In the Orthodox Church (Greek, Russian, etc..) they have a section of their Divine Liturgy (called the Great Litany) were the priest prays for the soverign of the land in which the local congregation is located. The priest also prays for the military, the government, etc... Not every president, premier, chanceller, or other government official is Orthodox and even if they objected that hundreds of Orthodox parishes throughout their country was praying for them they could not stop the prayers. And you, Cato, are not going to be able to stop the Priests of Nova Roma from making offerings to the Gods (blood or otherwise) in the name of the Senate and People of New Rome.

EVERY citizen has a RIGHT to their own private religion! But the PUBLIC religion of Nova Roma is the Religio Romana -- the worship of the Immortals! This is not negotiable, and this is not open for debate. You can be Christian, and that is protected by our constitution. However, the STATE religion of Nova Roma is and shall always be the Religio Romana.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Tribunus Plebis, Flamen Pomonalis, and Augur


In a message dated 4/17/2004 2:00:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mlcinnyc@... writes:

> CATO: Illustrissimus Pontifex, that is NOT what I said. I remind
> you that I specifically stated that what a citizen does in private is
> his or her own business; that I personally believe that everyone is
> utterly free to do, in private, whatever his or her conscience leads
> them to do in faithful obedience to their spiritual beliefs. My
> concern is the PUBLIC actions of the religio.
>
> NOR did I claim that you or anyone else "have no place" in NR for any
> reason, and in fact made a point of saying that I would not dream of
> telling you (in particular) what you can or cannot do in your private
> worship. I merely asked if it were not somehow possible for the
> state to recognize the serious misgivings that many citizens have
> regarding blood sacrifices on their behalf, and instead incorporate
> into the Public Religio non-bloody offerings instead, as a way of
> showing respect for those citizens' wishes. It is you, who in your
> refusal to accept any view of the Religio Publica other than your
> own, who have suggested repeatedly that those of us who do not
> approve of blood sacrifices in the public expressions of the religio
> need to "examine [our] conscience" and perhaps leave.
>
> I chose to emphasize the NOVA for reasons that I made clear; because
> we do live in the 21st century and cannot pretend that the past 2000
> years (and their attendant social, political, and moral changes)
> simply haven't occurred.
>
> While I appreciate your "fight" to "allow" Christians their private
> freedom of worship, it is in the Constitution of NR; unless the
> Constitution changes, you do not need to "fight" for it anymore, as
> those of us who practice Christianity privately are perfectly capable
> (and at least in my instance) willing to "fight" for ourselves. I am
> perhaps capable of expressing what a Christian thinks to a greater
> degree than you are. And, again, I remind you that I have not, ever,
> made a "Christian" case against your private worship. The comment
> about the Anglican Church was meant humorously, but this has
> obviously been lost on you.
>
> The "mos maiorum" is not an immutable thing, cast in unyeilding
> marble. The "way of our ancestors" changes as our ancestors are
> added to and our perspective on what makes Rome unique evolves and
> grows. The Romans were not a stagnant, lifeless group of inflexible
> will; they were curious, innovative, and adaptive in the extreme to
> the world around them. I am asking you to consider
> mirroring them in
> this, too.

Cato:

Let me remind you that you do not interpret the will of the Gods. The Collegium Augurium is charged with the taking of auspices to determine the Will of the Gods.

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 4/16/2004 6:13:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mlcinnyc@... writes:

> CATO: The very fact that you are struggling uphill to gain
> acceptance of the re-creation of these sacrifices could be as clear
> and compelling a sign as the Di Immortales are ever going to give
> you. This is why I state that you cannot simply ignore two thousand
> years of social evolution without assuming (or pretending) that the
> Di Immortales have been asleep or somehow absent from the world while
> the world changed. Either they see the change, and choose to accept
> it, or they are powerless to stop it. For the sake of the religio, I
> would say they have accepted the change. I would not
> defame them by
> saying they could not allow it.

A. Apollonius Cordus to the Quaestor Diana Octavia
Aventina, and to all his fellow-citizens and all
peregrines, greetings.

> In my opinion, he hasn't violated his Oath of Office
> because the Religio has not made any changes
> which would cause him to break his Oath of Office.

Thanks for that clarification.

> Regarding prosecution: I've said this before but now
> I will posture a bit for any new citizens
> reading this: My big gripe with the current state of
> affairs is that I simply *hate* any type of
> prosecution and I will not -ever- prosecute anyone
> for speaking their mind. This is an email list
> after all... I believe in freedom of speech and I
> feel that the way that this 'forum' is handled
> now with constant threats of lawsuits whenever a
> citizen speaks his/her mind is a terrible thing.
> Our Praetores used to keep things civil and it
> worked. Now the Praetores don't say a word and
> leave it to the citizens themselves to file lawsuits
> against eachother in attempts to stifle those
> citizens who do not say/act in what our current
> administration finds politically correct. And the
> ridiculous thing is that IF I now call you a jerk
> (and don't misunderstand because I am not) and
> you laugh at it, another citizen can file a lawsuit
> against me. Amazing.

There are a few issues in here. Firstly, you say that
you would never prosecute someone for insulting or
verbally attacking you, and that's a perfectly
respectable position in my view. Though calumnia
(libel) is a criminal offence in the lex poenalis, I
do not personally believe that it does significant
harm to anyone other than its victim, and so I don't
see that anyone had a duty to the general public to
prosecute offenders.

You also mention the worry that if A insults B then C
may sue even if neither A nor B care. Well, I'm
pleased to say that Salix Astur did think of this when
he was drafting the lex poenalis, and included the
following:

VI.A.4: "No act shall be punished when any of the
following conditions apply: ... 4. The affected party
(if different from the actor) explicitly approves the
reus' action."

In other words, if you were to libel me and I were to
say, 'that's okay, I don't want anyone to prosecute',
no one would be able to sue you for it. So it's not so
bad.

But all this is slightly beside the point. The
important thing is to recognize that, unpleasant
though the idea of prosecution may be, some legal
offences are offences against the whole community. If
someone discovers, or believes, that such an offence
has been committed, it is not up to him or her to
forgive and forget on behalf of the rest of the
community. Only the community, through its established
institutions, can forgive offences against it. A
person who discovers or believes the existence of an
offence against the community had a duty to the rest
of the community to bring the offender to account,
either by prosecuting or at least by contributing to a
prosecution. To go as far as you have gone, saying, 'I
will never prosecute anyone for libel', is fine; to go
further, as at least one citizen has done, saying, 'I
will never prosecute anyone for anything', is a gross
dereliction of duty.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:

> Cato:
>
> Let me remind you that you do not interpret the will of the Gods.

The Collegium Augurium is charged with the taking of auspices to
determine the Will of the Gods.

>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 4/16/2004 6:13:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

mlcinnyc@y... writes:

>
> Cato, makes a good point, times evolve. Has anyone observed if the

gods would prefer an expensive bottle of Petrus and ripe figs to a
sacrifice of a cheap $25 cow? Maybe the time of Numa is returning.
Why shouldn't the augurs do this?
Sometimes after the annual 6mos discussion of animal sacrifice (on
the religio list) as a born non-Christian I think ex-Christians are
passionately for it just to show they reject the theology of the
bloodless sacrifice of Jesus.
Plenty of historical polytheists from sophisticated cultures make
vegetarian sacrifices; Buddhists, Jains and Hindus (except for some
Kali worshippers) to name a few,
bene valete Sp.Fabia Vera Fausta

In a message dated 4/17/04 5:42:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cornmoraviusl@... writes:

> Let me express my support for all kind of animal sacrifices in an effort to
>
> bring the good old religion back to life. While we're at it, shall we make a
>
> provision in our constitution that in time of danger we should be able to
> kill a
> couple of greeks and a couple of gauls ? That' ll be fun ! Modius and Drusus
>
> could start laying bricks while we all chant and dance for our salvation ;-)
>
> Optime valete
>
> C Moravius L A
>

Such a hysterical outburst does not even deserve the courtesy of a reply.
Last time I checked we do not have the Sibylline Books to consult, and it was
that
not the Roman constitution that suggested that such a sacrifice be carried
out.

Q. Fabius Maximus




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete Omnes...particularily those who do not practice the Religio
Romana....both mono and polytheists, it doesnt matter.

I have seen some discourses made from those who are not practitioners
in a well meaning light, offering philosophies and historicities in an
attempt to try to understand the Pontiffs and perhaps help them to
draw certain conclusions in the light of civil discussion.

In a couple of situations misunderstandings have occurred and those
who have been misunderstood have clarified their respective positions.

The trouble is, these opinions are poorly received by a select two or
three (and I am most certainly not speaking of Pontiff Scaurus who can
present his views in an academic, virtuous yet effective manner).
These two or three are not even reading the posts correctly, and
immediately attempt to muddy the waters turning this into a Christian
vs Pagan, Practitioner vs. general Pagan, mono vs. polytheistic issue,
for purposes of religious posturing. The issue is much more
multifaceted than that.

The issue is public blood sacrifice, not on a private plane (who can
stop that) but cermonial formal public blood sacrifice. It is NOT,
whether the Religio has a right to exist. Most nonpractitioners with
two neurons to rub together have read the website and know the role of
the Religio here in Nova Roma.

I fear that anything you will have to say, from here on in, will just
invite a nasty display of accusations of disrespect of the religio,
'we run things and you don't' and other like posturing behaviours,
rendering alot of bad feelings for nothing.

This is a Religio affair. I would strongly suggest, unless you do not
mind being the victim of your intentions being twisted and feeding
posturers, that you let the Religio Practitioners deal with this, with
the collegium. The Collegium Pontificium, has the final trump card on
the issue. What citizens choose to do in response to that, regardless
of who or what they believe, is up to them. They cannot, however,
short of becoming a Collegium Member, vote on this matter.

The Consul and Senators who are not practitioners of course must voice
a say, as their role in the republic is to advise and offer what
counsel they can for the wellbeing of the republic as a whole. This
does not mean the existance of the religio is questioned or
disrespected in the process, but that they take other factors into
account. So far, I have seen no prosecutable disrespect of the
religio, all though if someone would like to line a poster's behaviour
up to the Blasphemy Decretum to proove otherwise, I'd like to see it.

If you have a question on this, perhaps take it up with the Collegium
or one of the Pontiffs in private. You know the Pontiffs, and I think
Iulius Scaurus is one whom you can take for granted as a serious
practitoner of the Religio, and one confident enough in his beliefs
that he doesn't need to produce a side show, or pick on people to
prove his piety. There are others. You do not necessarily have to be
100% in his camp to ask him a question..he will give you a civil and
honest answer.

I am not telling anyone what to do, how to post, etc. What you do is
up to you :), in keeping with Freedom of Speech. I just don't want to
see wellmeaning people who are not practitioners have their good
intentions played with by persons who want to feed something other
than the practise of Roman virtue.

With respect to all with good intentions,
Pompeia

Ah, My dear senator, it is always a pleasure to hear your kind words and
publicly condemn "outbursts". If only you knew how much I agree with you on that
subject. Perhaps we shall remember to ALL refrain from abusive and provocative
comments in the future...

In the mean time I have already offered my apologies to whomever I have
offended : my little joke perhaps wasn't posted on the right list but it outlined
perfectly how far we still have to go in our quest to a New Rome and the lines
that will have to be drawn to suit our modern sensibilities.

Respectfully yours

Moravius Laureatus

In a message dated 17/04/04 21:12:27 GMT Daylight Time, QFabiusMaxmi@...
writes:

> Such a hysterical outburst does not even deserve the courtesy of a reply.
> Last time I checked we do not have the Sibylline Books to consult, and it
> was
> that
> not the Roman constitution that suggested that such a sacrifice be carried
> out.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G. Equitius Cato G. Modius Athanasius Quiritibusqe S.P.D.

Salvete omnes:

Please, *please* listen to me carefully: I AM NOT ARGUING AS A
CHRISTIAN. My concerns have NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY. I only
use caps because I cannot seem to make this clear. I have not once
suggested replacing the religio. I have argued in favor of the
freedom of private practices, repeatedly. Please read what I have
written before you decide I'm trying to ram any religion down
anyone's throat. I am not, and responding as if I am is
irresponsible and does not do this discussion justice. Again, READ
what I have written, and if you want to respond, respond to what I
have actually said, and not some imaginary attack.

Valete omnes.

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius Gaio Equitio Cato SPD
>
> I understand that it must be diffult as a Christian being in Nova
Roma. I once was a Christian, and understand the theological
implications of much of what Nova Roma stands for can cause some
Christians distress of conscious. However, Pontifex Scaurus is a
Priest of Nova Roma -- as am I. As priests we have an obligation to
honor the Gods on behalf of the Senate and People of New Rome. Just
like Lucius Equitius as Pater Familias of Gens Equitia will make
offerings to the Gods for those within Gens Equitia (which I am sure
he does), and as I do for Gens Modia as Pater Familias of Gens
Modia. If a priest of Nova Roma conducts a ritual AS a priest they
are duty bound to make the offering/sacrifice for the community of
Nova Roma. The Religio is a communial Religion, and the Gods are a
part of our Community - they are the Patrons and we, the citizens,
are thier clients.
>
> In the Orthodox Church (Greek, Russian, etc..) they have a section
of their Divine Liturgy (called the Great Litany) were the priest
prays for the soverign of the land in which the local congregation is
located. The priest also prays for the military, the government,
etc... Not every president, premier, chanceller, or other government
official is Orthodox and even if they objected that hundreds of
Orthodox parishes throughout their country was praying for them they
could not stop the prayers. And you, Cato, are not going to be able
to stop the Priests of Nova Roma from making offerings to the Gods
(blood or otherwise) in the name of the Senate and People of New Rome.
>
> EVERY citizen has a RIGHT to their own private religion! But the
PUBLIC religion of Nova Roma is the Religio Romana -- the worship of
the Immortals! This is not negotiable, and this is not open for
debate. You can be Christian, and that is protected by our
constitution. However, the STATE religion of Nova Roma is and shall
always be the Religio Romana.
>
> Vale;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
> Tribunus Plebis, Flamen Pomonalis, and Augur
>
>
> In a message dated 4/17/2004 2:00:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mlcinnyc@y... writes:
>
> > CATO: Illustrissimus Pontifex, that is NOT what I said. I
remind
> > you that I specifically stated that what a citizen does in
private is
> > his or her own business; that I personally believe that everyone
is
> > utterly free to do, in private, whatever his or her conscience
leads
> > them to do in faithful obedience to their spiritual beliefs. My
> > concern is the PUBLIC actions of the religio.
> >
> > NOR did I claim that you or anyone else "have no place" in NR for
any
> > reason, and in fact made a point of saying that I would not dream
of
> > telling you (in particular) what you can or cannot do in your
private
> > worship. I merely asked if it were not somehow possible for the
> > state to recognize the serious misgivings that many citizens have
> > regarding blood sacrifices on their behalf, and instead
incorporate
> > into the Public Religio non-bloody offerings instead, as a way of
> > showing respect for those citizens' wishes. It is you, who in
your
> > refusal to accept any view of the Religio Publica other than your
> > own, who have suggested repeatedly that those of us who do not
> > approve of blood sacrifices in the public expressions of the
religio
> > need to "examine [our] conscience" and perhaps leave.
> >
> > I chose to emphasize the NOVA for reasons that I made clear;
because
> > we do live in the 21st century and cannot pretend that the past
2000
> > years (and their attendant social, political, and moral changes)
> > simply haven't occurred.
> >
> > While I appreciate your "fight" to "allow" Christians their
private
> > freedom of worship, it is in the Constitution of NR; unless the
> > Constitution changes, you do not need to "fight" for it anymore,
as
> > those of us who practice Christianity privately are perfectly
capable
> > (and at least in my instance) willing to "fight" for ourselves.
I am
> > perhaps capable of expressing what a Christian thinks to a
greater
> > degree than you are. And, again, I remind you that I have not,
ever,
> > made a "Christian" case against your private worship. The comment
> > about the Anglican Church was meant humorously, but this has
> > obviously been lost on you.
> >
> > The "mos maiorum" is not an immutable thing, cast in unyeilding
> > marble. The "way of our ancestors" changes as our ancestors are
> > added to and our perspective on what makes Rome unique evolves
and
> > grows. The Romans were not a stagnant, lifeless group of
inflexible
> > will; they were curious, innovative, and adaptive in the extreme
to
> > the world around them. I am asking you to consider
> > mirroring them in
> > this, too.

Salve!

I would like to inform all of our new citizens about the courses currently being offered at the Academia Thules. These courses are a fun, easy way to learn more about Nova Roma, to interact with other citizens, and to bring honor to Minerva through your pursuit of knowledge.

The Basic Course about Religio Romana I
The Basic Course about Roman Philosophy I
The Basic Course about Nova Roma I
The Basic Course about Greek History
The Basic Course about Literarure History

These courses are open to all citizens of Nova Roma, and best of all, they
are FREE!

For more information, or to register for a course, please visit:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/academiathules/courses.shtml

Thank you all for your time.

Valete-

Gaius Sempronius Octavianus
GaiusSemproniusOctavianus@...

Vicarius Officina Media Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Could anyone share with me what Jesus Christ meant when He called
King Herod 'The Fox.' I think He meant that King Herod was clever,
and also could someone share with me about the different Herods of
the Roman Empire?

What did Jesus Christ mean when he called King Herod 'The Fox?'

Could anyone share with me which Herod came first in Roman History?

Salve!

Here's a site that might help you with regards to the Herods; and as far as we know, yes, Jesus meant that Herod was sly and quick to run from trouble...

http://www.ancientroute.com/Trees/herod.htm

vale,

Cato


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25�

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cato;

I am not accusing you of wanting to replace the Religo Romana with Christianity. Again, I repeat...I am NOT accusing you of this. What I DO see you doing is trying to keep the PUBLIC Religio Romana private, and that will not happen. The only recognized state Religion within Nova Roma is the Religio Romana.

People are able to believe whatever they like, but the state religion of our Micronation is the Religio Romana. The priests of the Religio Romana are priests within Nova Roma, not a seperate entity that "works with" Nova Roma.

I don't really want to keep debating this issue. I know people are getting upset over this, and I apologize if *I* have offended anyone. But I, and many others, joined Nova Roma because we are Roman (Pagan) Reconstructionists and wanted a place to "practice" our faith. We don't have churches that we can go to worship our Gods. We are building the foundation NOW, so someday Nova Roma can have temples honoring the Gods.

Nova Roma is the only organization that I know of that is a "Pagan" based organization that has a multi-cultural and multi-religious membership/citizenship. This is a very good "experiment" if you will, and I one that I want to see continue.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 4/17/2004 4:11:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mlcinnyc@... writes:

> Please, *please* listen to me carefully: I AM NOT ARGUING AS A
> CHRISTIAN. My concerns have NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY. I only
> use caps because I cannot seem to make this clear. I have not once
> suggested replacing the religio. I have argued in favor of the
> freedom of private practices, repeatedly. Please read what I have
> written before you decide I'm trying to ram any religion down
> anyone's throat. I am not, and responding as if I am is
> irresponsible and does not do this discussion justice. Again, READ
> what I have written, and if you want to respond, respond to
> what I
> have actually said, and not some imaginary attack.

Salve Pompeia,

As old Robert Newton used to say in Treasure Island and his Long
John Silver series, "Arrrrrrmen to that!"

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus






--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_cornelia"
<scriba_forum@h...> wrote:

> Salvete Omnes...particularily those who do not practice the Religio
> Romana....both mono and polytheists, it doesnt matter.
>
> I have seen some discourses made from those who are not

practitioners

> in a well meaning light, offering philosophies and historicities

in an

> attempt to try to understand the Pontiffs and perhaps help them to
> draw certain conclusions in the light of civil discussion.
>
> In a couple of situations misunderstandings have occurred and those
> who have been misunderstood have clarified their respective

positions.

>
> The trouble is, these opinions are poorly received by a select two

or

> three (and I am most certainly not speaking of Pontiff Scaurus who

can

> present his views in an academic, virtuous yet effective manner).
> These two or three are not even reading the posts correctly, and
> immediately attempt to muddy the waters turning this into a

Christian

> vs Pagan, Practitioner vs. general Pagan, mono vs. polytheistic

issue,

> for purposes of religious posturing. The issue is much more
> multifaceted than that.
>
> The issue is public blood sacrifice, not on a private plane (who

can

> stop that) but cermonial formal public blood sacrifice. It is NOT,
> whether the Religio has a right to exist. Most nonpractitioners

with

> two neurons to rub together have read the website and know the

role of

> the Religio here in Nova Roma.
>
> I fear that anything you will have to say, from here on in, will

just

> invite a nasty display of accusations of disrespect of the religio,
> 'we run things and you don't' and other like posturing behaviours,
> rendering alot of bad feelings for nothing.
>
> This is a Religio affair. I would strongly suggest, unless you do

not

> mind being the victim of your intentions being twisted and feeding
> posturers, that you let the Religio Practitioners deal with this,

with

> the collegium. The Collegium Pontificium, has the final trump

card on

> the issue. What citizens choose to do in response to that,

regardless

> of who or what they believe, is up to them. They cannot, however,
> short of becoming a Collegium Member, vote on this matter.
>
> The Consul and Senators who are not practitioners of course must

voice

> a say, as their role in the republic is to advise and offer what
> counsel they can for the wellbeing of the republic as a whole.

This

> does not mean the existance of the religio is questioned or
> disrespected in the process, but that they take other factors into
> account. So far, I have seen no prosecutable disrespect of the
> religio, all though if someone would like to line a poster's

behaviour

> up to the Blasphemy Decretum to proove otherwise, I'd like to see

it.

>
> If you have a question on this, perhaps take it up with the

Collegium

> or one of the Pontiffs in private. You know the Pontiffs, and I

think

> Iulius Scaurus is one whom you can take for granted as a serious
> practitoner of the Religio, and one confident enough in his beliefs
> that he doesn't need to produce a side show, or pick on people to
> prove his piety. There are others. You do not necessarily have

to be

> 100% in his camp to ask him a question..he will give you a civil

and

> honest answer.
>
> I am not telling anyone what to do, how to post, etc. What you do

is

> up to you :), in keeping with Freedom of Speech. I just don't

want to

> see wellmeaning people who are not practitioners have their good
> intentions played with by persons who want to feed something other
> than the practise of Roman virtue.
>
> With respect to all with good intentions,
> Pompeia

---Salve:

with respect, and I say this as a Roman and a Christian, would this
question not be best posed on a Christian list, which more exclusively
deals with the teachings of Christ, who was never really a factor in
the republic.

If we can't even keep a civil discussion going on the issues of blood
sacrifice, how is it that we are to maintain such a discussion on the
words of Jesus, one way or the other?

Not saying its 'off topic', but it's really not 'very' much 'on' topic
either, when you look at our mission which is to reconstruct the
culture, histories and religions of the Roman Republic.

I don't like to offend or make Religio Practitioners uncomfortable by
stippling the forum with beliefs on a diety they do not subscribe to,
just as I don't appreciate the few that posture and berate my beliefs.

Tit for tat. Not to be nasty, but just something to think about, in
light of mutual respect for one another.

Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lovelyone49" <lovelyone49@y...> wrote:

> Could anyone share with me what Jesus Christ meant when He called
> King Herod 'The Fox.' I think He meant that King Herod was clever,
> and also could someone share with me about the different Herods of
> the Roman Empire?

Salvete Pompeia omnesque;
you can come to the Jewish Sodalitas and discuss it all you want,
the Herods were very interesting and brilliant politicians which is
why perhaps Jesus called that Herod a fox, meaning crafty.
It amazes me how intolerant a bunch of polytheists can be; I used
to attend church with an old alumni friend (Episcopalian) as he hated
going alone & his children wouldn't, visit my buddhist temple, get
Eid cards from Muslim friends & liberally celebrate Jewish holidays.

bene valete Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta

n Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_cornelia" <scriba_forum@h...>
wrote:

> ---Salve:
>
> with respect, and I say this as a Roman and a Christian, would this
> question not be best posed on a Christian list, which more

exclusively

> deals with the teachings of Christ, who was never really a factor in
> the republic.
>
> If we can't even keep a civil discussion going on the issues of

blood

> sacrifice, how is it that we are to maintain such a discussion on

the

> words of Jesus, one way or the other?
>
> Not saying its 'off topic', but it's really not 'very' much 'on'

topic

> either, when you look at our mission which is to reconstruct the
> culture, histories and religions of the Roman Republic.
>
> I don't like to offend or make Religio Practitioners uncomfortable

by

> stippling the forum with beliefs on a diety they do not subscribe

to,

> just as I don't appreciate the few that posture and berate my

beliefs.

>
> Tit for tat. Not to be nasty, but just something to think about, in
> light of mutual respect for one another.
>
> Pompeia
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lovelyone49" <lovelyone49@y...>

wrote:

> > Could anyone share with me what Jesus Christ meant when He called
> > King Herod 'The Fox.' I think He meant that King Herod was

clever,

> > and also could someone share with me about the different Herods

of

> > the Roman Empire?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lovelyone49" <lovelyone49@y...>
wrote:

> Could anyone share with me what Jesus Christ meant when He called
> King Herod 'The Fox.' I think He meant that King Herod was clever,
> and also could someone share with me about the different Herods of
> the Roman Empire?

Salve,

Three members of Herod's family figure prominently from Augustus to
the reign of Claudius. Herod the Great was the king during the reign
of Augustus. When he died Herod Archelaus ruled in his place. Herod
Antipas ruled Galilee during the time of Tiberius. He was the one
most famous for getting drunk and horny at a party watching his sexy
niece dance then having a famous prophet's head brought on a
platter to please her; bad manners by the standards of those times
from what I read. Herod Antipas was also around for the
Propraetorship of Pilate and there was much political intrigue from
what we had all read.

FOX. — Thus is usually rendered the Hebrew, shû'ãl, which signifies
both fox and jackal, even the latter more often than the former. The
fox, however, was well known by the ancient Hebrews, and its cunning
and deadlliness was as proverbial among them as among us. Even in
modern fairy tales the fox is shown as wise, cunning and trickful.


Anyway it was well known that some of the Herod dynasty made people
like Saddam and old Doc Duvalier look like amatures even by today's
standards. For example it was said that you were safer being one of
Herod's The Great's swines than one of his sons or close family
members. He killed some of them off! On a more positive note he was
a great architect and city planner; built that Caesaria On The Sea
that is being excavated over the last decade or so.

I hope that helps.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

---Salve S. Fabia Vera:

Yunno, I overlooked that list. Many apologies for not thinking of it,
to both you and the initial poster of this thread.

Po


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sp. Fabia Vera" <rory12001@y...> wrote:

> Salvete Pompeia omnesque;
> you can come to the Jewish Sodalitas and discuss it all you want,
> the Herods were very interesting and brilliant politicians which is
> why perhaps Jesus called that Herod a fox, meaning crafty.
> It amazes me how intolerant a bunch of polytheists can be; I used
> to attend church with an old alumni friend (Episcopalian) as he hated
> going alone & his children wouldn't, visit my buddhist temple, get
> Eid cards from Muslim friends & liberally celebrate Jewish holidays.
>
> bene valete Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta
>
> n Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_cornelia" <scriba_forum@h...>
> wrote:
> > ---Salve:
> >
> > with respect, and I say this as a Roman and a Christian, would this
> > question not be best posed on a Christian list, which more
> exclusively
> > deals with the teachings of Christ, who was never really a factor in
> > the republic.
> >
> > If we can't even keep a civil discussion going on the issues of
> blood
> > sacrifice, how is it that we are to maintain such a discussion on
> the
> > words of Jesus, one way or the other?
> >
> > Not saying its 'off topic', but it's really not 'very' much 'on'
> topic
> > either, when you look at our mission which is to reconstruct the
> > culture, histories and religions of the Roman Republic.
> >
> > I don't like to offend or make Religio Practitioners uncomfortable
> by
> > stippling the forum with beliefs on a diety they do not subscribe
> to,
> > just as I don't appreciate the few that posture and berate my
> beliefs.
> >
> > Tit for tat. Not to be nasty, but just something to think about, in
> > light of mutual respect for one another.
> >
> > Pompeia
> >
> >
> > In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lovelyone49" <lovelyone49@y...>
> wrote:
> > > Could anyone share with me what Jesus Christ meant when He called
> > > King Herod 'The Fox.' I think He meant that King Herod was
> clever,
> > > and also could someone share with me about the different Herods
> of
> > > the Roman Empire?

Yes I made it to tavolo con Apicio tonight, Tomorrow I hope to seeyou and
friends at the Arch of Constantine

_________________________________________________________________
From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring
Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx

Salvete,

That describes what happened to the processor in my old computer
this morning. Unfortunately that meant I spent the day going from
store to store looking for a new computer. Also a good thing it was
a warm spring day so I could air out the apartment while I went on
the unexpected shopping trip. Those things smell really bad when
they go. I had hoped to make the 6 year old box run for another six
months or so, but it wasn't meant to be.

I'm pretty sure the old hard drive will still work, but until I can
scam a few pieces parts from work and hook up an impromptu network
and get the stuff I need off my old drive, I've pretty much lost
everything for the time being.

If you emailed me in the past couple of days and I hadn't answered
yet, your email is on that old hard drive. It will probably be
faster to send it to me again.

Valete,

Q. Cassius Calvus

In a message dated 4/17/04 1:25:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
scriba_forum@... writes:

> The Consul and Senators who are not practitioners of course must voice
> a say, as their role in the republic is to advise and offer what
> counsel they can for the wellbeing of the republic as a whole. This
> does not mean the existance of the religio is questioned or
> disrespected in the process, but that they take other factors into
> account. So far, I have seen no prosecutable disrespect of the
> religio, all though if someone would like to line a poster's behaviour
> up to the Blasphemy Decretum to proove otherwise, I'd like to see it.
>
>

As I said to several Pontifix, and the Consul, this whole thing got blown out
of proportion
when the Consul made remarks as a private individual and it misconstrued as
official policy.
This is the disadvantage of trying to speak casually to the public, while
being a Curule Magistrate. I committed the same faux pas as a Consul and so have
others. The People
cannot divorce the individual from office. This is true in the micronational
world as well.

Consul Equitius committed no violation of the Decretum, all though I received
many e-mails saying he did. And wishing that he did does not make it so.
So, hopefully this will stop the private flood of e-mails.

About private e-mails. I make every attempt to answer all my mail.
Sometimes though mail slips through the cracks. If you have not received an answer by
72 hours, please resend again.

Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 4/17/04 1:55:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cornmoraviusl@... writes:

> Ah, My dear senator, it is always a pleasure to hear your kind words and
> publicly condemn "outbursts". If only you knew how much I agree with you on
> that
> subject. Perhaps we shall remember to ALL refrain from abusive and
> provocative
> comments in the future...
>

Well, your "joke" went right over my head. Perhaps it was the wrong list to
air this.

Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is just an update to let everyone know that the Cable Channel USA will be airing a 2 part miniseries on Spartacus tomorrow and Monday Night at 8 and 10 PM

Lucius Cassius Pontonius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gaius Modius Athanasius SPD

Fabia Vera;

I do not find your sarcasm very appealling, Fabia Vera. Nor do I find it very appropriate for a Sacerdos of Nova Roma such as yourself to make light a legitimate practice of the Religio Romana.

I also find your comment, "I think ex-Christians are passionately for it just to show they reject the theology of the bloodless sacrifice of Jesus." As an ex-Catholic Benedictine Novice I still have a great deal of respect for the dignity of the sacrements of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As someone with an interest in ancient, and modern mystery cults, I find no problem whatsoever with the metaphysics involved and or theology of the "bloodless" sacrifice of the Mass. However, my advocacy for the legitimate usage of animal sacrifice is in no way tied to my being an ex-Christian trying to somehow actively reject the Christianity of my youth. I get very bent out of shape when I meet people who refer to themselves as "recovering" Catholics. I have very fond memories of Catholicism, and my time spent at Christ the King Monastery. It was an invaluable experience for me, and I value the memories I have. However, I made a choice. The choice I made was one that inevitably lead me to Paganism.

Regarding Buddhism, and Jainism. It could clearly be argued that these two religious traditions are essentially (or originally) Hindu sects. Hinduism in and of itself grew out of ancient Vedic Religion -- which as a faith was a contemporary of ancient Greek and Roman religion.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Flamen Pomonalis et Augur

In a message dated 4/17/2004 3:28:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rory12001@... writes:

> Cato, makes a good point, times evolve. Has anyone observed if the
> gods would prefer an expensive bottle of Petrus and ripe figs to a
> sacrifice of a cheap $25 cow? Maybe the time of Numa is returning.
> Why shouldn't the augurs do this?
> Sometimes after the annual 6mos discussion of animal sacrifice (on
> the religio list) as a born non-Christian I think ex-Christians are
> passionately for it just to show they reject the theology of the
> bloodless sacrifice of Jesus.
> Plenty of historical polytheists from sophisticated cultures make
> vegetarian sacrifices; Buddhists, Jains and Hindus (except
> for some
> Kali worshippers) to name a few,
> bene valete Sp.Fabia Vera Fausta

Gaius Modius Athanasius SPD

You did not identify yourself. Those citizens who desire to e-mail you privatly and systematically pat you on the back for your most eloquent e-mail should at least be able to address you by name.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 4/17/2004 1:40:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gn_carantus@... writes:

> I'm sure some of the zealots will accuse me of all sorts of
> blasphemy and feel the need to lash out. Truly, I don't mind. I
> think some of you aren't happy unless you feel some sort of
> indignation from each and every post. Those of you that are
> fed up,
> however, may feel free to email me.

Salvete Quirites!

I'm home from a lovely day in the field with the troops of Legio XX and
Legio XXIV, who are participating in the "Marching Through Time"
reenactment event at Marietta Mansion, in Glen Dale Maryland.

This is the same site we hold the annual Roman Days gathering at, and
after today I'm really looking forward to June, when we'll once again
have so many Roman reenactors and citizens of Nova Roma together in
one place. With luck we'll get a pleasant weekend, perhaps drier than
last year's Roman Days, and not so hot as years before that. But
whatever the weather, it'll be good to see so many Nova Romans again.

Valete,

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

A. Ambrosius Celetrus G. Modio Athanasio S.P.D.

AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:

> I also find your comment, "I think ex-Christians are passionately for
> it just to show they reject the theology of the bloodless sacrifice of
> Jesus."

What? You find Fabia Vera's comment what? However fond your memories of
Catholicism may be, you are an apostate. I assumed your choice of
cognomen was a deliberate, ironic reference to St. Athanasius, the chief
opponent of Arian. I was wrong, I suppose; there must be another
Athanasius.

> I find no problem whatsoever with the metaphysics
> involved and or theology of the "bloodless" sacrifice of the Mass.

Clearly you do, or you wouldn't have rejected that theology for one that
demands living sacrifices.

> Hinduism in and of itself grew out of ancient Vedic Religion
> -- which as a faith was a contemporary of ancient Greek and Roman
> religion.

Western scholars date the origins of the oldest Vedas to 1300-1000 bce.
Hindu scholars date the first Rig Veda hymns to c.3300 bce, but what do
they know, right? Jain tradition holds that Mahavira (599 bce - 527 bce)
systematized the doctrines of the three "tirthankaras" (founders of the
path), but places the first of these, Rishabha, around 4000 bce. I guess
that makes them just a Hindu sect, as well as Roman contemporaries -
with a little leeway. And Buddhism is a Hindu sect as, say the Essenes,
Sadducees and Pharisees were sects of Judaism? Or Catholics, Eastern
Orthodox, and Protestants are sects of Christianity? LOL, that's rich.
Thanks, I didn't have a good laugh today.

And what of the Dravidian contribution to Hinduism? Trimurti: Brahma,
Shiva and Vishnu did not ride in from the northwest with the Vedic
pantheon, they were already there amongst the Dravidian peoples. Are you
aware that there is a scholarly position that Dionysus equates with
Shiva? The Greeks certainly knew that he came from the East.

Were the choices that took you from the novitiate to Paganism based on a
similar sound knowledge?

Vale.

Salve,

I will definitely be at the Roman Days NE event, not so sure about the MD one though. What is the approxiamate size difference?

With Respect,

Lucius Cassius Pontonius (Michael Ponte)

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Gawne
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] A Fine Nova-Roman Day


Salvete Quirites!

I'm home from a lovely day in the field with the troops of Legio XX and
Legio XXIV, who are participating in the "Marching Through Time"
reenactment event at Marietta Mansion, in Glen Dale Maryland.

This is the same site we hold the annual Roman Days gathering at, and
after today I'm really looking forward to June, when we'll once again
have so many Roman reenactors and citizens of Nova Roma together in
one place. With luck we'll get a pleasant weekend, perhaps drier than
last year's Roman Days, and not so hot as years before that. But
whatever the weather, it'll be good to see so many Nova Romans again.

Valete,

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:

> G. Equitius Cato Novoromanis S.P.D.

Salve Equiti Cato,

> >of the reasons I found that so galling is that I have always

fought

> >for
> >the right of Christians or practitioners of any other religion to
> >serve
> >as magistrates so long as they are willing to delegate
> >responsibilities
> >of the Religio Publica associated with public office to a
> >practitioner
> >of the Religio who will perform them appropriately. To have a
> >Christian citizen then tell me that I have no place in "NOVA

Roma," as>he chose to emphasise it, because I follow the mos maiorum

>>is extremely galling.
>
> CATO: Illustrissimus Pontifex, that is NOT what I said. I remind
> you that I specifically stated that what a citizen does in private
>is his or her own business; that I personally believe that everyone
>is utterly free to do, in private, whatever his or her conscience
>leads them to do in faithful obedience to their spiritual beliefs.
>My concern is the PUBLIC actions of the religio.

And that is the problem. You keep trying to relegate the Public
religion to the realm of the private, at in the realm of potential
blood sacrifices.

> NOR did I claim that you or anyone else "have no place" in NR for
>any reason, and in fact made a point of saying that I would not
>dream of telling you (in particular) what you can or cannot do in
>your private worship. I merely asked if it were not somehow >
>possible for the state to recognize the serious misgivings that
>many citizens have regarding blood sacrifices on their behalf, and
>instead incorporate into the Public Religio non-bloody offerings
>instead, as a way of showing respect for those citizens' wishes. It
>is you, who in your refusal to accept any view of the Religio
>Publica other than your own, who have suggested repeatedly that
>those of us who do not approve of blood sacrifices in the public
>expressions of the religio need to "examine [our] conscience" and
>perhaps leave.

What an incredible thing to say. You lambast Scaurus for his
supposed refusal to "accept any view of the Religio Publica other
than [his] own." Well, in this instance why not? He is a practitioner
and a pontifex, a man who is dedicating his life to the revival of
the Religio. Revival of the religio is why Nova Roma was created. You
are a Christian and would like to impose your interpretation of the
state religion on him because you don't think it right that blood
sacrifices be offered in your name. Well, states do things in the
name of their citizens all the time that those citizens don't like,
including go to war, impose taxes, sign treaties, etc.

> I chose to emphasize the NOVA for reasons that I made clear;
>because we do live in the 21st century and cannot pretend that the
>past 2000 years (and their attendant social, political, and moral
>changes) simply haven't occurred.

And just what do those changes have to do with the discussion at
hand? Are you saying we have evolved beyond killing animals, whether
for food or in this case, for food and for religious reasons? I
don't think we have at all. Most of us still eat meat.

Vale,

Palladius

Salve Fabia Vera,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sp. Fabia Vera" <rory12001@y...>
wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> > Cato:
> >
> > Let me remind you that you do not interpret the will of the

Gods.

> The Collegium Augurium is charged with the taking of auspices to
> determine the Will of the Gods.
> >
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> >
> > In a message dated 4/16/2004 6:13:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mlcinnyc@y... writes:
> >
> > Cato, makes a good point, times evolve. Has anyone observed if

the

> gods would prefer an expensive bottle of Petrus and ripe figs to a
> sacrifice of a cheap $25 cow?

I don't think there's a such thing; you're at least talking about
hundreds of dollars to purchase a cow to sacrifice. Thousands of
dollars if it's a special animal for a special occasion.

>Maybe the time of Numa is returning.

And if so, what's your point? It's already been pretty firmly
established on this list during this discussion that animal sacrifice
was approved of by Numa and widely practised during his lifetime. So
what

> Why shouldn't the augurs do this?
> Sometimes after the annual 6mos discussion of animal sacrifice
>>(on
> the religio list) as a born non-Christian I think ex-Christians are
> passionately for it just to show they reject the theology of the
> bloodless sacrifice of Jesus.

Uh, sure. Actually I was thinking that perhaps it was because we
were trying to emulate the ancients. Besides, we eat meat already,
approving of animal sacrifice is not a stretch. I can see the
problems a vegetarian might have but I don't personally buy into
vegetarianism as a moral argument.

> Plenty of historical polytheists from sophisticated cultures
>make
> vegetarian sacrifices; Buddhists, Jains and Hindus (except for some
> Kali worshippers) to name a few,

And of little relevance to this discussion. They're all Eastern and
mostly vegetarian.

Vale,

Palladius

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Today is ante diem XIV Kalendae Maii; the day is nefastus.

Tomorrow is ante diem XIII Kalendae Maii and the Feria Cerialiae; the
day is nefastus publicus. The Feria Cerealiae was the festival of
the Goddess Ceres, Goddess of grain and cereal crops. The Cerelia
lasted for eight days, and like the Megalesia before it, the Cerealia
culminated on its final day with great chariot-races, presided over by
the plebeian aediles. White clothing was worn at the games. One of
the symbolic rituals of the final day was the release of foxes into
the Circus with flaming brands attached to their tails. Offerings of
spelt cakes, salt, and incense were made to Ceres in veteres focos (on
old hearths); in rural areas offerings of milk, honey and wine were
presented to Ceres after being processed thrice around the bounds of
the field. The Cerealia was particularly associated with the plebeian
order.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

"This, everyone, is why we have Tribunes: To protect the rights of the
citizens. Has Gaius Modius done something to this? In my
opinion, the answer is a resounding, "No!""

Fabia once castigated me, in the interest of peace and decorum, for a
comment I made on this list. She was perfectly within her right to do so.
She is also within her right to cross-post, wheedle, cajole, engage in
personal attacks, play the martyr, feign ignorance of the law, whine, bitch,
moan, and complain. The only one who can gag her is a moderator of this
list, in the interest of peace and decorum.

Gaius Modius, as he did not order her to do so, did nothing wrong in asking
Fabia to cease her personal vendetta against Drusus.

LCSardonicus

>From: "Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <princeps_senator@...>
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [Nova-Roma] Regarding the Actions of Gaius Modius
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:08:37 -0400
>
>Sp. Postumius Tubertus Spuriae Fabiae Verae Faustae, C. Modio Athanasio,
>Quiritibusque Salutem Plurimam Dicit
>
>Salvete Omnes,
>
>While I have no authority over anything, since the first person to whom I
>have addressed this has made it an issue for (at the very
>least) the whole of the Plebeian Order, I would like to comment.
>
>First, in my opinion, I can not and do not believe it is outside the right
>of any elected, appointed, or otherwise distinguished
>magistrate to identify itself as a magistrate. That Gaius Modius identified
>himself as a Tribune of the Plebs is neither illegal
>nor, in my view, immoral. I personally agree with Lucius Sicinius when, at
>one point, he said something to the effect that one
>should not bring their office into a matter unless they are acting
>officially, but I can not find any fault with someone who chooses
>to do otherwise. I would only ask that, when acting officially, one makes
>that obviously certain. Therefore, that Gaius Modius has
>identified his tribunate in the mail to Fausta is completely fine, in my
>view, and certainly not illegal, unless he made a claim to
>an authority he did not have, which I, from what I have seen, do not
>believe occured.
>
>Secondly, if a plebeian believes that their rights have been in some way
>violated, it is my strongest belief that the first and best
>course of action is to bring the matter to the Tribunes of the Plebs. That
>is their duty. The manner in which it was brought to the
>attention of the People is, in my opinion, deplorable. I think that it
>could have been handled in a much better fashion. However, to
>return to the point of this paragraph, if the Tribunes did nothing, then I
>could find the manner in which this has been brought to
>the People considerably more reasonable and acceptable. But nothing has
>been said that could lead me to believe that the Tribunes
>were, at any time, brought into the matter.
>
>Thirdly, if a magistrate wants to make a request of a citizen, and wishes
>to identify oneself as a magistrate in the process, that
>is well within their right. I realize that I am repeating what my first
>point was, but I do not believe that Gaius Modius has acted
>immorally, unethically, or illegally. From what I have come to understand,
>Gaius Modius asked a citizen to cease an action, and
>identified his status as a Tribune of the Plebs. As I said before, unless
>he made a claim to have authority which he does not, I can
>find nothing wrong. Gaius Modius has acted well within his rights as an
>elected magistrate, and unless someone can prove that he has
>broken a law, I find this whole discourse absurd and unnecessary, much as I
>do everything I have just said, as I should not have to
>have said it.
>
>This, everyone, is why we have Tribunes: To protect the rights of the
>citizens. Has Gaius Modius done something to this? In my
>opinion, the answer is a resounding, "No!"
>
>Optime Valete in Pace Deorum,
>
>Spurius Postumius Tubertus,
>Consular Accensus
>Praetorian Scribe
>Curule Aedilian Scribe
>Scribe of the Curator Araneum
>Retiarius, The Great Provincia Lacus Magni
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee�
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

"So when a person of Rank makes a "request", it is not always clear
whether it is a politely phrased order or really only a request; if
repercussions are possible from someone in Authority, it is often
wisest to err on the side of caution and assume it was meant as an
Order.

This makes her viewpoint more understandable: Phrased as a request or
not, the invoking of his Office made it possible to interpret it as a
politely phrased Order; indeed, by invoking the Authority of his Office
he made it wisest for her to err on the side of caution and assume it
was indeed intended as an order."

I've read too many of Fabia's posts to believe that she was unaware of the
Tribune's scope of authority and mistook his request for a cease and desist
order. If she really believes that Athanasius was in the wrong, perhaps she
should take it up with the court and we can have our first Nova Roman trial.

LCSardonicus

>From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus <hermeticagnosis@...>
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: To Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta - power of the
>private e-mail
>Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:35:43 -0400
>
>Salvete omnes ~
>
> This exchange between Fabia Vera and Athanasius does pose a moral
>dilemma of sorts.
>
> On the one hand, he specifically says he "asked" ~ not ordered ~ her
>to cease, clearly a request and not an official demand, which normally
>would prove him innocent of abusing his Authority.
> He admits he did ask "as Tribune", but still he only asked, not
>ordered.
>
> Yet by asking "as Tribune" he was indeed invoking the rank of his
>Office, though again it was (from his point of view) merely to
>emphasize what was still, after all, only a request. Surely even
>Magistrates can request, even officially! So this is all right. Right?
>
> Yet we have to see her point of view as well: People with Authority
>often phrase a demand or order as a request, which is true.
>
> Let's face it, when the Police say "License and Registration, please"
>it isn't really a request, it is a demand; and when the Police say "I
>have to ask you to get out of the car" it most certainly isn't a
>request: They mean, Get out NOW, and if you don't they unsnap their
>holster and grip the butt of their pistol! At least they do here in
>Northern Virginia.
>
> Bosses will often phrase an order as a request: It gives them the
>freedom to treat non-compliance either informally or formally, as they
>wish; while an order not complied with MUST be treated as a
>disciplinary matter. It is in the Boss' interest to have as much leeway
>as possible, so "requests" are preferred.
>
> So when a person of Rank makes a "request", it is not always clear
>whether it is a politely phrased order or really only a request; if
>repercussions are possible from someone in Authority, it is often
>wisest to err on the side of caution and assume it was meant as an
>Order.
>
> This makes her viewpoint more understandable: Phrased as a request or
>not, the invoking of his Office made it possible to interpret it as a
>politely phrased Order; indeed, by invoking the Authority of his Office
>he made it wisest for her to err on the side of caution and assume it
>was indeed intended as an order.
>
> Hence the misunderstanding.
>
> Since Athanasius has stated publicly that no interpretation of it as
>an order was intended, the matter should be dropped as a simple
>misunderstanding of intent.
>
> However, in the future, Magistrates may want to avoid such problems
>by not invoking their Office in the body of a letter that is only
>requesting something ~ Leave the titles in the signature line!
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
>Valete
> ~ Troianus
>
>On Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 10:05 PM, AthanasiosofSpfd@...
>wrote:
>
> > Salvete:
> >
> > Citizens of Nova Roma. I shall not hide behind the veil of privacy.
> > Anyone who wants to see the e-mail in question please feel free to
> > contact me privatly and I will forward a copy to you.
> >
> > Fabia Vera paints a picture of a me ordering her what to do, when I
> > simply asked her.
> >
> > Valete;
> >
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> >
> > In a message dated 4/15/2004 9:34:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > rory12001@... writes:
> >
> >> But when you say -I'm a Tribune do this or that- you cannot
> >> hide
> >> behind the idea of privacy to defend your actions.
> >> vale Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and
safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp

G. Iulius Scaurus A. Ambrosio Celetro salutem dicit .

Salve, Celetro.

I bessech you to read a reflect for a moment on the header to the email
you just addressed to G. Modius Athanasius. It was: "Re: An Attempt to
Restore Rational Discourse". I introduced that header because I was
concerned about the ratio of heat to light which the debate on animal
sacrifice was generating. I believe that people can disagree rationally
and in good conscience over this issue from a number of perspectives,
some religious, others ethical, and hoped to move the discussion in that
direction. I don't think that throwing out words like "apostate" --
even if it may be definitionally correct, it is rarely a way to address
someone with whom one is really trying to communicate -- or insinuating
nefarious intent in someone's chosen name contribute much more to the
discussion than the impression that you don't much like Athanasius (of
the Modian variety, not the Alexandrian). The same is true of your
basically calling him a liar when he expressed his personal sentiments
about a religious tradition to which he once adhered. I don't have a
mirror into Athanasius' heart, and neither do you. If a man cannot
express feelings which only he can truly know without being nastily
naysaid about it, we have passed from discussion to verbal brawl. Even
if you care not a whit about the dignitas of Athanasius, have a care for
your own.

Vale.

Scaurus

G. Iulius Scaurus A. Ambrosio Celetro salutem dicit.

Salve, Celetre.

I apologise for saluting you as "Celetro" rather than "Celetre" (I
really do know the voctive inflexion for second declension :-). I am
just a bloody awful typist, to which many here can attest.

Vale.

Scaurus

>
>

A. Ambrosius Celetrus G. Iulio Scauro salutem dicit.

Salve Iuli Scaure,

Please do not put words into my mouth. I did not call him a liar, you
just did. I did not insinuate "nefarious intent," you just did. You
don't like the "definitionally correct" word "apostate?" Perhaps you
prefer "traitor," and "Judas?"

I am an apostate, too. I have respect, and far more than fond memories
of Byzantine and Roman Catholicism. I have prayed in the long hours of
the night, as I assume Athanasius has also:

Libebere me, Domine, ab vitiis meis, ut solius tuae
voluntatis mihi cupidus sim, et vocationis tuae
conscius si digneris me vocare.

Nothing better to do this morning, Scaurus? Perhaps you would like to
write Athanasius' reply for him. No, I do not have a mirror to
Athanasius' heart. Where did you pick up your mirror into mine?

Look to your own dignity, priest.

---Salve Frater Sardonicus:

As one who can find good things to say about all individuals
concerned, despite the fact that from time to time I daresay I do not
always agree with them, I must ask you, with respect, why you feel the
need to perseverate on this issue?

This matter was settled quite amicably a couple of days ago, and I am
not sure why you feel the need to rally support for Tribune Modius
over a 'done deal'. The ambiguities were sorted out, and Fabia Vera
very graciously accepted the advice and ruling of the Tribune
(Arminius) she requested, Modius explained himself, and that is that.

Although everything worked out to everyone's satisfaction, I maintain
that one has to be very careful in how uses one's magisterial title,
even when one claims the best of intentions in beseeching a call for
an end to a dispute. We have seen the can of worms it can open. It
has since been shut, and hopefully a not-too-consequential lesson is
learned by all. I think those who say 'nothing was done wrong' without
advising you to take care when you 'are' you are 'not' speaking
officially, is rendering you bad advice.

Further, although it is ok, I guess for a tribune or anyone to call
for an end to a dispute, request an end, offer assistance, and the
like, the mediation of civil disputes, generally speaking is an item
of Praetorial realm. Should a citizen feel that they are not being
constitutionally treated, they have recourse to the Tribunes. So, I
can see, in part, why a citizen receiving a letter from a Tribune
requesting them to cease certain actions might be interpreted as out
of line, as this is certainly not an official traditional role of the
Tribs...not entirely uncorrect, just not usually how they operate, in
an official capacity.

I suggest we take the lessons we have all learned from this, be happy
things worked out so well, and move on. There are no guns to Tribune
Modius' head, that I can see.

Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus"
<sardonicus_@h...> wrote:

> "So when a person of Rank makes a "request", it is not always clear
> whether it is a politely phrased order or really only a request; if
> repercussions are possible from someone in Authority, it is often
> wisest to err on the side of caution and assume it was meant as an
> Order.
>
> This makes her viewpoint more understandable: Phrased as a request or
> not, the invoking of his Office made it possible to interpret it as a
> politely phrased Order; indeed, by invoking the Authority of his Office
> he made it wisest for her to err on the side of caution and assume it
> was indeed intended as an order."
>
> I've read too many of Fabia's posts to believe that she was unaware

of the

> Tribune's scope of authority and mistook his request for a cease and

desist

> order. If she really believes that Athanasius was in the wrong,

perhaps she

> should take it up with the court and we can have our first Nova

Roman trial.

>
> LCSardonicus
>
>
>
> >From: Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus <hermeticagnosis@e...>
> >Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: To Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta - power of the
> >private e-mail
> >Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:35:43 -0400
> >
> >Salvete omnes ~
> >
> > This exchange between Fabia Vera and Athanasius does pose a moral
> >dilemma of sorts.
> >
> > On the one hand, he specifically says he "asked" ~ not ordered

~ her

> >to cease, clearly a request and not an official demand, which normally
> >would prove him innocent of abusing his Authority.
> > He admits he did ask "as Tribune", but still he only asked, not
> >ordered.
> >
> > Yet by asking "as Tribune" he was indeed invoking the rank of his
> >Office, though again it was (from his point of view) merely to
> >emphasize what was still, after all, only a request. Surely even
> >Magistrates can request, even officially! So this is all right.

Right?

> >
> > Yet we have to see her point of view as well: People with Authority
> >often phrase a demand or order as a request, which is true.
> >
> > Let's face it, when the Police say "License and Registration,

please"

> >it isn't really a request, it is a demand; and when the Police say "I
> >have to ask you to get out of the car" it most certainly isn't a
> >request: They mean, Get out NOW, and if you don't they unsnap their
> >holster and grip the butt of their pistol! At least they do here in
> >Northern Virginia.
> >
> > Bosses will often phrase an order as a request: It gives them the
> >freedom to treat non-compliance either informally or formally, as they
> >wish; while an order not complied with MUST be treated as a
> >disciplinary matter. It is in the Boss' interest to have as much leeway
> >as possible, so "requests" are preferred.
> >
> > So when a person of Rank makes a "request", it is not always clear
> >whether it is a politely phrased order or really only a request; if
> >repercussions are possible from someone in Authority, it is often
> >wisest to err on the side of caution and assume it was meant as an
> >Order.
> >
> > This makes her viewpoint more understandable: Phrased as a

request or

> >not, the invoking of his Office made it possible to interpret it as a
> >politely phrased Order; indeed, by invoking the Authority of his Office
> >he made it wisest for her to err on the side of caution and assume it
> >was indeed intended as an order.
> >
> > Hence the misunderstanding.
> >
> > Since Athanasius has stated publicly that no interpretation of

it as

> >an order was intended, the matter should be dropped as a simple
> >misunderstanding of intent.
> >
> > However, in the future, Magistrates may want to avoid such problems
> >by not invoking their Office in the body of a letter that is only
> >requesting something ~ Leave the titles in the signature line!
> >
> > Just a suggestion.
> >
> >Valete
> > ~ Troianus
> >
> >On Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 10:05 PM, AthanasiosofSpfd@a...
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Salvete:
> > >
> > > Citizens of Nova Roma. I shall not hide behind the veil of privacy.
> > > Anyone who wants to see the e-mail in question please feel free to
> > > contact me privatly and I will forward a copy to you.
> > >
> > > Fabia Vera paints a picture of a me ordering her what to do, when I
> > > simply asked her.
> > >
> > > Valete;
> > >
> > > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> > >
> > > In a message dated 4/15/2004 9:34:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > rory12001@y... writes:
> > >
> > >> But when you say -I'm a Tribune do this or that- you cannot
> > >> hide
> > >> behind the idea of privacy to defend your actions.
> > >> vale Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is

protected and

> safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp

I'll forgive the "Celetro," if you forgive "Libebere." Why trifle over
typos?

Gregory Rose wrote:

>
> G. Iulius Scaurus A. Ambrosio Celetro salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, Celetre.
>
> I apologise for saluting you as "Celetro" rather than "Celetre" (I
> really do know the voctive inflexion for second declension :-). I am
> just a bloody awful typist, to which many here can attest.
>
> Vale.
>
> Scaurus
>
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.

Gaius Modius Athanasius A. Ambrosio Celetro SPD

My selection of Athanasius is no more ironic than a Christian within Nova Roma being a Cato, Caesor, or the myraid of other names seen within our Republic. Since you are curious as to how I selected the name Athanasius, I shall bore you -- and everyone else -- as to how and why I selected that name. I am involved in Hellenic Reconstructionism, and when I opted to select a name I wished to be identified I selected ten Greek names that I liked -- Most of which are also Greek Orthodox Saints (there is even a St. Apollonios, and St. Demetrios, etc...). I then used a system of divination to draw lots to narrow down my ten selections to just one. Through prayer, and divination I was given the name Athanasios. When I joined Nova Roma I incorporated Athanasios into my Roman name.

I have liked the name Athanasios for some time. Regarding various saints named Athanasios. There is more than one. I partiularly like the story of St. Athanasios of Mt. Athos, who founded the Great Lavra monastery on the Holy Mountain. If memory serves me well, Mt. Athos produced several saints named Athanasios.

Yes. I am a Christian Apostate, and I can safely say that most believers in the Religio Romana are also apostates of some sort as well since most of us were not raised in this faith. I see no point in you making this some sort of issue, because it is not. I would prefer NOT to be rabbidly anti-Catholic/Christian as I have some very dear friends who are Catholic both within and without Nova Roma.

Additionally, you clearly know more about Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism than I. However, that still doesn't somehow invalidate the usage of animal sacrifice within Nova Roma. Or any form of sacrifice when done ritualistically.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 4/18/2004 12:23:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Aulus.Ambrosius.Celetrus@... writes:

> What? You find Fabia Vera's comment what? However fond your memories of
> Catholicism may be, you are an apostate. I assumed your choice of
> cognomen was a deliberate, ironic reference to St. Athanasius, the chief
> opponent of Arian. I was wrong, I suppose; there must be
> another
> Athanasius.