Tribune,

It is YOU, and others who are disturbing Concordia by attempting to
foist an unsuitable priest on the Collegium.

Pietas means following a duty, even it it is an unpleasnt one, and the
Collegium has a duty to protect the intrests of the Religio Romana.

I Have seen many people toss around the word "Orthopraxy" without
understanding it's full application to this matter. It is derived from
the Greek for "Correct Action". The Religio Romana is a religion of
Orthopraxy rather than Orthodoxy (Correct belief). It's concern is
that the CORRECT rituals be performed at the CORRECT times, and that
they be done CORRECTLY.

WE had a person who publicly challenged the Collegium on determining
what the CORRECT rituals were, and who publicly stated that she would
do it her way even if the Collegium determined that her way was
incorrect. That is an attack on the Orthopraxy that is at the heart of
the Religio, and an Impius attitude, of doing what you wish rather
than following your duty.

The Religio doesn't insist on Orthodoxy. You are free to beleave that
the Gods are Numenious beings, Anthropomorphic beings, or metaphors
for the forces of nature. It is even possible to be a Monotheist and
beleave that all of the Gods are aspects of a single devine being. You
can beleave or not beleave in an afterlife, you can beleave what you
wish about the nature of an afterlife if you beleave in one. None of
this affects your status as a practitioner of the Religio.

That status is determined by Orthopraxy, of correct Ritual.
"Incorrect" belief is not a "sin" in the Religio Romana, deliberately
performing a ritual incorrectly is. I Have no concern with Orthodoxy
unless it affects Orthopraxy, that is in a person's private beleif
system resulting in them performing official rituals incorrectly.
Allowing that would be an impius act on my part, and on the part of
the Collegium.

You are demanding that the Collegium perform an impius act, that it
ignore it's duties to follow modern ideas of political correctness.
That is something that we can't do. Concordia dosen't demand that the
Collegium abbandon the core beliefs regarding Otrhopraxy. She does
demand that people stop political agitation intended to force the
Collegium into comitting an impius act.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

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

> Salve,
> L. Arminius Faustus Tribunus Plebis,
>
>
> I´m mostly sad.
>
> It seems the Tribunes were more attacked asking for appealing to

Concordia than threatening to Veto and Comitia.

>
> Indeed, softness is a sharp weapon. Seems that some don´t desire

peace, but war and partisantism. (I want far distance from all parties!)

>
> It is worst than the wraith of Achilles.
>
> Neither the words of three sacrosaint tribunes, neither the words of

the priestess of Magna Mater, excellent Iulia Volpisca, neither the
assurance of Fabia Vera has demoved these men...

>
> Pride is the worst consultant.
>
> I still dont understand why so many hate on the hearts. I have seen

many arguments, They are childish when compared to the benefits of
forgiveness and clemens, true roman virtues. Nova Roma would awaken
stronger, and reputations less damaged.

>
> I fear by the future of the Religio. The Religio must conquer by the

hearts, not by the laws. The subject was poor handled since the
beggining, now a Pirros´ victory was won.

>
> You can attack me as your desire. I´m Tribune, I don´t fear words. I

was elected and I´m protect by the own Religio to counsel you the
thing on the best of my hability.

>
> It is mostly sad.
>
> Vale bene in pacem deorum (if they still desire peace with us.)
> L. Arminius Faustus TRP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail - Participe da pesquisa global sobre o Yahoo! Mail.

Clique aqui!

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

A. Apollonius Cordus to Q. Cassius Calvus, and to all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> Meaning no disrespect to you or your office, if I
> were Praetor I
> would tell the two parties that Gaius Dangerosus'
> public temper
> tantrum and childish name calling only hurt the
> dignatis of Gaius
> Dangerous and the Lex Salica Poenalis does not
> forbid someone to
> harm their own dignatis by acting in an infantile
> manner.

I agree that the insult in question probably doesn't
fall within the definition of calumnia according to
the lex poenalis, but that is not, I think, a good
reason for the praetor to dismiss the suit. The
praetor must ask not, 'does this action constitute a
crime?', but, 'is it possible to put together a
vaguely plausible argument for this action
constituting a crime?'

If the plaintiff were claiming that the insult
constituted treason, then the praetor would be quite
right to dismiss the suit, since the claim is totally
implausible. But it is just about plausible that the
insult constitutes calumnia, so it is perfectly
correct for the praetor to convene a court, and it is
the court, not the praetor, that must decide whether a
crime has in fact been committed.





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

A. Apollonius Cordus to Q. Lanius Paulinus, C.
Equitius Cato, and all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.

I hope you don't mind if I join in with this
interesting tangent.

I think we can all agree that, within the bounds of
the law, anyone is technically entitled to say
anything he or she pleases.

Is it appropriate, though, for non-practitioners to
comment on the actions of the pontifical college? To
begin with, it would be useful to have a definition of
'practitioner' and 'non-practitioner'. Perhaps at some
stage the pontiffs will give us one; until then, I'll
take a practitioner as one who actively and privately
worships at least one of the Roman gods, and a
non-practitioner as anyone else.

The pontifical college is, as I understand it, the
body responsible for maintaining the public cults and,
more generally, for ensuring that the nation as a
whole performs its duties to the gods and holds up its
end of the harmonious relationship between the nation
and the gods. It also has what I would call a
secondary responsibility to assist practitioners of
the religio in their private devotions. If we accept
that outline of the college's duties and functions, it
follows that in principle any citizen may reasonably
scrutinise and criticise the way in which the college
goes about promoting the pax deorum, since if it fails
to do this properly the results will harm all the
citizens. Having said that, it would be rather
nonsensical for citizens who do not believe in the pax
deorum to criticise the way the college is promoting
it, and it would be most understandable for the
college to ignore the complaints of such people.

This is not quite the same as saying that
non-practitioners have no good cause to hold the
college to account: for instance, a non-practitioner
who believes in the pax deorum could still reasonably
do so (though one might legitimately ask why that
person is not doing his own bit to uphold the pax
deorum by private worship); and conversely someone who
goes through the motions of private worship but does
not believe in the pax deorum could not reasonably
make such criticisms.

So we have a peculiar situation: the college
presumably believes in the pax deorum and therefore
believes that any failure on its part to assuage the
anger of the gods would probably bring harm to the
general population; and by that logic the college
ought surely to support the right of any citizen to
comment on the way in which it fulfills this function.
On the other hand, people who do not believe in the
pax deorum ought voluntarily to waive their
entitlement to criticise the conduct of the college,
since their religious beliefs will cause them to
consider that what the college does matters not a jot
one way or the other.

As regards the secondary function - assisting
practitioners with their private devotions - it stands
to reason that only practitioners can justifiably
complain about the way the college carries it out.

Finally, it is obvious that any actions of the college
which have an adverse effect on the community as a
whole must be open to the criticism of any member of
the community, and any action of the college which
adversely affects particular individuals must be open
to criticism by those individuals. Is there such a
case here? I do not see that the college's decision to
dismiss Fabia Vera Fausta has any adverse effect on
the community at large or on any of its individual
members except for the lady herself.

There are, however, wider issues - such as the general
relationship between the college and the community, on
which I commented earlier - which certainly do affect
the community as a whole, practitioners and
non-practitioners alike, and concerning which it is
entirely reasonable for non-practitioners to comment.
The question of partisanship within the college is
indeed such an issue, since the college has the power
to take actions affecting non-practitioners and the
nature of such actions could be affected by the
political complexion of the college if the college
were to act in a partisan fashion. At the moment,
though, I'm not sure that anyone has sufficient
evidence to say anything useful about partisanship
within the college, and those who wish to discuss it
must be aware that unsubstantiated accusations that
the college is partisan or has a political agenda can
only be damaging to the general community, since
unfounded allegations will naturally be perceived by
the college as hostility and may cause the college to
become, in turn, hostile toward some members of the
community.

This is something to bear in mind generally: we must
all be very careful in what we say about the college,
not because we ought to fear reprisals, but because
unfounded and exaggerated criticisms are far more
likely to cause the college to become defensive,
uncooperative, or even aggressive than they are to
achieve any benefit for anyone. A college, and indeed
a practitioner community, which feels embattled and
besieged by unsympathetic and unreasonable critics,
would be a dangerous thing for Nova Roma; and this is
what we will get if the college is continually
subjected to groundless attacks. Certainly those who
believe in the pax deorum may, and must, criticise the
college for any actions which they believe to be
detrimental to that peaceful and harmonious
relationship; and those who seek assistance from the
college with their private worship may, and must,
scrutinise the ways in which the college performs this
function; and those who believe that the college is
behaving in a way which is harmful to the general
community may, and must, suggest ways in which it can
avoid doing this without compromising its ability to
perform its central functions; but equally certainly
we must all be careful to make any such criticism
well-founded, sensible, and constructive, and we must
not forget that the college is fundamentally on our
side - or else why would it trouble itself with
maintaining the public cults and averting the anger of
the gods at all?

I hope this brings some clarity, or at least food for thought.





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

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix A. Apollonio Cordo S.P.D.

Salve amice.

Well said, thank you.

Vale bene,

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix
Pontifex et Minerva Templi Sacerdotes


A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

>A. Apollonius Cordus to Q. Lanius Paulinus, C.
>Equitius Cato, and all citizens and peregrines,
>greetings.
>
>I hope you don't mind if I join in with this
>interesting tangent.
>
>I think we can all agree that, within the bounds of
>the law, anyone is technically entitled to say
>anything he or she pleases.
>
>Is it appropriate, though, for non-practitioners to
>comment on the actions of the pontifical college? To
>begin with, it would be useful to have a definition of
>'practitioner' and 'non-practitioner'. Perhaps at some
>stage the pontiffs will give us one; until then, I'll
>take a practitioner as one who actively and privately
>worships at least one of the Roman gods, and a
>non-practitioner as anyone else.
>
>The pontifical college is, as I understand it, the
>body responsible for maintaining the public cults and,
>more generally, for ensuring that the nation as a
>whole performs its duties to the gods and holds up its
>end of the harmonious relationship between the nation
>and the gods. It also has what I would call a
>secondary responsibility to assist practitioners of
>the religio in their private devotions. If we accept
>that outline of the college's duties and functions, it
>follows that in principle any citizen may reasonably
>scrutinise and criticise the way in which the college
>goes about promoting the pax deorum, since if it fails
>to do this properly the results will harm all the
>citizens. Having said that, it would be rather
>nonsensical for citizens who do not believe in the pax
>deorum to criticise the way the college is promoting
>it, and it would be most understandable for the
>college to ignore the complaints of such people.
>
>This is not quite the same as saying that
>non-practitioners have no good cause to hold the
>college to account: for instance, a non-practitioner
>who believes in the pax deorum could still reasonably
>do so (though one might legitimately ask why that
>person is not doing his own bit to uphold the pax
>deorum by private worship); and conversely someone who
>goes through the motions of private worship but does
>not believe in the pax deorum could not reasonably
>make such criticisms.
>
>So we have a peculiar situation: the college
>presumably believes in the pax deorum and therefore
>believes that any failure on its part to assuage the
>anger of the gods would probably bring harm to the
>general population; and by that logic the college
>ought surely to support the right of any citizen to
>comment on the way in which it fulfills this function.
>On the other hand, people who do not believe in the
>pax deorum ought voluntarily to waive their
>entitlement to criticise the conduct of the college,
>since their religious beliefs will cause them to
>consider that what the college does matters not a jot
>one way or the other.
>
>As regards the secondary function - assisting
>practitioners with their private devotions - it stands
>to reason that only practitioners can justifiably
>complain about the way the college carries it out.
>
>Finally, it is obvious that any actions of the college
>which have an adverse effect on the community as a
>whole must be open to the criticism of any member of
>the community, and any action of the college which
>adversely affects particular individuals must be open
>to criticism by those individuals. Is there such a
>case here? I do not see that the college's decision to
>dismiss Fabia Vera Fausta has any adverse effect on
>the community at large or on any of its individual
>members except for the lady herself.
>
>There are, however, wider issues - such as the general
>relationship between the college and the community, on
>which I commented earlier - which certainly do affect
>the community as a whole, practitioners and
>non-practitioners alike, and concerning which it is
>entirely reasonable for non-practitioners to comment.
>The question of partisanship within the college is
>indeed such an issue, since the college has the power
>to take actions affecting non-practitioners and the
>nature of such actions could be affected by the
>political complexion of the college if the college
>were to act in a partisan fashion. At the moment,
>though, I'm not sure that anyone has sufficient
>evidence to say anything useful about partisanship
>within the college, and those who wish to discuss it
>must be aware that unsubstantiated accusations that
>the college is partisan or has a political agenda can
>only be damaging to the general community, since
>unfounded allegations will naturally be perceived by
>the college as hostility and may cause the college to
>become, in turn, hostile toward some members of the
>community.
>
>This is something to bear in mind generally: we must
>all be very careful in what we say about the college,
>not because we ought to fear reprisals, but because
>unfounded and exaggerated criticisms are far more
>likely to cause the college to become defensive,
>uncooperative, or even aggressive than they are to
>achieve any benefit for anyone. A college, and indeed
>a practitioner community, which feels embattled and
>besieged by unsympathetic and unreasonable critics,
>would be a dangerous thing for Nova Roma; and this is
>what we will get if the college is continually
>subjected to groundless attacks. Certainly those who
>believe in the pax deorum may, and must, criticise the
>college for any actions which they believe to be
>detrimental to that peaceful and harmonious
>relationship; and those who seek assistance from the
>college with their private worship may, and must,
>scrutinise the ways in which the college performs this
>function; and those who believe that the college is
>behaving in a way which is harmful to the general
>community may, and must, suggest ways in which it can
>avoid doing this without compromising its ability to
>perform its central functions; but equally certainly
>we must all be careful to make any such criticism
>well-founded, sensible, and constructive, and we must
>not forget that the college is fundamentally on our
>side - or else why would it trouble itself with
>maintaining the public cults and averting the anger of
>the gods at all?
>
>I hope this brings some clarity, or at least food for thought.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve,

Be careful, be careful, be careful with your words... they are not
much polite... do not accuse me of anything... if you cannot hold
with your own tongue, how we gain confidence on the others
habilities? Show you are an example. Remember what Plato said ´By the
words the men receives the worst punishments the Gods can send´ -
Indeed, Fabia Vera lost herself by loose tongue. Manlius Capitolinus
as well. But, please, do not fall also.

I will never be ashamed to try gathering an agreement. There is no
this stuff of ´unforgiven sin´.

The peace of the graves do not seems me a good peace. The victory of
Pirros shouldn´t make anyone happy.

Bash me at will, if you desire, I don´t care... I´ll never be ashamed
by trying Concordia. It is my sacrosainct duty as Tribune. I´m doing
my job for this Republic. For this people elected me. To defend. To
grant the rigths.

And there is a greater Right than to be forgiven???

Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
<drusus@b...> wrote:

> Tribune,
>
> It is YOU, and others who are disturbing Concordia by attempting to
> foist an unsuitable priest on the Collegium.
>
> Pietas means following a duty, even it it is an unpleasnt one, and

the

> Collegium has a duty to protect the intrests of the Religio Romana.
>
> I Have seen many people toss around the word "Orthopraxy" without
> understanding it's full application to this matter. It is derived

from

> the Greek for "Correct Action". The Religio Romana is a religion of
> Orthopraxy rather than Orthodoxy (Correct belief). It's concern is
> that the CORRECT rituals be performed at the CORRECT times, and that
> they be done CORRECTLY.
>
> WE had a person who publicly challenged the Collegium on determining
> what the CORRECT rituals were, and who publicly stated that she

would

> do it her way even if the Collegium determined that her way was
> incorrect. That is an attack on the Orthopraxy that is at the heart

of

> the Religio, and an Impius attitude, of doing what you wish rather
> than following your duty.
>
> The Religio doesn't insist on Orthodoxy. You are free to beleave

that

> the Gods are Numenious beings, Anthropomorphic beings, or metaphors
> for the forces of nature. It is even possible to be a Monotheist and
> beleave that all of the Gods are aspects of a single devine being.

You

> can beleave or not beleave in an afterlife, you can beleave what you
> wish about the nature of an afterlife if you beleave in one. None of
> this affects your status as a practitioner of the Religio.
>
> That status is determined by Orthopraxy, of correct Ritual.
> "Incorrect" belief is not a "sin" in the Religio Romana,

deliberately

> performing a ritual incorrectly is. I Have no concern with Orthodoxy
> unless it affects Orthopraxy, that is in a person's private beleif
> system resulting in them performing official rituals incorrectly.
> Allowing that would be an impius act on my part, and on the part of
> the Collegium.
>
> You are demanding that the Collegium perform an impius act, that it
> ignore it's duties to follow modern ideas of political correctness.
> That is something that we can't do. Concordia dosen't demand that

the

> Collegium abbandon the core beliefs regarding Otrhopraxy. She does
> demand that people stop political agitation intended to force the
> Collegium into comitting an impius act.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
> <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> > L. Arminius Faustus Tribunus Plebis,
> >
> >
> > I´m mostly sad.
> >
> > It seems the Tribunes were more attacked asking for appealing to
> Concordia than threatening to Veto and Comitia.
> >
> > Indeed, softness is a sharp weapon. Seems that some don´t desire
> peace, but war and partisantism. (I want far distance from all

parties!)

> >
> > It is worst than the wraith of Achilles.
> >
> > Neither the words of three sacrosaint tribunes, neither the words

of

> the priestess of Magna Mater, excellent Iulia Volpisca, neither the
> assurance of Fabia Vera has demoved these men...
> >
> > Pride is the worst consultant.
> >
> > I still dont understand why so many hate on the hearts. I have

seen

> many arguments, They are childish when compared to the benefits of
> forgiveness and clemens, true roman virtues. Nova Roma would awaken
> stronger, and reputations less damaged.
> >
> > I fear by the future of the Religio. The Religio must conquer by

the

> hearts, not by the laws. The subject was poor handled since the
> beggining, now a Pirros´ victory was won.
> >
> > You can attack me as your desire. I´m Tribune, I don´t fear

words. I

> was elected and I´m protect by the own Religio to counsel you the
> thing on the best of my hability.
> >
> > It is mostly sad.
> >
> > Vale bene in pacem deorum (if they still desire peace with us.)
> > L. Arminius Faustus TRP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Mail - Participe da pesquisa global sobre o Yahoo! Mail.
> Clique aqui!
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Could anyone share with me about Actor Mel Gibson's next film about
the British queen who fought the Romans in 62 A.D.

Sincerely,
Delicia- My Roman Name

Salve,

Oh come on really?????? - I must take issue with that post Faustus.

Drusus was polite. Sorry. End of story.

"if you cannot hold with your own tongue" ???? Are you telling Drusus
to hold his tongue? If so that hardly fits the bill of politeness.

"I will never be ashamed to try gathering an agreement" While that is
you say YOUR objective, numerous others have loaded their opinions
into a mortar and have fired them right through the window of the CP.
That approach of THEIRS is obviously not one that seeks agreement. I
think the point the CP has tried to make through various personages
is that this is not a debating chamber, or an election for local dog
catcher. The CP lays claim to be able to make the decision it did.
Others on the opposite side of the fence claim that they have the
right to comment, challenge and presumably overturn it. I rather
think agreement is a forlorn hope.

"Bash me at will, if you desire" Ummmm I don't think Drusus "bashed"
you. He obviously disagreed, but that hardly constitutes a whopping.

On a final note I keep noticing you always warn everyone to "be
careful". I think that this equates to deliberately creating
a "chicken little" scenario where none exists, implying that the
person you address is bordering on "dangerous" (my word) conduct.
While this may be a stylistic mannerism, it does greate
this "oooooooh the sky is about to fall" effect...which clearly it
isn't.

Gnaues Iulius Caesar


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

> Salve,
>
> Be careful, be careful, be careful with your words... they are not
> much polite... do not accuse me of anything... if you cannot hold
> with your own tongue, how we gain confidence on the others
> habilities? Show you are an example. Remember what Plato said ´By

the

> words the men receives the worst punishments the Gods can send´ -
> Indeed, Fabia Vera lost herself by loose tongue. Manlius

Capitolinus

> as well. But, please, do not fall also.
>
> I will never be ashamed to try gathering an agreement. There is no
> this stuff of ´unforgiven sin´.
>
> The peace of the graves do not seems me a good peace. The victory

of

> Pirros shouldn´t make anyone happy.
>
> Bash me at will, if you desire, I don´t care... I´ll never be

ashamed

> by trying Concordia. It is my sacrosainct duty as Tribune. I´m

doing

> my job for this Republic. For this people elected me. To defend. To
> grant the rigths.
>
> And there is a greater Right than to be forgiven???
>
> Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus TRP
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
> <drusus@b...> wrote:
> > Tribune,
> >
> > It is YOU, and others who are disturbing Concordia by attempting

to

> > foist an unsuitable priest on the Collegium.
> >
> > Pietas means following a duty, even it it is an unpleasnt one,

and

> the
> > Collegium has a duty to protect the intrests of the Religio

Romana.

> >
> > I Have seen many people toss around the word "Orthopraxy" without
> > understanding it's full application to this matter. It is derived
> from
> > the Greek for "Correct Action". The Religio Romana is a religion

of

> > Orthopraxy rather than Orthodoxy (Correct belief). It's concern is
> > that the CORRECT rituals be performed at the CORRECT times, and

that

> > they be done CORRECTLY.
> >
> > WE had a person who publicly challenged the Collegium on

determining

> > what the CORRECT rituals were, and who publicly stated that she
> would
> > do it her way even if the Collegium determined that her way was
> > incorrect. That is an attack on the Orthopraxy that is at the

heart

> of
> > the Religio, and an Impius attitude, of doing what you wish rather
> > than following your duty.
> >
> > The Religio doesn't insist on Orthodoxy. You are free to beleave
> that
> > the Gods are Numenious beings, Anthropomorphic beings, or

metaphors

> > for the forces of nature. It is even possible to be a Monotheist

and

> > beleave that all of the Gods are aspects of a single devine

being.

> You
> > can beleave or not beleave in an afterlife, you can beleave what

you

> > wish about the nature of an afterlife if you beleave in one. None

of

> > this affects your status as a practitioner of the Religio.
> >
> > That status is determined by Orthopraxy, of correct Ritual.
> > "Incorrect" belief is not a "sin" in the Religio Romana,
> deliberately
> > performing a ritual incorrectly is. I Have no concern with

Orthodoxy

> > unless it affects Orthopraxy, that is in a person's private beleif
> > system resulting in them performing official rituals incorrectly.
> > Allowing that would be an impius act on my part, and on the part

of

> > the Collegium.
> >
> > You are demanding that the Collegium perform an impius act, that

it

> > ignore it's duties to follow modern ideas of political

correctness.

> > That is something that we can't do. Concordia dosen't demand that
> the
> > Collegium abbandon the core beliefs regarding Otrhopraxy. She does
> > demand that people stop political agitation intended to force the
> > Collegium into comitting an impius act.
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > Pontifex
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
> > <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > > Salve,
> > > L. Arminius Faustus Tribunus Plebis,
> > >
> > >
> > > I´m mostly sad.
> > >
> > > It seems the Tribunes were more attacked asking for appealing to
> > Concordia than threatening to Veto and Comitia.
> > >
> > > Indeed, softness is a sharp weapon. Seems that some don´t desire
> > peace, but war and partisantism. (I want far distance from all
> parties!)
> > >
> > > It is worst than the wraith of Achilles.
> > >
> > > Neither the words of three sacrosaint tribunes, neither the

words

> of
> > the priestess of Magna Mater, excellent Iulia Volpisca, neither

the

> > assurance of Fabia Vera has demoved these men...
> > >
> > > Pride is the worst consultant.
> > >
> > > I still dont understand why so many hate on the hearts. I have
> seen
> > many arguments, They are childish when compared to the benefits of
> > forgiveness and clemens, true roman virtues. Nova Roma would

awaken

> > stronger, and reputations less damaged.
> > >
> > > I fear by the future of the Religio. The Religio must conquer

by

> the
> > hearts, not by the laws. The subject was poor handled since the
> > beggining, now a Pirros´ victory was won.
> > >
> > > You can attack me as your desire. I´m Tribune, I don´t fear
> words. I
> > was elected and I´m protect by the own Religio to counsel you the
> > thing on the best of my hability.
> > >
> > > It is mostly sad.
> > >
> > > Vale bene in pacem deorum (if they still desire peace with us.)
> > > L. Arminius Faustus TRP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Mail - Participe da pesquisa global sobre o Yahoo! Mail.
> > Clique aqui!
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve,

From John Scheid's "An introduction to the Roman Religion"

2.3.2

"Impiety was the opposite of Piety. It consisted in denying the Gods
the honors and rank that were rightfully theirs, or in damaging their
properity by theft (sacrilege, in the strict sense of the term) or by
neglect. Impiety could be accidental (imprudens) or deliberate with
malicious intent (prudens dolo malo). I one accidentally disturbed the
correct performace of a ritual or offended a deity out of ignorance
and without meaning to do so, the impiety could be expiated by a
sacrifice and possibility by making reparation for the wrong. BUT IF
THE OFFENSE WAS DELIBERATE, IT WAS INEXPIABLE. In this case, the
community freed itself from the responsibility by an expiatory
sacrifice and by making good the damage; but the guilty person
remained FOREVER IMPIUS AND COULD NEVER BE EXPIATED. On top of the
punioshments that the city could inflict on him for having violated
public law and sanctias, the impius offender was 'handed over' to to
the Gods for them to 'do justice' for themselves."

There is such a thing as an 'unforgivable sin' in the Religio, and
that is deliberatly performing an Impius act, which is what you are
demanding of me in a mistaken notion of Concordia.

I'm not trying to accuse you of doing anything deliberate or with
malicious intent, I'm trying to make you understand that the actions
you are demanding wouldn't just be an act of impiety on the part of
the Collegium, it would be an unforgivable deliberate act of impiety
that could never be expiated.

Concordia dosen't require that someone perform prudens dolo malo
simply because someone has made a demand that they do so, it consists
of refraining from making such an outragous demand on another person.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

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

> Salve,
>
> Be careful, be careful, be careful with your words... they are not
> much polite... do not accuse me of anything... if you cannot hold
> with your own tongue, how we gain confidence on the others
> habilities? Show you are an example. Remember what Plato said ´By the
> words the men receives the worst punishments the Gods can send´ -
> Indeed, Fabia Vera lost herself by loose tongue. Manlius Capitolinus
> as well. But, please, do not fall also.
>
> I will never be ashamed to try gathering an agreement. There is no
> this stuff of ´unforgiven sin´.
>
> The peace of the graves do not seems me a good peace. The victory of
> Pirros shouldn´t make anyone happy.
>
> Bash me at will, if you desire, I don´t care... I´ll never be ashamed
> by trying Concordia. It is my sacrosainct duty as Tribune. I´m doing
> my job for this Republic. For this people elected me. To defend. To
> grant the rigths.
>
> And there is a greater Right than to be forgiven???
>
> Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus TRP
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
> <drusus@b...> wrote:
> > Tribune,
> >
> > It is YOU, and others who are disturbing Concordia by attempting to
> > foist an unsuitable priest on the Collegium.
> >
> > Pietas means following a duty, even it it is an unpleasnt one, and
> the
> > Collegium has a duty to protect the intrests of the Religio Romana.
> >
> > I Have seen many people toss around the word "Orthopraxy" without
> > understanding it's full application to this matter. It is derived
> from
> > the Greek for "Correct Action". The Religio Romana is a religion of
> > Orthopraxy rather than Orthodoxy (Correct belief). It's concern is
> > that the CORRECT rituals be performed at the CORRECT times, and that
> > they be done CORRECTLY.
> >
> > WE had a person who publicly challenged the Collegium on determining
> > what the CORRECT rituals were, and who publicly stated that she
> would
> > do it her way even if the Collegium determined that her way was
> > incorrect. That is an attack on the Orthopraxy that is at the heart
> of
> > the Religio, and an Impius attitude, of doing what you wish rather
> > than following your duty.
> >
> > The Religio doesn't insist on Orthodoxy. You are free to beleave
> that
> > the Gods are Numenious beings, Anthropomorphic beings, or metaphors
> > for the forces of nature. It is even possible to be a Monotheist and
> > beleave that all of the Gods are aspects of a single devine being.
> You
> > can beleave or not beleave in an afterlife, you can beleave what you
> > wish about the nature of an afterlife if you beleave in one. None of
> > this affects your status as a practitioner of the Religio.
> >
> > That status is determined by Orthopraxy, of correct Ritual.
> > "Incorrect" belief is not a "sin" in the Religio Romana,
> deliberately
> > performing a ritual incorrectly is. I Have no concern with Orthodoxy
> > unless it affects Orthopraxy, that is in a person's private beleif
> > system resulting in them performing official rituals incorrectly.
> > Allowing that would be an impius act on my part, and on the part of
> > the Collegium.
> >
> > You are demanding that the Collegium perform an impius act, that it
> > ignore it's duties to follow modern ideas of political correctness.
> > That is something that we can't do. Concordia dosen't demand that
> the
> > Collegium abbandon the core beliefs regarding Otrhopraxy. She does
> > demand that people stop political agitation intended to force the
> > Collegium into comitting an impius act.
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > Pontifex
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
> > <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > > Salve,
> > > L. Arminius Faustus Tribunus Plebis,
> > >
> > >
> > > I´m mostly sad.
> > >
> > > It seems the Tribunes were more attacked asking for appealing to
> > Concordia than threatening to Veto and Comitia.
> > >
> > > Indeed, softness is a sharp weapon. Seems that some don´t desire
> > peace, but war and partisantism. (I want far distance from all
> parties!)
> > >
> > > It is worst than the wraith of Achilles.
> > >
> > > Neither the words of three sacrosaint tribunes, neither the words
> of
> > the priestess of Magna Mater, excellent Iulia Volpisca, neither the
> > assurance of Fabia Vera has demoved these men...
> > >
> > > Pride is the worst consultant.
> > >
> > > I still dont understand why so many hate on the hearts. I have
> seen
> > many arguments, They are childish when compared to the benefits of
> > forgiveness and clemens, true roman virtues. Nova Roma would awaken
> > stronger, and reputations less damaged.
> > >
> > > I fear by the future of the Religio. The Religio must conquer by
> the
> > hearts, not by the laws. The subject was poor handled since the
> > beggining, now a Pirros´ victory was won.
> > >
> > > You can attack me as your desire. I´m Tribune, I don´t fear
> words. I
> > was elected and I´m protect by the own Religio to counsel you the
> > thing on the best of my hability.
> > >
> > > It is mostly sad.
> > >
> > > Vale bene in pacem deorum (if they still desire peace with us.)
> > > L. Arminius Faustus TRP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Mail - Participe da pesquisa global sobre o Yahoo! Mail.
> > Clique aqui!
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Q. Cassius Calvus, and to all
> citizens and peregrines, greetings.
> If the plaintiff were claiming that the insult
> constituted treason, then the praetor would be quite
> right to dismiss the suit, since the claim is totally
> implausible. But it is just about plausible that the
> insult constitutes calumnia, so it is perfectly
> correct for the praetor to convene a court, and it is
> the court, not the praetor, that must decide whether a
> crime has in fact been committed.

Salve,

From my understanding in order for a false statement to rise to the
level of libel/slander (calumnia) it first must be shown to not only
be false, but that the average person of reasonable intelligence
would find the statement to be believable. I can not for one moment
imagine that any person of average intelligence could possibly
believe for a moment that a hamster could give birth to a human
being.

The LEX SALICIA IVDICIARIA II.c. states that a Praetor can dismiss a
petition if he/she finds the claim to be incongruent. As it defies
common sense to believe for one moment anyone could take the claim
that a human being was born of a hamster to be possibly factual. In
the case outlined, the claim is incongruent to rise to the level of
calumnia as requested in the petition. It certainly rises to the
level of being a violation of list guidelines and should be dealt
with at that level.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M Arminius Maior <marminius@y...>
wrote:

> Salve

>
> M.Arminius: But it is an african or european Hamster?

Salve,

Neither. He is a Syrian Hamster so he's technically Asiatic.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Ex Officio Consulis Gnaei Equiti Marini

EDICTVM CONSVLARE A GNAEO EQVITIO MARINO VI:

De Nominatione Accensi

Concerning the Naming of an Assistant


Tempus consulare praesens ex hoc edicto civem sequentem accensum meum
qui forum electronicum praecipuum Novae Romae moderetur una cum officiis
privilegiisque omnibus praescriptis legibus Novae Romae designo.

I hereby appoint the following citizen as my accensus for the purpose of
moderating the Main List of Nova Roma, together with all the obligations
and privileges prescribed by the laws of Nova Roma.

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus accensus ad moderandum forum
electronicum praecipuum Novae Romae designatur.

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus is appointed accensus for the purpose
of moderating the Main List of Nova Roma.

Quidquam ius iurandum non poscetur.

He shall not be required to make any kind of oath.

Hoc edictum statim valet.

This edict is effective immediately.

Datum sub manu mea ante diem III Non. IVNIAS MMDCCLVII A.V.C.

Given under my hand this 3rd day of June 2004 C.E.

Gnaeo Salici Asturi Gnaeo Equitio Marino Consulibus

In the Consulship of Gnaeus Salix Astur and Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

A. Apollonius Cordus to Q. Cassius Calvus, and to all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> ... I can
> not for one moment
> imagine that any person of average intelligence
> could possibly
> believe for a moment that a hamster could give birth
> to a human
> being.

True, and I would agree that the praetor would be
entitled to dismiss that particular part of the
complaint. It is, however, perfectly possible that
some people believed the statement that the
plaintiffs's father smells of elderberries and is a
silly person. It is also conceivable that these
accusations may have damaged the reputation of the
plaintiff.

I quite agree that the plaintiff has most probably
damaged his own reputation far more badly by taking
leal action, and had he asked me for legal advice I
would have urged him not to prosecute; but, however
foolishly, he has filed a suit, I don't think the
praetor could properly have dismissed it.





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

AVETE OMNES

My congratulations to the new appointed Propraetores, as weel as to
the prorogued ones!

OPTIME VALETE
Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
Propraetor Italiae

I was wondering if we had any artists�accomplished, budding, or in-between�in our midst.



Please contact me off-list (germanicus at goldenfuture dot net); I would like to talk with someone with more artistic ability than I possess (that is, any) about doing a line-drawing for a NR-related project I have in mind.



Valete,



Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Pater Patriae



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

G. Iulius SCaurus A. Apollonio Cordo salutem dicit.

Salve, Corde.

The principal reason for which I think it is inappropriate for
non-practitioners to sit in judgment of the Collegium and the Religio
is that, as the debate over the recent decretum shows,
non-practitioners tend strongly to treat what practitioners regard as
religious issues as political issues. Most practitioners neither
understand nor care deeply about the religious responsibility of the
Collegium nor the fidelty of the Religio to the mos maiorum. Since
they feel no fundamental religious connection to the Religio, they see
what the religious institutions do as primarily political acts. Sp.
Fabia Vera could have been a card-carrying Bonus and I very seriously
doubt that that would have mattered a whit when it came to deciding
whether or not she was suitable to remain a scaerdos: it was a
religious decision, not a political one (obviously I cannot see into
the minds of my colleagues, but the arguments they offered to justify
their votes support my contention). Non-practitioners immediately saw
this decision as a political-factional phenomenon rather than a
question of fidelty to the Religio and orthopraxis. I am profoundly
opposed to seeing the Religio turned into a political football in Nova
Roma and I regard the vast majority of non-practitioner comments on
the Collegium's decision as doing exactly that.

Vale.

Scaurus

G. Equitius Cato A. Appollonio Cordo Q. Cassio Calvo S.P.D.

salvete, virii.

Are you forgetting the tale of Leda and the Swan (who was, in
reality, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus)? Leda, wife of King Tydnareus of
Sparta was *cough* "joined" by the god taking the form of a swan,
and by their coupling, Leda and Jupiter would produce Castor and
Pollux as well as Helen and Clytaemnestra, so we have concrete
evidence, from history, that animals can mate with humans and produce
offspring...

valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Q. Cassius Calvus, and to all
> citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> > ... I can
> > not for one moment
> > imagine that any person of average intelligence
> > could possibly
> > believe for a moment that a hamster could give birth
> > to a human
> > being.
>
> True, and I would agree that the praetor would be
> entitled to dismiss that particular part of the
> complaint. It is, however, perfectly possible that
> some people believed the statement that the
> plaintiffs's father smells of elderberries and is a
> silly person. It is also conceivable that these
> accusations may have damaged the reputation of the
> plaintiff.
>
> I quite agree that the plaintiff has most probably
> damaged his own reputation far more badly by taking
> leal action, and had he asked me for legal advice I
> would have urged him not to prosecute; but, however
> foolishly, he has filed a suit, I don't think the
> praetor could properly have dismissed it.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

VICESIMA QUARTA
The Newsletter of
LEGION XXIV - MEDIA ATLANTIA

JUNE 2004

Gallio Velius Marsallas / George Metz
Praefectus - Commander
13 Post Run - Newtown Square PA 19073-3014
610-353-4982
legionxxiv@... www.legionxxiv.org

Commilitones

The Legion is off to a strong start for the 2004 Campaign Season!

ROMAN DAYS NORTHEAST - After Action Report May 15, 2004
Woodstock Fairgrounds, Equestrian Center - Woodstock, CT 10 am to 4 pm
was sponsored by La Wren's Nest, Legio III Cyrenaica and Legio VIIII Triumphalis.
The Ludus Magnus Gladiators were also in attendance and put on two exhibitions which

drew the public's favor. The "Mighty Maximus", however, became afflicted with "Scutum Toe"

after he dropped his shield on his foot - Ouch!!

As Legion XXIV was first to the arrive, we obtained the best and shadiest site. There was

a great air of cooperation, with many hands from three different legions pitching-in to raise

Master Baro Postumus' (Brian Mackey) officer's tent, this time with the fly; which provided

a welcome and breezy shady spot for the doctor-historian and legionaries "on break" from

field maneuvers, pila practice and arena duty. The tent also provided space for changing,

storing equipment and weather protection. Fortunately, we did not need it for that final

contingency!

The Legion's staunchest miles gregarious, Marcus Quintius Clavus (Quinton Johanson) was

on duty as usual. We need more like him! Any volunteers??

Andy Volpe, "The Roman Dude" from the renowned Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, MA,

was a very knowledgeable and welcome visitor to the camps and spent much of his time talking

with the public and testing out Legion XXIV's two artillery pieces, which were in good form.

The "Dude" was also a favorite photo subject. Fred Wojick (Flavius Octavius Servius) and his

brother Greg (Gallus Octavius Oppius), who just joined-up last October, conducted field trials

with their Onager catapult, which they engineered and constructed on their own.

The machine was quite impressive, casting baseballs about 150 feet. The machine is capable of

even greater distances; but needs some adjustments and more durable slings. The three slings

Fred and Greg had with them were either damaged or destroyed by the weapon's throwing force.

For now, the Commander's Scorpion Ballista retains the distance record at 180 feet.

However, the "Wojick Onager" has the potential to shoot much further. We hope to have another

catapulta "shoot-out" at Roman Days in Maryland. See these Engines of Terror on our Ballista

page at www.legionxxiv.org/ballistapage As far as we know, Legion XXIV is the only roman

reenactment unit in the Western Hemisphere fielding two artillery pieces - OOH RAAA!!

Our thanks go out to Julie and Lawrence of LaWren's Nest for organizing this fun day for Romans

and Non-Romans alike. We are looking forward to "Roman Days Northeast" in 2005!



FORT MALDEN SPECIAL EVENT After Action Report May 22-23

Q.F.Varus Gallioni Praefecto Suo Plurimam Salutem Dicit

(puts together and sends with warmest greetings)

I'm happy to report a successful mission on Saturday and Sunday at Ft. Malden

in Amherstburg, Ontario. The Mid-West Vexillation of Legion XXIV, under command of our

Mid-West Optio, Quintus Fabricus Varus (David Smith) had been invited by the park

administration to be a part of its spring kick-off weekend as part of a Victoria Day celebration.


Reporting on Saturday were Quintus, Maximus (Max Nelson), Joe Perz and his son Thomas,

Eric Marcuzzi, and Andrew Rodgers. We set up a camp and did drill on Saturday, followed

by a delicious cena of Lucanian sausage and homemade vinum (Thanks to Joe P).


On Sunday, added to the group were Stephen (Ferox) Briesmeister, Publius Valerius Secundus

and Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaria-who were a great help in maintaining camp security and

taking photos while we drilled and did demonstration. We demonstrated the following:

1) Assembling in Good Order

2) Straight Forward Marching

3) Wheeling Left and Right

4) Forming Columns from a Line and Vice Versa

5) Charging the Enemy in Good Order

6) Gladiatorial Training by Maximus, Eric, Andrew and Quintus



The weather was surprisingly good-when one considers that the surrounding areas

received much rain/tornadoes-and all comments were favorable from the public.

Some flyers were distributed and there may be inquiries from potential tirones.


At this event, we implemented the results of research indicating that the optio actually

should march to the rear of the column-with the centurio up front.


Most commands were done in Latin-perhaps to the great surprise of the audience.


The park management has already promised us the best spot in the park for our August encampment.


Pictures of the event should soon be available from Publius: brighn@...



By your leave, Q. F. Varus, Optio Tuus



The Commander is most pleased and satisfied with the performance of our Mid-West

Vexillation and the leadership of its Optio Varus!


ROMAN DAYS - All Rome - All Day
Just one week left till the sixth annual Roman Days on June 12-13, 2004.
It is hosted by the Twentieth Legion and will be held at Marietta Mansion in
Glenn Dale, Maryland, 4 miles east of I-95/I-495 (Capital Beltway) near the
junction of Routes 450 and 193. Representatives from the Gallic provinces
will also be invited, plus any Greeks, Sumerians, Ice Men, or other ancient types
that turn up, but naturally the emphasis will be on Rome.
This is a major campaign for Legion XXIV. Both of our siege engines are expected
to be there and we will need a crew for them. Events will include a Roman
Olympics with hamata toss, armor race, pila chucking and other Roman
"HeMan" activities. There will be static displays with domestic items, models,
children's activities, a couple merchants and craftspersons, Bean the Barbarian,
and more. NovaRoma, Rome Reborn www.novaroma.org is expected to have a
delegation in attendance and hold a regional conclave for their members and
prospective Roman citizens. Come one, come all! There is more information on the
Roman Days page of the Twentieth Legion Website, http://www.larp.com/legioxx/rdays.html

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
--Arrive and set up on Friday, or Saturday morning. You may camp at the
site Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night.
--Open to the public 10 AM to 4 PM Saturday and Sunday, admission $4 for
adults, $2 for Students. No fee for participants or merchants.

FRIDAY, June 11
Arrival and set-up, general hobnobbing

SATURDAY, June 12
10 AM, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
11 AM, Full muster and opening remarks
11:30, Kids' Cohort
12 Noon, Gladiatorial Show
1 PM Massed tactical and drill demo
1:30 PM, Kids' Cohort
2 PM, Missile and Artillery Demonstration
3 PM Evolution of the Roman Soldier
4 PM Close to the Public

SUNDAY, June 13
10 AM, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
11 AM Olympic competition--Armor Race, Pilum Throw, Hamata Toss, etc.
11:30 Drill and Kids' Cohort
12 Noon, Gladiatorial Show
1 PM Massed tactical and drill demonstration
1:30 PM, Kids' Cohort
2 PM, Missile and Artillery Demonstration
3 PM, Closing parade
4 PM, Close to the public

Plenty of space for displays, parking, period or modern camping,
etc. Water, portajohns, straw, firewood. There will be a number of
canopies/pop-up flies for shade or rain protection, mostly for the merchants
and table displays. There are a number of hotels within a few miles, mainly
on Rt. 450 near the Beltway.

Merlinia's "Keltic Kitchen" (okay, I made up that name!) will
again be offering a food plan to participants, $20 for 2 breakfasts and
Saturday night feast. Please make your reservations and send her payment
as soon as possible,

Joanne Shaver
147 Franklin Ave.
Maplewood, NJ 07040
merlinia@...

Lunches will be available at Asellina's Caupona for about $5,
and there will also be a modern food vendor. There are stores, restaurants,
and fast food places within a couple miles, farther west/north along Rt.
193, or near the Beltway.

Marietta Mansion is located at 5626 Bell Station Road, just off
Rt. 193. From I-95/495, the Capital Beltway, take Exit 20 onto Rt. 450
East, go 4 miles, turn left on Rt. 193, then the next left onto Bell Station
Rd. and immediately left into Marietta. (Rt. 450 makes a left turn where it
meets Rt. 704, but it's well marked and should cause no problems.)

MARCUS QUINTIUS AT HIGGINS ARMORY MUSEUM
Quinton Johansson, "Marcus Quintius Clavus" one of the Legion's most dedicated members,
represented Legion XXIV and Ancient Rome at the renowned Higgins Armory Museum in
Worcester, MA on May 22 & 23. He joined up with members of Legion III Cyrenaica
and Andy Volpe aka "The Roman Dude", who is an employee at the "Higgins".

NEW GROUP
A new Roman unit has just announced itself, Legio XIII in
Edgerton, Missouri. The email address for more information is
jsnookiii@.... Welcome to the Empire!


STICKS From the Legion XX Adlocvtio Newsletter
Need pilum shafts or other sticks and poles?
Try Peavey Manufacturing Co., Eddington, Maine. http://www.peaveymfg.com/dowels.htm ,
or toll free: 1-888-244-0955. "Dowels and Squares are available in
different sizes of hardwood. Doweling capabilities from 6" to 16' long and
3/4" to 2 1/2" diameter. We can supply all your dowel needs, to meet your
specifications."

SHOOTERS
The Barony of Settmour Swamp has started a Yahoo group for those
interested in building and manning siege weapons, particularly for use at
SCA events.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/settmour_siege/


UPM REQUESTS SUMMER CAMP ENCORE
The University of Pennsylvania Museum, in Philadelphia, has requested a return engagement
of Roman Military and Gladiators on August 13 for its annual summer camp for young people.
We would need a couple of legionaries to demonstrate and talk with the kids.
If you think you could help out with this, please advise the Commander.

UPCOMING CAMPAIGNS

*** June 12-13 "Roman Days", Marietta Mansion, Glendale, MD

*** June 19-20 "Muster on the Maumee" Time Line Event, Fort Meigs, Perrysburg, OH
*** July 31 - Aug 1 Multi-Period Time Line Event, Fort Malden, Amherstburg Ontario, opposite Detroit.
*** August 13 - Univ.PA.Museum Summer Camp, Roman Day, Philadelphia
*** August 18-19-20-21 - Pennsic War XXXIII, The Great Battle between the Kingdoms of the East and the Middle; Rts I-79 & US-422, New Castle, PA. Legion XXIV will be displaying the proper presence of Ancient Rome, along with its Terror Ballista.
*** Sept 18-19 - Roman Market Days, Wells Harbor Park, ME - Mark Your Calendars Now !
*** October 15-16-17 - Movie Trailer Shoot and Encampment at Parthenon in Nashville, TN with multiple Legion Units
and 100+ Roman Reenactors www.romanreenactment.com gbarbosa@...
*** October 24, Sunday, Possible Ren Faire appearance, Waterloo Village, Netcong, NJ, I-80-exit 25 11AM-5PM

Be sure to check the website from time to time. It is updated at least once a month and generally more than once.
www.legionxxiv.org New material includes details on the New Aquila and Taurus Standards, early Roman Calendars and months, updates to the Glossary, new gladiator helmets on the Ludus Magnus page, more details about the Coliseum and other updates throughout the website. Check in often.

Thanking you for your continued support of Legion XXIV, I remain;

Vires et Honos - Strength and Honor

Gallio / George


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

G. Equitius Cato G. Iulio Scauro A. Apollonio Cordo quiritibusque
S.P.D.

Salvete, omnes.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "g_iulius_scaurus" <gfr@w...> wrote:
> G. Iulius SCaurus A. Apollonio Cordo salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, Corde.
>
> The principal reason for which I think it is inappropriate for
> non-practitioners to sit in judgment of the Collegium and the
Religio is that, as the debate over the recent decretum shows,
> non-practitioners tend strongly to treat what practitioners regard
as religious issues as political issues. Most practitioners neither
> understand nor care deeply about the religious responsibility of the
> Collegium nor the fidelty of the Religio to the mos maiorum. Since
> they feel no fundamental religious connection to the Religio, they
see what the religious institutions do as primarily political acts.
Sp. Fabia Vera could have been a card-carrying Bonus and I very
seriously doubt that that would have mattered a whit when it came to
deciding whether or not she was suitable to remain a scaerdos: it was
a religious decision, not a political one (obviously I cannot see into
> the minds of my colleagues, but the arguments they offered to
justify their votes support my contention). Non-practitioners
immediately saw this decision as a political-factional phenomenon
rather than a question of fidelty to the Religio and orthopraxis. I
am profoundly opposed to seeing the Religio turned into a political
football in Nova Roma and I regard the vast majority of non-
practitioner comments on the Collegium's decision as doing exactly
that.




CATO: Scaurus, I agree with practically every single word contained
in your post. Eheu! Am I becoming a Bonus? <-- (joke) Seriously,
though, I agree, with only one important caveat: it is true that non-
practitioners (or excuse me, I should properly only speak of my own
perceptions) perceive the actions of all in power, be they political
or religious authorities, as essentially political acts. Why?
Because in Nova Roma we live in a micronation in which the religio is
the fundamental tenet of the State.

I read the explanations of your colleagues regarding their vote with
great interest; it gave me a vastly clearer understanding of why you
did what you did. It even brought me to the point where I actually
agree that Fabia Vera is very likely unsuited for a priesthood in
Nova Roma. I do not think it improper for a citizen of any stripe to
ask a governing body to simply explain why it did what it did,
religious or otherwise. If I had not asked those three simple
questions, many citizens who later voiced their opinions may have
simply remained silent but uneasy.

In honesty, I am still concerned about the College following some
sort of set process in public by which it would pronounce judgement
upon a citizen if, the Gods forbid, a similiar situation should ever
arise again. Not because I think that the College should not be
making these judgements, because I do understand that they should;
but only because so much of our interaction with our State is religio-
related. Perhaps (as I said before) this is a by-product of my
having been raised in an open society; perhaps it is "modernist legal
pettifoggery"; but until I am presented with a reasonable
alternative, I would prefer to keep the State in which I live open,
and, hopefully as a result, on its toes, honesty-wise.

The religio should never *ever* be used as a political football, by
citizens of any belief. It should never be used as a weapon, as a
decoy, as an excuse, or as anything but that which it is: the rituals
and rites of appeasement and supplication and thanksgiving to the
Gods that they may allow us to grow and prosper as a State.

>
> Vale.
>
> Scaurus

valete,

Cato

A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend the Aedile,
Pontiff, and Flamen C. Iulius Scaurus, and to all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> ... I am profoundly
> opposed to seeing the Religio turned into a
> political football in Nova
> Roma and I regard the vast majority of
> non-practitioner comments on
> the Collegium's decision as doing exactly that.

I quite agree; but I suggest that this is a case more
for saying that non-practitioners who choose to
comment on the actions of the college must do so
thoughtfully and constructively than for saying that
they ought not to do so at all. Another way to put it
might be this: a non-practitioner must earn the right
to criticise by displaying good faith, an
understanding of and sympathy for the fundamental
duties and functions of the college, constructive
intent, and a good reason for criticising. In the
absence of these things, it is hard to see what
business a non-practitioner would have to complain.
But there is, as I tried to explain in my last
message, a prima facie case for allowing
non-practitioners the chance to comment, and to be
listened to, regarding certain parts of the college's
sphere of action, and it would be a shame for all
non-practitioners to be denied that opportunity simply
because some have tended to abuse it.

Non-practitioners must, of course, recognise that they
stand on unfirm ground in criticising the college, and
must compensate by showing evidence of those four
things I mentioned above; but I would hope that the
college would consider a non-practitioner who has
displayed such evidence to have earned the right to
have his or her views considered sympathetically by
the college. Such an attitude on both sides would, I
think, create a mutually beneficial atmosphere: by
showing respect and understanding, the
non-practitioner can hope to secure a fair hearing;
and by listening sympathetically to those who earn
such a hearing, the college may hope to gain something too.





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

Salve Flavius Vedius Germanicus,

Gallus Minucius Iovinus was the resident artist of the Eagle last year and is very talented and he may be available.

xkrull@...


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum 2756

----- Original Message -----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:06 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Artist Needed


I was wondering if we had any artists-accomplished, budding, or in-between-in our midst.



Please contact me off-list (germanicus at goldenfuture dot net); I would like to talk with someone with more artistic ability than I possess (that is, any) about doing a line-drawing for a NR-related project I have in mind.



Valete,



Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Pater Patriae



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





Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Ave

I apologize if my words came too late, my amice. But I needed to say it before any other could forget it.

It is amazing the way Nova Roma is behaving on the last times. I'm here for three years, and I always had to witness a strange argument after another one. But strange arguments turned into bitter ones, and attacking people is now the rule.

Do we REALLY want to build something based on Roma?
Do we REALLY want to make true the dreams of our Constitution?

Or we just fight among us in an unfinished and childish way showing the large Egos we owe?

I do not fear to say that in Provincia Hispania some citizens feel that Nova Roma is a burden more than a help to acomplish the objetives we have. I do not fear to say as Propraetor that there is certain unrest because of the non-productive arguments, quarrels, fierce battles that make of the ML a place for Freaks more than a place for Roman-lovers.

Could we then concentrate our efforts in DOING something instead of talking about?

I have only good words for two of the most sensible people in Nova Roma nowdays; Tribunus Arminius Faustus, whose enthusiasm and his lack of Ego makes him a man as straight and strong as an iron bar. Pontifex Scaurus, whose knowledge on Religio makes him a man who takes very seriously one of the ideas Nova Roma tries to spread; the rise of the religio our ancestors believed on. Can they be on different trenchs? Not in the slightest bit.

If the ML turns into a better Forum in which we discuss scholar, inteligent arguments, trying to rebuild all those that made Roma great, I'm sure we'll be in the path. But currently, I feel Nova Roma Main List as another place for ego-maniac fighters who are to freaks to understand that something can be done. And internet is too full of places like this...

My best words for you, Tribune, and for all those who tries to stablish common sense in this "Res Publica". Every day seems less a Public thing and more a gossip place.


vale bene in pace deorum,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
PROPRAETOR·HISPANIAE



From: Lucius Arminius Faustus <lafaustus@...>
Subject: I´m mostly sad

Salve,
L. Arminius Faustus Tribunus Plebis,


I´m mostly sad.

It seems the Tribunes were more attacked asking for appealing to Concordia than threatening to Veto and Comitia.

Indeed, softness is a sharp weapon. Seems that some don´t desire peace, but war and partisantism. (I want far distance from all parties!)

It is worst than the wraith of Achilles.

Neither the words of three sacrosaint tribunes, neither the words of the priestess of Magna Mater, excellent Iulia Volpisca, neither the assurance of Fabia Vera has demoved these men...

Pride is the worst consultant.

I still dont understand why so many hate on the hearts. I have seen many arguments, They are childish when compared to the benefits of forgiveness and clemens, true roman virtues. Nova Roma would awaken stronger, and reputations less damaged.

I fear by the future of the Religio. The Religio must conquer by the hearts, not by the laws. The subject was poor handled since the beggining, now a Pirros´ victory was won.

You can attack me as your desire. I´m Tribune, I don´t fear words. I was elected and I´m protect by the own Religio to counsel you the thing on the best of my hability.

It is mostly sad.

Vale bene in pacem deorum (if they still desire peace with us.)
L. Arminius Faustus TRP

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

Salvete Omnes,
why the not-pratictioners couldn't comment or judge the actions of
teh Collegium Pontificium? The Religio Romana is our National
religion and it involves all the citizens. The decisions taken by
the CP could influence the laws, the society, the un-official rules
of this group, the feelings of the members. So it's quite logical
thinking that the decisions of the CP influences the not-
pratictioners as the pratictioners.
- Excursus: Tribune Faustus sent me an interesting note about Cicero
which was appointed augur and he didin't believed in teh auguries -
Thinking in this way, everyone here have the rights to comment and
have the own opinion on the CP and the national religion. It seems
that the discussions about the orthopraxy of the Religio Romana
would confirm it. The Religio is not orthodoxe, the religious
istitutions are not perfect and omnipotent. If they're, they would
be closer to the Medioeval Catholic Church that to the religion of
the Ancients. The concept of "the verity in the hands of few peopel"
is not roman, it's closer to the Christian or Islamic integralism,
closer to monopolystic and centralistic religions. This means that
the roman religious istitutions are ever under the judgement too
because they could be wrong because the verity is not of an elite of
persons.
The Ancients said "Vox Populi, Vox Deis" meaning that the people are
the voice of the Gods, the Gods talk by the opinion of the mass, the
opinion of the citizens are the highest judgement.
This means in my opinion that Vox Populi is highest and more
important than the voice of the istitutions which could be judged by
the same citizens.
Linking this last statements to the first statement, IMHO it's quite
easy think that the not-pratictioners should be able and should have
the rights to comment and to discuss and to judge the actions of the
religious Istitutions because they could change their lifes in NR.

This is my personal opinion.

valete
Fr. Apulus CAesar

Salve,

Nonsense, Cato.

You have grossly mingled like and unlike categories of things (I propose we
throw Cato to the sophists as punishment). You say that this is proof that
"animals can mate with humans and produce offspring". But to do so you
have assumed that the Swan in question is an animal, when it is in fact a
god in the guise of an animal--rather than an animal itself.

And we have more than one example 'in history' of deities impregnating
women in all sorts of ways which would seem highly improbable and dubious
to the scientific mind. Even impregnating virgins who remain virgin, which
does rather beg the question. If that's possible, then...

Finally, in my extensive studies of mythology, I can find no example in any
culture of a god taking the form of a hamster.

Vale,
M. Umbrius Ursus

>G. Equitius Cato A. Appollonio Cordo Q. Cassio Calvo S.P.D.
>
>salvete, virii.
>
>Are you forgetting the tale of Leda and the Swan (who was, in
>reality, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus)? Leda, wife of King Tydnareus of
>Sparta was *cough* "joined" by the god taking the form of a swan,
>and by their coupling, Leda and Jupiter would produce Castor and
>Pollux as well as Helen and Clytaemnestra, so we have concrete
>evidence, from history, that animals can mate with humans and produce
>offspring...
>
>valete,
>
>Cato

Salve,

I´m not demanding an agremment.
I´m asking for an agremment.

Deny if you desire - it is your right.
I ask since I desire - it is my right.

"> I'm not trying to accuse you of doing anything deliberate or with

> malicious intent, I'm trying to make you understand that the actions
> you are demanding wouldn't just be an act of impiety on the part of
> the Collegium, it would be an unforgivable deliberate act of impiety
> that could never be expiated."

OH, now we are talking. Ok, I accept the apologize and argument.

However, I understand my lack of knowledge of this subject. But the
Ancient Pontifices had the Ponticium Libri (oh, genitives!) which
describes the cerimonies, and always had the cerimonies needed for
many ocasions, as purifications

Couldn´t the Pontifices join Fabia Vera to do a cerimony of expiation?

But so say that you don´t want it, not you can´t.

If even the greeks and trojans (Iliad, book III) could make on the
middle of war a religious cerimony between Agamenon and Priamus to
end 10 years of bloodly war signing a pact, couldn´t we simple finish
this petty web list quarrel? Are Fabia Vera acts worst than the
Kidnapping of Helen? (And now I will hear from someone that Fabia
Vera actions were worst than sacking the Capitolium! That ´how you
dare, small Tribune, to call the worst blasfemy on the last two
milenia of ´petty web list quarrel´´?)

Oh Tempora, oh mores! I suspect this question is far away of Religio.
I´m talking on the wrong subject!

To Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta,

Since you appealed to the Tribunes, I´ve tried with all my forces and
diplomacy - sorry by disappoint you - now I give up.

The gods are testimonies.

Vale bene,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
<drusus@b...> wrote:

> Salve,
>
> From John Scheid's "An introduction to the Roman Religion"
>
> 2.3.2
>
> "Impiety was the opposite of Piety. It consisted in denying the Gods
> the honors and rank that were rightfully theirs, or in damaging

their

> properity by theft (sacrilege, in the strict sense of the term) or

by

> neglect. Impiety could be accidental (imprudens) or deliberate with
> malicious intent (prudens dolo malo). I one accidentally disturbed

the

> correct performace of a ritual or offended a deity out of ignorance
> and without meaning to do so, the impiety could be expiated by a
> sacrifice and possibility by making reparation for the wrong. BUT IF
> THE OFFENSE WAS DELIBERATE, IT WAS INEXPIABLE. In this case, the
> community freed itself from the responsibility by an expiatory
> sacrifice and by making good the damage; but the guilty person
> remained FOREVER IMPIUS AND COULD NEVER BE EXPIATED. On top of the
> punioshments that the city could inflict on him for having violated
> public law and sanctias, the impius offender was 'handed over' to to
> the Gods for them to 'do justice' for themselves."
>
> There is such a thing as an 'unforgivable sin' in the Religio, and
> that is deliberatly performing an Impius act, which is what you are
> demanding of me in a mistaken notion of Concordia.
>
> I'm not trying to accuse you of doing anything deliberate or with
> malicious intent, I'm trying to make you understand that the actions
> you are demanding wouldn't just be an act of impiety on the part of
> the Collegium, it would be an unforgivable deliberate act of impiety
> that could never be expiated.
>
> Concordia dosen't require that someone perform prudens dolo malo
> simply because someone has made a demand that they do so, it

consists

> of refraining from making such an outragous demand on another

person.

>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
> <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > Be careful, be careful, be careful with your words... they are

not

> > much polite... do not accuse me of anything... if you cannot hold
> > with your own tongue, how we gain confidence on the others
> > habilities? Show you are an example. Remember what Plato said ´By

the

> > words the men receives the worst punishments the Gods can send´ -
> > Indeed, Fabia Vera lost herself by loose tongue. Manlius

Capitolinus

> > as well. But, please, do not fall also.
> >
> > I will never be ashamed to try gathering an agreement. There is

no

> > this stuff of ´unforgiven sin´.
> >
> > The peace of the graves do not seems me a good peace. The victory

of

> > Pirros shouldn´t make anyone happy.
> >
> > Bash me at will, if you desire, I don´t care... I´ll never be

ashamed

> > by trying Concordia. It is my sacrosainct duty as Tribune. I´m

doing

> > my job for this Republic. For this people elected me. To defend.

To

> > grant the rigths.
> >
> > And there is a greater Right than to be forgiven???
> >
> > Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> > L. Arminius Faustus TRP
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
> > <drusus@b...> wrote:
> > > Tribune,
> > >
> > > It is YOU, and others who are disturbing Concordia by

attempting to

> > > foist an unsuitable priest on the Collegium.
> > >
> > > Pietas means following a duty, even it it is an unpleasnt one,

and

> > the
> > > Collegium has a duty to protect the intrests of the Religio

Romana.

> > >
> > > I Have seen many people toss around the word "Orthopraxy"

without

> > > understanding it's full application to this matter. It is

derived

> > from
> > > the Greek for "Correct Action". The Religio Romana is a

religion of

> > > Orthopraxy rather than Orthodoxy (Correct belief). It's concern

is

> > > that the CORRECT rituals be performed at the CORRECT times, and

that

> > > they be done CORRECTLY.
> > >
> > > WE had a person who publicly challenged the Collegium on

determining

> > > what the CORRECT rituals were, and who publicly stated that she
> > would
> > > do it her way even if the Collegium determined that her way was
> > > incorrect. That is an attack on the Orthopraxy that is at the

heart

> > of
> > > the Religio, and an Impius attitude, of doing what you wish

rather

> > > than following your duty.
> > >
> > > The Religio doesn't insist on Orthodoxy. You are free to

beleave

> > that
> > > the Gods are Numenious beings, Anthropomorphic beings, or

metaphors

> > > for the forces of nature. It is even possible to be a

Monotheist and

> > > beleave that all of the Gods are aspects of a single devine

being.

> > You
> > > can beleave or not beleave in an afterlife, you can beleave

what you

> > > wish about the nature of an afterlife if you beleave in one.

None of

> > > this affects your status as a practitioner of the Religio.
> > >
> > > That status is determined by Orthopraxy, of correct Ritual.
> > > "Incorrect" belief is not a "sin" in the Religio Romana,
> > deliberately
> > > performing a ritual incorrectly is. I Have no concern with

Orthodoxy

> > > unless it affects Orthopraxy, that is in a person's private

beleif

> > > system resulting in them performing official rituals

incorrectly.

> > > Allowing that would be an impius act on my part, and on the

part of

> > > the Collegium.
> > >
> > > You are demanding that the Collegium perform an impius act,

that it

> > > ignore it's duties to follow modern ideas of political

correctness.

> > > That is something that we can't do. Concordia dosen't demand

that

> > the
> > > Collegium abbandon the core beliefs regarding Otrhopraxy. She

does

> > > demand that people stop political agitation intended to force

the

> > > Collegium into comitting an impius act.
> > >
> > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > > Pontifex
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
> > > <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > > > Salve,
> > > > L. Arminius Faustus Tribunus Plebis,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I´m mostly sad.
> > > >
> > > > It seems the Tribunes were more attacked asking for appealing

to

> > > Concordia than threatening to Veto and Comitia.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, softness is a sharp weapon. Seems that some don´t

desire

> > > peace, but war and partisantism. (I want far distance from all
> > parties!)
> > > >
> > > > It is worst than the wraith of Achilles.
> > > >
> > > > Neither the words of three sacrosaint tribunes, neither the

words

> > of
> > > the priestess of Magna Mater, excellent Iulia Volpisca, neither

the

> > > assurance of Fabia Vera has demoved these men...
> > > >
> > > > Pride is the worst consultant.
> > > >
> > > > I still dont understand why so many hate on the hearts. I

have

> > seen
> > > many arguments, They are childish when compared to the benefits

of

> > > forgiveness and clemens, true roman virtues. Nova Roma would

awaken

> > > stronger, and reputations less damaged.
> > > >
> > > > I fear by the future of the Religio. The Religio must conquer

by

> > the
> > > hearts, not by the laws. The subject was poor handled since the
> > > beggining, now a Pirros´ victory was won.
> > > >
> > > > You can attack me as your desire. I´m Tribune, I don´t fear
> > words. I
> > > was elected and I´m protect by the own Religio to counsel you

the

> > > thing on the best of my hability.
> > > >
> > > > It is mostly sad.
> > > >
> > > > Vale bene in pacem deorum (if they still desire peace with

us.)

> > > > L. Arminius Faustus TRP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Yahoo! Mail - Participe da pesquisa global sobre o Yahoo!

Mail.

> > > Clique aqui!
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve,

I make my voice echo of my colleague.

We shouldn´t encastle the roman religio. State and Religio on Rome
were one, not two powers like we have now - Nowadays NR seems more a
Middle Ages´ kingdom ("This is the matter of the Bishops and the
Church, Kings and nobility!").

However, I offer myself and my sacrosainct body of Tribune to help to
heal all wounds between the average citizens and the leaders of the
Religio, and to reach an agreement and approuching.

See? Sacrosainct body of Tribune! The marvelous of the Religio Romana
and the Roman State! There wasn´t magistrature without religio burden
on Ancient.

That is why we love Rome, and want to recriate the Religio and Roman
State. Because they were just one power... very beautiful concept
indeed.

To Scaurus - Hold on! We are confident you are THE key on the revival
of the Roman Religio.

To Athanasius - The new hope. I´m sure he will take new breath to the
Pontifices.

To Iulianus - The old hope and the rope to keep things going!

To Hadrianus - Biggest heart, soft wiseness, we need again your heat!

Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus
Tribunus Plebis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <sacro_barese_impero@l...>
wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
> why the not-pratictioners couldn't comment or judge the actions of
> teh Collegium Pontificium? The Religio Romana is our National
> religion and it involves all the citizens. The decisions taken by
> the CP could influence the laws, the society, the un-official rules
> of this group, the feelings of the members. So it's quite logical
> thinking that the decisions of the CP influences the not-
> pratictioners as the pratictioners.
> - Excursus: Tribune Faustus sent me an interesting note about

Cicero

> which was appointed augur and he didin't believed in teh auguries -
> Thinking in this way, everyone here have the rights to comment and
> have the own opinion on the CP and the national religion. It seems
> that the discussions about the orthopraxy of the Religio Romana
> would confirm it. The Religio is not orthodoxe, the religious
> istitutions are not perfect and omnipotent. If they're, they would
> be closer to the Medioeval Catholic Church that to the religion of
> the Ancients. The concept of "the verity in the hands of few

peopel"

> is not roman, it's closer to the Christian or Islamic integralism,
> closer to monopolystic and centralistic religions. This means that
> the roman religious istitutions are ever under the judgement too
> because they could be wrong because the verity is not of an elite

of

> persons.
> The Ancients said "Vox Populi, Vox Deis" meaning that the people

are

> the voice of the Gods, the Gods talk by the opinion of the mass,

the

> opinion of the citizens are the highest judgement.
> This means in my opinion that Vox Populi is highest and more
> important than the voice of the istitutions which could be judged

by

> the same citizens.
> Linking this last statements to the first statement, IMHO it's

quite

> easy think that the not-pratictioners should be able and should

have

> the rights to comment and to discuss and to judge the actions of

the

> religious Istitutions because they could change their lifes in NR.
>
> This is my personal opinion.
>
> valete
> Fr. Apulus CAesar

Philippus Flavius Conservatus omnibus Maior salutem dicit.

Are non-practitioners right to comment?
I read a lot of statements in the last days from all sides and some speakers seems to be more interested in trench fighting to me. Well, there are lots of places on war in the world, maybe some of them should volunteer and fight there.

Accipere quam facere praestat iniuriam. ( Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes 5, 56 )

But back to the topic.
Every single person who joined NR was able to read (I hope) about the stand and the rights of the Religio Romana. Of course the pontiffices are human beeings and can make mistakes. They know this and never said anything else. But they are also the highest authority in religious matters for the Religio Romana.
If someone does not to act in some religion practise (e.g. animal sacrifice) but he/she is a priest, it is a more respectful way to discuss this intern the religion body instead to run to the next yellow press paper (ML).
I think the CP is able to handle such matters in a positiv and constructive way.

Some persons should not forget in ancient times the world was a pagan world except the jewish tribes in provincia Judaea. All had a higher authority in their pagan religion. So why should they start a wide spread discussion about decissions by such a body? The only religion authority which means to be without mistakes is the pope but there was a lot of fighting in their own rows when the decission was taken 1876.

Of course people should discuss decission the CP decided, but please, in a constructive way. Maybe the decission of the CP came out to the wrong time, maybe they should install some kind of rules to find their decissions, ok, and it is my deepest conviction they know it and are working on this point.
But it will be not helpfull to put the fingertips always in the wound to say: hey see, it is not healing.

I think before someone tries to criticise the Religio Romana and he/she is a non-practitioner he should first check his own religion what is going on there.

Aliena vitia in oculis habemus, a tergo nostra. ( Seneca, de ira 2, 28, 6 )
Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. ( Horaz, ars poetica 139 )

On the other side it will be helpful for all to have some kind of red thread in Religio Romana matters so non-practitioners and practitioners will have a better overview how the CP come to a decision.
But that does not mean every decision needs to go public all the time.


It will be great we can lay down this matter ad acta and go back to work.


End of this topic (for me).

Valete
Ph. Flavius Conservatus Maior


The distinction between true and false appears to become increasingly blurred by... the pollution of the language.

-- Arne Tiselius




_____________________________________________________________________
Endlich SMS mit Bildern versenden! Das Bild selbst ist dabei gratis,
Sie bezahlen lediglich den Versand. http://freemail.web.de/?mc=021195

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Today is pridie Nonae Iunii and the feria of Hercules Magnus Custos; the
day is comitialis. The temple of Hercules Magnus Custos was dedicated
(82 BCE).


Tomorrow is Nonae Iunii and sacred to Dius Fidius (Semo Sanctus); the
day is nefastus. Also on this date begins a period of ten days (to a.d.
XVII Kalendae Quinctilis) on which no marriages are to be performed and
on which the Flamen and Flaminica Dialis refrain from sexual intercourse
in preparation for the Vesta Clauditur ritual. On this day the Rex
Sacrorum would announce the regular fixed feriae of the month on the
Nonae by edictum. The Nonae were sacred to Iuno Covella and the Regina
Sacrorum sacrificed to Iuno at the Regia.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

Salvete omnes,

Here is an interesting site on Roman Britain courtesy of Richard,
the moderator of Imperial Rome 2. I didn't want our citizens to miss
this one:

Richard - May I recommend to you the following site

http://www.romanbritain.freeserve.co.uk/

On the face of it the site is another personal site except on this
occasion it belongs to the distinguised scholar of Romano-British
history Guy de Bedoyere. Mr de Bedoyere (who despite his name is very
English) amongst other activities is the historical consultant to
many of the more reliable British ancient history programmes.



Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

G. Equitius Cato M. Umbrio Urso S.D.

salve, Umbrius.

Does the taking of the form of an animal by a God make it less an
animal? Did it not fly, and honk, and pitter-patter about on webbed
feet? Did it not have feathers and a beak? If it looks like a Swan
and honks like a Swan... And simply because we do not *know* of a
God taking the form specifically of a hamster, as history shows the
Gods took on animal forms frequently, so it is not outside the realm
of possibility that Gaius Dangerosus may indeed be correct. That
would, of course, make Gaius Complainius semi-divine...

(hiding from the pack of sophists)

vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Pat <p-mclaughlin@c...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> Nonsense, Cato.
>
> You have grossly mingled like and unlike categories of things (I
propose we
> throw Cato to the sophists as punishment). You say that this is
proof that
> "animals can mate with humans and produce offspring". But to do so
you
> have assumed that the Swan in question is an animal, when it is in
fact a
> god in the guise of an animal--rather than an animal itself.
>
> And we have more than one example 'in history' of deities
impregnating
> women in all sorts of ways which would seem highly improbable and
dubious
> to the scientific mind. Even impregnating virgins who remain
virgin, which
> does rather beg the question. If that's possible, then...
>
> Finally, in my extensive studies of mythology, I can find no
example in any
> culture of a god taking the form of a hamster.
>
> Vale,
> M. Umbrius Ursus
>
>
> >G. Equitius Cato A. Appollonio Cordo Q. Cassio Calvo S.P.D.
> >
> >salvete, virii.
> >
> >Are you forgetting the tale of Leda and the Swan (who was, in
> >reality, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus)? Leda, wife of King Tydnareus
of
> >Sparta was *cough* "joined" by the god taking the form of a swan,
> >and by their coupling, Leda and Jupiter would produce Castor and
> >Pollux as well as Helen and Clytaemnestra, so we have concrete
> >evidence, from history, that animals can mate with humans and
produce
> >offspring...
> >
> >valete,
> >
> >Cato

Salvete Delicia et omnes,

Regarding your question the other day; it looks like the movie is a
done deal, the script has been written and will be produced by Icon
films (Gibson's film). AS mentioned in the site below, we cannot
help but wonder of Queen Boudicca's flogging will be as graphic as
the one in "The Passion". I certainly think any movement will be an
improvement on the TV movie made last year.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125992/posts


Reards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salvete Cato et omnes,

Your point here strikes up another thought for discussion.Some
genetic engineers are saying that in the future their will be a good
possibility of making Chimeras that is, crosses between humans and
animals. It has been tried already with a human and pig but cell
division was terminated early. I believe in Canada they mixed a few
spider silk genes with a goat to get some sort of fibery milk. In
future chimeras may be done for amusement, curiosity or adaptive
creatures for hostile environments from the ocean to Mars. Anyway
one caon appreciate all the moral and ethical questions to come.

Isn't it funny how history repeats itself? These were also creatures
of legend in ancient times.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato M. Umbrio Urso S.D.
>
> salve, Umbrius.
>
> Does the taking of the form of an animal by a God make it less an
> animal? Did it not fly, and honk, and pitter-patter about on
webbed
> feet? Did it not have feathers and a beak? If it looks like a
Swan
> and honks like a Swan... And simply because we do not *know* of
a
> God taking the form specifically of a hamster, as history shows
the
> Gods took on animal forms frequently, so it is not outside the
realm
> of possibility that Gaius Dangerosus may indeed be correct. That
> would, of course, make Gaius Complainius semi-divine...
>
> (hiding from the pack of sophists)
>
> vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Pat <p-mclaughlin@c...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > Nonsense, Cato.
> >
> > You have grossly mingled like and unlike categories of things (I
> propose we
> > throw Cato to the sophists as punishment). You say that this is
> proof that
> > "animals can mate with humans and produce offspring". But to do
so
> you
> > have assumed that the Swan in question is an animal, when it is
in
> fact a
> > god in the guise of an animal--rather than an animal itself.
> >
> > And we have more than one example 'in history' of deities
> impregnating
> > women in all sorts of ways which would seem highly improbable
and
> dubious
> > to the scientific mind. Even impregnating virgins who remain
> virgin, which
> > does rather beg the question. If that's possible, then...
> >
> > Finally, in my extensive studies of mythology, I can find no
> example in any
> > culture of a god taking the form of a hamster.
> >
> > Vale,
> > M. Umbrius Ursus
> >
> >
> > >G. Equitius Cato A. Appollonio Cordo Q. Cassio Calvo S.P.D.
> > >
> > >salvete, virii.
> > >
> > >Are you forgetting the tale of Leda and the Swan (who was, in
> > >reality, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus)? Leda, wife of King
Tydnareus
> of
> > >Sparta was *cough* "joined" by the god taking the form of a
swan,
> > >and by their coupling, Leda and Jupiter would produce Castor and
> > >Pollux as well as Helen and Clytaemnestra, so we have concrete
> > >evidence, from history, that animals can mate with humans and
> produce
> > >offspring...
> > >
> > >valete,
> > >
> > >Cato

Salve M Umbri

> You say that this is proof that "animals can mate with humans and produce
> offspring".

There is the example of Pasiphae. With a little help from Daedalus, she had an
encounter with a perfectly mortal bull and bore the Minotaur. What more proof
could you ask for?

Vale
T Labienus
Fortunatus

Salve,

Could you please consider how different our situatition is from that
of Antiquita?

In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all of
the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time knew
details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown to the
most learned moderns.

In Nove Roma a very large percentage of the citizens are
non-beleavers, and most of those who do attempt to honor the Gods are
still in the process of learning how to do it.

The Citizens of 2000 years ago had the knowledge to determine Religous
policy. Most of the citizens of today lack the knowledge to determine
the fine points of policy, and a large percentage of them are as
qualified to determine it as I am to be Nova Roma's Chinese Translator
(A Language that I don't speak a word of).

Attempting to determine Religous policy without the knowledege that
the Ancient population had is a threat to the Pax Deorum and to the
Republic.

The Pontiffs have a far harder task than the Pontiffs of the Republic.
The Republican Pontiffs only had to maintain a Religion that had
existed for hundreds of years. We face the task that is similar to
that of King Numa, of deciding what needs to be done, of when it needs
to be done. There are gaps in the historic record that have to be
filled in.

In one respect we face a harder task that King Numa did. He was
dealing with a population that was seeped in traditions that were far
older than the Religio, while we have a population that has learned
many traditions that are totally alien to the Religio Romana.

There is no way in Hades that the Religio Romana can be re-established
with assemblies of unqualified people looking over the shoulders of
the Pontiffs and interfering in maters that they have no knowledge of.
Attempting this will change the Religion in Nova Roma to a hybrid
between a Pop New Age Cult and a Role Playing Game rather than the
Religio Romana.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

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

> Salve,
>
> I make my voice echo of my colleague.
>
> We shouldn´t encastle the roman religio. State and Religio on Rome
> were one, not two powers like we have now - Nowadays NR seems more a
> Middle Ages´ kingdom ("This is the matter of the Bishops and the
> Church, Kings and nobility!").
>
> However, I offer myself and my sacrosainct body of Tribune to help to
> heal all wounds between the average citizens and the leaders of the
> Religio, and to reach an agreement and approuching.
>
> See? Sacrosainct body of Tribune! The marvelous of the Religio Romana
> and the Roman State! There wasn´t magistrature without religio burden
> on Ancient.
>
> That is why we love Rome, and want to recriate the Religio and Roman
> State. Because they were just one power... very beautiful concept
> indeed.
>
> To Scaurus - Hold on! We are confident you are THE key on the revival
> of the Roman Religio.
>
> To Athanasius - The new hope. I´m sure he will take new breath to the
> Pontifices.
>
> To Iulianus - The old hope and the rope to keep things going!
>
> To Hadrianus - Biggest heart, soft wiseness, we need again your heat!
>
> Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus
> Tribunus Plebis
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <sacro_barese_impero@l...>
> wrote:
> > Salvete Omnes,
> > why the not-pratictioners couldn't comment or judge the actions of
> > teh Collegium Pontificium? The Religio Romana is our National
> > religion and it involves all the citizens. The decisions taken by
> > the CP could influence the laws, the society, the un-official rules
> > of this group, the feelings of the members. So it's quite logical
> > thinking that the decisions of the CP influences the not-
> > pratictioners as the pratictioners.
> > - Excursus: Tribune Faustus sent me an interesting note about
> Cicero
> > which was appointed augur and he didin't believed in teh auguries -
> > Thinking in this way, everyone here have the rights to comment and
> > have the own opinion on the CP and the national religion. It seems
> > that the discussions about the orthopraxy of the Religio Romana
> > would confirm it. The Religio is not orthodoxe, the religious
> > istitutions are not perfect and omnipotent. If they're, they would
> > be closer to the Medioeval Catholic Church that to the religion of
> > the Ancients. The concept of "the verity in the hands of few
> peopel"
> > is not roman, it's closer to the Christian or Islamic integralism,
> > closer to monopolystic and centralistic religions. This means that
> > the roman religious istitutions are ever under the judgement too
> > because they could be wrong because the verity is not of an elite
> of
> > persons.
> > The Ancients said "Vox Populi, Vox Deis" meaning that the people
> are
> > the voice of the Gods, the Gods talk by the opinion of the mass,
> the
> > opinion of the citizens are the highest judgement.
> > This means in my opinion that Vox Populi is highest and more
> > important than the voice of the istitutions which could be judged
> by
> > the same citizens.
> > Linking this last statements to the first statement, IMHO it's
> quite
> > easy think that the not-pratictioners should be able and should
> have
> > the rights to comment and to discuss and to judge the actions of
> the
> > religious Istitutions because they could change their lifes in NR.
> >
> > This is my personal opinion.
> >
> > valete
> > Fr. Apulus CAesar

Salvete omnes.

I am extremely glad that provincia Argentina has a new propraetor, C. Argentinus Cicero. Congratulations!!! and Cheers!!!. I'm sure you'll do an excellent job

Estoy extremadamente contento que la provincia Argentina tiene nuevo propraetor, C. Argentinus Cicero. Felicitaciones!!!! Y un brindis por la nueva buena!!!!!. Estoy seguro que harás un excelente trabajo!!!!

Bene valete
L. Pompeius Octavianus


Ego sidera stellasque amo et semper amabo. Atque Romam antiquam.

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

Salvete,

Congratulations to all the newly appointed Propraetors.

Be sure to join the mailing list for Provincial officials at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRomaProvinciae/?yguid=68807234

Valete,

Gaius Popillius Laenas

Salve



Patriot Friends



I guess you allow me to introduce myself.



I´m a new citizen, my name is Marcelus Arminius Faustus Mariliensis. I started to participate in Nova Roma some time ago, I had problems but now I can retake my activities as a citizen.



I have known Nova Roma throught the Propraetor Lucius Arminius Faustus, a great friend and an honourable politician.



I´m from brazil and I was born in a little city with the name of Marilia (Mariliensis).



I hope that my knowledge in the fields of engeneering, economy and laws can help us to make a rich, strong, solid, progressive and democratic motherland.



I know about the laws code of New Rome and I´m going read it today, anyway i´m going to send you the 5th article of the brazilian constitution that says about the rights and the obligations of the citizens.





Vale bene,

Marcelus Arminius Faustus Mariliensis





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

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

Ave omnes

From a non Religio export, just a bit of logic:

> In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all of
> the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time knew
> details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown to the
> most learned moderns.

By logic, then, if is lost to even the most learned moderns, you and me or
anyone else in Nova Roma have exactly the same degree of knowledge on the
matter.

> Attempting to determine Religous policy without the knowledege that
> the Ancient population had is a threat to the Pax Deorum and to the
> Republic.

Again, if the Religio is mostly unknown, your attempt is as good as it can
be my attempt or the attempt of anyone's else in NR, and just as prone to
cause the wrath of the Gods for mishandling of a ceremonial.

Now, not saying that in order to promote myself as a pontiff, just to
outline the absurdity of saying that, on one side, no one knows anything
(your words "details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown
to the most learned moderns"), on the other affirming the you can dictate a
policy about things you (as anyone else) have no idea whatsoever given that
it didn't make it to modern days.

Ad here comes another question.. of some rites we know well enough. Scaurus
himself a few days ago reminded us of the practice of the male sacerdotes of
the magna mater to castrate themselves... now, I guess they knew, back then,
what as supposed to be the correct praxis to appease the Magna Mater... does
it mean that we'll start asking the first male who volunteers to be a
sacerdos of the Magna Mater to castrate himself because orthopraxy has to be
followed? What about Vesta, shall we submit the applicants to be
sacerdotesses to a gynaecological visit?

I can understand the CP stand of being the herald of strict reconsructionism
and a fundamentalist vision of the Religio and the tradition (for instance,
the fact you do not accept women as pontifices, that brought the taliban
comment you so much disliked), but then, if orthopraxis is so fundamental
that you have to expel people from the religious order about it, you should
also embrace and support even the most, to most modern eyes, unacceptable
rites that were associated with the Religio, because not performing them or
performing them in a different way would, following your reason, displease
the gods. Or orthopraxis is only good when you have to expel someone from
your order for not being a fan of yours?

Vale

DCF

PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis
Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Lucius Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@...]
> Inviato: venerdì 4 giugno 2004 15.20
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Are non-practitioners right to comment? (WAS: the
> myth...)
>
> Salve,
>
> Could you please consider how different our situatition is from that
> of Antiquita?
>
> In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all of
> the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time knew
> details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown to the
> most learned moderns.
>
> In Nove Roma a very large percentage of the citizens are
> non-beleavers, and most of those who do attempt to honor the Gods are
> still in the process of learning how to do it.
>
> The Citizens of 2000 years ago had the knowledge to determine Religous
> policy. Most of the citizens of today lack the knowledge to determine
> the fine points of policy, and a large percentage of them are as
> qualified to determine it as I am to be Nova Roma's Chinese Translator
> (A Language that I don't speak a word of).
>
> Attempting to determine Religous policy without the knowledege that
> the Ancient population had is a threat to the Pax Deorum and to the
> Republic.
>
> The Pontiffs have a far harder task than the Pontiffs of the Republic.
> The Republican Pontiffs only had to maintain a Religion that had
> existed for hundreds of years. We face the task that is similar to
> that of King Numa, of deciding what needs to be done, of when it needs
> to be done. There are gaps in the historic record that have to be
> filled in.
>
> In one respect we face a harder task that King Numa did. He was
> dealing with a population that was seeped in traditions that were far
> older than the Religio, while we have a population that has learned
> many traditions that are totally alien to the Religio Romana.
>
> There is no way in Hades that the Religio Romana can be re-established
> with assemblies of unqualified people looking over the shoulders of
> the Pontiffs and interfering in maters that they have no knowledge of.
> Attempting this will change the Religion in Nova Roma to a hybrid
> between a Pop New Age Cult and a Role Playing Game rather than the
> Religio Romana.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
> <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > I make my voice echo of my colleague.
> >
> > We shouldn´t encastle the roman religio. State and Religio on Rome
> > were one, not two powers like we have now - Nowadays NR seems more a
> > Middle Ages´ kingdom ("This is the matter of the Bishops and the
> > Church, Kings and nobility!").
> >
> > However, I offer myself and my sacrosainct body of Tribune to help to
> > heal all wounds between the average citizens and the leaders of the
> > Religio, and to reach an agreement and approuching.
> >
> > See? Sacrosainct body of Tribune! The marvelous of the Religio Romana
> > and the Roman State! There wasn´t magistrature without religio burden
> > on Ancient.
> >
> > That is why we love Rome, and want to recriate the Religio and Roman
> > State. Because they were just one power... very beautiful concept
> > indeed.
> >
> > To Scaurus - Hold on! We are confident you are THE key on the revival
> > of the Roman Religio.
> >
> > To Athanasius - The new hope. I´m sure he will take new breath to the
> > Pontifices.
> >
> > To Iulianus - The old hope and the rope to keep things going!
> >
> > To Hadrianus - Biggest heart, soft wiseness, we need again your heat!
> >
> > Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> > L. Arminius Faustus
> > Tribunus Plebis
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <sacro_barese_impero@l...>
> > wrote:
> > > Salvete Omnes,
> > > why the not-pratictioners couldn't comment or judge the actions of
> > > teh Collegium Pontificium? The Religio Romana is our National
> > > religion and it involves all the citizens. The decisions taken by
> > > the CP could influence the laws, the society, the un-official rules
> > > of this group, the feelings of the members. So it's quite logical
> > > thinking that the decisions of the CP influences the not-
> > > pratictioners as the pratictioners.
> > > - Excursus: Tribune Faustus sent me an interesting note about
> > Cicero
> > > which was appointed augur and he didin't believed in teh auguries -
> > > Thinking in this way, everyone here have the rights to comment and
> > > have the own opinion on the CP and the national religion. It seems
> > > that the discussions about the orthopraxy of the Religio Romana
> > > would confirm it. The Religio is not orthodoxe, the religious
> > > istitutions are not perfect and omnipotent. If they're, they would
> > > be closer to the Medioeval Catholic Church that to the religion of
> > > the Ancients. The concept of "the verity in the hands of few
> > peopel"
> > > is not roman, it's closer to the Christian or Islamic integralism,
> > > closer to monopolystic and centralistic religions. This means that
> > > the roman religious istitutions are ever under the judgement too
> > > because they could be wrong because the verity is not of an elite
> > of
> > > persons.
> > > The Ancients said "Vox Populi, Vox Deis" meaning that the people
> > are
> > > the voice of the Gods, the Gods talk by the opinion of the mass,
> > the
> > > opinion of the citizens are the highest judgement.
> > > This means in my opinion that Vox Populi is highest and more
> > > important than the voice of the istitutions which could be judged
> > by
> > > the same citizens.
> > > Linking this last statements to the first statement, IMHO it's
> > quite
> > > easy think that the not-pratictioners should be able and should
> > have
> > > the rights to comment and to discuss and to judge the actions of
> > the
> > > religious Istitutions because they could change their lifes in NR.
> > >
> > > This is my personal opinion.
> > >
> > > valete
> > > Fr. Apulus CAesar
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Well actually from what I recall the Roman frowned on that practice
and it was not permitable for Roman male citizen to engage that in
particular rite. If memory serves, later on down the road when Roman
men participated in the cult of Magna Mater, the act was symbolic,
they bathed in the blood of a sacraficed bull and it was bulls
testicles that hung before the statue of Magna Mater, not their own.
I would suppose that someone with contact with cattle ranches could
probably obtain bull testicles. I have never tried myself, despite my
father insisting that they are a delicacy *lol*. At any rate I
seriously doubt that anyone would be expected to sacrafice their
sexual parts in the Religio, just as Roman citizins were expected not
to do so in ancient Rome.

Lucia Modia Lupa

> what as supposed to be the correct praxis to appease the Magna

Mater... does

> it mean that we'll start asking the first male who volunteers to be

a

> sacerdos of the Magna Mater to castrate himself because orthopraxy

has to be

> followed? What about Vesta, shall we submit the applicants to be
> sacerdotesses to a gynaecological visit?

Salvete Omnes,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Domitius Constantinus Fuscus"
<dom.con.fus@f...> wrote:

> Ave omnes
>
> From a non Religio export, just a bit of logic:
>
> > In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost

all of

> > the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time

knew

> > details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown

to the

> > most learned moderns.
>
> By logic, then, if is lost to even the most learned moderns, you

and me or

> anyone else in Nova Roma have exactly the same degree of knowledge

on the

> matter.

Laneas: I do not believe that is what Drusus said, and it is
certainly not true. Obviously, there are cives who know vastly more
about the Religio than others, just as a Catholic Bishop knows more
about that faith than a lay person.

The reconstruction of the Religio can only proceed based on the best
knowledge we have. We must trust the Gods to forgive our ignorance,
but we cannot ask them to forgive or ignore willful inaccuracies.

> followed? What about Vesta, shall we submit the applicants to be
> sacerdotesses to a gynaecological visit?

Laenas: We have had at least one Vestal in the past who took a vow
of celibacy. I believe we took her at her word.

> the fact you do not accept women as pontifices,

Laenas: The CP has had at least two female Pontifices in the past.

>Or orthopraxis is only good when you have to expel someone from
> your order for not being a fan of yours?
>
> Vale
>
> DCF

Laenas: The religious reasons for the expulsion have been expalined
over and over. Why do you, Domiti Constantine, insist that the
action was somehow politically motivated? You have been a cive
since April of 2000, and, until very recently, have posted here less
than a dozen times. What has happened in your life to now make you
such an active poster and why do you insist on disrespecting the
Religio?

Valete,

Gaius Popillius Laenas

Salve,

I offer my help in any way you and the Collegium Pontificium need to
spread better the Religio Romana between the Novo Romans. As Tribune,
I remember the own position of the tribuneship acting is dependent on
the Religio.

Let´s go. Hands to work. More worship, few turmoil... I´ll help, I
always wanted to help. And I am certain the hot times we have just
passed will cement more and more our desire to work even more.

Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus
Tribunus Plebis


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
<drusus@b...> wrote:

> Salve,
>
> Could you please consider how different our situatition is from that
> of Antiquita?
>
> In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all

of

> the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time

knew

> details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown to

the

> most learned moderns.
>
> In Nove Roma a very large percentage of the citizens are
> non-beleavers, and most of those who do attempt to honor the Gods

are

> still in the process of learning how to do it.
>
> The Citizens of 2000 years ago had the knowledge to determine

Religous

> policy. Most of the citizens of today lack the knowledge to

determine

> the fine points of policy, and a large percentage of them are as
> qualified to determine it as I am to be Nova Roma's Chinese

Translator

> (A Language that I don't speak a word of).
>
> Attempting to determine Religous policy without the knowledege that
> the Ancient population had is a threat to the Pax Deorum and to the
> Republic.
>
> The Pontiffs have a far harder task than the Pontiffs of the

Republic.

> The Republican Pontiffs only had to maintain a Religion that had
> existed for hundreds of years. We face the task that is similar to
> that of King Numa, of deciding what needs to be done, of when it

needs

> to be done. There are gaps in the historic record that have to be
> filled in.
>
> In one respect we face a harder task that King Numa did. He was
> dealing with a population that was seeped in traditions that were

far

> older than the Religio, while we have a population that has learned
> many traditions that are totally alien to the Religio Romana.
>
> There is no way in Hades that the Religio Romana can be re-

established

> with assemblies of unqualified people looking over the shoulders of
> the Pontiffs and interfering in maters that they have no knowledge

of.

> Attempting this will change the Religion in Nova Roma to a hybrid
> between a Pop New Age Cult and a Role Playing Game rather than the
> Religio Romana.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
> <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > I make my voice echo of my colleague.
> >
> > We shouldn´t encastle the roman religio. State and Religio on

Rome

> > were one, not two powers like we have now - Nowadays NR seems

more a

> > Middle Ages´ kingdom ("This is the matter of the Bishops and the
> > Church, Kings and nobility!").
> >
> > However, I offer myself and my sacrosainct body of Tribune to

help to

> > heal all wounds between the average citizens and the leaders of

the

> > Religio, and to reach an agreement and approuching.
> >
> > See? Sacrosainct body of Tribune! The marvelous of the Religio

Romana

> > and the Roman State! There wasn´t magistrature without religio

burden

> > on Ancient.
> >
> > That is why we love Rome, and want to recriate the Religio and

Roman

> > State. Because they were just one power... very beautiful concept
> > indeed.
> >
> > To Scaurus - Hold on! We are confident you are THE key on the

revival

> > of the Roman Religio.
> >
> > To Athanasius - The new hope. I´m sure he will take new breath to

the

> > Pontifices.
> >
> > To Iulianus - The old hope and the rope to keep things going!
> >
> > To Hadrianus - Biggest heart, soft wiseness, we need again your

heat!

> >
> > Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> > L. Arminius Faustus
> > Tribunus Plebis
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC"

<sacro_barese_impero@l...>

> > wrote:
> > > Salvete Omnes,
> > > why the not-pratictioners couldn't comment or judge the actions

of

> > > teh Collegium Pontificium? The Religio Romana is our National
> > > religion and it involves all the citizens. The decisions taken

by

> > > the CP could influence the laws, the society, the un-official

rules

> > > of this group, the feelings of the members. So it's quite

logical

> > > thinking that the decisions of the CP influences the not-
> > > pratictioners as the pratictioners.
> > > - Excursus: Tribune Faustus sent me an interesting note about
> > Cicero
> > > which was appointed augur and he didin't believed in teh

auguries -

> > > Thinking in this way, everyone here have the rights to comment

and

> > > have the own opinion on the CP and the national religion. It

seems

> > > that the discussions about the orthopraxy of the Religio Romana
> > > would confirm it. The Religio is not orthodoxe, the religious
> > > istitutions are not perfect and omnipotent. If they're, they

would

> > > be closer to the Medioeval Catholic Church that to the religion

of

> > > the Ancients. The concept of "the verity in the hands of few
> > peopel"
> > > is not roman, it's closer to the Christian or Islamic

integralism,

> > > closer to monopolystic and centralistic religions. This means

that

> > > the roman religious istitutions are ever under the judgement

too

> > > because they could be wrong because the verity is not of an

elite

> > of
> > > persons.
> > > The Ancients said "Vox Populi, Vox Deis" meaning that the

people

> > are
> > > the voice of the Gods, the Gods talk by the opinion of the

mass,

> > the
> > > opinion of the citizens are the highest judgement.
> > > This means in my opinion that Vox Populi is highest and more
> > > important than the voice of the istitutions which could be

judged

> > by
> > > the same citizens.
> > > Linking this last statements to the first statement, IMHO it's
> > quite
> > > easy think that the not-pratictioners should be able and should
> > have
> > > the rights to comment and to discuss and to judge the actions

of

> > the
> > > religious Istitutions because they could change their lifes in

NR.

> > >
> > > This is my personal opinion.
> > >
> > > valete
> > > Fr. Apulus CAesar

Jubilate, felix Argentina!

The Brazil and Latin America celebrates his sister province with this
new propraetor!

Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus
Propraetor of Brasilia (Brazil)



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "daniel villanueva"
<danielovi@c...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes.
>
> I am extremely glad that provincia Argentina has a new propraetor,

C. Argentinus Cicero. Congratulations!!! and Cheers!!!. I'm sure
you'll do an excellent job

>
> Estoy extremadamente contento que la provincia Argentina tiene

nuevo propraetor, C. Argentinus Cicero. Felicitaciones!!!! Y un
brindis por la nueva buena!!!!!. Estoy seguro que harás un excelente
trabajo!!!!

>
> Bene valete
> L. Pompeius Octavianus
>
>
> Ego sidera stellasque amo et semper amabo. Atque Romam antiquam.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve,

Excellent friend, welcome!

Another Arminius Faustus!
It indeed is a good omen - faustus means ´of good omen´, ´beloved by
the gods´ - it signs good time ahead for our Republic.

I receive you as another light for Gens Arminia, pride for Brasilia,
ledice for Latin America and hope for Nova Roma!!!

Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus - the old!


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, MArcelus Arminius Faustus
Mariliensis <mariliensis@y...> wrote:

>
> Salve
>
>
>
> Patriot Friends
>
>
>
> I guess you allow me to introduce myself.
>
>
>
> I´m a new citizen, my name is Marcelus Arminius Faustus

Mariliensis. I started to participate in Nova Roma some time ago, I
had problems but now I can retake my activities as a citizen.

>
>
>
> I have known Nova Roma throught the Propraetor Lucius Arminius

Faustus, a great friend and an honourable politician.

>
>
>
> I´m from brazil and I was born in a little city with the name of

Marilia (Mariliensis).

>
>
>
> I hope that my knowledge in the fields of engeneering, economy and

laws can help us to make a rich, strong, solid, progressive and
democratic motherland.

>
>
>
> I know about the laws code of New Rome and I´m going read it today,

anyway i´m going to send you the 5th article of the brazilian
constitution that says about the rights and the obligations of the
citizens.

>
>
>
>
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Marcelus Arminius Faustus Mariliensis
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger - Fale com seus amigos online. Instale agora!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<Sigh>

It seems that Pontifex Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus is 100% correct,
some people only see what they wish to beleave.

Fuscus, every time you post your unwillingness to grasp the most basic
concepts of the Religio Romana only strengthens my argument that there
are people in Nova Roma who lack the qualifications to determine the
policies of the Religio Romana.

Since you are so adamant that Fabia Vera become a Priest, why don't
you trot over to the Vatican and harangue the Bishop of Rome into
dropping his "Taliban" policy on female Priests, and naming her a Bishop?

While you are at it remind him that that he needs to call a General
Council of the Church with the authority to change Ritual & Dogma, and
to insure that the majority of it's personal are Hindus and Atheists.

That is pretty much the same thing that you are asking of the Religio
Romana.

Drusus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Domitius Constantinus Fuscus"
<dom.con.fus@f...> wrote:

> Ave omnes
>
> From a non Religio export, just a bit of logic:
>
> > In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all of
> > the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time knew
> > details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown to the
> > most learned moderns.
>
> By logic, then, if is lost to even the most learned moderns, you and

me or

> anyone else in Nova Roma have exactly the same degree of knowledge

on the

> matter.
>
> > Attempting to determine Religous policy without the knowledege that
> > the Ancient population had is a threat to the Pax Deorum and to the
> > Republic.
>
> Again, if the Religio is mostly unknown, your attempt is as good as

it can

> be my attempt or the attempt of anyone's else in NR, and just as

prone to

> cause the wrath of the Gods for mishandling of a ceremonial.
>
> Now, not saying that in order to promote myself as a pontiff, just to
> outline the absurdity of saying that, on one side, no one knows anything
> (your words "details about the Religio that are now lost to time and

unknown

> to the most learned moderns"), on the other affirming the you can

dictate a

> policy about things you (as anyone else) have no idea whatsoever

given that

> it didn't make it to modern days.
>
> Ad here comes another question.. of some rites we know well enough.

Scaurus

> himself a few days ago reminded us of the practice of the male

sacerdotes of

> the magna mater to castrate themselves... now, I guess they knew,

back then,

> what as supposed to be the correct praxis to appease the Magna

Mater... does

> it mean that we'll start asking the first male who volunteers to be a
> sacerdos of the Magna Mater to castrate himself because orthopraxy

has to be

> followed? What about Vesta, shall we submit the applicants to be
> sacerdotesses to a gynaecological visit?
>
> I can understand the CP stand of being the herald of strict

reconsructionism

> and a fundamentalist vision of the Religio and the tradition (for

instance,

> the fact you do not accept women as pontifices, that brought the taliban
> comment you so much disliked), but then, if orthopraxis is so

fundamental

> that you have to expel people from the religious order about it, you

should

> also embrace and support even the most, to most modern eyes,

unacceptable

> rites that were associated with the Religio, because not performing

them or

> performing them in a different way would, following your reason,

displease

> the gods. Or orthopraxis is only good when you have to expel someone

from

> your order for not being a fan of yours?
>
> Vale
>
> DCF
>
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis
> Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini
>
> > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > Da: Lucius Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@b...]
> > Inviato: venerdì 4 giugno 2004 15.20
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Are non-practitioners right to comment?

(WAS: the

> > myth...)
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Could you please consider how different our situatition is from that
> > of Antiquita?
> >
> > In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all of
> > the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time knew
> > details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown to the
> > most learned moderns.
> >
> > In Nove Roma a very large percentage of the citizens are
> > non-beleavers, and most of those who do attempt to honor the Gods are
> > still in the process of learning how to do it.
> >
> > The Citizens of 2000 years ago had the knowledge to determine Religous
> > policy. Most of the citizens of today lack the knowledge to determine
> > the fine points of policy, and a large percentage of them are as
> > qualified to determine it as I am to be Nova Roma's Chinese Translator
> > (A Language that I don't speak a word of).
> >
> > Attempting to determine Religous policy without the knowledege that
> > the Ancient population had is a threat to the Pax Deorum and to the
> > Republic.
> >
> > The Pontiffs have a far harder task than the Pontiffs of the Republic.
> > The Republican Pontiffs only had to maintain a Religion that had
> > existed for hundreds of years. We face the task that is similar to
> > that of King Numa, of deciding what needs to be done, of when it needs
> > to be done. There are gaps in the historic record that have to be
> > filled in.
> >
> > In one respect we face a harder task that King Numa did. He was
> > dealing with a population that was seeped in traditions that were far
> > older than the Religio, while we have a population that has learned
> > many traditions that are totally alien to the Religio Romana.
> >
> > There is no way in Hades that the Religio Romana can be re-established
> > with assemblies of unqualified people looking over the shoulders of
> > the Pontiffs and interfering in maters that they have no knowledge of.
> > Attempting this will change the Religion in Nova Roma to a hybrid
> > between a Pop New Age Cult and a Role Playing Game rather than the
> > Religio Romana.
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > Pontifex
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
> > <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > I make my voice echo of my colleague.
> > >
> > > We shouldn´t encastle the roman religio. State and Religio on Rome
> > > were one, not two powers like we have now - Nowadays NR seems more a
> > > Middle Ages´ kingdom ("This is the matter of the Bishops and the
> > > Church, Kings and nobility!").
> > >
> > > However, I offer myself and my sacrosainct body of Tribune to

help to

> > > heal all wounds between the average citizens and the leaders of the
> > > Religio, and to reach an agreement and approuching.
> > >
> > > See? Sacrosainct body of Tribune! The marvelous of the Religio

Romana

> > > and the Roman State! There wasn´t magistrature without religio

burden

> > > on Ancient.
> > >
> > > That is why we love Rome, and want to recriate the Religio and Roman
> > > State. Because they were just one power... very beautiful concept
> > > indeed.
> > >
> > > To Scaurus - Hold on! We are confident you are THE key on the

revival

> > > of the Roman Religio.
> > >
> > > To Athanasius - The new hope. I´m sure he will take new breath

to the

> > > Pontifices.
> > >
> > > To Iulianus - The old hope and the rope to keep things going!
> > >
> > > To Hadrianus - Biggest heart, soft wiseness, we need again your

heat!

> > >
> > > Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> > > L. Arminius Faustus
> > > Tribunus Plebis
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <sacro_barese_impero@l...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Salvete Omnes,
> > > > why the not-pratictioners couldn't comment or judge the actions of
> > > > teh Collegium Pontificium? The Religio Romana is our National
> > > > religion and it involves all the citizens. The decisions taken by
> > > > the CP could influence the laws, the society, the un-official

rules

> > > > of this group, the feelings of the members. So it's quite logical
> > > > thinking that the decisions of the CP influences the not-
> > > > pratictioners as the pratictioners.
> > > > - Excursus: Tribune Faustus sent me an interesting note about
> > > Cicero
> > > > which was appointed augur and he didin't believed in teh

auguries -

> > > > Thinking in this way, everyone here have the rights to comment and
> > > > have the own opinion on the CP and the national religion. It seems
> > > > that the discussions about the orthopraxy of the Religio Romana
> > > > would confirm it. The Religio is not orthodoxe, the religious
> > > > istitutions are not perfect and omnipotent. If they're, they would
> > > > be closer to the Medioeval Catholic Church that to the religion of
> > > > the Ancients. The concept of "the verity in the hands of few
> > > peopel"
> > > > is not roman, it's closer to the Christian or Islamic integralism,
> > > > closer to monopolystic and centralistic religions. This means that
> > > > the roman religious istitutions are ever under the judgement too
> > > > because they could be wrong because the verity is not of an elite
> > > of
> > > > persons.
> > > > The Ancients said "Vox Populi, Vox Deis" meaning that the people
> > > are
> > > > the voice of the Gods, the Gods talk by the opinion of the mass,
> > > the
> > > > opinion of the citizens are the highest judgement.
> > > > This means in my opinion that Vox Populi is highest and more
> > > > important than the voice of the istitutions which could be judged
> > > by
> > > > the same citizens.
> > > > Linking this last statements to the first statement, IMHO it's
> > > quite
> > > > easy think that the not-pratictioners should be able and should
> > > have
> > > > the rights to comment and to discuss and to judge the actions of
> > > the
> > > > religious Istitutions because they could change their lifes in NR.
> > > >
> > > > This is my personal opinion.
> > > >
> > > > valete
> > > > Fr. Apulus CAesar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Domitio Constantino Fusco S.P.D.

Salve.

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus wrote:

>Ave omnes
>
>>From a non Religio export, just a bit of logic:
>
>
>
>>In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all of
>>the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time knew
>>details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown to the
>>most learned moderns.
>>
>>
>
>By logic, then, if is lost to even the most learned moderns, you and me or
>anyone else in Nova Roma have exactly the same degree of knowledge on the
>matter.
>
>
>

You are twisting his words. What my colleague is saying that the average
ancient Roman undoubtable took for granted some knowledge about the
Religio that escapes scholars today. He is *not* implying that we know
nothing of the Religio or that there are not experts on Roman Religion
today who know far more than the average layperson. I can safely say I
know more about the Religio than *most* citizens, and I can also safely
say that there are other members of the Collegium Pontificum who know a
hell of lot more than I do (Gaius Iulius Scarus being the obvious example).

>>Attempting to determine Religous policy without the knowledege that
>>the Ancient population had is a threat to the Pax Deorum and to the
>>Republic.
>>
>>
>
>Again, if the Religio is mostly unknown, your attempt is as good as it can
>be my attempt or the attempt of anyone's else in NR, and just as prone to
>cause the wrath of the Gods for mishandling of a ceremonial.
>
>Now, not saying that in order to promote myself as a pontiff, just to
>outline the absurdity of saying that, on one side, no one knows anything
>(your words "details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown
>to the most learned moderns"), on the other affirming the you can dictate a
>policy about things you (as anyone else) have no idea whatsoever given that
>it didn't make it to modern days.
>
>
>

There is a world of difference between saying that there are details
about the Religio of which we know nothing today and your comment "no
one knows anything". Actually we know quite a lot, but there are enough
missing pieces to require careful, systematic, academic study to
reconstruct the Religio. What Scarus is saying, is that we cannot run
around willy-nilly trying to include every citizens whims on what the
State Religion should or should not be. That is why we have the
Collegium Pontificum - to ensure an orderly, accurate and consistant
reconstruction of the Roman State Religion.

>Ad here comes another question.. of some rites we know well enough. Scaurus
>himself a few days ago reminded us of the practice of the male sacerdotes of
>the magna mater to castrate themselves... now, I guess they knew, back then,
>what as supposed to be the correct praxis to appease the Magna Mater... does
>it mean that we'll start asking the first male who volunteers to be a
>sacerdos of the Magna Mater to castrate himself because orthopraxy has to be
>followed? What about Vesta, shall we submit the applicants to be
>sacerdotesses to a gynaecological visit?
>
>

Well if anyone plans on becoiming a Gallus, that is thier call. I
wouldn't consider it an issue for Nova Roma in any case, since the Galli
were *prohibited* from being Roman citizens. As far as Vestals go, we
will take them on their word.

>I can understand the CP stand of being the herald of strict reconsructionism
>and a fundamentalist vision of the Religio and the tradition (for instance,
>the fact you do not accept women as pontifices, that brought the taliban
>comment you so much disliked), but then, if orthopraxis is so fundamental
>that you have to expel people from the religious order about it, you should
>also embrace and support even the most, to most modern eyes, unacceptable
>rites that were associated with the Religio, because not performing them or
>performing them in a different way would, following your reason, displease
>the gods. Or orthopraxis is only good when you have to expel someone from
>your order for not being a fan of yours?
>
>
>

Let's set some things straight. There have been female Pontifices in the
past. There is currently a hold on accepting the applications of female
Pontifices until G. Iulius Scarus completes some research into the
matter. The issue is *not* decided by any means.

I find the analogy between the Taliban and the Collegium Pontificum
repugnant and absurd. Is the Roman Catholic Church comparable to the
Taliban because it does not ordain female Priests? What about Orthodox
Jews for not having female Rabbis? If the Collegium Pontificum
ultimately rules that only men can be Pontiffs, it will be because Pax
Deorum requires it. Would you suggest we open the College of Vestals to
men? Or perhaps, in the name of equality, allow men to participate in
the worship of the Bona Dea? After all, it really wouldn't be fair to
exclude them would it? We should have female Salli of course, and how
could we deny the application of a female citizen to become the Rex
Sacorum? That would be chauvinistic and misogynistic of us if we said no
(note sarcasm).

Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta was expelled because she denied the authority of
the Collegium over her. That is the crux of the issue. Here is an
experiment for you: When you go to work tomorrow, go up to your boss and
loudly proclaim in front of all your co-workers that he or she has not
rightful authority over you, and any attempts to exert such authority
are solely motivated by prejudice/racism/disregard for you rights/etc.
Also, send out plenty of e-mails to your co-workers proclaiming the same
(don't forget to CC: your boss!). Assuming he or she takes you seriously
(and doesn't assume you've had a breakdown) I expect you'll find
yourself in a similar position as Sp. Fabia Vera - sacked.

>Vale
>
>DCF
>
>PF Constantinia
>Aedilis Urbis
>Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini
>
>
>

Vale bene,

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix
Pontifex et Minerva Templi Sacerdotes

Drusus

I'm sorry that you are so annoyed at your own statement that no on knows
about some details of the Religio (which logically brings to the point you
know just as much as anyone else in the world about those details) that you
have to retort over the Pope. I know that saying things that make one's own
authority position weaker is terribly annoying, but at least I would have
chosen another comparison, if I had been you...

And in fact, given that YOU (again) raised the issue, I remind you that in
the catholic church, once you are a priest, you are always a priest, even if
you get excommunicated for not following the proper rituals. The principle
is that once you are sanctified (anointed), no one can remove that "plus"
that you got, not even the Pope... More, not even the Pope can "un-priest"
the female priests ordained by the Anglican bishops, for instance. So you
see, Fabia Vera, mutatis mutandis, couldn't had been removed from "office"
:) YOU got another wrong example there... sorry.

Funny thing, you said you have to basically invent things because you do not
know them (your words were " There are gaps in the historic record that have
to be filled in."), yet you expel someone for refusing to follow the
rituals... that you are not sure if are right or not in the first place...
ah well, logic... such a complicated thing.

All that, NOT to say that the College Pontificum doesn't have the authority
to put policies abou the cult in place, because it has it following the
Constitution and therefore I'm the first to say it has, just that maybe some
of the pontifices should be a tad more careful in saying things like the one
you said, because you undermine your own authority... see, I'm even trying
to help you, after all.


DCF

PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis
Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Lucius Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@...]
> Inviato: venerdì 4 giugno 2004 21.17
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Oggetto: A reflection and some questions (was: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Are non-
> practitioners r
>
> <Sigh>
>
> It seems that Pontifex Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus is 100% correct,
> some people only see what they wish to beleave.
>
> Fuscus, every time you post your unwillingness to grasp the most basic
> concepts of the Religio Romana only strengthens my argument that there
> are people in Nova Roma who lack the qualifications to determine the
> policies of the Religio Romana.
>
> Since you are so adamant that Fabia Vera become a Priest, why don't
> you trot over to the Vatican and harangue the Bishop of Rome into
> dropping his "Taliban" policy on female Priests, and naming her a Bishop?
>
> While you are at it remind him that that he needs to call a General
> Council of the Church with the authority to change Ritual & Dogma, and
> to insure that the majority of it's personal are Hindus and Atheists.
>
> That is pretty much the same thing that you are asking of the Religio
> Romana.
>
> Drusus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Domitius Constantinus Fuscus"
> <dom.con.fus@f...> wrote:
> > Ave omnes
> >
> > From a non Religio export, just a bit of logic:
> >
> > > In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all of
> > > the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time knew
> > > details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown to the
> > > most learned moderns.
> >
> > By logic, then, if is lost to even the most learned moderns, you and
> me or
> > anyone else in Nova Roma have exactly the same degree of knowledge
> on the
> > matter.
> >
> > > Attempting to determine Religous policy without the knowledege that
> > > the Ancient population had is a threat to the Pax Deorum and to the
> > > Republic.
> >
> > Again, if the Religio is mostly unknown, your attempt is as good as
> it can
> > be my attempt or the attempt of anyone's else in NR, and just as
> prone to
> > cause the wrath of the Gods for mishandling of a ceremonial.
> >
> > Now, not saying that in order to promote myself as a pontiff, just to
> > outline the absurdity of saying that, on one side, no one knows anything
> > (your words "details about the Religio that are now lost to time and
> unknown
> > to the most learned moderns"), on the other affirming the you can
> dictate a
> > policy about things you (as anyone else) have no idea whatsoever
> given that
> > it didn't make it to modern days.
> >
> > Ad here comes another question.. of some rites we know well enough.
> Scaurus
> > himself a few days ago reminded us of the practice of the male
> sacerdotes of
> > the magna mater to castrate themselves... now, I guess they knew,
> back then,
> > what as supposed to be the correct praxis to appease the Magna
> Mater... does
> > it mean that we'll start asking the first male who volunteers to be a
> > sacerdos of the Magna Mater to castrate himself because orthopraxy
> has to be
> > followed? What about Vesta, shall we submit the applicants to be
> > sacerdotesses to a gynaecological visit?
> >
> > I can understand the CP stand of being the herald of strict
> reconsructionism
> > and a fundamentalist vision of the Religio and the tradition (for
> instance,
> > the fact you do not accept women as pontifices, that brought the taliban
> > comment you so much disliked), but then, if orthopraxis is so
> fundamental
> > that you have to expel people from the religious order about it, you
> should
> > also embrace and support even the most, to most modern eyes,
> unacceptable
> > rites that were associated with the Religio, because not performing
> them or
> > performing them in a different way would, following your reason,
> displease
> > the gods. Or orthopraxis is only good when you have to expel someone
> from
> > your order for not being a fan of yours?
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > DCF
> >
> > PF Constantinia
> > Aedilis Urbis
> > Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini
> >
> > > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > > Da: Lucius Sicinius Drusus [mailto:drusus@b...]
> > > Inviato: venerdì 4 giugno 2004 15.20
> > > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Are non-practitioners right to comment?
> (WAS: the
> > > myth...)
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > Could you please consider how different our situatition is from that
> > > of Antiquita?
> > >
> > > In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all of
> > > the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time knew
> > > details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown to the
> > > most learned moderns.
> > >
> > > In Nove Roma a very large percentage of the citizens are
> > > non-beleavers, and most of those who do attempt to honor the Gods are
> > > still in the process of learning how to do it.
> > >
> > > The Citizens of 2000 years ago had the knowledge to determine Religous
> > > policy. Most of the citizens of today lack the knowledge to determine
> > > the fine points of policy, and a large percentage of them are as
> > > qualified to determine it as I am to be Nova Roma's Chinese Translator
> > > (A Language that I don't speak a word of).
> > >
> > > Attempting to determine Religous policy without the knowledege that
> > > the Ancient population had is a threat to the Pax Deorum and to the
> > > Republic.
> > >
> > > The Pontiffs have a far harder task than the Pontiffs of the Republic.
> > > The Republican Pontiffs only had to maintain a Religion that had
> > > existed for hundreds of years. We face the task that is similar to
> > > that of King Numa, of deciding what needs to be done, of when it needs
> > > to be done. There are gaps in the historic record that have to be
> > > filled in.
> > >
> > > In one respect we face a harder task that King Numa did. He was
> > > dealing with a population that was seeped in traditions that were far
> > > older than the Religio, while we have a population that has learned
> > > many traditions that are totally alien to the Religio Romana.
> > >
> > > There is no way in Hades that the Religio Romana can be re-established
> > > with assemblies of unqualified people looking over the shoulders of
> > > the Pontiffs and interfering in maters that they have no knowledge of.
> > > Attempting this will change the Religion in Nova Roma to a hybrid
> > > between a Pop New Age Cult and a Role Playing Game rather than the
> > > Religio Romana.
> > >
> > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > > Pontifex
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Arminius Faustus"
> > > <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > > > Salve,
> > > >
> > > > I make my voice echo of my colleague.
> > > >
> > > > We shouldn´t encastle the roman religio. State and Religio on Rome
> > > > were one, not two powers like we have now - Nowadays NR seems more a
> > > > Middle Ages´ kingdom ("This is the matter of the Bishops and the
> > > > Church, Kings and nobility!").
> > > >
> > > > However, I offer myself and my sacrosainct body of Tribune to
> help to
> > > > heal all wounds between the average citizens and the leaders of the
> > > > Religio, and to reach an agreement and approuching.
> > > >
> > > > See? Sacrosainct body of Tribune! The marvelous of the Religio
> Romana
> > > > and the Roman State! There wasn´t magistrature without religio
> burden
> > > > on Ancient.
> > > >
> > > > That is why we love Rome, and want to recriate the Religio and Roman
> > > > State. Because they were just one power... very beautiful concept
> > > > indeed.
> > > >
> > > > To Scaurus - Hold on! We are confident you are THE key on the
> revival
> > > > of the Roman Religio.
> > > >
> > > > To Athanasius - The new hope. I´m sure he will take new breath
> to the
> > > > Pontifices.
> > > >
> > > > To Iulianus - The old hope and the rope to keep things going!
> > > >
> > > > To Hadrianus - Biggest heart, soft wiseness, we need again your
> heat!
> > > >
> > > > Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> > > > L. Arminius Faustus
> > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <sacro_barese_impero@l...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Salvete Omnes,
> > > > > why the not-pratictioners couldn't comment or judge the actions of
> > > > > teh Collegium Pontificium? The Religio Romana is our National
> > > > > religion and it involves all the citizens. The decisions taken by
> > > > > the CP could influence the laws, the society, the un-official
> rules
> > > > > of this group, the feelings of the members. So it's quite logical
> > > > > thinking that the decisions of the CP influences the not-
> > > > > pratictioners as the pratictioners.
> > > > > - Excursus: Tribune Faustus sent me an interesting note about
> > > > Cicero
> > > > > which was appointed augur and he didin't believed in teh
> auguries -
> > > > > Thinking in this way, everyone here have the rights to comment and
> > > > > have the own opinion on the CP and the national religion. It seems
> > > > > that the discussions about the orthopraxy of the Religio Romana
> > > > > would confirm it. The Religio is not orthodoxe, the religious
> > > > > istitutions are not perfect and omnipotent. If they're, they would
> > > > > be closer to the Medioeval Catholic Church that to the religion of
> > > > > the Ancients. The concept of "the verity in the hands of few
> > > > peopel"
> > > > > is not roman, it's closer to the Christian or Islamic integralism,
> > > > > closer to monopolystic and centralistic religions. This means that
> > > > > the roman religious istitutions are ever under the judgement too
> > > > > because they could be wrong because the verity is not of an elite
> > > > of
> > > > > persons.
> > > > > The Ancients said "Vox Populi, Vox Deis" meaning that the people
> > > > are
> > > > > the voice of the Gods, the Gods talk by the opinion of the mass,
> > > > the
> > > > > opinion of the citizens are the highest judgement.
> > > > > This means in my opinion that Vox Populi is highest and more
> > > > > important than the voice of the istitutions which could be judged
> > > > by
> > > > > the same citizens.
> > > > > Linking this last statements to the first statement, IMHO it's
> > > > quite
> > > > > easy think that the not-pratictioners should be able and should
> > > > have
> > > > > the rights to comment and to discuss and to judge the actions of
> > > > the
> > > > > religious Istitutions because they could change their lifes in NR.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is my personal opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > valete
> > > > > Fr. Apulus CAesar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>