> Salvete:
>
> I have a question on the topic of Vestal Virgins.
>
> I seem to remember reading an article in "Archaeology"

>
> Is this correct?
>
> Valete.
>
> L. Suetonius Nerva

----- Original Message -----
From: aoctaviaindagatrix
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 4:35 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Priesthoods (was Resignation)


Salve Wes,

While I'm not in the CP and so they would need to give an official
answer, I think we've had this happen before and it was quite a
fracas. Please do a search in the archives if you are interested. It
was a few years ago.
Personally, I don't think a male would qualify. I believe there is
sufficient evidence to support the idea that it wasn't just
virginity that separated the vestals, but the fact that they were
female. I don't put any of that new-age spin on it, but the
connotations with the hearth, for one, are good indicators.

Vale,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix

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

> > Has Nova Roma ever repealed the decisions of Roma Antiqua that
> outlawed the
> > worship of the Gods? I don't think so.
>
> Annia Oct.: In my opinion, the contract with the gods was broken,
> not just put in abeyance, and must be entirely renegotiated. That
> means starting out with repealing the laws put in place in RA that
> banned it. The CP would have an enormous amount of work to do in
> this respect. It would mean changes to old formulae and that is
> never an easy thing to accept.
> >
> > Valete;
> >
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> Valete,
> Annia Octavia Indagatrix

> However, I still believe the last sentence of II
> (B)(4) should be applied only in cases of blatant
> disrespect to the Religio Romana or remarks intended
> for the purposes of vilification. Good taste is too
> mutable a concept upon which to justify reprimand.

> .... I would imagine that a public day of
> fasting, and the
> actual repeal by the NR Senate of the Code of Law
> that Theodosius
> promulgated regarding religion would be necessary.

>Salve all,
>    I have not yet joined Nova Roma as a citizen, but I  am curious if a
>Vestal Virgin would have to be a woman. I've always been  intrigued by the Religio
>and think that it would be an honor to serve  Vesta.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Wes
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

>Salvete,
>
>I agree. I think it's very demanding to keep a vow of virginity the whole time one serves as a Vestal. In ancient times, a Vestal was selected while she was still merely a child. She would have not known the importance of sex and marriage. The Romans would not have selected a female who wasn't pure. We are already going against what is traditional. After one serves as a Vestal, they will go back to their sexuality. It's more like an inconvenience to them that they have to keep this vow. I don't think one should view their rituals and vows to a God in that manner. I think the Vestal should abstain for 24 hours before conducting a ritual. That way they could "purify" themselves before an important ritual. The Vestal should also abstain the day of the ritual. I'm not sure if the idea is good, but it's just a thought.

> A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Equitius Cato, and to all
> citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> > .... I would imagine that a public day of
> > fasting, and the
> > actual repeal by the NR Senate of the Code of Law
> > that Theodosius
> > promulgated regarding religion would be necessary.
>
> While we're at it, surely it would make sense to
> repeal in one swoop the entirety of imperial
> legislation from Augustus onwards? We may later find a
> couple of bits which are worth keeping, and those can
> be re-enacted explicitly; but since we reject the
> principate in principle, it would make sense to repeal
> the laws which made it possible and which flowed from
> it. And of course that would include all the
> anti-religio legislation of the late empire.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW

> Salvete;
> this situation of the Vestals doesn't necessarily have to revolve
>around the problem of celibacy.
>     Pontifex Gryllus a while ago on the Religio list make the
>learned case that the polluting element came from the male and that
>it would be entirely correct to have gay women as Vestals. I think
>this is a superb idea. So many gay people are discriminated against
>in religions, it would be wonderful  instead to honour these women
>and for them to receive the respect, honour and gratitude of Nova
>Romans.
>   bene valete
> M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

>   Finally I have a request would would please sign with your noble
>station; all Roma is in your debt due to your devotion to Vesta. why
>aren't you in the Collegium Pontificum?  Scheid includes the Vestals
>in the pontifical college ( see p.130-134 in "Roman Religion")
>       bene vale
>   M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

> I'm assuming you were being serious :-) because I
> agree.

> ... The
> question would be, though, would each law need to be
> repealed
> individually, or could the Senate simply issue some
> sort of grand
> statement repealing them all at once? Would it be
> the Senate? Or
> would it have to be submitted to the Comitiae? It
> could be turned
> into quite a grand day of festivities world-wide for
> Nova Roma.

> Also, there wouldn't be a problem regarding
> non-practitioners' faiths
> because our private faiths are guaranteed in the
> Constitution (I was
> thinking that the Edict of Milan would be thereby
> revoked).

>Novaromanae S.P.D. Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>
>S.V.B.E.E.V.
>
>It has come to my attention that the current disposition of the
>old "main list" has not been made public.
>
>As I informed our Consul, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, Senator Decius
>Iunius Palladius, and Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (who had
>specifically inquired about it at Roman days) several weeks ago, I
>have secured technical ownership of the old main list from my wife
>(who, as you will recall, was responsible for shutting it down,
>completely independent from my influence), and will happily place it
>at the disposal of the Republic for whatever purpose it may be
>deemed to be of most use.
>
>Naturally, I am more than happy to transfer technical ownership to
>anyone who might be officially designated as being empowered to
>receive it. I am also more than happy to retain such ownership on
>behalf of the Republic. I am completely at the disposal of the
>Republic in this matter, as I am in all things.
>
>Di te incolumem custodiant,
>
>Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>Pater Patriae
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius Gn. Equitio Cato salutem dicit
>
> Very good idea. Perhaps a first step would be for the Collegium to
declare
> Theodosius sacer, with the name of Impious and recommend the Senate
repeal the
> consulta issued that removed the contract with the Gods.
>
> Vale;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 7/11/2004 6:07:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mlcinnyc@y... writes:
>
> CATO: The "covenant" or "contract" between the Roman State and the
> Roman Gods has indeed been shattered, and has been since at *least*
> the days of (Flavius) Theodosius I "the Great". The In A.D. 391
> Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in
> the Roman Senate (Gibbon, "Decline and Fall", xxviii), he did *not*
> order its removal (the NR Main Page is incorrect on that count).
> Pagan sacrifices, omens, and witchcraft were to be punished as
loesa
> majestas (Cod. Theod., XVI, X, 10-12). If Constantine I "the Great"
> started chipping away at the religio, it was Theodosius who truly
> destroyed it. I would imagine that a public day of fasting, and
the
> actual repeal by the NR Senate of the Code of Law that Theodosius
> promulgated regarding religion would be necessary.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> [Please, to the moderators: the following questions are

>
> (1) How were potential Vestals confirmed as virgins? Was a

> the hymen?

>
> CATO: The "covenant" or "contract" between the Roman State and the
> Roman Gods has indeed been shattered, and has been since at *least*
> the days of (Flavius) Theodosius I "the Great". The In A.D. 391
> Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in
> the Roman Senate (Gibbon, "Decline and Fall", xxviii), he did *not*
> order its removal (the NR Main Page is incorrect on that count).
> Pagan sacrifices, omens, and witchcraft were to be punished as loesa
> majestas (Cod. Theod., XVI, X, 10-12). If Constantine I "the Great"
> started chipping away at the religio, it was Theodosius who truly
> destroyed it. I would imagine that a public day of fasting, and the
> actual repeal by the NR Senate of the Code of Law that Theodosius
> promulgated regarding religion would be necessary.
>

> G. Equitius Cato G. Modio Athanasio quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> salve et salvete.
>
> Modius Athanasius, while I agree with the sentiment behind your post,
> perhaps rather than pinpointing Theodosius I by declaring
> him "impious" and thereby specifically poking Christianity with a
> sharp stick (much as we may deserve it in the eyes of practitioners
> of the religio), I think simply revoking Imperial Law since the
> assumption of the Principate would suffice.
>
> Another question is: how do we codify the laws that existed up until
> that time? That's a lot of law to grind through...
>
> vale et valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius Gn. Equitio Cato salutem dicit
> >
> > Very good idea. Perhaps a first step would be for the Collegium to
> declare
> > Theodosius sacer, with the name of Impious and recommend the Senate
> repeal the
> > consulta issued that removed the contract with the Gods.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> >
> > In a message dated 7/11/2004 6:07:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > mlcinnyc@y... writes:
> >
> > CATO: The "covenant" or "contract" between the Roman State and the
> > Roman Gods has indeed been shattered, and has been since at *least*
> > the days of (Flavius) Theodosius I "the Great". The In A.D. 391
> > Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in
> > the Roman Senate (Gibbon, "Decline and Fall", xxviii), he did *not*
> > order its removal (the NR Main Page is incorrect on that count).
> > Pagan sacrifices, omens, and witchcraft were to be punished as
> loesa
> > majestas (Cod. Theod., XVI, X, 10-12). If Constantine I "the Great"
> > started chipping away at the religio, it was Theodosius who truly
> > destroyed it. I would imagine that a public day of fasting, and
> the
> > actual repeal by the NR Senate of the Code of Law that Theodosius
> > promulgated regarding religion would be necessary.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>The Altar of Victory was first removed by Constantius in 356 CE, It
>was Restored by Julian, removed a second time by Gratian restored
>again by Eugenius against the wishes of Theodosius, and removed a
>final time by Theodosius after he defeated Eugenius. Theodosius went
>beyond the earlier two removals however and cowed the Senate into
>passing a Consulta that formally broke Rome's ancient alliance with
>the Imortals.

>My Personal belief is that the restoration of the Pax Deorum will
>require repudation of Theodosius as well as the invalidation of the
>Consulta he rammed through the Senate with an Army at his back.

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Sicinius Drusus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:14 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Priesthoods (was Resignation)


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

>
> CATO: The "covenant" or "contract" between the Roman State and the
> Roman Gods has indeed been shattered, and has been since at *least*
> the days of (Flavius) Theodosius I "the Great". The In A.D. 391
> Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in
> the Roman Senate (Gibbon, "Decline and Fall", xxviii), he did *not*
> order its removal (the NR Main Page is incorrect on that count).
> Pagan sacrifices, omens, and witchcraft were to be punished as loesa
> majestas (Cod. Theod., XVI, X, 10-12). If Constantine I "the Great"
> started chipping away at the religio, it was Theodosius who truly
> destroyed it. I would imagine that a public day of fasting, and the
> actual repeal by the NR Senate of the Code of Law that Theodosius
> promulgated regarding religion would be necessary.
>

Drusus



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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

> Modius Athanasius, while I agree with the sentiment behind your post,
> perhaps rather than pinpointing Theodosius I by declaring
> him "impious" and thereby specifically poking Christianity with a
> sharp stick (much as we may deserve it in the eyes of practitioners
> of the religio), I think simply revoking Imperial Law since the
> assumption of the Principate would suffice.

----- Original Message -----
From: John Walzer
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Priesthoods (was Resignation)


Salvete:

L. Sicinius Drusus has said:

>The Altar of Victory was first removed by Constantius in 356 CE, It
>was Restored by Julian, removed a second time by Gratian restored
>again by Eugenius against the wishes of Theodosius, and removed a
>final time by Theodosius after he defeated Eugenius. Theodosius went
>beyond the earlier two removals however and cowed the Senate into
>passing a Consulta that formally broke Rome's ancient alliance with
>the Imortals.

>My Personal belief is that the restoration of the Pax Deorum will
>require repudation of Theodosius as well as the invalidation of the
>Consulta he rammed through the Senate with an Army at his back.

The problem, Drusus, is that many have been indoctrinated with the
idea that Theodosius was truly, "great." Few can justify the sobriquet, but
they adhere to it out of consistency.

Was Theodosius' act, in fact, the defining moment which separated the pagan
from the Christian Roman Empire?

According to one site, "Theodosius progressively forbade public sacrifices, closed temples,
and colluded in frequent acts of local violence by Christians.

"....The eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished and the Vestal
Virgins were disbanded.

"Pagan members of the Senate in Rome appealed to him to restore the Altar of Victory in the
Senate House; he refused."

In light of the foregoing, I believe Drusus' claim deserves serious consideration.

Valete

L. Suetonius Nerva


----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Sicinius Drusus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:14 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Priesthoods (was Resignation)


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

>
> CATO: The "covenant" or "contract" between the Roman State and the
> Roman Gods has indeed been shattered, and has been since at *least*
> the days of (Flavius) Theodosius I "the Great". The In A.D. 391
> Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in
> the Roman Senate (Gibbon, "Decline and Fall", xxviii), he did *not*
> order its removal (the NR Main Page is incorrect on that count).
> Pagan sacrifices, omens, and witchcraft were to be punished as loesa
> majestas (Cod. Theod., XVI, X, 10-12). If Constantine I "the Great"
> started chipping away at the religio, it was Theodosius who truly
> destroyed it. I would imagine that a public day of fasting, and the
> actual repeal by the NR Senate of the Code of Law that Theodosius
> promulgated regarding religion would be necessary.
>

Drusus




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

>
> The idea of male vestals illuminates the knife-edge walked by
> an organization such as Nova Roma: where do we draw the line
> between faithful adherence to our illustrious model and practical
> acknowledgement of modern sensibilities?

----- Original Message -----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 7:47 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: [Nova Roma] Male/Female Vestals


Novaromanae S.P.D. Flavius Vedius Germanicus

S.V.B.E.E.V.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Walzer" <jwalzer5@c...>
wrote:
>
> The idea of male vestals illuminates the knife-edge walked by
> an organization such as Nova Roma: where do we draw the line
> between faithful adherence to our illustrious model and practical
> acknowledgement of modern sensibilities?

I am all in favor of bowing to modern sensibilities where it is
absolutely required, but I honestly cannot believe this idea is
being seriously entertained.

Male Vestals?

Are you NUTS???

I confess I didn't protest strongly when we appointed a Chief Vestal
(with two kids) who vowed to be celebate during her term. And I was
wrong in that; there are certain things that you just don't mess
with, and the Vestals are one of those things (in more ways than
one).

But male Vestals??? Sweet merciful Gods! Have we really descended to
this level?

My original thought was to use the Vestals as something analogous to
the Christian "true love waits" movement. Encourage young girls of
virtue to pledge to remain chaste, and serve Vesta, until such time
as they marry, at which time they could resign their positions as
Vestals.

Not the traditional 30 years, perhaps, but certainly a damn sight
better than making a complete mockery of the institution of the
Vestals by suggesting that men would be acceptable substitutes.

And as far as the lesbian idea goes... I honestly don't see how it
is even an issue. Virginity is virginity.

Di vos incolumes custodiant,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

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

> G. Equitius Cato L. Seutonio Nervae L. Sicinio Druso quiritbusque
> S.P.D.
>
> salvete, omnes.
>
>
> While I find it distasteful in the extreme to do so, I understand the
> reasoning behind the desire to repudiate Theodosius I, and declare
> him sacer. I went to the links provided by Cornelius Sulla (thank
> you, Censor Suffectus), and I was struck by the words of Symmachus,
> Praefect of Rome, who begged the emperor to allow the restoration of
> the Altar of Victory:
>
> "Let us now suppose that Rome is present and addresses you in these
> words: 'Excellent princes, fathers of your country, respect my years
> to which pious rites have brought me. Let me use the ancestral
> ceremonies, for I do not repent of them. Let me live after my own
> fashion, for I am free. This worship subdued the world to my laws,
> these sacred rites repelled Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones
> from the capitol. Have I been reserved for this, that in my old age I
> should be blamed? I will consider what it is thought should be set in
> order, but tardy and discreditable is the reformation of old age.'
> We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our
> country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We
> look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds
> us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth?
> We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this
> discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not
> conflict."
>
> Beautiful words, heartfelt, and ones which should be seriously
> contemplated whenever we get our panties in a bunch over religious
> squabbling.
>
> Modius Athanasius, while you may feel that you are speaking for the
> religio, I beg you to remember that how you act towards Christianity
> *does* have a deep impact on Nova Roma, whether you like it or not,
> simply because there are many many citizens who are Christians. If
> you think it appropriate to treat the present-day Christian citizens
> with the same lack of care and tolerance that you deride the 4th-
> century A.D. Christians for showing your pagan forebears, you are no
> better than the people you despise. It is easy to sit on a curule or
> pontifical chair and say: "Well, that's just the way it is; like it
> or lump it. We're right and we don't care how you feel about it."
> That's the same attitude (on the part of Christians) that got the
> religio destroyed first place. Would you rather stand as an example
> of Roman tolerance and wisdom or an example of 4th-century A.D.
> Christian bigotry and hatred?
>
> So, I am afraid that if you take the step of declaring a specific
> Christian emperor sacer, rather than simply revoking the laws which
> gave him the authority he excersized to the detriment of the religio,
> you are not honoring the Gods but antagonizing innocent citizens
> needlessly, out of a sense of revenge. "Revenge is a dish best
> tasted cold" is an old Sicilian proverb, but after 700 years? That
> smacks of mean-spirited self-indulgence. Generosity of spirit is a
> better footing to build the new home of the Gods, yes?
>
> vale et valete,
>
> Cato

----- Original Message -----
From: GAIVS IVLIANVS
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 10:04 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Male Vestals?!


Salvete omnes! "Male Vestals?!" You gotta be
kidding!!! Totally out of the question! A slap in the
face of Vesta Mater and the traditional Mos Maiorum!!!
Enough said. Valete! Frater GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS,
PGI, Flamen Floralis



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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

>Salvete omnes! "Male Vestals?!" You gotta be
>kidding!!! Totally out of the question! A slap in the
>face of Vesta Mater and the traditional Mos Maiorum!!!
>Enough said. Valete! Frater GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS,
>PGI, Flamen Floralis

> My Personal belief is that the restoration of the Pax Deorum will
> require repudation of Theodosius as well as the invalidation of the
> Consulta he rammed through the Senate with an Army at his back.

>Modius Athanasius, while you may feel that you are speaking for the
>religio, I beg you to remember that how you act towards Christianity
>*does* have a deep impact on Nova Roma, whether you like it or not,
>simply because there are many many citizens who are Christians.  If
>you think it appropriate to treat the present-day Christian citizens
>with the same lack of care and tolerance that you deride the 4th-
>century A.D. Christians for showing your pagan forebears, you are no
>better than the people you despise.  It is easy to sit on a curule or
>pontifical chair and say: "Well, that's just the way it is; like it
>or lump it.  We're right and we don't care how you feel about it."  
>That's the same attitude (on the part of Christians) that got the
>religio destroyed first place.  Would you rather stand as an example
>of Roman tolerance and wisdom or an example of 4th-century A.D.
>Christian bigotry and hatred?
>
>So, I am afraid that if you take the step of declaring a specific
>Christian emperor sacer, rather than simply revoking the laws which
>gave him the authority he excersized to the detriment of the religio,
>you are not honoring the Gods but antagonizing innocent citizens
>needlessly, out of a sense of revenge.  "Revenge is a dish best
>tasted cold" is an old Sicilian proverb, but after 700 years?  That
>smacks of mean-spirited self-indulgence.  Generosity of spirit is a
>better footing to build the new home of the Gods, yes?
>
>vale et valete,
>
>Cato

> II Request for Consulta
> 1) Senate declares that Consulta of September 394 CE was obtained under
> duress and is therefore Null and Void.
> 2) Acts of Theodosius have earned agnomen of Impious, will be refered
> to as such in all offical records.
> 3) Removal of Roma from the protection of the Immortals constituted a
> grave public danger rendering Theodosius a public enemy of the Romans
> 4) Public Vow that a new Altar of Victory will be part of Nova Roma
> Senate House at such time it is built.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Bill Gawne <gawne@c...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Sicini Druse,
>
> > My Personal belief is that the restoration of the Pax Deorum will
> > require repudation of Theodosius as well as the invalidation of the
> > Consulta he rammed through the Senate with an Army at his back.
>
> If the Collegium Pontificum will advise me on the content of that
> Senatus Consultum, I will place it before the Senate at the first
> possible opportunity. Furthermore, I shall, if the Collegium
> Pontificum considers it proper, present a similar lex to the Comitia
> Populi Tributa.
>
>
> Valete Quirites,
>
> --
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Bill Gawne <gawne@c...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites, et salve Druse,
>
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> > II Request for Consulta
> > 1) Senate declares that Consulta of September 394 CE was obtained
under
> > duress and is therefore Null and Void.
> > 2) Acts of Theodosius have earned agnomen of Impious, will be refered
> > to as such in all offical records.
> > 3) Removal of Roma from the protection of the Immortals
constituted a
> > grave public danger rendering Theodosius a public enemy of the Romans
> > 4) Public Vow that a new Altar of Victory will be part of Nova Roma
> > Senate House at such time it is built.
>
> I will certainly present all of this once the Collegium Pontificum
> informs me that it is complete and correct. Please, pontiffs, give me
> a formula.
>
> Drusus, would you please forward this to the Collegium Pontificum?
>
> Vale,
>
> --
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 10:47 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: [Nova Roma] Male/Female Vestals


Novaromanae S.P.D. Flavius Vedius Germanicus

S.V.B.E.E.V.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Walzer" <jwalzer5@c...>
wrote:
>
> The idea of male vestals illuminates the knife-edge walked by
> an organization such as Nova Roma: where do we draw the line
> between faithful adherence to our illustrious model and practical
> acknowledgement of modern sensibilities?

I am all in favor of bowing to modern sensibilities where it is
absolutely required, but I honestly cannot believe this idea is
being seriously entertained.

Male Vestals?

Are you NUTS???

I confess I didn't protest strongly when we appointed a Chief Vestal
(with two kids) who vowed to be celebate during her term. And I was
wrong in that; there are certain things that you just don't mess
with, and the Vestals are one of those things (in more ways than
one).

But male Vestals??? Sweet merciful Gods! Have we really descended to
this level?

My original thought was to use the Vestals as something analogous to
the Christian "true love waits" movement. Encourage young girls of
virtue to pledge to remain chaste, and serve Vesta, until such time
as they marry, at which time they could resign their positions as
Vestals.

Not the traditional 30 years, perhaps, but certainly a damn sight
better than making a complete mockery of the institution of the
Vestals by suggesting that men would be acceptable substitutes.

And as far as the lesbian idea goes... I honestly don't see how it
is even an issue. Virginity is virginity.

Di vos incolumes custodiant,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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

> Germanicus, remember back in the first days of NR...this was our

>arguement resulted in the resignation of some citizens. I remember
>that arguement like it happened yesterday! Its kinda funny and
>depressing at the same time that after six years this conversation
>has cropped up again. :)

----- Original Message -----
From: gaiusequitiuscato
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 10:44 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Theodosius I Re: Priesthoods (was Resignation)


G. Equitius Cato L. Seutonio Nervae L. Sicinio Druso quiritbusque
S.P.D.

salvete, omnes.


While I find it distasteful in the extreme to do so, I understand the
reasoning behind the desire to repudiate Theodosius I, and declare
him sacer. I went to the links provided by Cornelius Sulla (thank
you, Censor Suffectus), and I was struck by the words of Symmachus,
Praefect of Rome, who begged the emperor to allow the restoration of
the Altar of Victory:

"Let us now suppose that Rome is present and addresses you in these
words: 'Excellent princes, fathers of your country, respect my years
to which pious rites have brought me. Let me use the ancestral
ceremonies, for I do not repent of them. Let me live after my own
fashion, for I am free. This worship subdued the world to my laws,
these sacred rites repelled Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones
from the capitol. Have I been reserved for this, that in my old age I
should be blamed? I will consider what it is thought should be set in
order, but tardy and discreditable is the reformation of old age.'
We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our
country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We
look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds
us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth?
We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this
discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not
conflict."

Beautiful words, heartfelt, and ones which should be seriously
contemplated whenever we get our panties in a bunch over religious
squabbling.

Modius Athanasius, while you may feel that you are speaking for the
religio, I beg you to remember that how you act towards Christianity
*does* have a deep impact on Nova Roma, whether you like it or not,
simply because there are many many citizens who are Christians. If
you think it appropriate to treat the present-day Christian citizens
with the same lack of care and tolerance that you deride the 4th-
century A.D. Christians for showing your pagan forebears, you are no
better than the people you despise. It is easy to sit on a curule or
pontifical chair and say: "Well, that's just the way it is; like it
or lump it. We're right and we don't care how you feel about it."
That's the same attitude (on the part of Christians) that got the
religio destroyed first place. Would you rather stand as an example
of Roman tolerance and wisdom or an example of 4th-century A.D.
Christian bigotry and hatred?

So, I am afraid that if you take the step of declaring a specific
Christian emperor sacer, rather than simply revoking the laws which
gave him the authority he excersized to the detriment of the religio,
you are not honoring the Gods but antagonizing innocent citizens
needlessly, out of a sense of revenge. "Revenge is a dish best
tasted cold" is an old Sicilian proverb, but after 700 years? That
smacks of mean-spirited self-indulgence. Generosity of spirit is a
better footing to build the new home of the Gods, yes?

vale et valete,

Cato




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

> G. Equitius Cato G. Modio Athanasio quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> salve et salvete.
>
> Modius Athanasius, while I agree with the sentiment behind your

> perhaps rather than pinpointing Theodosius I by declaring
> him "impious" and thereby specifically poking Christianity with a
> sharp stick (much as we may deserve it in the eyes of practitioners
> of the religio), I think simply revoking Imperial Law since the
> assumption of the Principate would suffice.
>
> Another question is: how do we codify the laws that existed up

> that time? That's a lot of law to grind through...
>
> vale et valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius Gn. Equitio Cato salutem dicit
> >
> > Very good idea. Perhaps a first step would be for the Collegium

> declare
> > Theodosius sacer, with the name of Impious and recommend the

> repeal the
> > consulta issued that removed the contract with the Gods.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> >
> > In a message dated 7/11/2004 6:07:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > mlcinnyc@y... writes:
> >
> > CATO: The "covenant" or "contract" between the Roman State and

> > Roman Gods has indeed been shattered, and has been since at

> > the days of (Flavius) Theodosius I "the Great". The In A.D. 391
> > Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored

> > the Roman Senate (Gibbon, "Decline and Fall", xxviii), he did

> > order its removal (the NR Main Page is incorrect on that count).
> > Pagan sacrifices, omens, and witchcraft were to be punished as
> loesa
> > majestas (Cod. Theod., XVI, X, 10-12). If Constantine I "the

> > started chipping away at the religio, it was Theodosius who truly
> > destroyed it. I would imagine that a public day of fasting, and
> the
> > actual repeal by the NR Senate of the Code of Law that Theodosius
> > promulgated regarding religion would be necessary.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Walzer" <jwalzer5@c...> wrote:
> Salvete Omnes:
>
> Do we really need to revisit this thread?

CATO: unless I am mistaken, until I suggested it in post #25737, no-
one has ever brought up the idea of formally revoking St. Theodosius
I's consulta before. I did so out of respect for the religio, in
hopes that this might give Nova Roma a new, stronger footing; I also
suggested a day of atonement, on which the State and Her citizens
might ask forgiveness from the Gods for what Theodosius did.


> We are Romans. Please, Gaius Equitius Cato - your consideration of
Christianity rings hollow, in as much as the Church which you espouse
as a model has bitched at length about being treated as it was so
long content to treat others. Remove the mote from your eye and the
stick from your ass, and you'll see things with greater clarity.

CATO: I think you are referring to the Christian parable; but there
was no stick in anybody's ass in that one --- I assume you mean I
should remove the beam from my own eye before I try to remove the
speck from my brother's? I never suggested my brothers ever had a
speck in their eye: I was requesting that they not put the same beam
in their eye that was in the Christian authorities' of the 4th
century A.D.


>
> The Emperor Theodosius was a heinous example of Christian bigotry
and hatred in the 4th Century BCE, whether we say so or not - we
might as well say so. If that offends modern adherents, quite
frankly, Too Bad.

CATO: Once again, it was I who acknowledged the bigotry and
hatefulness of the Christian authorities of the 4th century A.D., and
specifically vocalized a request that we not act in so barbarous a
manner.


>
> And as for the "revenge" bit - please. It was appropriated by Star
Trek II back in the '80's. I don't know about you, but Ricardo
Montalban's histrionics wear thin - his services do not constitute my
idea of philosophical insight, nor I suspect, of anybody else's.
>
> "A dish served cold" - Give me a break.

CATO: I've never watched a "Star Trek" movie in my life, so your
analogy is lost on me, I'm afraid. I guarantee you that the proverb
I quoted is much older than "Star Trek", though. If you don't like
Sicilian proverbs...too bad.


>
> Valete
>
> L. Suetonius Nerva

vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius M. Arminiae Maior Fabianae salutem dicit
>
> I was unaware she was/is a Vestal. I have been on the Collegium
Pontificum for almost two years, and I never recaled them approving
a vestal that has actually stayed.
>
> If she is a Vestal then the Pontificex Maximus has not kept the
Collegium informed, as I was under the impression we had no Vestals.
>
> If she is a Vestal then she SHOULD be on the Collegium Pontificum
ASAP!!!
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
>
> In a message dated 7/11/2004 5:54:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "M.
Arminia Maior Fabiana" <rory12001@y...> writes:
>
>
> >   Finally I have a request would would please sign with your
noble
> >station; all Roma is in your debt due to your devotion to Vesta.
why
> >aren't you in the Collegium Pontificum?  Scheid includes the
Vestals
> >in the pontifical college ( see p.130-134 in "Roman Religion")
> >       bene vale
> >   M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

> Novaromanae S.P.D. Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>
> S.V.B.E.E.V.
>
> It has come to my attention that the current disposition of the
> old "main list" has not been made public.
>
> As I informed our Consul, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, Senator Decius
> Iunius Palladius, and Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (who had
> specifically inquired about it at Roman days) several weeks ago, I
> have secured technical ownership of the old main list from my wife
> (who, as you will recall, was responsible for shutting it down,
> completely independent from my influence), and will happily place

> at the disposal of the Republic for whatever purpose it may be
> deemed to be of most use.
>
> Naturally, I am more than happy to transfer technical ownership to
> anyone who might be officially designated as being empowered to
> receive it. I am also more than happy to retain such ownership on
> behalf of the Republic. I am completely at the disposal of the
> Republic in this matter, as I am in all things.
>
> Di te incolumem custodiant,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae

> I Have stood up for Nova Roma's Christians more than once, but this
> isn't a mater where I can consider their wishes.
>
> Why would the Immortals look favorably apon us if we attempt to

> neutral towards a man who made himself their foe?
>
> In Ancient Times if someone comitted Prudens Dolo Malo he was

> Sacer, turned over to the Gods for whatever punishment they chose

> inflict apon him for his actions. That is what the term means.
>
> There is no doubt that removal of the Altar and Imtimidating the
> Senate into passing that Consulta were Prudens Dolo Malo.

> rendered himself Sacer when he comitted those acts.
>
> Drusus
>
> II Request for Consulta
> 1) Senate declares that Consulta of September 394 CE was obtained

> duress and is therefore Null and Void.
> 2) Acts of Theodosius have earned agnomen of Impious, will be

> to as such in all offical records.
> 3) Removal of Roma from the protection of the Immortals

> grave public danger rendering Theodosius a public enemy of the

> 4) Public Vow that a new Altar of Victory will be part of Nova

> Senate House at such time it is built.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <AthanasiosofSpfd@...>

I think the requirements
> of Vestals should be reevaluated and looked at a little differently.
> Tradition has always held the Vestals as virgin, however, I believe in
times of great
> need the relationship we have with the Immortals can be renegotiated. I
> think a renegotiation with Vesta is going to be necessary when dealing
with the
> issue of Vestals. I don't know of many woman who would be willing to give
up
> their sexuality to be a priestess in Nova Roma. The lack of success of
our past
> Vestals (I do not know any of them personally) indicate, that something
needs
> to be done. I would like to see woman in monogamous relationships only,
who
> abstain from sexual relations before conducting any rituals to Vesta, and
who
> can keep an actual FLAME burning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.


I have to say I totally disagree with the above. I practice the Religio. I
have served Vesta privately for several years now and regard her as my
Patron. Throughout that time, as well as keeping a flame burning whenever
possible (other than my pilot light which I don't count - it's impossible to
keep a lamp or candle burning while on holiday) I've remained totally
celibate. That to me is the prime requirement of Vesta. The thought of that
being changed is, to me a total insult to her.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

>
>
> I have to say I totally disagree with the above. I practice the

> have served Vesta privately for several years now and regard her

> Patron. Throughout that time, as well as keeping a flame burning

> possible (other than my pilot light which I don't count - it's

> keep a lamp or candle burning while on holiday) I've remained

> celibate. That to me is the prime requirement of Vesta. The

> being changed is, to me a total insult to her.
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula

----- Original Message -----
From: <AthanasiosofSpfd@...>

I think the requirements
> of Vestals should be reevaluated and looked at a little differently.
> Tradition has always held the Vestals as virgin, however, I believe in
times of great
> need the relationship we have with the Immortals can be renegotiated. I
> think a renegotiation with Vesta is going to be necessary when dealing
with the
> issue of Vestals. I don't know of many woman who would be willing to give
up
> their sexuality to be a priestess in Nova Roma. The lack of success of
our past
> Vestals (I do not know any of them personally) indicate, that something
needs
> to be done. I would like to see woman in monogamous relationships only,
who
> abstain from sexual relations before conducting any rituals to Vesta, and
who
> can keep an actual FLAME burning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.


I have to say I totally disagree with the above. I practice the Religio. I
have served Vesta privately for several years now and regard her as my
Patron. Throughout that time, as well as keeping a flame burning whenever
possible (other than my pilot light which I don't count - it's impossible to
keep a lamp or candle burning while on holiday) I've remained totally
celibate. That to me is the prime requirement of Vesta. The thought of that
being changed is, to me a total insult to her.

Flavia Lucilla Merula


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

----- Original Message -----
From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:55 AM
Subject: About Theodosius (was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Theodosius I Re: Priesthoods (was Resignation))


Ave

You know, I actually agree, let's declare Theodosius impious. I'm slightly more
puzzled about repealling the laws, but ok, let's repeal them, and given we are
at it, I'd declare null and void any legislation of Rome from the first
christian emperor on, included the Corpus Juris Civilis that, after all,
includes some piece of legislation by Theodosius. Someone please warn the South
African authorities, tho, where the Corpus is still in force as the ultimate
legal authority. They should know they are ruled by laws we have repelled and
therefore lacking any authority. Oh, and someone warns also the newspapers and
the historians, so they can spred the news and update the textbooks about
Theodosius and the rest.

At times Nova Roma reaches almost unsurpassed heights of mysticism, where the
word apparently has the power of changing reality, but then I get puzzled: the
ones who say that words can't change reality when they take the form of a Nova
Roma law (the argument is actually better known as "a law is just words and
can't make romans" or, more general, "a law can't change the reality around
it") are the same ones who say that a decision of the Nova Roma senate or of
the comitia can indeed change reality and historical perception, and the word
of.. umm.. 30? 50? 300? people can repeal laws that have (already ceased to
have any practical value, btw, and) at the time ruled millions of men.

A form of Mysticism... I like that, all in all, as long as people know that's
what they are practicing...

Vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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

> Salvete;
> this situation of the Vestals doesn't necessarily have to revolve
> around the problem of celibacy.
> Pontifex Gryllus a while ago on the Religio list make the
> learned case that the polluting element came from the male and

> it would be entirely correct to have gay women as Vestals. I think
> this is a superb idea. So many gay people are discriminated

> in religions, it would be wonderful instead to honour these women
> and for them to receive the respect, honour and gratitude of Nova
> Romans.
> bene valete
> M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

> Ave,
>
> The Theodosian Code was not written or promulgated by Theodosius I. It was
> promulgated by Theodosius II. It was issued in 438 ce by Emperor Theodosius
> II, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. At the very worst you could say
> that some of Theodosius's edicts might have made it into the Codex, but I
> think that is quite a stretch given how busy Theodosius was in trying to
> re-unite the empire, crush paganism, crush various revolts and challenges to
> his rul and interfere in the politics and policies of the Catholic Church
> (such as outlawing Arianism, settlining trinity issues, etc etc.)
>
> Here are some links if you are interested about it.
>
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/TheodosC1.asp
>

> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0848406.html
> http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/T/TheodosC.html
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2001/2001-02-27.html - Bryn Mawr Classical
> Review
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> I will forward my last financial spreadsheet to I Iulius as soon as
> possible since I have no quarrel with him and do not wish to cause
> even the slightest disruption to his Magna Mater project.

> I'll be visiting Rome soon, just for a week.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius G. Equitio Cato salutem dicit
>
> Unlike Christianity the Religio Romana doesn't have a sense of
>atonement. If someone is guilty of pudens dolo malo there is no
>possibility of expiation; of "atonement" from it. They are simply
>sacer, and become the property of the Gods.

CATO: That's fine --- the point I was making was not a technical
religious one, but rather one of psychological/emotional expression.
If I remember correctly, the word piaculum means an act which asks
the Gods for forgiveness for any mistake(s) made during a ritual,
yes? Then what I am suggesting is a piaculum offered by someone in
authority (religious like the CP, or saecular like the Consuls or
Censors, or psychological like the Patri Patriae who started the
whole thing), and a co-incidental national day of mourning or
something, to express both sorrow at the particulars of the breaking
of the pax deorum by St. Theodosius I. The religio is all about
rites and rituals, and we can make this "rebinding" of Nova Roma to
the pax deorum a peculiar national day, like the anniversary of the
Defeat at Cannae.



> Theodosius is, by default, sacer as he committed a grave act of
>impiety. While I do not believe in hell, I do hope that Theodosius
>is suffering in some way for what he did. I feel perfectly
>justified in believing this. I know Jews who feel the same way
>about Hitler, and Russian Orthodox who feel this way about Stalin.
>So I am not alone in thinking that genocidal leaders should get
>their just rewards. I understand that you consider Theodosius a
>saint, part of me is sorry that you witness the belittling of
>someone you respect.

CATO: Even saints can be...uhhh...the equivalent of the expulsive
muscle at the anal orifice --- they are products of their times as
well as creators of them, and I'm not particularly "attached" to St.
Theodosius I; I was just acting out of caution --- I'd rather not see
it turn into a general free-for-all bashing of the Church. I take
your word, and the word of others, that this can be avoided.

Constantinus Fuscus, while it may seem silly to "revoke" St.
Theodosius I's consulta 1700 years later, I'd offer the mirror image
of the Roman Catholic Church "pardoning" Galileo; the earth still
revolved around the sun even (hard to believe but true) AFTER the
Roman Catholic authorities decided that it didn't.

South Africa's apartheid laws were revoked after the country became a
democracy because it was a symbolic act of disconnecting the present
government from that which had come before. The millions who
suffered under apartheid received no respite from the pains they
endured while apartheid still operated, but the nation was making a
point, publicly, about its new identity.

Nova Roma, in revoking St. Theodosius I's consulta and holding a
national day of mourning of the kind I've suggested would be making
the same kind of point.

vale et valete,

Cato

> G. Equitius Cato G. Modio Athanasio D. Constantino Fusco
> quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> salvete, omnes.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius G. Equitio Cato salutem dicit
> >
> > Unlike Christianity the Religio Romana doesn't have a sense of
> >atonement. If someone is guilty of pudens dolo malo there is no
> >possibility of expiation; of "atonement" from it. They are simply
> >sacer, and become the property of the Gods.
>
> CATO: That's fine --- the point I was making was not a technical
> religious one, but rather one of psychological/emotional expression.
> If I remember correctly, the word piaculum means an act which asks
> the Gods for forgiveness for any mistake(s) made during a ritual,
> yes? Then what I am suggesting is a piaculum offered by someone in
> authority (religious like the CP, or saecular like the Consuls or
> Censors, or psychological like the Patri Patriae who started the
> whole thing), and a co-incidental national day of mourning or
> something, to express both sorrow at the particulars of the breaking
> of the pax deorum by St. Theodosius I. The religio is all about
> rites and rituals, and we can make this "rebinding" of Nova Roma to
> the pax deorum a peculiar national day, like the anniversary of the
> Defeat at Cannae.
>
>
>
> > Theodosius is, by default, sacer as he committed a grave act of
> >impiety. While I do not believe in hell, I do hope that Theodosius
> >is suffering in some way for what he did. I feel perfectly
> >justified in believing this. I know Jews who feel the same way
> >about Hitler, and Russian Orthodox who feel this way about Stalin.
> >So I am not alone in thinking that genocidal leaders should get
> >their just rewards. I understand that you consider Theodosius a
> >saint, part of me is sorry that you witness the belittling of
> >someone you respect.
>
> CATO: Even saints can be...uhhh...the equivalent of the expulsive
> muscle at the anal orifice --- they are products of their times as
> well as creators of them, and I'm not particularly "attached" to St.
> Theodosius I; I was just acting out of caution --- I'd rather not see
> it turn into a general free-for-all bashing of the Church. I take
> your word, and the word of others, that this can be avoided.
>
> Constantinus Fuscus, while it may seem silly to "revoke" St.
> Theodosius I's consulta 1700 years later, I'd offer the mirror image
> of the Roman Catholic Church "pardoning" Galileo; the earth still
> revolved around the sun even (hard to believe but true) AFTER the
> Roman Catholic authorities decided that it didn't.
>
> South Africa's apartheid laws were revoked after the country became a
> democracy because it was a symbolic act of disconnecting the present
> government from that which had come before. The millions who
> suffered under apartheid received no respite from the pains they
> endured while apartheid still operated, but the nation was making a
> point, publicly, about its new identity.
>
> Nova Roma, in revoking St. Theodosius I's consulta and holding a
> national day of mourning of the kind I've suggested would be making
> the same kind of point.
>
> vale et valete,
>
> Cato

> Ave
>
> You know, I actually agree, let's declare Theodosius impious. I'm

> puzzled about repealling the laws, but ok, let's repeal them, and

> at it, I'd declare null and void any legislation of Rome from the first
> christian emperor on, included the Corpus Juris Civilis that, after all,
> includes some piece of legislation by Theodosius. Someone please

> African authorities, tho, where the Corpus is still in force as the

> legal authority. They should know they are ruled by laws we have

> therefore lacking any authority. Oh, and someone warns also the

> the historians, so they can spred the news and update the textbooks

> Theodosius and the rest.
>
> At times Nova Roma reaches almost unsurpassed heights of mysticism,

> word apparently has the power of changing reality, but then I get

> ones who say that words can't change reality when they take the form

> Roma law (the argument is actually better known as "a law is just

> can't make romans" or, more general, "a law can't change the reality

> it") are the same ones who say that a decision of the Nova Roma

> the comitia can indeed change reality and historical perception, and

> of.. umm.. 30? 50? 300? people can repeal laws that have (already

> have any practical value, btw, and) at the time ruled millions of men.
>
> A form of Mysticism... I like that, all in all, as long as people

> what they are practicing...
>
> Vale
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis

> mysticism?
> That is a rather hostile term to use for the Religio Romana.

> mysticism?
>
> That is a rather hostile term to use for the Religio Romana.
>
> Think of it as a mater of Tort Law, one where ignoring a wrong, or
> just saying "I'm sorry" fails to resolve the problem.
>
> Restution has to be made as well as paying damages. Restution in the
> form of doing what the ancient Senate should have done, and what the
> Nova Roman Senate should have done at it's very first meeting, and
> damages in the form of a Piacular offering once restutition has been made.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Pontifex
>

> ... I'm slightly more
> puzzled about repealling the laws, but ok, let's
> repeal them, and given we are
> at it, I'd declare null and void any legislation of
> Rome from the first
> christian emperor on, included the Corpus Juris
> Civilis that, after all,
> includes some piece of legislation by Theodosius.
> Someone please warn the South
> African authorities, tho, where the Corpus is still
> in force as the ultimate
> legal authority. They should know they are ruled by
> laws we have repelled and
> therefore lacking any authority. Oh, and someone
> warns also the newspapers and
> the historians, so they can spred the news and
> update the textbooks about
> Theodosius and the rest.

> Salve
>
> Just wanted to let everyone know I was admitted to Nova Roma as a
> citizen. I look forward to interacting with you especially
> concerning the Religio Romana.

> Without even considering
> that the greatest and longest standing testament to
> the world that Roma
> produced was exactly his law system (and not his
> government system, not even
> teh republican one) and that was mostly estabilished
> under the Empire and
> therefore denouncing it would mean to cut out of
> Nova Roma the most Roman thing
> together with the RR,...

> .... the fact that someone could
> ever think that we could with
> a sentence delete 2000 years of history and
> juridical culture with this act
> having any meaning besides that of an expression of
> delusion and madness is
> pure magic, the same than seriously thinking that
> saying
> Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious or any other
> magic word will have any
> practical consequences upon the reality surrounding
> us.

> As for the South Africans, the texbooks, and so on,
> you've got quite the wrong end of the stick. Obviously
> if we in Nova Roma repeal the Corpus that will not
> result in its being repealed in South Africa, and it
> will not result in the past suddenly changing so that
> the laws in the Corpus were never enacted in the first
> place. That's not what repealing a law does. It just
> means that the law in question no longer has force in
> the state which repealed it. If another state has also
> enacted the law, then it remains in force in that
> state unless that state repeal it also. Surely you
> know all this?

> If Nova Roma wishes to maintain its claim to be a
> legally continuous entity with the Roman republic,
> then it is perfectly natural for us to consider Nova
> Roma competent to repeal laws passed by the Roman
> emperors, who in point of law derived their authority
> from the comitia. There is nothing silly in it, unless
> you regard Nova Roma as itself silly in its entirety;
> and that would not be a very helpful attitude.

> Salve
>
> Just wanted to let everyone know I was admitted to Nova Roma as a
> citizen. I look forward to interacting with you especially
> concerning the Religio Romana.
>
> Tiberius Arcanus Argricola

> Certainly there has never been very much point in the
> past in any country repealing those laws, since they
> have not had any legal force for centuries. But in
> Nova Roma, owing to the legal convention which I've
> mentioned and which you yourself have accepted in the
> past, those laws could, in principle, be regarded as
> having legal force, and therefore it is not merely
> symbolic but also legally meaningful and thus
> desirable to repeal them.

> Salvete omnes,
>
> I have been away off and on from the list over the last 6 weeks but
> I was wondering if anyone ever found out where Gnaus Octavius
> Noricus was. I thought some of our citizens were trying to track him
> down.

> Salve Quinte Lani, et salvete quirites,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:
>
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > I have been away off and on from the list over the last 6 weeks

> > I was wondering if anyone ever found out where Gnaus Octavius
> > Noricus was. I thought some of our citizens were trying to track

> > down.
>
> Censor Quintilianus continues to try to reach him. The last

> got was that the Censor had spoken with Noricus' mother, who

> that he was alive and well and away at university. So he's

> OK, and absenting himself from Nova Roma by choice. The Censor

> going to try to reach Noricus himself again this past weekend. I

> don't know the result of that attempt.
>
> Valete Quirites,
>
> -- Marinus