> A. Tullia Scholastica praetrix L. Iulio Regulo quiritibus bonae voluntatis
> S.P.D.
>
> As my colleague, Cato, is apparently embroiled in some compelling matter
> of a macronational nature, I shall respond to this and some other posts.
>
>
> Salve,
>
> I could see where some might think that what Maior wrote about the praetors
> might be offensive,
>
> ATS: Indeed. Those of us who have been here long enough, as you
> apparently have not, know that Hortensia is quite capable of making such
> statements without the least justification.
>
>
> though I dont totally back the statement because it shouldnt matter what
> religion any of us follow.
>
> ATS: Indeed it should not.
>
> I think the praetors should post as to how they feel about this issue and see
> where they stand before we put religious or any other form of labels on
> citizens.
>
> ATS: As above, my colleague Cato is otherwise occupied, and has not been
> active of late. This is quite unusual, as anyone who has been here for more
> than a few months will attest. We do not, however, make our macroworld, and
> something extraordinary seems to be at issue. As for myself, I support the
> concept of some sort of reform, but it is a little difficult to accomplish
> since the CP has absolute power over itself and the RR publica, at least.
> Even if every senator appeared out of the woodwork (and I can just about
> guarantee that some, indeed far too many, will not), we do not have the power
> at present to do anything. As things are right now, the CP itself must deal
> with this issue. Now, perhaps the PM should step aside at least temporarily,
> or perhaps something else should be done, but the present state is one of
> paralysis, in which the two augures are apparently not on speaking terms with
> one another and there is at least one rift in the CP itself. Clearly that is
> not to the advantage of NR or the RR or the cultores. As I am not privy to
> the deliberations of the CP, as some of the more senior and more official
> members of the Senate mailing list are, I dare not go much beyond that.
>
>
> Please, citizens, let us not place anymore labels on others that is not the
> issue here. The issue is where does everyone stand on the problems with the
> Collegium, we are looking for opinions from people of all religions, whether
> they practice the Religio or not just as long as they see that there is a
> problem with the Collegium.
>
> ATS: There is clearly a problem with the Collegium Pontificum. How to
> remedy it is the crux of the matter.
>
> Reform the Religio!!!
> Lucius Iulius Regulus
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@... <mailto:gawne%40cesmail.net> >
> wrote:
> Maior <rory12001@... <mailto:rory12001%40yahoo.com> > writes:
>
>> > As for the Lex Popillia, we can repeal it.
>
> We can. But do we have time to do so between now and the end of the
> year when Censor Octavius leaves office?
>
>> > a tribune of the plebs can put foward the law to repeal the Lex
>> > Popillia.
>
> Or a consul could do that too. We would then have no law in force
> specifying the limits on the Censors. Do you think that's a good idea?
>
>> > As for the current praetors, they are quite devout Christians and we
>> > need more active cultores and their supporters to fill the Senate.
>
> That's one of the most offensive things you've said yet. Given your
> ability to say profoundly prejudiced and bigoted things, it's still
> surprising. You really are a curse on Nova Roma, aren't you?
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>
> ---------------------------------

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

Salvete Omnes!

I know there is probably some law or constitutional exerpt that
prohibits this but I still need to ask: Why can't we just appoint
another Pontifex Maximus to do the job?


Valete,

Annia Minucia Marcella

D. Iunius Palladius Invictus C. Fabio Buteo Modiano S.D.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "David Kling (Modianus)"
<tau.athanasios@...> wrote:

>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Decio Iunio Palladio salutem dicit
> I know you, along with Q. Fabius Maximus and others, have not been
> happy with me since I left the Boni. You and I once got along just
> fine until that day in 2004 when I left the cabal that is the Boni.
> It was at that time that I became the pariah to you that I am.

You know, I really wish you'd get over that. Sense of guilt or
something? Or a martyr complex looking to be fulfilled? You and I got
along fine for awhile after you left the Boni, but you went from
being the most rabid of the Boni to being the most rabid anti-Boni,
attacking your friends with gusto. Is it any wonder I view you with a
jaded eye? We probably would still get along if you hadn't done that.
And probably could again if you didn't view every disagreement with
you as "the Boni are after me." Get over your leaving, I have.

You STILL bring up the Boni from time to time, long after it has any
meaning. "Boni obstructionism in the CP, etc, etc." Blame any
obstructionism in the CP on individuals, not a long defunct group.
Your famous abrasiveness towards them I'm sure doesn't help.

>You can make the claim that "Modianus is as much the problem
>as Cassius" all you wish, but just because you claim something over
>and over again doesn't make it true.

And your denying it over and over again doesn't mean it isn't true.
You know I'm right, your long standing antagonism towards Cassius
hasn't helped. Even when you were patching things up, it was a
tentative peace at best.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I just think a more moderate,
considered tone would help (I probably should take my own advice
after the tone of this message). And a measured pace. Festina lente.

And I'm not ready to give up on Cassius. Our friendship goes back
several years before Nova Roma and I remember what it was like for
Roman pagans before Nova Roma.

Vale

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
<christer.edling@...> wrote:

>
> Salvete Quirites!
>
> I am one of the Senatorial observers of the Collegium Pontificum

and

> I have for many years been a supporter of a Religio reform, not

only

> because of what I have seen in the Collegium of passivity. I have
> over and over again suggested elections in the Comitia according

to

> the system that once was established in Roma Antiqua. But not all
> these discussions were public because there was a constant threat
> from the Boni-part of the Collegium to throw any opponent out of

Nova

> Roma by use of the "decretum weapon". I am now happy to see this
> discussion, I just wish we may se more action and less talk.
>
> If the present Senate stands in the way of Religio reform there is

a

> way to fix that problem. After the Census is completed the

_present_

> Censores are allowed to make changes in the composition of the
> Senate. I think this could and should be done. It is possible to

keep

> a Senate with different approaches (religiously, culturally and
> politically), something that I think is good and still get rid of
> those who stand in the way of reform, many who also are extremely
> passive in the Res Publica as a whole.
>
> Some Senatores are passive, but partly since they lost faith in

the

> ability of the Res Publica to reform it self in many fields. I am

sad

> to say this, but some of those Senatores seem to have disappeared

and

> we now need to find new experienced citizens to fill the Senate

with.

> We need the Censores to find enough citizens that support reform

to

> make the Senate the a supporter of Religio reform. Then it is
> perfectly possible to make the minimum changes in the Constitution
> that are needed, by vote in the Comitia.
>
> As the founder of the only (sadly enough, the only) important

Religio

> project in Nova Roma, the "Magna Mater" project I have always had

a

> deep interest to find the proper place for the Religio within Nova
> Roma. It never was my intention that the Magna Mater project would

be

> the only Religio project in Nova Roma, but I then found it

symbolic

> for the struggle to survive that Nova Roam went through at the

time

> of the project's founding and as this struggle still continues

today

> I still find it symbolic. Now it is time for reform and time for
> other projects of the Religio Romana to be started, projects like

the

> building of an altar or temple near Roma in Italy, as proposed
> earlier.
>
> If the Censores "reform" the Senate that would be well within the
> Constitution, as will a Comitia change of the Constitution in

needed

> points. Then we wouldn't need any rebellion and a Religio reform
> might be the first law next year's Consuls could introduce in the
> Comitia, a reform that then would be supported by the Senate

without

> need for a SCU and Dictator.
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Senator, Censorius et Consularis
> Accensus LAF, Scribae Censoris GFBM
> Praeses, Triumvir et Praescriptor Academia Thules ad S.R.A. et N.
> Editor-in-Chief, Publisher and Owner of "Roman Times Quarterly"
> Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> Civis Romanus sum
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
>

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.

This should answer your question:


COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM

COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
I. Pontifex status in the Nova Roma Religio Romana shall be "for life", so
long as a Pontiff maintains a minimum level of activity, as defined herein.
II. In January or February of each year, and at no other time, the Collegium
Pontificum must vote on possible from the Collegium those Pontifices who have
failed to maintain that minimum level of activity. A Pontifex must be voted
out by a 2/3 margin to be removed.
III. Should a Pontifex voted from the Collegium become active again, they may
re-apply for Pontifex status by standard means, and have opportunity to be
reappointed by a simple majority vote.
IV. A Pontifex is required to cast votes on at least one third of the
Collegium agendas that are brought to a vote during any calendar year. Should he or
she fail to do so, they may be removed by the Collegium as stated above.
V. Voting by proxy shall be considered acceptable for satisfying these
requirements, provided that proxy is granted during the discussion period that
immediately precedes that particular vote.
VI. Pontifices must uphold a minimum level of 'public' activity outside the
Collegium each year. This public activity must include no less than six
serious religious posts to a Nova Roma forum in a year, OR one "religious project".

VII. A "religious project" may contain the following (or an equivalent
thereof proposed by a Pontifex and accepted by the Collegium Pontificum): writing
one article or essay for the NR website, writing the text of one ritual or
offering to the Gods, presiding over one public ritual or offering,
mentoring/teaching a member or members of the NR priesthood, teaching an online Religio
Romana class or study group, etc.
VIII. Newly accepted Pontifices are exempt, regardless of their participation
level the previous year. Any Pontifex appointed less than six months before
the end of the year is exempt.
QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS
ante diem XIV Kalendas May MMDCCLV (8 April 2002) qcc



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


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

Salve!

Thanks.

So according to this, since the PM hasn't had any activity(let alone
minimal) then it's ok to replace him right?

Vale,

Annia Minucia Marcella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.
>
> This should answer your question:
>
>
> COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM
>
> COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
> I. Pontifex status in the Nova Roma Religio Romana shall be "for
life", so
> long as a Pontiff maintains a minimum level of activity, as defined
herein.

M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Quiritibus et omnibus salutem
plurimam dicit: Salvete vosque bona Neptunus auctet ope

Hodie est Kalendae Decembriae; haec dies nefastus est: Neptuno,
Salaciae, Pietati, Venere et Cupido. DIE QUINTI TE KALO, IUNO COVELLA

To Pietas

"O Gods, to You I pray, and to Pietas, and by the sacred rights of
parents, prohibit this sacrilege from coming upon me and put an end
to this wickedness from happening to me." ~ P Ovidius Naso,
Metamorphoses 10.321-322


To Neptunus

"Neptune, divine Lord of the Trident, on whose high seas we begin to
cross, if my preparations are made justly, grant our fleet to sail
safely, Father, and do not scorn to aid our labors." ~ Sillius
Italicus, Punica 15.159-61

"O You Gods who rule the waves and hold domain over the winds and
storms, You whose dwelling places reach from the ocean's depths to
the heights of heaven, and You, Father of the Gods, who order the
spheres of the sky and govern the tides, behold a novelty here on
earth, a ship on the sea with armed men. For your rage I make
atonement and pray You look with indulgence upon us. Let me bring
these men safely to shore, and let me go home again where I shall
offer up on the sacrificial altars those rich feasts Your mercy shall
have deserved. In every village and hamlet men shall acknowledge the
might of Neptune and pay You homage." ~ Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica
1.667-80

"O Neptunus, brother of Jove and Nereus, heartily and gladly I give
You praise and grateful thanks. And to You, Neptunus, before all
other Gods I offer and accord You the highest thanks. I give You
praise, for You know how to treat men fairly; as befits the Gods." ~
Plautus, Trinummus 819-30

"Thanks be to Neptune my patron, who dwells in the fish-teeming salt
sea, for speeding me homeward from his sacred abode, well laden and
in a good hour." ~ Plautus, Rodens 906-910

"He who suffers a shipwreck a second time accuses Neptune unjustly."
~ Publilius Syrus 251.


Our thought for today is from Epictetus' Enchiridion 37 and 38

"If you have assumed any character beyond your strength, you have
both demeaned yourself ill in that, and quitted one which you might
have supported.

"As in walking you take care not to tread upon a nail, or turn your
foot, so likewise take care not to hurt the ruling faculty of your
mind. And if we were to guard against this in every action, we should
enter upon action more safely."

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.
Technically, yes. However, under the terms of this decretum, his removal as
a pontiff would automatically disqualify him from being Pontifex Maximus but
it can only be done in January or February and it would need a 2/3 majority
of the Collegium Pontificum. At present, the only individuals who could vote
on this issue are Maximus, Modianus, Metellus, Astur, Cincinnatus, Scaurus,
and Cassius himself. So you would need four of these to vote him out of
office.
Wait a tick, Cincinnatus and Modianus actually have two votes each because
they are both augurs and pontifices so that changes the number a little bit
from seven votes to nine votes. That would mean that six votes would have to
cast in favor of depriving the PM of his office.
Vale.
Salve!

Thanks.

So according to this, since the PM hasn't had any activity(let alone
minimal) then it's ok to replace him right?

Vale,

Annia Minucia Marcella

--- In _Nova-Roma@yahoogrouNova-R_ (mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com) ,
PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@, PADRUI

>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.
>
> This should answer your question:
>
>
> COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM
>
> COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
> I. Pontifex status in the Nova Roma Religio Romana shall be "for

life", so

> long as a Pontiff maintains a minimum level of activity, as defined

herein.






**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


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

M Moravius Piscinus C. Popillio, Senatori, et Quiritibus SPD:

Senator Laenas scripsit:

> However, as Gn. Equitius points out, making changes is difficult
> considering the requirements of our Constitution. I have great
> respect for the Consul elect M. Moravius (I know the results aren't
> official yet) as a learned practitioner of the Religio. I am

willing

> to wait to see what he presents to the Senate and then to work to
> find ways to make improvements.
>

I hope that I may prove worthy of yours and everyone else's
confidence in my knowledge and abilities.

I have been reading through the many posts. As elections results
have not yet been announced, Sabinus and I have not yet begun to
discuss our concerns in depth or begun to set up our Cohors. We have
had some preliminary discussions. I will need to speak with him on
this issue. I shall, however, share with you some of my thoughts on
various things I have read so far.

As a Senator and former Tribunus Plebis I do not favor, simply on
principle, the appointment of a Dictator, unless there would be some
dire situation that required it. As bad as I have seen the situation
in the Collegium Pontificum deteriorate over the past two years, I do
not think we are at such a state as yet to warrant appointing a
Dictator.

For similar reasons I would not make my first act in office be to ask
for additional authority from the Senate under an SCU. Because there
would be more restrictions, and because the Consules could not on
their own amend the Constitution under an SCU, I would consider this
option before the appointment of a Dictator, but only if the Senate
very narrowly defined what area of responsibility the Consules were
to exercise such authority.

My first choice had been to see reform come from the Collegium
Pontificum itself. I thought that this was possibly happening last
year with the proposal made by Pontifex Astur and its presentation to
the Senate by Pontifex and then Consul Modianus. That proposal was
opposed by other Pontifices, but they never stated their reasons for
objecting to the proposal. There was then to be a discussion of each
part of the proposal so that a compromise could be worked out, but
those who opposed Astur's proposal have never appeared in session to
hold such discussions. Reform from within the Collegium Pontificum
seems most unlikely now.

It will be a very difficult task to gain a consensus of two-thirds of
the Senate on any reform. It rightly ought to be difficult. But
there I think is the best opportunity to achieving a lasting and
effective reform. If two-thirds of the Senate did arrive at a
compromise on a proposed reform measure, then I am sure that the
Comitia Centuriata would approve of it.

I supported the reform proposal offered by Pontifex Astur because,
first, it did involve the collective work of other Pontifices and
former Consules, as well as some individuals who were knowledgable on
the religio Romana, and, secondly, most especially because it did, in
my opinion, move our religious institutions closer to the example of
the Quattor Collegia Summa under the Republic rather than as now,
which are more like the imperial institutions. In fact some
priesthoods designated on Nova Roma's website did not exist until
institued by Augustus, while another Republican priestly sodalitas is
absent. I would prefer to take Astur's proposal a step further,
reinstituting the Postumian law. Tradition would have it that this
was a restoration taken just after the expulsion of the Tarquinii of
the religio Romana as Numa had first instituted it. In the fourth
century, and again towards the end of the Republic, efforts were made
to again return to the Numa tradition. This would be a simpler
organization of the religious institutions, a more spiritual and more
Roman tradition to set as our example, one that is decentralized
more, along the lines that Agricola was suggesting.

IMHO opinion Nova Roma has made two mistakes when it comes to the
religio Romana. And the present impasse has been a result of those
errors. First is that too much attention is placed on the religio
Romana as being a State religion. The State religion grew out of
private practices and was subordinate to them. Second, too much
focus has been placed in Nova Roma on filling the higher priestly
offices where every effort should have first been made to build
communities of cultores Deorum in the provinciae. Without a strong
foundation of cultores Deorum to support it, the Collegium Pontificum
serves no one.

I believe that one thing that could help the development of the
religio Romana for Nova Roma is to embrace diversity. To me that
means accepting Pontifices who do not agree with one another but who
would be able to work with one another. It means decentralization
where each of the Quattor Collegia Summa would be essentially
independent of one another, as Astur's reform measure proposed.
Diversity could mean that the Plebeians institute their own
priesthoods as they did historically, and that later these would join
with their Patrician counterparts. It would certainly mean developing
the religio Romana in our provinciae as the starting point for our
religious institutions, with each provincia developing its own
religious traditions at the same time that we attempt to standardize
some of our practices through education and simply by sharing our
experiences.

I have pointed out time and again that never was a Pontifex Maximus
removed from office. Senator Audens gave the example of Lepidus;
there is also that of Nasica who was not removd even after he
committed what many regarded as sacrilegio. But I was quite
disburbed by what Senator Audens reported. If M. Cassius Julianus no
longer has any interest in Nova Roma, as his behavior would
demonstrate and as he has supposedly stated to others in private,
then the honorable thing for him to do is to resign as Pontifex
Maximus. He obviously is no longer performing his duties as Pontifex
Maximus, he obviously is no longer serving the interests of the Gods
in Nova Roma, or the interests of the religio Romana, or that of Nova
Roma itself. Returning for a spurt of activity as he has done before
is no longer acceptable. He needs to fully perform his duties or he
ought to step aside.

I have heard about the proposal made by Senator censoris Kaeso
Quintilianus that we resort to electing Pontifices and a new Pontifex
Maximus. Certainly this was done historically, at certain times, but
I am most leery of adopting such an option. Whether election or
cooption is used, a question to be addressed is what qualifications
will be required of any candidate. Not historical perhaps, but I
think what Nova Roma could do is require that candidates first gain
some experience by serving as provincial sacerdotes.

At this point I am not going to rule out any options. I will OTOH
hold further discussions, including but not limited to discussions in
the Senate, before I begin making any proposals of my own.


Vadete in pace Deorum

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica M. Hirtio Ahenobarbo quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> I have not said and probably wont say anything about the current debate over
> the Religio. (I do not like to express opinions unless I believe I have a good
> grasp of the situation)
>
> ATS: That is always a good idea. One should know the background...of
> events and personages.
>
>
> Im learning a lot from the back and forth however. Ive been reading every
> post.
>
> I will say that I find this particular statement appalling.
>
> "As for the current praetors, they are quite devout Christians and we
> need more active cultores and their supporters to fill the Senate."
>
> Perhaps it was not meant as I take it however?
>
> ATS: You may rest assured that it was meant as you seem to take it,
> however many denials may follow. Those of us who have been here long enough
> to see similar statements from this citizen are well aware of her tendencies
> to such excesses. Moreover, the truth of such pronouncements is irrelevant to
> this citizen, for it happens that she is confusing various elements, such as a
> sense of propriety, with Bible-thumping Christianity, whereas no one of the
> latter stripe could possibly take the oath of office in good conscience, and
> very few, if any, could tolerate being citizens of Nova Roma. It also happens
> that my inclinations are more toward philosophy than religion; as a
> classicist, I have some interest in ancient philosophy, and like many of
> those in my field, lack the temperament to be inclined to the more frenetic
> forms of anything whatsoever.
>
> The problem with the senate is that too few show up for the votes and/or
> contiones, not that there aren¹t enough of us on that list to recognize the
> problems with the CP or the Religio or what have you.
>
>
> M. Hirtius Ahenobarbus
>
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
> ---------------------------------

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

Salvete Omnes,

So I guess it would seem that of our limited choices with this
situation, waiting until January is the best chance we have. But
thats only if those aforementioned Pontifices are convinced that the
current PM no longer serves the position properly.

Vale optime in pace Magnae Matris,
Nero

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.
> Technically, yes. However, under the terms of this decretum, his
removal as
> a pontiff would automatically disqualify him from being Pontifex
Maximus but
> it can only be done in January or February and it would need a
2/3 majority
> of the Collegium Pontificum. At present, the only individuals
who could vote
> on this issue are Maximus, Modianus, Metellus, Astur,
Cincinnatus, Scaurus,
> and Cassius himself. So you would need four of these to vote him
out of
> office.
> Wait a tick, Cincinnatus and Modianus actually have two votes each
because
> they are both augurs and pontifices so that changes the number a
little bit
> from seven votes to nine votes. That would mean that six votes
would have to
> cast in favor of depriving the PM of his office.
> Vale.
> Salve!
>
> Thanks.
>
> So according to this, since the PM hasn't had any activity(let
alone
> minimal) then it's ok to replace him right?
>
> Vale,
>
> Annia Minucia Marcella
>
> --- In _Nova-Roma@yahoogrouNova-R_ (mailto:Nova-
Roma@yahoogroups.com) ,
> PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@, PADRUI
> >
> > Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.
> >
> > This should answer your question:
> >
> >
> > COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM
> >
> > COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
> > I. Pontifex status in the Nova Roma Religio Romana shall be "for
> life", so
> > long as a Pontiff maintains a minimum level of activity, as
defined
> herein.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************Check out AOL's list of
2007's hottest
> products.
> (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?
NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Aurelianus,

I would like to thank you Aurelianus in providing this information for us. I am glad to see information coming from all citizens who want reform. Obviously, actions can be taken against the Collegium so why havent they been done so before. Why has it taken so long for replacement of those in the Collegium who do nothing for us religious citizens?? I sure hope that these outlines put forth here will be taken into consideration so that reform, which is obviously wanted by most citizens, can take place. Also, has anyone heard from or spoken to the PM?? I dont understand why after a few days he has not appeared to defend his post or comment on why things are so poorly handled in the Collegium. I would, as well as other citizens, would certainly like to hear from the PM......

Reform the Religio!!!
Lucius Iulius Regulus

PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.

This should answer your question:


COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM

COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
I. Pontifex status in the Nova Roma Religio Romana shall be "for life", so
long as a Pontiff maintains a minimum level of activity, as defined herein.
II. In January or February of each year, and at no other time, the Collegium
Pontificum must vote on possible from the Collegium those Pontifices who have
failed to maintain that minimum level of activity. A Pontifex must be voted
out by a 2/3 margin to be removed.
III. Should a Pontifex voted from the Collegium become active again, they may
re-apply for Pontifex status by standard means, and have opportunity to be
reappointed by a simple majority vote.
IV. A Pontifex is required to cast votes on at least one third of the
Collegium agendas that are brought to a vote during any calendar year. Should he or
she fail to do so, they may be removed by the Collegium as stated above.
V. Voting by proxy shall be considered acceptable for satisfying these
requirements, provided that proxy is granted during the discussion period that
immediately precedes that particular vote.
VI. Pontifices must uphold a minimum level of 'public' activity outside the
Collegium each year. This public activity must include no less than six
serious religious posts to a Nova Roma forum in a year, OR one "religious project".

VII. A "religious project" may contain the following (or an equivalent
thereof proposed by a Pontifex and accepted by the Collegium Pontificum): writing
one article or essay for the NR website, writing the text of one ritual or
offering to the Gods, presiding over one public ritual or offering,
mentoring/teaching a member or members of the NR priesthood, teaching an online Religio
Romana class or study group, etc.
VIII. Newly accepted Pontifices are exempt, regardless of their participation
level the previous year. Any Pontifex appointed less than six months before
the end of the year is exempt.
QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS
ante diem XIV Kalendas May MMDCCLV (8 April 2002) qcc

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

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






---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.

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

> A. Tullia Scholastica Neroni cuidam quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Salve Marinus,
>
> It wouldn't be the first time a Nova Roma official disregarded their
> oaths... Just saying.
>
> ATS: No, it wouldn¹t, but I for one resent any intimations that either of
> us is not abiding by our oath. I suspect that any of our magistrates would.
> You are a very new member of this list, and have not seen very much, at least
> not lately. To reiterate, I am a classicist (as almost everyone here is well
> aware), and am more than aware that the RR was a part of ancient society,
> intertwined in a way we do not like in our own macroworld lives (unless you
> like the Islamic Republic sort of thing, that is). Thus it is in a similar
> position in NR.
>
> I for one encourage obeying the laws (including the election ones, which
> have provisions about the reporting of the first class centuries and other
> matters...). We cannot disobey them to remove the PM or whatever; more
> extraordinary means may be required, but that will take time. As for us
> praetores, Cato is indeed a fervent orthodox Christian, but that has not
> prevented him from supporting the Religio Romana, nor has my more
> philosophical, less religious, temperament kept me from having an interest in
> the RR, and in the glacial paralysis in the CP, which affects all of NR, no
> matter what faith one professes or fails to profess. As is so often the case,
> Hortensia has gone off half-cocked, and spouted nonsense based on her own very
> twisted interpretation of things.
>
> Vale optime in pace Magnae Matris,
> Nero
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , Gnaeus
> Equitius Marinus
> <gawne@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > phoenixfyre17 <phoenixfyre17@...> writes:
>> >
>>> > > I think what she was intending to get across was the
>>> > > fact that the Praetors' devoutness to Christianity would
> naturally
>>> > > inhibit their care for a Pagan religion.
>> >
>> > Every Nova Roman magistrate takes an oath of office where they
> swear
>> > to support the Religio Romana as the official state religion.
> That
>> > pretty much guarantees we don't have anybody serving as a
> magistrate
>> > who is opposed to the Religio.
>> >
>> >
>> > CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>> >
>
>
>

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

Q. Valerius Poplicola in Memphide Novi Romani omnibus Kalendis Decembris
MMDCCLXI SPVD:

Nova Romans, those who wish to see the rebirth of Rome, I offer you
these humble feelings. Though I am a new cives in Nova Roma, I am not a
new Roman. This has been my life for years, and before Nova Roma,
I've been involved in various societates devoted to Rome, even
holding magisterial positions in well-known places such as Societas Via
Romana. I could go on for what I've personally done, but that's
not why I am here today.

No, here, today, I wish to make an appeal. I've seen many statements
which I can not fully endorse, though I do not doubt that some perhaps
are partially rhetorical (all in all a very Roman thing!). First I see
over and over again that Nova Roma is not Roma Antiqua. This is true.
But even more so, Nova Roma is not even Roma! We do not have land in the
city founded by Romulus declared by Anchises to have been the future
spot where all Romans were to be descended.

While the exact understanding of this is per animo, not per litteras,
one thing which was sacred to Roma and thus was, by ancient rites and
sacrifices established thousands of years ago, the pomoerium. As long as
the pomoerium stood unblasphemed, Roma stood strong. Even Barbarian
hordes led by Brennus were turned away in short time with the riches of
the city restored. And Roma thus stood. For it was not until the Religio
Romana was abolished that Rome began to fall, and fall she did.

This is of absolute importance to all cultores, to Nova Roma and her
priests, and to those who now wish to see the reformatio religionis.
When I see statements like, "Rome never removed a Pontifex Maximus,
therefore Nova Roma should not remove their Pontifex Maximus", the
fault is glaring. The Pontifex Maximus is the bridge-maker to the
caelicolae. The purpose of the Pontifices, especially the Flamen Dialis
and the Flamen Martialis, and thus the Pontifex Maximus, was to ensure
that the proper sacrifices to the gods are taken care of in order to
ensure the safety of Rome through her pomoerium.

Piscinus Horatianus is dead on when he notes that the state religion was
secondary to the personal religion of the pagani. And with no actual
Roma, he do not even have a need for the protection of the pomoerium,
yet. But, even moreso, dismissing priests, including the Pontifex
Maximus, will not incur any wrath, for one because we are not in the
position to ultimately decide who is the greatest of the priests, not
having any sort of Republic anymore, and more importantly, we do not
have any bond with the gods.

Now, however, there have been discussion and even a proposal for
establishing pomoerium again with the proposal of Aquila. It will be
then that our sacred institutions will become inviolable: the Senate and
the People of Roma. Until then, if the Pontifex Maximus does not wish
to be active, the numen deum will not look down upon us. They may not
look favorably, but without pomoerium, can you really expect anything
other than personal sacrifice?

I think this further walks in hand with Cordus' suggestion that we
need to establish a mindset of Rome before we can proceed. I will admit
that I am so hostile to those shouting "Reform the Religion"
precisely because they are acting in the most despicable of Roman ways
– shouting populist demagoguery that has, whether they realize it or
not, violent implications. Yes, yes, I want to reform the religio! I
think it needs a major overhaul before we establish pomoerium again. But
this peddling to the masses will only get us in the exact same situation
as before.

I am torn, amici, between proposing legislating Roman mentality, and
refraining from doing so but working terribly hard with those eager to
establish such. I want my Roma reborn. I want my citizenship ring, my
domus, my toga, my familia, all under the protection of Roma.While
it's nice being a provincial, we must ask the question: a provincial
of what? Where is our Rome? We are banished from it, we are like the
Jews, wandering the earth without a Temple. The Jews have their land
again, they will one day rebuild their temple according to the
prophecies. We too have our prophecies, and we too will one day rebuild
the Templum Iouis Maxumi Optumi. Soon, amici, we will have Faunus,
Silvanus, Mauors and Minerua, our Lares and our Penates, and all their
numina.

But in the meantime, we must look at the implications and not live in
denial – we are a landless people, a nation without pomoerium,
Romans without Rome. We must work for Roma, and not restrain ourselves
to Roma. When the day comes that soles shine favorably upon us, and we
are loving our land, nor is the land unloving to us, when our urbs has
imperium once again, then we can restrain ourselves to Roma. Until then,
let us fight for it.

in pace deum, e amore romae, optime ualete.



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

Salvete,

Please what means Aqilia?

Hadrianvs

Cn. Lentulus rogator, legatus pro praetore, accensus Ap. Claudio sal.


Sir, you constantly post these one sentence letters to this mailinglist. It seems that you don't have a blessed concept of what Nova Roma is and what modern Romanitas is.

Please read my letter as of someone who is fanatical supporter of a restored Roman Republic in Rome, so as of one who is a friend of your ideas.

I am European like you and I believe that Nova Roma should have a center in Rome, just like you do believe. The important difference between us is that you would exclude Americans from the Romanitas, or if would not exclude, you consider them secondary Romans.

The gods, it seems, aren't and weren't agreeing with you. How can you explain that there was in America the establishment of Nova Roma? Why not in Italia? And why did you yourself join Nova Roma instead of an Italian Roman harmonist association?

The gods wanted to start this movement from America. That's a fact. Does it mean that Americans are primary Romans? Of course NOT! Does it mean that Italians are secondary Romans? Not! Then what does it mean?

It means that wherever in the western world and whoever HAS the right to restore the Roman nation. Western world IS ROMAN WORLD. This is a fact. What is more, colonies of a certain culture are usally more conservative than the source culture from that they are departed. For example, Roman colonies in Hispania were more conservative, traditional and Roman in the 2nd century AD when in Rome and Italia classical "mores" were highly neglected. That was the time of Traian, Hadrian when Spaniard Romans were the example of Romanitas, and not the Italian ones.

Today too, America is in some aspects more Roman than European countries. In some aspects it's less Roman, of course. In one word: America is as good place to be born Roman as much as is all the western world. There aren't more nor better Romans in Italia than in America. Our adherence to Italia is not because of its inhabitants: but because of its sacred territory, ruins, cities, the genii loci.

Be sure that in this mailinglist everybody would agree with this. We need Italia to restore Rome. We need its places. Yes, we need Italians too, but not better that we need every western nation. Spaniards, Germans, Americans, Romanians, Brasilians or Hungarians. What we need over every other thing it's the sacred place of Italia and Roma. Someday, in the future, I beleive we will have it. The way is very long to this. But until this day we are Nova Roma: a transitional status from the Destroyed Rome to the Restored Rome. Everybody wants Restored Rome here. Please don't question the Romanity of our members.

And finaly, from those what I have written now you can see and understand that nobody thinks there is a "Rome" in Maine. It's ridiculous. I repeat it and ask you to memorize this:

NR AMERICANS DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A ROME IN MAINE!

Though I'm not one of them, I can say this calmly in their name, because I know them, beacause I work with them for a Restored Rome. American Nova Romans think that two founders of our association registered NR in Maine because this place was the nearest place to achieve, and NR, as an association, is registered there now, and nobody knows where it will be registered in the future. Perhaps in an other Amercan city, perhaps in Paris, perhaps in Bucurest or in Rome. Of course, Rome would be the ideal. I will try to convince our American brothers to agree with me and register NR in Rome, but before we do it, we MUST consider what is the best for the cause of the Roman Worldwide Movement. For example, if Italian laws don't favour for an international organization we won't register in Rome. NO WAY. It is a symbolical act, and not an essential part of the Roman Movement where our association is registered. The essential part is that we have to fight for having Rome as our city in
the future. Not as our registered association center: BUT as our RESTORED COUNTRY. Do you understand? It doesn't matter where we are registered more than symbolically. What matters it's that what our final goal is. Our final goal is to restore Roman Republic in Rome.

Now there is one thing I ask you. If you have read this long letter, please consider that if you would work with our American fellow Romans and would have contributed something worthy for our association instead of sending one sentence letters, you would not feel the need for saying such things "forget that Rome made in Maine". So I ask you to take part in Nova Roman public life, assume offices, contribute to the wiki site, explain your ideas in detailed and well thought-out letters -- or if not, please don't post more crap.


Cum amicitia:



Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus,
R O G A T O R
------------------------------------------
Legatus Pro Praetore Provinciae Pannoniae
Sacerdos Provinciae Pannoniae
Interpres Linguae Hungaricae
Accensus Consulis Ti. Galerii Paulini
Scriba Praetricis A. Tulliae Scholasticae
Scriba Aedilis Curulis Iuliae Caesaris Cytheridis Aeges
Scriba Interpretis Linguae Latinae A. Tulliae Scholasticae
-------------------------------------------
Decurio I. Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Dominus Factionis Russatae
Latinista, Classicus Philologus


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

---------------------------------
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail

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

C. Equitius Cato omnes SPD

Salvete omnes!

It has been a while since I have posted; many things conspired (as
they do in all of our lives at one time or another) to force me to
focus elsewhere.

I have several comments to make on the current discussion, but for
now, I will only say that M. Hortensia Maior is absolutely wrong if
she thinks that either of the praetores is anything but completely
supportive of the State cult. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Appropriately, today is - as well as being the kalends of December -
dedicated to the goddess Pietas. Perhaps a good day on which to
reflect about the direction the State cult has taken, and where it
might be more usefully directed in the future. Not for the sake of
practitioners, not "in spite" of non-practitioners, but for the
benefit of the Respublica itself.

Valete bene,

Cato

Marcus Curiatius Complutensis Tribunus Plebis omnes civibus Novae Romae SPD


Here are the results of recent votation, as confered with the Diribitores
and Custodes.

Results of Comitia Plebis Tributa

The Plebiscitum de Consecratione, called Lex Curiata Complutensi II de
Consecratione, was voted by 33 tribes, and approved by all.

My gratitude to the Diribitores and Custodes for their collaboration in dis
votation.

My congratulations to the new elected Tribuni Plebis and Aediles Plebis,
your work will begin in a.d. V Id. Dec (Dec. 9th) and you must take the
Oath.

Curate ut valete

M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTENSIS
TRIBVNVS PLEBIS
PROPRAETOR HISPANIAE
SCRIBA CENSORIS CFBM
NOVA ROMA

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

ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima

Salvete optime Tribuni Aedilesque Designati

Congratulations to the newly sanctified Aediles Plebis P.
Constantinus Placidus and Fl. Galerius Aurelianus and to all of our
newly sanctified Tribuni Plebis:

Titus Flavius Aquila
Lucia Livia Plauta
Quintus Arrius Nauta
Quintus Valerius Callidus
Quintus Iulius Probus

May the Gods watch over you and guide you. Gratulor, et optimam
fortunam vobis exopto

My thanks goes out to all Plebeians who voted on this plebiscitum.
Votes from 33 of 35 Tribes is a statement of commitment on the part
of our Plebeian Citizens. Magnas gratias vobis ago

Di Deaeque vobis bene ament
M Moravius Piscinus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M·CVR·COMPLVTENSIS
<complutensis@...> wrote:

>
> Marcus Curiatius Complutensis Tribunus Plebis omnes civibus Novae

Romae SPD

>
>
> Here are the results of recent votation, as confered with the

Diribitores

> and Custodes.
>
> Results of Comitia Plebis Tributa
>
> The Plebiscitum de Consecratione, called Lex Curiata Complutensi II

de

> Consecratione, was voted by 33 tribes, and approved by all.
>
> My gratitude to the Diribitores and Custodes for their

collaboration in dis

> votation.
>
> My congratulations to the new elected Tribuni Plebis and Aediles

Plebis,

> your work will begin in a.d. V Id. Dec (Dec. 9th) and you must take

the

> Oath.
>
> Curate ut valete
>
> M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTENSIS
> TRIBVNVS PLEBIS
> PROPRAETOR HISPANIAE
> SCRIBA CENSORIS CFBM
> NOVA ROMA
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima
>

Salvete Omnes,

I do not claim to be an expert in Roman citizenship, but this is what
I have been able to gather during my studies. If it is incorrect then
I hope that those who have greater knowledge on the subject will
correct me.

Roman Citizens in the early days of the Roman Empire, were originally
defined by their birth place, Rome.

As the Roman Empire grew, developed and matured, Roman Citizenship was
broadened and encompassed people born outside of Rome and Italy.

Eventually, under the reign of the Emperor Caracalla in AD 212, Roman
Citizenship was extended to anyone who was free born in the empire.

As far as my personal view is concerned I believe that NR citizenship
makes us all Roman, not Rome born Romans, nor Britain born Romans, nor
US born Romans, or Australian born Romans, but simply Romans no matter
what our current geographical location.

Valete

Quintus Sempronus Lupus

Salve Marcella,

Annia Minucia Marcella <annia@...> writes:

> Salvete Omnes!
>
> I know there is probably some law or constitutional exerpt that
> prohibits this but I still need to ask: Why can't we just appoint
> another Pontifex Maximus to do the job?

You nailed it. Existing laws and our constitution prevent that. As
long as M. Cassius Iulianus is alive and hasn't voluntarily stepped
aside, there can be no other pontifex maximus of Nova Roma unless the
law is changed.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Salve Germanice,

Hadrianvs Rota Germanicvs <gemina_victrix_xiv@...> writes:

> Please what means Aqilia?

It means "eagle-like." It's a Roman nomen genticulum (clan name)
derived from the Latin word for eagle, aquila. Like almost all other
nomina genticula, it uses the -ia ending.

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Fl. Galerio Aureliano salutem dicit

Agreed that "going after" Scaurus on the grounds that he didn't resign
because he is a widower is a "low blow," and Nova Roma doesn't
technically have this strict policy as was maintained in ancient Rome.
However, it is an interesting phenomenon. Because some pontifices,
including Gaius Iulius Scaurus, will point out liberties made to the
historical mos maiorum as being ahistorical, imprudens dolo malo,
nefas, impious, etc... only when it seems to suit their agenda.

Personally, I don't think it is necessary for Scaurus to resign as
flamen simply because he is a widower. We do need to evaluate how we
are going to work in the traditional taboos, restrictions, etc..
within our modern system. What if we have a person apply for flamen
who is gay? Does his partner become the flaminica or another flamen?
Reason would say no to both. What if we have someone apply as flamen
whose spouse is not even a citizen of Nova Roma, should we turn them
down? Reason would say no, if they are able to perform the duties.

The point of this, is to show that we should NOT be about making the
priesthood and the religio unaccessible, but accessible. We should be
about empowering people, and not limiting them.

If someone like Scaurus, is going to advocate only for an absolute
historical accuracy -- such as his assertion that men can and should
only be pontifices in our Nova Roma -- then he needs to advocate for
that accuracy even when it is inconvenient. However, if he is willing
to negotiate between what is historically feasible and what should be
adapted then that makes the situation much different and much more
open to cooperation.

Maior is not always diplomatic when she points something out. But it
is an interesting topic, not simply as a means to attack Gaius Iulius
Scaurus (and they have a rough history indeed!), but to show that the
customs of ancient Rome are not always the best course to take for our
Nova Roma. We should be mindful of history, but even the Romans
themselves modified their customs and practices to accommodate change.
We need to do the same!

Vale:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Nov 30, 2007 8:21 PM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.
>
> It is true that G. Iulius Scaurus is a widower. He is also the flamen
> Quirinalis of Nova Roma. In Roma Antiqua, it was a requirement that the
> flamen
> maiores had to be of Patrician birth, their parents had to be married
> confarreatio, and if their wives died, they had to give up their sacred
> office.
>
> However, Nova Roma has only existed since 1998 and that means that no legal
> adult could have been born of a Patrician family. The caerimonia of
> confarreatio marriage has not been possible to perform for about 1600 years
> because
> there has not been a flamen Dialis since that time including in Nova Roma.
> Also, there has never been a single lex, decretum, or consultum issued or
> established that makes this discussion relevant at this time..
>
> As such, if this discussion is about G. Iulius having to give up his sacred
> office because of being a widower, it is a dispicable action because this
> organization is Nova Roma, not Roma Antiqua.
>
> If someone has a problem with G. Iulius Scaurus because of an action, or
> set
> of actions, or because he may have voted against someone becoming a
> pontiff,
> augur, flamen, or sacerdote; then that person needs to deal with it in a
> more straightforward way.
>
> If G. Iulius Scaurus wanted to give up his office voluntarily because of
> the
> death of his wife, he would probably be given sympathy and a great deal of
> respect for his dignatis and piety.
>
> If the proponents of a more active Collegium Pontificum want to make
> positive changes, they need to do it by contributing to the body of
> material in the
> reconstruction of the Religio Romana and apply to fill the many positions
> of
> provincial and state cults and practices.
>
> Valete.

Salve Palladi,

deciusiunius <bcatfd@...> writes:

> True on all points. So we appoint a dictator or use the SCU,

My guess is we'll be considering an SCU in the Senate some time this
month. Probably better to discuss it, and ways and means, there.

[...]

> I'd rather see the SCU used if it comes down to it.

I agree. Of the two awful choices, it's slightly better.

[...]

> There's a reason the CP is a law unto itself, that is to protect the
> Religio from being interfered with by non-practicioners.

The problem with that is we're all practicioners of the religio
publica. Whether we believe in the dii immortales or not, our primary
reason for creating this republic was to provide a populace that could
be bound to the dii immortales. So we all have an interest in the
proper functioning of the Collegium Pontificum.

> This is not something to be considered lightly. What about my
> suggestion of a delegation approaching Cassius personally? You didn't
> respond to that, so I assume you believe we're beyond that point.

Yes, I think we are.

> I hate to think we are. Nova Roma owes him so much.

The newly formed United States owed a lot to Benedict Arnold and Aaron
Burr. Y'know? Roma Antiqua owed a lot to Pompeius Magnus, but he
still died on a beach north of Alexandria.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Fl. Galerio Aureliano salutem dicit

I don't get two votes and neither does Cincinnatus. As pontifices we
get one vote in the Collegium Pontificum.

Vale;

Caeso Buteo

On Dec 1, 2007 12:44 AM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.
> Technically, yes. However, under the terms of this decretum, his removal as
> a pontiff would automatically disqualify him from being Pontifex Maximus
> but
> it can only be done in January or February and it would need a 2/3 majority
> of the Collegium Pontificum. At present, the only individuals who could
> vote
> on this issue are Maximus, Modianus, Metellus, Astur, Cincinnatus, Scaurus,
> and Cassius himself. So you would need four of these to vote him out of
> office.
> Wait a tick, Cincinnatus and Modianus actually have two votes each because
> they are both augurs and pontifices so that changes the number a little bit
> from seven votes to nine votes. That would mean that six votes would have
> to
> cast in favor of depriving the PM of his office.
> Vale.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Marcae Hortensiae salutem dicit

That is why it is up to the pontifices, and those in the senate who
are cultores, to inform those senatores and magistrates who might not
fully understand the nuances of Roman religion. I don't believe any
of our senatores are maliciously opposed to the Religio. I don't
believe that at all, but I do believe some do not fully understand why
many of us are frustrated. Its not about padding the senate with like
minded cronies, but rather, what is needed is education. My colleague
in the consulship, Pompeia Minucia Strabo, did not follow the Religio
but she was very respectful of me and truly respected and valued the
Religio. There are many people here in Nova Roma who I consider close
friends and if they left or where forced to leave because they don't
hold the same beliefs as I do, then it would be a sad day not only for
me personally but also for Nova Roma.

Please, do not make this an issue of Christianity vs. Religio Romana.
It is not that. We are all new ROMANS no matter what we believe!

Vale:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Nov 30, 2007 9:34 PM, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> -Salvete:
> I agree it shouldn't matter what religion people are if they fully
> support the Religio.
>
> Right now in the Senate we could have reform if the senators voted
> for it. But more than half the senators are not cultores, are ill
> informed about the Religio, and are afraid to vote for reform. It's
> a sad state of affairs.
> bene vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit

I was wondering if you were doing well. It is good to see you posting
again in the forum.

Vale;

Caeso Buteo

On Dec 1, 2007 6:36 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> C. Equitius Cato omnes SPD
>
> Salvete omnes!
>
> It has been a while since I have posted; many things conspired (as
> they do in all of our lives at one time or another) to force me to
> focus elsewhere.
>
> I have several comments to make on the current discussion, but for
> now, I will only say that M. Hortensia Maior is absolutely wrong if
> she thinks that either of the praetores is anything but completely
> supportive of the State cult. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
>
> Appropriately, today is - as well as being the kalends of December -
> dedicated to the goddess Pietas. Perhaps a good day on which to
> reflect about the direction the State cult has taken, and where it
> might be more usefully directed in the future. Not for the sake of
> practitioners, not "in spite" of non-practitioners, but for the
> benefit of the Respublica itself.
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato

Salve,
As in any republic the majority rules and this must be so... and I will
bend to the will of such a majority. But as for me, who is a Pagan 24/7 not
just on this site... I will have to reconsider my citizenship if this group
adopts Christianity as the state religion. Keep it Roman PLEASE.
Vale,
Gaius Pompeius Marcellus


On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:11:50 -0000
"Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:

> Salvete;
> it's not enough to swear, all the current Senators did. And they are
> not voting for reform because they don't understand the Religio; this
> is not my opinion, but that of eminent Nova Romans much wiser and
> better informed than myself.
>
> I think it is reasonable that Senators and magistrates perform
> whatever religious activities Senators and magistrates did in the
> Republic.
> bene valete
> Maior
>
>> > I think what she was intending to get across was the
>> > fact that the Praetors' devoutness to Christianity would naturally
>> > inhibit their care for a Pagan religion.
>>
>> Every Nova Roman magistrate takes an oath of office where they
> swear
>> to support the Religio Romana as the official state religion. That
>> pretty much guarantees we don't have anybody serving as a
> magistrate
>> who is opposed to the Religio.
>>
>>
>> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>>
>
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus D. Iunio Palladio Invicto salutem dicit

Perhaps you are correct, maybe I do have a bit of a martyr complex
going on regarding the leaving of the Boni. The situation was truly
at a difficult time, leaving the Boni and dealing with grief over the
loss of my father. It is certainly possible that I associate a
roughness to the situation that may or may not have been present. I
am man enough to certainly acknowledge that you may have a point, and
will endeavor to stop bringing up the baggage from the past -- as it
pertains to the Boni.

"You know I'm right, your long standing antagonism towards Cassius
hasn't helped. Even when you were patching things up, it was a
tentative peace at best."

You are correct. I have been antagonistic towards Cassius. However,
my antagonism is the result of broken promises after phone
conversations, e-mail exchanges, etc... As a person of action I have
a low threshold for someone like Marcus Cassius Julianus who prefers
inaction to action. Who runs at the first sign of opposition. It is
a frustrating state of affairs and perhaps I made mistakes along the
way, I never claimed to have all the answers or to have all the
truths. But the striking difference between Cassius and myself is
that I try, and I stick around and do the best I can. When I am
handed an obstacle I try to overcome it, not walk away from it.
Cassius and I have radially different styles, and that is likely the
reason why we conflict so much. History does seem to show that his
style does work.

"I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I just think a more moderate,
considered tone would help (I probably should take my own advice after
the tone of this message."

Many of us are frustrated. Your tone is understandable considering
your perspective, and I can respect that.

"And I'm not ready to give up on Cassius. Our friendship goes back
several years before Nova Roma and I remember what it was like for
Roman pagans before Nova Roma."

I'm sorry but I have given up on Marcus Cassius, and I have lost faith
in his ability. Certainly, he did accomplish a great thing, but that
doesn't give him license to continue to be an impediment to growth for
those Roman pagans who are here now.

Vale:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Dec 1, 2007 12:27 AM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
> D. Iunius Palladius Invictus C. Fabio Buteo Modiano S.D.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "David Kling (Modianus)"
>
> <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Decio Iunio Palladio salutem dicit
> > I know you, along with Q. Fabius Maximus and others, have not been
> > happy with me since I left the Boni. You and I once got along just
> > fine until that day in 2004 when I left the cabal that is the Boni.
> > It was at that time that I became the pariah to you that I am.
>
> You know, I really wish you'd get over that. Sense of guilt or
> something? Or a martyr complex looking to be fulfilled? You and I got
> along fine for awhile after you left the Boni, but you went from
> being the most rabid of the Boni to being the most rabid anti-Boni,
> attacking your friends with gusto. Is it any wonder I view you with a
> jaded eye? We probably would still get along if you hadn't done that.
> And probably could again if you didn't view every disagreement with
> you as "the Boni are after me." Get over your leaving, I have.
>
> You STILL bring up the Boni from time to time, long after it has any
> meaning. "Boni obstructionism in the CP, etc, etc." Blame any
> obstructionism in the CP on individuals, not a long defunct group.
> Your famous abrasiveness towards them I'm sure doesn't help.
>
>
> >You can make the claim that "Modianus is as much the problem
> >as Cassius" all you wish, but just because you claim something over
> >and over again doesn't make it true.
>
> And your denying it over and over again doesn't mean it isn't true.
> You know I'm right, your long standing antagonism towards Cassius
> hasn't helped. Even when you were patching things up, it was a
> tentative peace at best.
>
> I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I just think a more moderate,
> considered tone would help (I probably should take my own advice
> after the tone of this message). And a measured pace. Festina lente.
>
> And I'm not ready to give up on Cassius. Our friendship goes back
> several years before Nova Roma and I remember what it was like for
> Roman pagans before Nova Roma.
>
> Vale

Salve Gaius Pompeius Marcellus

It is not possible to adopt anything other that the Religior Romana as the
state religion. It is
imbedded in the constitution and ALL magistrates take an oath to defend it
even those
who hold other beliefs.

There is not now and as far as I can tell there NEVER has been a move by
any group
to change the State Religion. What is being discussed is a need to move the
Religio Romana forward not to replace it.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consul

>From: "James V Hooper" <warrior44_us@...>
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: I support a Religion reform and I think it is
>possible to make such a reform
>Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:25:52 -0700
>
>Salve,
> As in any republic the majority rules and this must be so... and I
>will
>bend to the will of such a majority. But as for me, who is a Pagan 24/7 not
>just on this site... I will have to reconsider my citizenship if this group
>adopts Christianity as the state religion. Keep it Roman PLEASE.
>Vale,
>Gaius Pompeius Marcellus
>
>
>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:11:50 -0000
> "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
> > Salvete;
> > it's not enough to swear, all the current Senators did. And they are
> > not voting for reform because they don't understand the Religio; this
> > is not my opinion, but that of eminent Nova Romans much wiser and
> > better informed than myself.
> >
> > I think it is reasonable that Senators and magistrates perform
> > whatever religious activities Senators and magistrates did in the
> > Republic.
> > bene valete
> > Maior
> >
> >> > I think what she was intending to get across was the
> >> > fact that the Praetors' devoutness to Christianity would naturally
> >> > inhibit their care for a Pagan religion.
> >>
> >> Every Nova Roman magistrate takes an oath of office where they
> > swear
> >> to support the Religio Romana as the official state religion. That
> >> pretty much guarantees we don't have anybody serving as a
> > magistrate
> >> who is opposed to the Religio.
> >>
> >>
> >> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
> >>
> >
> >
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit

Well said consul. This gets brought up, it seems, once a year.
Someone makes one comments and then people assume a conspiracy to
remove the Religio Romana from Nova Roma. Thanks for posting the
below!

Vale:

Modianus

On Dec 1, 2007 10:41 AM, Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Gaius Pompeius Marcellus
>
> It is not possible to adopt anything other that the Religior Romana as the
> state religion. It is
> imbedded in the constitution and ALL magistrates take an oath to defend it
> even those
> who hold other beliefs.
>
> There is not now and as far as I can tell there NEVER has been a move by
> any group
> to change the State Religion. What is being discussed is a need to move the
> Religio Romana forward not to replace it.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Consul

Q. Caecilius Metellus Quiritibus salutem dicit.

It is, I concur, a great thing that so many are involved in the current
discussion, and that there is such concern on the state of the cultus
publicus. There are a lot of factors at work in the present situation,
and being particularly involved by virtue of my position as a pontifex,
I'd like to give my view on the greater situation, as best I can see it,
and hope it helps give a greater understanding of things as they stand.

The public cultus Deorum, as I see it, is made of four equal parts, each
with its own role and responsibilities in things. These are: the
Quirites as individual citizens, the Senate, the Magistrates, and the
Sacerdotes Publici. (The Gods themselves are a part, but it really
isn't our place to comment on how well they're handling their role, at
this point.) We tend to be very apt to pointing fingers about the
present situation; to some extents, this isn't unjustified. But I've
always maintained that, before you point a finger anywhere, you should
be aware of how that side could equally point one at you. So let's now
explore these four parts, and their roles (aside from what the
Constitution dictates; I'll come to that nearer the end of this) and
responsibilities in things.

The Quirites are the first, and most important, of the parts of the
cultus Deorum. Without the Quirites, the remainder of the parts are
virtually worthless; the Senate, the Magistrates, and the Sacerdotes
Publici p.R. all exist to serve the Quirites. The Quirites have the
most important roles and responsibilities of all. A principio, the
Quirites have the responsibility of ensuring that all the other parts
are adequately and appropriately fulfilling their duties, as if they are
not, it is the Quirites who will suffer the divine wrath that might be
brought upon us for failure to do what should have been done. The
Quirites have the responsibility of standing up for themselves, and
taking it upon themselves to cry out when they feel that any of the
other parts have not fulfilled their duties, just as they would for any
"political" situation. That, in itself, is the only needed oversight
committee, since it is ultimately the Quirites that are to be served,
and are held divinely responsible for the situation.

The other three parts here have equal, yet different, responsibilities,
and, in reality, sit on the same level in regard to the topic at hand,
as subservient to the Quirites.

The Senate too has its role in things. I've been very happy to see that
the Senate has not been neglected in the discussion so far; possibly a
testament to the greater education of our Quirites over the past few
years. Historically, the Senate was held as the authority over sacred
matters. Throughout our history in Nova Roma, we have neglected this
fact, and perhaps this was a result of a lack of knowledge of the
greater intricacies of the Res Publica Antiqua. It was the role and
responsibility of the Senate, when faced with a situation, to determine
what course of action was needed, and either to act itself, or to direct
another body to act. There are a number of examples of this from
history; the most prevalent that comes to mind dates from the Second
Punic War, when the Sybilline Books were consulted, and it was
determined to evoke the Magna Mater to Rome. I believe there is also
the bringing of the cult of Aesculapius to Rome, though I'm less versed
on that particular event. At any rate, such was the responsibility of
the Senate, which, if it did not immediately know the appropriate course
of action, referred the matter to one of the Collegia Sacra for advice
on how best to handle the situation.

The Collegia Sacra were, of course, independent of each other. They
consulted with each other, especially on matters which involved multiple
areas needing expertise, but neither one was subordinate to the other.
These were the repositories of knowledge on the various iura sacra, for
which reason the Senate, the Magistrates, and even private citizens,
referred matters to them for adjudication. There were limited areas on
which the Collegia acted on their own initiative. Just the same, the
Collegia Sacra had limited items (feriae) which they were responsible
for holding or overseeing.

In Nova Roma, we have foisted most (if not all) of the responsibility
for sacred matters on the Collegia Sacra, and particularly on the
Collegium Pontificum. That error in itself may be part of the problem
of our current situation; all the current members of the Collegia Sacra
were well aware of the responsibilities they were accepting, though, and
that there are simply more of them than our ancestors had isn't much of
an excuse for handling them improperly. It is, however, something we
necessarily must consider, if we are to genuinely consider any attempt
at reformation of the current situation.

This leads me to the remaining part, which had perhaps the most active
role in things. The magistrates themselves had multiple
responsibilities in all this, most notably being the necessary
responsibility of convening the Senate, or directly referring a matter
to one of the Collegia Sacra. Magistrates, just as the Senate and the
Collegia Sacra, had the responsibility of overseeing certain feriae, and
ensuring that certain actions toward the Gods were taken. They were
also responsible for providing, as much as they could, solutions to
problems which came to their attention, either of their own view or
brought to them by others (referring back to the supreme responsibility
of the Quirites).

One of the problems in our current situation is simply a lack of
knowledge of the sacred responsibilities of magistrates. There has been
a long standing sense of "They're not telling" and "They're not asking"
among us. It's a situation that our ancestors lacked, as the
responsibilities here were so well known by persons taking office that
it was not really an issue; it is not, of course, the entire issue.

There are a great many things which contribute to the situation as it
currently stands. One is the inactivity of the Collegium Pontificum,
which is partly due to the unwillingness to compromise by some of its
members. Another problem is the fact that the responsibility for the
entire cultus Deorum has been placed in one spot, rather than spread
about, as it ought to be. Yet still is the lack of education given to
incoming magistrates. The apparent absence of the Pontifex Maximus is a
problem, too. Fear among our magistrates plays another part in the
problem. The list is truly a long one, and it would be nothing if not
supremely difficult to list them all by one person, and it might even
still be difficult to gather them all together, even with all the
Quirites participating. I see a lot of ideas for ways to fix the
situation, and I find it nothing short of amazing that so many have put
their views forth, for which I am grateful. But as we deliberate on
ways to correct our situation, I think it behooves us to fully
understand everything at work, why things have gotten where they are,
come to an agreement on where things should be and how to get them
there, and work out ways to prevent a recurrence of the situation. I've
tried to provide some assistance on the first of these things, and some
guidance on where they ought to be (in my opinion).

It is also my opinion, as I believe I've stated previously, that neither
a Senatus consultum ultimum nor a dictatorship is currently necessary; I
think the needs can be met just as well, if not better, by the ordinary
means available to us. If those means fail, perhaps then it might be
useful to discuss the extraordinary means.

Aquila {Latin} = Eagle {English}



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


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

G. IuliusScaurus Quiritibus SPD.
I did not resign the Flaminate Quirinalis upon my wife's death because I was
not a citizen of Nova Roma at the time. It was agreed in the CP at the
time I accepted the Flaminate Quirinalis that the requirement of a
confarreatio marriage, like the requirement of being the offspring of a
confarreatio marriage, would be held in abeyance, since there were no
citizens, patrician or otherwise, married in confarreatione at the time
(and, to my knowledge, there are still none) and to enforce the requirement
would mean abolishing the sacra publica.

I find it ironic that I, who am the only Flamen to have continually
conducted the sacra publica in accordance with the mos maiorum since my
appointment even when grave illness curtailed the remainder of my
participation in NR, who has been subject to attack. The reason is that I
oppose the modernist abominations with which Modianus and his attack dog
Marca Hortensia seek to deform the Religio Romana.

Since it is no longer enough to conscientiously perform duties which other
priests in Nova Roma sacriligiously ignore, I herewith resign the office of
Flamen Quirinalis effective immediately for I am not married in
confarreatione nor were my parents.

I call upon all other Flamines similarly unmarried in confarreatione whose
parents were not married in confarreatione to resign their offices
immediately.

I further call upon Modianus to resign as Pontifex and Augur for he publicly
proclaims himself to be a Druid, a practitioner of one of the only two
religions forbidden by Roman law and whose priesthood was extirpated by the
Roman state as a matter of policy. It is utterly discordant with the mos
maiorum to be simultaneously a Druid and sacerdos of the Religio Romana. I
don't expect the hypocrite to do so, because he is so clearly salivating at
the prospect of deposing Marcus Cassius Iulianus so he can become Pontifex
Maximus, but the challenge is now to him.

Valete.

Scaurus
Pontifex


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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Iulio Scauro salutem dicit

"I find it ironic that I, who am the only Flamen to have continually
conducted the sacra publica in accordance with the mos maiorum since
my appointment even when grave illness curtailed the remainder of my
participation in NR, who has been subject to attack."

Right. You are the only true follower of the Gods in Nova Roma. All
of our other Flamen do it wrong.

"Since it is no longer enough to conscientiously perform duties which
other priests in Nova Roma sacriligiously ignore, I herewith resign
the office of Flamen Quirinalis effective immediately for I am not
married in confarreatione nor were my parents."

Done. I've made the necessary notation.

"I further call upon Modianus to resign as Pontifex and Augur for he
publicly proclaims himself to be a Druid, a practitioner of one of the
only two religions forbidden by Roman law and whose priesthood was
extirpated by the Roman state as a matter of policy."

We are not playing some sort of Roman role-playing game here, at least
I am not. I KNEW my religious background would be attacked! My form
of Druidry is nature spirituality and more closely resembles those
Druidic fraternal orders that populated this country in the 1800 to
mid-1900s. It is called the Druid Revival, and is much more alive in
England than it is here in the USA, I never claimed to be a Celtic
reconstructionist. So to answer your "call for my resignation" the
answer is no. Sorry.

"I don't expect the hypocrite to do so, because he is so clearly
salivating at the prospect of deposing Marcus Cassius Iulianus so he
can become Pontifex Maximus, but the challenge is now to him."

Oh, please. My opposition to the inactivity of Marcus Cassius
Julianus is not motivated by desire for the job, although I believe I
am capable. I have stated both in the Collegium Pontificum and on
this list that I would like, when my term as censor is over, to become
Rex Sacrorum along with my wife as Regina. I do not covet the role of
Pontifex Maximus, but do believe we need one.

I think you are very knowledgeable on matters pertaining to the
Religio Romana, but I think your sense of pride has stood in your way
for a long time. Your claim that Marca Hortensia Maior is my "attack
dog" is laughable. I now consider her a friend, but she doesn't do my
will. She has made some recent statements that I disagree with and
I've stated as such to her on this list and in private.

Vale:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Dec 1, 2007 12:00 PM, Gregory Rose <gregory.rose@...> wrote:
>
> G. IuliusScaurus Quiritibus SPD.
> I did not resign the Flaminate Quirinalis upon my wife's death because I
> was
> not a citizen of Nova Roma at the time. It was agreed in the CP at the
> time I accepted the Flaminate Quirinalis that the requirement of a
> confarreatio marriage, like the requirement of being the offspring of a
> confarreatio marriage, would be held in abeyance, since there were no
> citizens, patrician or otherwise, married in confarreatione at the time
> (and, to my knowledge, there are still none) and to enforce the requirement
> would mean abolishing the sacra publica.
>
> I find it ironic that I, who am the only Flamen to have continually
> conducted the sacra publica in accordance with the mos maiorum since my
> appointment even when grave illness curtailed the remainder of my
> participation in NR, who has been subject to attack. The reason is that I
> oppose the modernist abominations with which Modianus and his attack dog
> Marca Hortensia seek to deform the Religio Romana.
>
> Since it is no longer enough to conscientiously perform duties which other
> priests in Nova Roma sacriligiously ignore, I herewith resign the office of
> Flamen Quirinalis effective immediately for I am not married in
> confarreatione nor were my parents.
>
> I call upon all other Flamines similarly unmarried in confarreatione whose
> parents were not married in confarreatione to resign their offices
> immediately.
>
> I further call upon Modianus to resign as Pontifex and Augur for he
> publicly
> proclaims himself to be a Druid, a practitioner of one of the only two
> religions forbidden by Roman law and whose priesthood was extirpated by the
> Roman state as a matter of policy. It is utterly discordant with the mos
> maiorum to be simultaneously a Druid and sacerdos of the Religio Romana. I
> don't expect the hypocrite to do so, because he is so clearly salivating at
> the prospect of deposing Marcus Cassius Iulianus so he can become Pontifex
> Maximus, but the challenge is now to him.
>
> Valete.
>
> Scaurus
> Pontifex

Salve G. Iulius Scaurus

Please withdraw your resignation because as Consul I do not except it.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consul

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus G. Iulius Scaurus sal.

There has never been an official policy by the Collegium Pontificum about
the specific requirements of your office and, as you have said, you were
elected with the knowledge that you were a widower. You have done a pretty good
job as flamen Quirinalis. I have not agreed with everything you have done or
not done but resigning your office is just plain foolishness. Also, you ain't
the only flamen to have done there job to the best they could, so that is a
line of ordure too.

If you want to quit cause you're sick, that is fine but you could just as
well take a leave of absence until you are in remission and are feeling better.
If you want to resign out of respect for the ancient traditions of the
office of flamen Quirnalis, you could do that. You could apply for a position as
a pontiff or flamen minor. Also, you are still the only official pullarius
in NR, so you are still part of the Sacred Colleges no matter what.
However, to resign just because Marca Hortensia jumped on you with both feet
is just plain CRAZY!

I have been on the receiving end of her demagoguery and rabble-rousing
rhetoric many times. However, calling her Modianus' attack dog is just wrong.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can keep her on a leash. She is a loose cannon, a
raving maniac, a wild-eyed revolutionary with delusions of SAVIORHOOD but she
is nobody's attack dog. Dispater! she is one of my provincials and I am just
happy there is a mountain range between the two of us.

As a plebeian flamen, I do not intend to resign my sacred office because
someone decides to criticize me. Heck, I am a government employee. I am used
to being criticized. Please do not throw away your many good years in Nova
Roma because of the barking & snarling of Hortensia the Hell Hound.

Marca Hortensia, I mean that in the nicest way . . . regardless of the fact
that even I cannot see it in any nice way whatsoever.

Vale.



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


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

Salve Citizens,

I ask the citizens who are active in there positions not to resign for the good of all NR. We need guidance from those who are active in the Religio we don't need them to resign. Let us also not point out others ambitions if there is no basis. Let us realize our own ambition and passion to make the Religio better. As stated before, it should not matter what other religion our citizens practice just as long they are knowledgable and respectful of the Religio. If knowledgable and respectful citizens who work hard for the Religio resign then we have failed the Gods. Resignations should come from those who do not perform their duty.

Reform the Religio!!!
Lucius Iulius Regulus
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@...>

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:26:41
To:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] G. Iulius Scaurus


Salve G. Iulius Scaurus

Please withdraw your resignation because as Consul I do not except it.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consul

Were there any?

It seems there must have been, so:

Did they attempt to conceal their views?
Or was openness the rule?
Were they ignored? belittled? persecuted?
Were they outcasts?
Or were their different views tolerated?

Are the answers to these questions well known?
I can't seem to find any really authoritative
information on the subject on the web.

The Roman reaction to Christianity, of course,
is well known and well documented, but that has
little bearing on my questions, I'm afraid

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus sal.

Don't you think you should consider holding off taking any immediate action
on this resignation? The man is supposedly being treated for thyroid cancer.
He could be having a bad day or be in pain due to his treatment. He still
has the right to rescind his resignation and he did not resign as Pullarius.
Don't you think that it would be good to wait until nine days have passed
before making this official? Show a little compassion for the sake of Dii
Immortales. The man has recently been savaged by Hortensia the Hell Hound and is
probably still counting to see if he has all of his fingers, toes, and other
vital parts.

Vale.



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


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

This is one of the stupidest posts I've read in a while, and I'm glad
you resigned.

-Annia Minucia Marcella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory Rose" <gregory.rose@...> wrote:
>
> G. IuliusScaurus Quiritibus SPD.
> I did not resign the Flaminate Quirinalis upon my wife's death
because I was
> not a citizen of Nova Roma at the time. It was agreed in the CP at the
> time I accepted the Flaminate Quirinalis that the requirement of a
> confarreatio marriage, like the requirement of being the offspring of a
> confarreatio marriage, would be held in abeyance, since there were no
> citizens, patrician or otherwise, married in confarreatione at the time
> (and, to my knowledge, there are still none) and to enforce the
requirement
> would mean abolishing the sacra publica.
>
> I find it ironic that I, who am the only Flamen to have continually
> conducted the sacra publica in accordance with the mos maiorum since my
> appointment even when grave illness curtailed the remainder of my
> participation in NR, who has been subject to attack. The reason is
that I
> oppose the modernist abominations with which Modianus and his attack dog
> Marca Hortensia seek to deform the Religio Romana.
>
> Since it is no longer enough to conscientiously perform duties which
other
> priests in Nova Roma sacriligiously ignore, I herewith resign the
office of
> Flamen Quirinalis effective immediately for I am not married in
> confarreatione nor were my parents.
>
> I call upon all other Flamines similarly unmarried in confarreatione
whose
> parents were not married in confarreatione to resign their offices
> immediately.
>
> I further call upon Modianus to resign as Pontifex and Augur for he
publicly
> proclaims himself to be a Druid, a practitioner of one of the only two
> religions forbidden by Roman law and whose priesthood was extirpated
by the
> Roman state as a matter of policy. It is utterly discordant with
the mos
> maiorum to be simultaneously a Druid and sacerdos of the Religio
Romana. I
> don't expect the hypocrite to do so, because he is so clearly
salivating at
> the prospect of deposing Marcus Cassius Iulianus so he can become
Pontifex
> Maximus, but the challenge is now to him.
>
> Valete.
>
> Scaurus
> Pontifex
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Scaurus Aureliano SPD.
I resigned as Flamen Quirinalis. I did not resign as Pontifex or Pullarius.
There is no requirement in the mos maiorum that either a Pontifex or
Pullarius be married in confarreatione or that his parents have been. I
abide by the strictest interpretation of the mos maiorum and in that I am
consistent.

Vale.

Scaurus


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

Results of Comitia Centuriata

Salvete

Diribitor Marcus Arminius Maior reports the following

For Censor
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus is elected Censor, for the
term 2761-2763 AUC (2008-2010 AD).

For Consul
Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
Titus Iulius Sabinus

Marcus Moravius is the Consul maior (or senior) and
Titus Iulius is the Consul minor (or junior), for the
year 2761 AUC (2008 AD).

For Praetor
Marcus Curiatus Complutensis
Marcus Iulius Severus

My congratulations to all of our newly elected magistrates
and my sincere thanks to all who ran for office.

Valete

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consul

-Salvete;
G. Iulius Scaurus was the leader of the anti-reform. He struck
down the reform measures with M. Iulius Cassius and other pontifices
and nothing has happened ever since.

If Scaurus and the CP wish to help the cultores, they can meet as we
speak and restore Modianus, Astur, Metellus' historical reform, it
truly is that easy.
Meet and Restore the Reform!
vale

Maior

>
> Salve Citizens,
>
> I ask the citizens who are active in there positions not to resign

for the good of all NR. We need guidance from those who are active
in the Religio we don't need them to resign. Let us also not point
out others ambitions if there is no basis. Let us realize our own
ambition and passion to make the Religio better. As stated before,
it should not matter what other religion our citizens practice just
as long they are knowledgable and respectful of the Religio. If
knowledgable and respectful citizens who work hard for the Religio
resign then we have failed the Gods. Resignations should come from
those who do not perform their duty.

>
> Reform the Religio!!!
> Lucius Iulius Regulus
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
>
> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:26:41
> To:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] G. Iulius Scaurus
>
>
> Salve G. Iulius Scaurus
>
> Please withdraw your resignation because as Consul I do not

except it.

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Consul
>

Salvete

Diribitor Marcus Arminius Maior reports these results
for the Comitia Populi Tributa

- For Aedilis Curule:
Publius Memmius Albucius
Sextus Lucilius Tutor

- For Quaestor:
Titus Arminius Genialis
Lucius Vitellius Triarius
Lucius Salix Cicero
Quintus Fabius Maximus
Aula Tullia Scholastica

- For Custos:
Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus

- For Diribitor:
Caius Aemilius Crassus
Sextus Postumius Albus
Gaius Iulius Adventor
Marcus Martianus Lupus

- For Rogator:
Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

- Lex Galeria de censu L.Arminio Ti. Galerio
consulibus producendo
31 tribes voted Uti Rogas (yes), 1 tribe voted Negat
(no), 2 tribes voted Absto (abstention).
This lex is approved.

- Lex Galeria de editore commentariorum
30 tribes voted Uti Rogas (yes), 3 tribes voted Negat
(no), 1 tribes voted Absto (abstention).
This lex is approved,

Lex Galeria de privatis rebus
19 tribes voted Uti Rogas (yes), 15 tribes voted Negat
(no). This lex is approved.

My congratulations to all of our newly elected magistrates
and my sincere thanks to all who ran for office.

Valete

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Consul

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.

You should have written that is was your opinion that it was etc. etc.
However, as someone who has known G. Iulius Scaurus for several years and has
been in opposition to him more times than not, I do not find this to be the
case. The man is supposedly sick, being treated for cancer, and one of NR's
biggest rabble-rousers just jumped on him with both feet over a matter that was
none of her frackin' business. When and if she ever gets back in a position
of the priesthood, it might be her business a little.

In my opinion, your post was one of the more foolish posts I have read
during most of the current debate because it shows that you haven't taken the time
to learn about either Scaurus, his current situation, or his accomplishments
in Nova Roma.

Dii Immortales grant you some wisdom and compassion.





**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


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

If he thinks so little of his post that he can just give it up at the
first sign of opposition then he's a fool(regardless of his health
status). His entire post sounded like a baby having a tantrum. And of
course it's my opinion, if it wasn't I wouldn't have said it.

-Annia Minucia Marcella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Annia Minucia Marcella sal.
>
> You should have written that is was your opinion that it was etc.
etc.
> However, as someone who has known G. Iulius Scaurus for several
years and has
> been in opposition to him more times than not, I do not find this to
be the
> case. The man is supposedly sick, being treated for cancer, and one
of NR's
> biggest rabble-rousers just jumped on him with both feet over a
matter that was
> none of her frackin' business. When and if she ever gets back in a
position
> of the priesthood, it might be her business a little.
>
> In my opinion, your post was one of the more foolish posts I have read
> during most of the current debate because it shows that you haven't
taken the time
> to learn about either Scaurus, his current situation, or his
accomplishments
> in Nova Roma.
>
> Dii Immortales grant you some wisdom and compassion.
>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's
hottest
> products.
>
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Equitius Cato praetore omnes SPD

Salvete omnes.

We have received the following request, which I have edited slightly for clarity and privacy's sake. Any citizen who feels inclined may contact Hadrianus privately regarding this matter.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Salvete Romani,

To all Romans on this Planet.

May I ask for the support of the Roman Republic?

I have received an appeal from a friend in Italia, to participate in
an signature and protest list for "Peta" ... (for the ethical
treatment of animals).

Thank you

Hadrianvs

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Valete,

Cato

Salve!

I really dislike PETA and I will never support them. I will discourage
everyone I know from supporting them. They are hypocrits, they've
given financial support to terrorists(for example, ALF) and they've
insulted the jewish community(as well as many others) by comparing the
meat and poultry industry to the holocaust.

I really hope that Nova Roma doesn't have an official association with
this group.

Vale,

Annia Minucia Marcella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "adriano.rota" <adriano.rota@...> wrote:
>
> C. Equitius Cato praetore omnes SPD
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> We have received the following request, which I have edited slightly
for clarity and privacy's sake. Any citizen who feels inclined may
contact Hadrianus privately regarding this matter.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Salvete Romani,
>
> To all Romans on this Planet.
>
> May I ask for the support of the Roman Republic?
>
> I have received an appeal from a friend in Italia, to participate in
> an signature and protest list for "Peta" ... (for the ethical
> treatment of animals).
>
> Thank you
>
> Hadrianvs
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>

Salve Fine Citizens,

I ask citizens to refrain from comparing each other to mythical underworld creatures. It is pointless to call each other names because it gets us nowhere. It is totally disrespectful to refer to each as raging animals. If you not like anyones demeanor here then simply say so as it is. You call each other names and expect citizens to respect you. Respect is a two way street.

Also, if it is considered demagoguery to ask for reform in the religio, then let it be so. But I assure all citizens that is not my aim here and believe many are misunderstanding our stand on this issue. I'm sure many citizens are here because they are concerned for the state of the Religio. I am a worried practitioner of the religio and would like to see reform because now is the time!! The Gods demand it and it is deserved. No more useless scraping, it gets us nowhere. Simply state your point and move along.

Reform the Religio!!!
Lucius Iulius Regulus
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...

Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:46:48
To:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: REsignation of G. Iulius Scaurus


Fl. Galerius Aurelianus G. Iulius Scaurus sal.

There has never been an official policy by the Collegium Pontificum about
the specific requirements of your office and, as you have said, you were
elected with the knowledge that you were a widower. You have done a pretty good
job as flamen Quirinalis. I have not agreed with everything you have done or
not done but resigning your office is just plain foolishness. Also, you ain't
the only flamen to have done there job to the best they could, so that is a
line of ordure too.

If you want to quit cause you're sick, that is fine but you could just as
well take a leave of absence until you are in remission and are feeling better.
If you want to resign out of respect for the ancient traditions of the
office of flamen Quirnalis, you could do that. You could apply for a position as
a pontiff or flamen minor. Also, you are still the only official pullarius
in NR, so you are still part of the Sacred Colleges no matter what.
However, to resign just because Marca Hortensia jumped on you with both feet
is just plain CRAZY!

I have been on the receiving end of her demagoguery and rabble-rousing
rhetoric many times. However, calling her Modianus' attack dog is just wrong.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can keep her on a leash. She is a loose cannon, a
raving maniac, a wild-eyed revolutionary with delusions of SAVIORHOOD but she
is nobody's attack dog. Dispater! she is one of my provincials and I am just
happy there is a mountain range between the two of us.

As a plebeian flamen, I do not intend to resign my sacred office because
someone decides to criticize me. Heck, I am a government employee. I am used
to being criticized. Please do not throw away your many good years in Nova
Roma because of the barking & snarling of Hortensia the Hell Hound.

Marca Hortensia, I mean that in the nicest way . . . regardless of the fact
that even I cannot see it in any nice way whatsoever.

Vale.

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money. <http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001> aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

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

Salve.

(Full disclosure: I am an atheist Roman.)

Lucretius is the usual example of a Roman atheist/agnostic. He wrote
that, while there may be gods, they live in such a perfect blissful
state of being that they did not concern themselves with human
affairs--and they were not moved by human prayers and sacrifices.

But, in a way, the question of "Were there any Roman atheists?", is
not quite right. It's rather like asking whether there were any Roman
homosexuals. The terms atheist and homosexual, as we use them today,
would not necessarily have any meaning for a Roman. For example, when
the 2nd c. Christian bishop Polycarp was brought into the arena (so
the story goes), the crowd shouted, "Away with the atheist!" If this
story has any truth in it, it shows that Polycarp was an atheist--not
because he didn't believe in a god, but because he didn't follow the
accepted religio.

In fact, it seems the Romans didn't care what you believed, as long as
you showed pietas towards the gods.

In a world where the religio was intertwined, as Scholastica put it,
with all aspects of daily life, it would have been nearly impossible
to be an atheist, as we know the term. The paterfamilias was still
expected to lead the family worship, the magistrate to participate in
the state religio--no matter whether they believed it or not.

Not to mention that "to believe" (as we use it) may have meant
something quite alien to a Roman.

Vale,
M. Valerius Potitus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "vibius_petronius" <vibius@...> wrote:
>
> Were there any?
>
> It seems there must have been, so:
>
> Did they attempt to conceal their views?
> Or was openness the rule?
> Were they ignored? belittled? persecuted?
> Were they outcasts?
> Or were their different views tolerated?
>
> Are the answers to these questions well known?
> I can't seem to find any really authoritative
> information on the subject on the web.
>
> The Roman reaction to Christianity, of course,
> is well known and well documented, but that has
> little bearing on my questions, I'm afraid
>

Cato C. Pompeio Marcello omnibusque sal.

Salve Pompeius Marcellus et salvete omnes.

It seems that this theme rears its ugly head once every few months,
spurred on by some persons who know much better for reasons that
remain unclear. Unfortunately, if you do not agree with these persons
and their own private concept of the Religio they immediately assume
that you are too ignorant - or unintelligent enough - to respond
accurately. They exhibit exactly the kind of narrow-mindedness and
bias that they then turn and accuse others of spreading. I would
suggest that such persons let those Nova Romans who are "much wiser
and better informed" actually do the talking. I will speak from the
Christian "side".

The Respublica is not, under any circumstances, considering adopting
Christianity as the State cult. I can promise you that I - as a
magistrate right now and as a citizen for the imaginable future and a
Christian - would never, ever, support, suggest, or encourage any
thinking along these lines under any circumstances whatsoever. The
State cult is the worship of the gods and goddesses of Rome in saecula
saeculorum.

Vale et valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "James V Hooper" <warrior44_us@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve,
> As in any republic the majority rules and this must be so...

and I will

> bend to the will of such a majority. But as for me, who is a Pagan

24/7 not

> just on this site... I will have to reconsider my citizenship if

this group

> adopts Christianity as the state religion. Keep it Roman PLEASE.
> Vale,
> Gaius Pompeius Marcellus
>
>
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:11:50 -0000
> "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
> > Salvete;
> > it's not enough to swear, all the current Senators did. And they are
> > not voting for reform because they don't understand the Religio; this
> > is not my opinion, but that of eminent Nova Romans much wiser and
> > better informed than myself.
> >
> > I think it is reasonable that Senators and magistrates perform
> > whatever religious activities Senators and magistrates did in the
> > Republic.
> > bene valete
> > Maior
> >
> >> > I think what she was intending to get across was the
> >> > fact that the Praetors' devoutness to Christianity would naturally
> >> > inhibit their care for a Pagan religion.
> >>
> >> Every Nova Roman magistrate takes an oath of office where they
> > swear
> >> to support the Religio Romana as the official state religion. That
> >> pretty much guarantees we don't have anybody serving as a
> > magistrate
> >> who is opposed to the Religio.
> >>
> >>
> >> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
> >>
> >
> >
>

>

A. Tullia Scholastica L. Iulió Reguló quirítibus, sociís, peregrínísque
bonae voluntátis S.P.D.

>
> Salve Citizens,
>
> Again this topic is creating too much hostility and name calling.
>
> ATS: This is a hot topic, and tempers are just about guaranteed to flare.
> I can certainly share the frustrations of the cultores with regard to the
> paralysis in the CP and its effect upon the Religio Publica. All of us
> should.
>
>
>
> If you feel someone is not doing enough then say so outright.
>
> ATS: The remarks were not directed at those who in fact are not doing
> enough, but at someone whose temperament is prone to tantrums and to making
> half-baked statements without regard to the truth, inter alia.
>
>
> We dont have to compare each other to commercialized farm animals, which is
> outright disrespectful.
>
> ATS: I¹m afraid that Cn. Equitius Marinus, as a former consul and
> immediate past censor, among other posts he has held and services he has
> performed for the Res Publica, is well-qualified to assess the competency of
> another long-time citizen for the censura. The academic skills of the party
> in question may suffice for the position, but her nature and behavior do not
> equip her for the post. Most of us who have been here for some years have had
> adequate opportunity to see as much. Veritas inter nos valeat.
>
>
> That is one of the problems among some of the citizens, they result to calling
> each other demeaning names to make a point.
>
> ATS: Trust me, the party in question is talented at some elements of
> that, though she has been making nice for campaign season. Senator Marinus,
> on the other hand, tends to eschew such behavior. Please note that this party
> was in fact declared nefas, that is, accursed, under the Roman religion...and
> for reasons much less compelling to those outside the Collegium Pontificum,
> which did this, than other elements of her behavior. This status was revoked
> only to spare the rest of us ira deorum.
>
>
> Simply state your business on the post and move along. We all must remain
> united to acheive our goals else we fail the Gods again.
>
> ATS: The problem seems to be on the sacerdotal end, not that of
> individual cultores...
>
> Reform the Religio!!!
> Lucius Iulius Regulus
>
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@... <mailto:gawne%40cesmail.net> >
> wrote:
> Maior <rory12001@... <mailto:rory12001%40yahoo.com> > writes:
>
>> > Right now in the Senate we could have reform if the senators voted
>> > for it.
>
> That is true. However, it's not the senators who aren't personal
> practitioners of the Religio who're going to vote against what's been
> proposed here. At least not most of them. It's senators who are
> deeply entrenched in the Religio who will oppose this.
>
>> > But more than half the senators are not cultores,
>
> Oh? Are you sure of that? A quick look at the Album Senatorium gives
> me 21 of 33 senators I'm sure consider themselves practitioners.
> That's well over half.
>
>> > are ill informed about the Religio,
>
> So you say. Some would say the same of you.
>
>> > and are afraid to vote for reform.
>
> Or just don't want to vote for reform, because they like having things
> the way they are. Or perhaps they can't agree on what reforms are
> needed.
>
>> > It's a sad state of affairs.
>
> It is, but I don't see you doing much to make it better. You're
> running off half-cocked blathering nonsense and spewing demagoguery
> here instead of working to actually develop a voting majority of
> senators. If, gods forfend, you *are* elected censor it will only be
> because Modianus sponsored you. You're no more qualified to be censor
> than the Aflac duck.
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>
> ---------------------------------

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

M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
I ran against Tiberius Galerius for Censor and I wish to be the
first to congratulate him. He is hard-working with a keen
appreciation of our current problems.

I am sure he will be a fine censor and will help censor Caeso Fabius
Buteo Modianus with our reform.
may the gods of Rome be propitious to us!
Marca Hortensia Maior
read articles at the nrwiki on:
Lar
Penates
Liber
Magna Mater
Cultus Apollonis
Fortuna
and an online temple to: Fortuna.
Roman Laws

>
> For Censor
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus is elected Censor, for the
> term 2761-2763 AUC (2008-2010 AD).
>
> For Consul
> Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
> Titus Iulius Sabinus
>
> Marcus Moravius is the Consul maior (or senior) and
> Titus Iulius is the Consul minor (or junior), for the
> year 2761 AUC (2008 AD).
>
> For Praetor
> Marcus Curiatus Complutensis
> Marcus Iulius Severus
>
> My congratulations to all of our newly elected magistrates
> and my sincere thanks to all who ran for office.
>
> Valete
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Consul
>

Salvete,
obviously Annia Minucia Marcella,

you don't get it !!!

watch the link please, watch the link and tell me if it is about supporting an organisation or poor creatures. Your incredible trivial response is hopfully just a "Faux Pas".
I do not ask to support Peta, or for any official statement or comment to support them. Not from RN and not from any Roman citizen. I have to state that again.
And I am not a member of Peta!!!

To be Roman or civilized in the 21st. century means to have some responsibility.
I pray to the gods that they help to stop the destruction and the barbaric treatment of intelligent creatures of nature surrounding us and which make this world and planet so beautiful.

We have to learn from the past in order to advance !

Romanii please watch and decide if it is not a roman virtue of today to fight against barbarism which still exist obviously !
I think it is a great thing for every roman to be part of acommunity which can also create at least a little weight outside of the Roman Nation.

With the highest respect
for Roma Nova

Hadrianvs


This is the link:
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=fur_farm&Player=wm&speed=medSe
ITALIANO:
quello che hai visto ti ha sconvolto come ha sconvolto me ti pregodifirmare e di inviare la mail ai tuoi contatti.ATTENZIONE: Non inoltrare il messaggio ma crea una nuova mail e faitaglia eincolla (aggiungi il tuo nome e mandalo ai tuoi contatti)in modo che non compaiano i simboli '> ').QUANDO LA LISTA AVRA' 500 FIRME PER FAVORE INVIALA A : PETA2@...

ENGLISH:
What you have seen in the link above has to be stopped! As a member of a civilized culture please process this list and pass it on. ++Copy the entire text --- then create a new mail and paste the entire text ---- then add your list number at the end of the list , your name and country ----- then send it to somebody else you know who is also willing to give his signature.
AS SOON AS THE LIST REACHES 500 NAMES PLEASE SEND IT TO : PETA@...
Thank you very much!!!
Adriano Rota Gemina_Victrix_XIV@...

GERMAN:
Was Sie im obenstehenden link gesehen haben muss gestoppt werden! Als ein Mitglied einer zivilisierten Kultur bitten wir Sie um Ihre Unterschrift. Bitte bearbeiten Sie die Unterschriftenliste wie folgt: Kopieren Sie den gesamten text ---- kreiren Sie eine neue e-mail und fuegen Sie diesen Text ein ---- tragen Sie am Ende des Textes die naechste fortlaufende Nummer und Ihren Namen sowie Wohnort ein --- Senden Sie dieses Dokument an jemanden den Sie kennen und der ebenfalls gewillt ist seine Unterschrift zu geben.
WENN DIE LISTE 500 UNTERSCHRIFTEN HAT SENDEN SIE DIE GESAMTE LISTE AN : PETA@...
Vielen Dank!!!
Adriano Rota Gemina_Victrix_XIV@...




Stop Fur Farming
Stop Barbarism with animals

Signature list


00. Hadrianvs Rota (Brunson, SC-USA)



----- Original Message ----
From: Annia Minucia Marcella <annia@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2007 4:26:15 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Romans to fight against 21st. century barbarism

Salve!

I really dislike PETA and I will never support them. I will discourage
everyone I know from supporting them. They are hypocrits, they've
given financial support to terrorists(for example, ALF) and they've
insulted the jewish community(as well as many others) by comparing the
meat and poultry industry to the holocaust.

I really hope that Nova Roma doesn't have an official association with
this group.

Vale,

Annia Minucia Marcella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "adriano.rota" <adriano.rota@ ...> wrote:
>
> C. Equitius Cato praetore omnes SPD
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> We have received the following request, which I have edited slightly
for clarity and privacy's sake. Any citizen who feels inclined may
contact Hadrianus privately regarding this matter.
>
> ++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++
>
> Salvete Romani,
>
> To all Romans on this Planet.
>
> May I ask for the support of the Roman Republic?
>
> I have received an appeal from a friend in Italia, to participate in
> an signature and protest list for "Peta" ... (for the ethical
> treatment of animals).
>
> Thank you
>
> Hadrianvs
>
> ++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>





____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "adriano.rota" <adriano.rota@...> wrote:

>
> C. Equitius Cato praetore omnes SPD
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> We have received the following request, which I have edited slightly

for clarity and privacy's sake. Any citizen who feels inclined may
contact Hadrianus privately regarding this matter.

>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Salvete Romani,
>
> To all Romans on this Planet.
>
> May I ask for the support of the Roman Republic?
>
> I have received an appeal from a friend in Italia, to participate in
> an signature and protest list for "Peta" ... (for the ethical
> treatment of animals).
>

COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM
Decretum on Sacrifices

The Collegium Pontificum has met and decreed:

The Collegium Pontificum is the only institution empowered to regulate
the ritual practice of the Religio Publica of Nova Roma. Until such a
time as the Collegium Pontificum may determine that circumstances are
appropriate for the full restoration of the cultus of the Religio
Publica the Collegium neither mandates nor prohibits animal sacrifice
in the caerimoniae of the Religio Publica. Practitioners of the
Religio Romana, including sacerdotes conducting the caerimoniae of the
Religio Publica, may conduct or refrain from animal sacrifice in
accordance with their conscience and circumstances. If animal
sacrifice is conducted in accordance with this decretum, the slaughter
of the animal must be conducted humanely, in accordance with the mos
maiorum, and in compliance with the macronational law applying to the
locale of the sacrifice. The Collegium does not intend to request
appropriation of public funds by the Senate for animal sacrifice until
and unless a final decision on the full restoration of the ancient
cultus has been made, a circumstance which we do not envision as
likely until the construction of public temples occurs and the fullest
possible discussion of the matter has been undertaken by the
appropriate authorities of the state.

QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QVIRITIBVS

a.d. VII Kal. Mai. MMDCCLVII (24 April 2004)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Adriano Rota <adriano.rota@...> wrote:

>
> Salvete,
> obviously Annia Minucia Marcella,
>
> you don't get it !!!
>

Salve Adriano Rota
so this would be a bad time to tell the list of the up coming animal
sacrifice as the Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis .
and no it is not a joke ,I do and as a few others do in NR the Old
rites like animal sacrifice and is " meet and right to do" it is
something the NR priests( not all ) do.
it has not a thing to do with "barbarism" as that is by Deff not roman.

Vale
Marcus Cornelius Felix
Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis

( what little old me looking for a fight with fuffy barbaris{ you think })

> watch the link please, watch the link and tell me if it is about

supporting an organisation or poor creatures. Your incredible trivial
response is hopfully just a "Faux Pas".

> I do not ask to support Peta, or for any official statement or

comment to support them. Not from RN and not from any Roman citizen. I
have to state that again.

> And I am not a member of Peta!!!
>
> To be Roman or civilized in the 21st. century means to have some

responsibility.

> I pray to the gods that they help to stop the destruction and the

barbaric treatment of intelligent creatures of nature surrounding us
and which make this world and planet so beautiful.

>
> We have to learn from the past in order to advance !
>
> Romanii please watch and decide if it is not a roman virtue of today

to fight against barbarism which still exist obviously !

> I think it is a great thing for every roman to be part of acommunity

which can also create at least a little weight outside of the Roman
Nation.

>
> With the highest respect
> for Roma Nova
>
> Hadrianvs
>
>
> This is the link:
>

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=fur_farm&Player=wm&speed=medSe

> ITALIANO:
> quello che hai visto ti ha sconvolto come ha sconvolto me ti

pregodifirmare e di inviare la mail ai tuoi contatti.ATTENZIONE: Non
inoltrare il messaggio ma crea una nuova mail e faitaglia eincolla
(aggiungi il tuo nome e mandalo ai tuoi contatti)in modo che non
compaiano i simboli '> ').QUANDO LA LISTA AVRA' 500 FIRME PER FAVORE
INVIALA A : PETA2@...

>
> ENGLISH:
> What you have seen in the link above has to be stopped! As a member

of a civilized culture please process this list and pass it on. ++Copy
the entire text --- then create a new mail and paste the entire text
---- then add your list number at the end of the list , your name and
country ----- then send it to somebody else you know who is also
willing to give his signature.

> AS SOON AS THE LIST REACHES 500 NAMES PLEASE SEND IT TO : PETA@...
> Thank you very much!!!
> Adriano Rota Gemina_Victrix_XIV@...
>
> GERMAN:
> Was Sie im obenstehenden link gesehen haben muss gestoppt werden!

Als ein Mitglied einer zivilisierten Kultur bitten wir Sie um Ihre
Unterschrift. Bitte bearbeiten Sie die Unterschriftenliste wie folgt:
Kopieren Sie den gesamten text ---- kreiren Sie eine neue e-mail und
fuegen Sie diesen Text ein ---- tragen Sie am Ende des Textes die
naechste fortlaufende Nummer und Ihren Namen sowie Wohnort ein ---
Senden Sie dieses Dokument an jemanden den Sie kennen und der
ebenfalls gewillt ist seine Unterschrift zu geben.

> WENN DIE LISTE 500 UNTERSCHRIFTEN HAT SENDEN SIE DIE GESAMTE LISTE

AN : PETA@...

> Vielen Dank!!!
> Adriano Rota Gemina_Victrix_XIV@...
>
>
>
>
> Stop Fur Farming
> Stop Barbarism with animals
>
> Signature list
>
>
> 00. Hadrianvs Rota (Brunson, SC-USA)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Annia Minucia Marcella <annia@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2007 4:26:15 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Romans to fight against 21st. century barbarism
>
> Salve!
>
> I really dislike PETA and I will never support them. I will discourage
> everyone I know from supporting them. They are hypocrits, they've
> given financial support to terrorists(for example, ALF) and they've
> insulted the jewish community(as well as many others) by comparing the
> meat and poultry industry to the holocaust.
>
> I really hope that Nova Roma doesn't have an official association with
> this group.
>
> Vale,
>
> Annia Minucia Marcella
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "adriano.rota" <adriano.rota@

...> wrote:

> >
> > C. Equitius Cato praetore omnes SPD
> >
> > Salvete omnes.
> >
> > We have received the following request, which I have edited slightly
> for clarity and privacy's sake. Any citizen who feels inclined may
> contact Hadrianus privately regarding this matter.
> >
> > ++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++

+++++++++ ++++++

> >
> > Salvete Romani,
> >
> > To all Romans on this Planet.
> >
> > May I ask for the support of the Roman Republic?
> >
> > I have received an appeal from a friend in Italia, to participate in
> > an signature and protest list for "Peta" ... (for the ethical
> > treatment of animals).
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Hadrianvs
> >
> > ++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++

+++++++++ ++++++

> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

vibius_petronius <vibius@...> writes:

> Were there any?

Yes.

Perhaps the most famous was M. Tullius Cicero, who was quite candid
about his lack of belief even though he was also a public augur who
wrote an authoritative book on the science of augury.

The Religio Romana did not require belief. It required participation.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Salve Hadriane, et salvete quirites,

Hadriane, I'm sure your heart is in the right place and you mean well,
but you are opening up a can of worms that never, ever, results in any
improvement for your side of this issue in Nova Roma.

Quirites, I appreciate that many of you find Hadrianus' suggestion
offensive in the extreme. I ask that you practice forbearance and
simply let the matter drop. Nova Roma is not about to adopt any
policies supporting PETA. No such proposal would get any traction in
the senate, and would certainly be defeated in any comitia.

So let's all just acknowledge that Hadrianus holds a point of view
that differs from that held by most of us, and that he's been naive to
post his request here. We don't need the storm of angry protests from
all of you who want to sacrifice your own chickens or sheep or whatever.

Vale, et valete,


CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Cato C. Fabio Buteoni Modiano sal.

Thank you, Modianus. The various constituencies in our Respublica are
like the couple who have been married for 50 years and continually
bitch and moan about each other yet end up each night side by side on
the couch resting their heads together unable to imagine anyplace they
would rather be. It's nice to be home :-)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "David Kling (Modianus)"
<tau.athanasios@...> wrote:

>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit
>
> I was wondering if you were doing well. It is good to see you posting
> again in the forum.
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Buteo
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 6:36 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > C. Equitius Cato omnes SPD
> >
> > Salvete omnes!
> >
> > It has been a while since I have posted; many things conspired (as
> > they do in all of our lives at one time or another) to force me to
> > focus elsewhere.
> >
> > I have several comments to make on the current discussion, but for
> > now, I will only say that M. Hortensia Maior is absolutely wrong if
> > she thinks that either of the praetores is anything but completely
> > supportive of the State cult. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
> >
> > Appropriately, today is - as well as being the kalends of December -
> > dedicated to the goddess Pietas. Perhaps a good day on which to
> > reflect about the direction the State cult has taken, and where it
> > might be more usefully directed in the future. Not for the sake of
> > practitioners, not "in spite" of non-practitioners, but for the
> > benefit of the Respublica itself.
> >
> > Valete bene,
> >
> > Cato
>

Cato omnes SPD

Salvete.

Just to be absolutely clear, I support the right of any practitioner
to practice the Religio as they see fit within the laws of the
macronational entity within which they reside. I approved an edited
version of Hadrianus' post because I believe that all citizens should
be free to speak their minds in the Forum of the Respublica.

Thank you, Equitius Marinus, for your clear and (hopefully) adequate
statement to Hadrianus.

Vale,

Cato

Cato Q. Caecilio Metello Postumiano sal.

Salve Caecilius Metellu.

An excellent overview, pontiff, and one which should serve the
Respublica well through careful consideration.

One question:

If a private citizen performs rites to the gods incorrectly, does this
have any ill effect on the Respublica as a whole? The reason I ask is
that (giving them every benefit of the doubt) perhaps some in the
College of Pontiffs are afraid that if they perform rites on behalf of
the Respublica as a whole without perfect knowledge of the exact
correct ancient procedure, it could be of grave harm to the Respublica.

Vale,

Cato

That, in a nutshell, is what it's all about.

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote: vibius_petronius <vibius@...> writes:

> Were there any?

Yes.

Perhaps the most famous was M. Tullius Cicero, who was quite candid
about his lack of belief even though he was also a public augur who
wrote an authoritative book on the science of augury.

The Religio Romana did not require belief. It required participation.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS







---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.

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

Outstanding! I wholeheartedly support the statement of the CP.

vallenporter <vallenporter@...> wrote: --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "adriano.rota" <adriano.rota@...> wrote:

>
> C. Equitius Cato praetore omnes SPD
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> We have received the following request, which I have edited slightly

for clarity and privacy's sake. Any citizen who feels inclined may
contact Hadrianus privately regarding this matter.

>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Salvete Romani,
>
> To all Romans on this Planet.
>
> May I ask for the support of the Roman Republic?
>
> I have received an appeal from a friend in Italia, to participate in
> an signature and protest list for "Peta" ... (for the ethical
> treatment of animals).
>

COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM
Decretum on Sacrifices

The Collegium Pontificum has met and decreed:

The Collegium Pontificum is the only institution empowered to regulate
the ritual practice of the Religio Publica of Nova Roma. Until such a
time as the Collegium Pontificum may determine that circumstances are
appropriate for the full restoration of the cultus of the Religio
Publica the Collegium neither mandates nor prohibits animal sacrifice
in the caerimoniae of the Religio Publica. Practitioners of the
Religio Romana, including sacerdotes conducting the caerimoniae of the
Religio Publica, may conduct or refrain from animal sacrifice in
accordance with their conscience and circumstances. If animal
sacrifice is conducted in accordance with this decretum, the slaughter
of the animal must be conducted humanely, in accordance with the mos
maiorum, and in compliance with the macronational law applying to the
locale of the sacrifice. The Collegium does not intend to request
appropriation of public funds by the Senate for animal sacrifice until
and unless a final decision on the full restoration of the ancient
cultus has been made, a circumstance which we do not envision as
likely until the construction of public temples occurs and the fullest
possible discussion of the matter has been undertaken by the
appropriate authorities of the state.

QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QVIRITIBVS

a.d. VII Kal. Mai. MMDCCLVII (24 April 2004)








---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.

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

Any variation or deviation from the Mos Maiorum in regards to anything as essentially Roman as the conduct of the state religion as per accepted Republican custom and tradition is not only "unRoman", but also a cheap and thinly veiled attempt by the PC 5th Columnists to usurp what Nova Roma is really all about; namely, the restoration of hallowed and venerable ancient Roman traditions. The very same traditions that have provided the foundations of Western Civilization; i.e. respect for individual liberties, property, freedom of conscience, etc.
I am only a Plebeian, and a recent addition to Nova Roma at that, and I have tried mightily to ignore all the recent b******t emanating from some of our esteemed citizens concerning such issues as the conduct of the Religio Romanum. I cannot, however, stay quiet any longer! To all of you backsliders and naysayers I say, "Either you want to be Roman and accept everything that means being Roman, or you don't!".

vallenporter <vallenporter@...> wrote: --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "adriano.rota" <adriano.rota@...> wrote:

>
> C. Equitius Cato praetore omnes SPD
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> We have received the following request, which I have edited slightly

for clarity and privacy's sake. Any citizen who feels inclined may
contact Hadrianus privately regarding this matter.

>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Salvete Romani,
>
> To all Romans on this Planet.
>
> May I ask for the support of the Roman Republic?
>
> I have received an appeal from a friend in Italia, to participate in
> an signature and protest list for "Peta" ... (for the ethical
> treatment of animals).
>

COLLEGIUM PONTIFICUM
Decretum on Sacrifices

The Collegium Pontificum has met and decreed:

The Collegium Pontificum is the only institution empowered to regulate
the ritual practice of the Religio Publica of Nova Roma. Until such a
time as the Collegium Pontificum may determine that circumstances are
appropriate for the full restoration of the cultus of the Religio
Publica the Collegium neither mandates nor prohibits animal sacrifice
in the caerimoniae of the Religio Publica. Practitioners of the
Religio Romana, including sacerdotes conducting the caerimoniae of the
Religio Publica, may conduct or refrain from animal sacrifice in
accordance with their conscience and circumstances. If animal
sacrifice is conducted in accordance with this decretum, the slaughter
of the animal must be conducted humanely, in accordance with the mos
maiorum, and in compliance with the macronational law applying to the
locale of the sacrifice. The Collegium does not intend to request
appropriation of public funds by the Senate for animal sacrifice until
and unless a final decision on the full restoration of the ancient
cultus has been made, a circumstance which we do not envision as
likely until the construction of public temples occurs and the fullest
possible discussion of the matter has been undertaken by the
appropriate authorities of the state.

QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QVIRITIBVS

a.d. VII Kal. Mai. MMDCCLVII (24 April 2004)








---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

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

Cato Jorge Hernadez salutem dicit.

Salve Jorge.

While I understand the passion with which you speak, I must say that
we have come to acknowledge that certain areas within the ancient
Roman mos are simply no longer applicable: to bring up two old
chestnuts specifically, the status of women and the ownership of
slaves are simply no longer issues about which we can possibly accept
the restrictions or dictates of the ancient mos.

I have spoken at length at various times about the necessity for us,
as a Respublica in the 26th century from the founding of the City, to
form our own unique mos; one that is firmly grounded in much of the
ancient mos but one which more precisely reflects us, the new
Respublica today, in our world. The Romans were above all else
practical; if something worked they did it, if it didn't work, they
found a way that did. We do not live in ancient Rome. We are not
ancient Romans. We are a *new* people, and our Respublica is a *new*
one.

Perhaps, someday, we will have common public spaces - a temple or
temples from which the smoke of incense or immolation will rise,
accompanied by the sonorous chant of the great language in honor of
the ancient gods. Practitioners of the religio Romana can envision
that day, and are welcome to do so. But clinging to the unworkable
shards of a dead culture is neither healthy nor - more importantly
from a truly Roman mindset - useful. We, in Roman fashion, must take
those vast and glorious elements of that culture which can be adapted
and work them, mold them into something useful, and beautiful, and
enriching to the new Respublica.

Vale bene,

Cato

Agricola Catoni sal.

It is so good to read your posts here again!

Optime vale!



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...>
wrote:

>
> Cato C. Fabio Buteoni Modiano sal.
>
> Thank you, Modianus. The various constituencies in our Respublica are
> like the couple who have been married for 50 years and continually
> bitch and moan about each other yet end up each night side by side on
> the couch resting their heads together unable to imagine anyplace they
> would rather be. It's nice to be home :-)
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

Salvete omnes,

I enjoy animals and even spent a fortune keeping my cat alive overthe
years sacrificng time, travel and my personal men's toys for the
little fellow. I am afraid though that the Romans who we try to
emulate, did not have a good track record as far as animals were
concerened. They drove some to near extinction in their arenas just
for the sport of it all.

Valete bene,

QSP

Salvete Romanii,

I am sorry if I stepped one someones feet. But do you all realize that I did not state anything against NR religious practices? I just thought that modern Romans do have something against skinning well alive dogs and foxes and much more only to sell their furs to some decadent modernists. That is all I spoke about. I received some supporting statements as there are obviously and fortunately some who understood me.
Honestly I am a little surprised how wrong I have been understood since I think I did not mention any religious matters of NR, nor did I presume that NRomans practice inhumane killing methods for animal sacrifices.
Being a modern Roman mysel I think it is no blasphemy to be against a non civilized barbaric and before all a solemly money oriented slaughter, the most brutal way in China.

Sorry Romani for touching obviously a tabu subject.

Thanks to the ones who understood me as I really did not want to hurt anybodies feelings with this matter.

Respectful

Hadrianvs


----- Original Message ----
From: Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2007 9:36:24 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Romans to fight against 21st. century barbarism

Cato Jorge Hernadez salutem dicit.

Salve Jorge.

While I understand the passion with which you speak, I must say that
we have come to acknowledge that certain areas within the ancient
Roman mos are simply no longer applicable: to bring up two old
chestnuts specifically, the status of women and the ownership of
slaves are simply no longer issues about which we can possibly accept
the restrictions or dictates of the ancient mos.

I have spoken at length at various times about the necessity for us,
as a Respublica in the 26th century from the founding of the City, to
form our own unique mos; one that is firmly grounded in much of the
ancient mos but one which more precisely reflects us, the new
Respublica today, in our world. The Romans were above all else
practical; if something worked they did it, if it didn't work, they
found a way that did. We do not live in ancient Rome. We are not
ancient Romans. We are a *new* people, and our Respublica is a *new*
one.

Perhaps, someday, we will have common public spaces - a temple or
temples from which the smoke of incense or immolation will rise,
accompanied by the sonorous chant of the great language in honor of
the ancient gods. Practitioners of the religio Romana can envision
that day, and are welcome to do so. But clinging to the unworkable
shards of a dead culture is neither healthy nor - more importantly
from a truly Roman mindset - useful. We, in Roman fashion, must take
those vast and glorious elements of that culture which can be adapted
and work them, mold them into something useful, and beautiful, and
enriching to the new Respublica.

Vale bene,

Cato





____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
Jorge Hernandez wrote:

> The Religio Romana did not require belief. It required

participation.

On the first century before common era many people in Rome were
agnostics. Epicurean Lucretius, Jul.Caesar, Lucullus... and M. Tullius
Cicero, of course.

Great time in which, like Caesar, you could be Pontifex Maximus and
have great doubts about gods...

But as you said the religio Romana did no require belief but
participation.

The general Jul. Caesar, even if he had doubts about gods, during the
Gallic war, for example, did not fight without taking auspices.

G. Petronius Dexter

Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> writes:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> Jorge Hernandez wrote:
>
>> The Religio Romana did not require belief. It required
> participation.

No, I wrote that. Jorge quoted me. Get your attributions right.


CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Quiritibus et omnibus salutem
plurimam dicit: Di vos inculumes custodiant.

Hodie est ante diem IIII Nonas Decembris; haec dies nefastus aterque
est.

AUC 245 / 508 BCE: Horatius Cocles on the Pons Sublicius

"On the appearance of the enemy the country people fled into the City
as best they could. The weak places in the defences were occupied by
military posts; elsewhere the walls and the Tiber were deemed
sufficient protection. The enemy would have forced their way over the
Sublician bridge had it not been for one man, Horatius Cocles. The
good fortune of Rome provided him as her bulwark on that memorable
day. He happened to be on guard at the bridge when he saw the
Janiculum taken by a sudden assault and the enemy rushing down from
it to the river, whilst his own men, a panic-struck mob, were
deserting their posts and throwing away their arms. He reproached
them one after another for their cowardice, tried to stop them,
appealed to them in heaven's name to stand, declared that it was in
vain for them to seek safety in flight whilst leaving the bridge open
behind them, there would very soon be more of the enemy on the
Palatine and the Capitol than there were on the Janiculum. So he
shouted to them to break down the bridge by sword or fire, or by
whatever means they could, he would meet the enemies' attack so far
as one man could keep them at bay. He advanced to the head of the
bridge. Amongst the fugitives, whose backs alone were visible to the
enemy, he was conspicuous as he fronted them armed for fight at close
quarters. The enemy were astounded at his preternatural courage. Two
men were kept by a sense of shame from deserting him-Sp. Lartius and
T. Herminius-both of them men of high birth and renowned courage.
With them he sustained the first tempestuous shock and wild confused
onset, for a brief interval. Then, whilst only a small portion of the
bridge remained and those who were cutting it down called upon them
to retire, he insisted upon these, too, retreating. Looking round
with eyes dark with menace upon the Etruscan chiefs, he challenged
them to single combat, and reproached them all with being the slaves
of tyrant kings, and whilst unmindful of their own liberty coming to
attack that of others. For some time they hesitated, each looking
round upon the others to begin. At length shame roused them to
action, and raising a shout they hurled their javelins from all sides
on their solitary foe. He caught them on his outstretched shield, and
with unshaken resolution kept his place on the bridge with firmly
planted foot. They were just attempting to dislodge him by a charge
when the crash of the broken bridge and the shout which the Romans
raised at seeing the work completed stayed the attack by filling them
with sudden panic. Then Cocles said, 'Tiberinus, holy Father, I pray
Thee to receive into Thy propitious stream these arms and this Thy
warrior.' So, fully armed, he leaped into the Tiber, and though many
missiles fell over him he swam across in safety to his friends: an
act of daring more famous than credible with posterity. The State
showed its gratitude for such courage; his statue was set up in the
Comitium, and as much land given to him as he could drive the plough
round in one day. Besides this public honour, the citizens
individually showed their feeling; for, in spite of the great
scarcity, each, in proportion to his means, sacrificed what he could
from his own store as a gift to Cocles." ~ Titus Livius 2.10


Our thought for today is from Epictetus' Enchiridion 39

"The body is to every one the proper measure of its possessions, as
the foot is of the shoe. If, therefore, you stop at this, you will
keep the measure; but if you move beyond it, you must necessarily be
carried forward, as down a precipice; as in the case of a shoe, if
you go beyond its fitness to the foot, it comes first to be gilded,
then purple, and then studded with jewels. For to that which once
exceeds the fit measure there is no bound."

Salvete omnes,

I am sad to learn that Pontifex Scaurus is having some serious health
problems and I'll keep him in my prayers. I know he has had his
differences with some citizens but I have not forgotten his
scholarship and time put into NR and I learned much from him and hope
to do so in the future.

As many of you know, being a non practitioner in the Religio, I have a
policy of not interfering in the debates within the religio. I
certainly hope that current issues will be resolved to everyone's
satisfaction in and out of the college.

Valete bene,

Quintus Suetonius Paulinus