Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Apl 28-30, 2011

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84221 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84222 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84223 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84224 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Inclusiveness and Prayer to the Capitoline Triad
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84225 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84226 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.(Reposting from our PM)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84227 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Roman Prayer Project - Just a few moments of your time si placet..
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84228 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84229 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: A Floralia Challenge w/ a Prize!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84230 From: Cato Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: a.d. IV Kal. Mai.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84231 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84232 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84233 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84234 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84235 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: LUDI CERIALES - Final race!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84236 From: Tragedienne Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84237 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: LUDI CERIALES - Closing ceremony
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84238 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84239 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84240 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: LUDI CERIALES - Closing ceremony
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84241 From: Denise D. Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Res: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84242 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84243 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84244 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84245 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84246 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84247 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84248 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: PRAYER EMERGENCY
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84249 From: Sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84250 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84251 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84252 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: PRAYER EMERGENCY
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84253 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84254 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84255 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Res: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84256 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84257 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84258 From: Lyn Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84259 From: Cato Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: a.d. III Kal. Mai.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84260 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84261 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84262 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84263 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84264 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Senate Call
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84265 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84266 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84267 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84268 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84269 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84270 From: Sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84271 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84272 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84273 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84274 From: eljefe3126@netscape.net Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Egeria, was: Re: a.d. III Kal. Mai.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84275 From: Cato Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Egeria, was: Re: a.d. III Kal. Mai.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84276 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84277 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84278 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84279 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84280 From: Robert Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84281 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84282 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84283 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84284 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84285 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84286 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84287 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84288 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84289 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: [collegium_pontificum_nr] Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84290 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84291 From: Cato Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: prid. Kal. Mai.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84292 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: APOLLO, Mars, et al
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84293 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: APOLLO, Mars, et al
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84294 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: APOLLO, Mars, et al
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84295 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: APOLLO, Mars, et al
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84296 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84297 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84298 From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Kalends, 5/1/2011, 12:00 am
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84299 From: Sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84300 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84301 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84302 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84303 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84304 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84305 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84306 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84307 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84308 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84309 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84310 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84311 From: Sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84312 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84313 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84314 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84315 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84316 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84317 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84318 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84319 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84320 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84321 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: on several things



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84221 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.


I actually knew you would respond to this mishap Magistra and you are very
quick to assume I would cast some shadow of deception. But I am prepared
for your complaint.

And in light of the recent tax changes it is obvious we are in a rough
economic climate and it makes no sense for citizens who cannot pay a 25$ tax
on average but be expected to attend two different Conventi, and when I say
"attend" I mean the following: Pay for airfare, pay for hotels, pay for
meals, and possible transportation costs two times. When you complained
about having citizens pay a 25$ a year tax, why do you feel the need to have
two different conventi when you opposed meeting Nova Roma's financial
obligations.

On a second note as for the "Lottery" idea that I came up with at the very
beginning of my term, I did indeed to propose to all of the Governors within
the North American continent and it received a very chilly reception. So
with those problems it makes sense to have one NA Conventi, and even I must
face economic constraints because I have five pets and you cannot imagine
what feeding them all and making sure their needs are covered, along with
paying bills on top of that.

I believe we see where I'm going with this, sacrifices must be made in these
hard times. But I must say Scholastica I'd be delighted to meet you in
person in Chicago, hearing latin from the Master herself, yes the Conventus
would be richer by your presence.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia




On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:45 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
fororom@...> wrote:

>
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis
> > S.P.D.
>
> >
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > *sighs* Bugger!!!
> >
> > Oh Bloody heck, well this is a sign...
> >
> > Yes the Conventus will be in Chicago, we're looking at the last week of
> > September - Second Week of Octoberish...
> >
> > ATS: Inasmuch as this has reached the ML...It was my understanding that
> > the Chicago meeting was for members of the Back Alley, and that there
> would be
> > a lottery for the actual, non-Back Alley Conventus. Have we been
> deceived?
> > Some of us would prefer not to associate with certain others. I for one
> do
> > not share the value system of many of the BA / quondam Boni members, and
> would
> > not seek such parties out.
>
> >
> > It's a worldwide gig, everyone is invited..
> >
> > And I hope someone likes Canasta.
> >
> > More details will follow in the next few days and weeks.
> >
> > That's all she wrote.
> >
> > Valete,
> > Aeternua
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> Belle
>
> > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Salvete,
> >> >
> >> > Julia does bring up a good point. I disagree that it should be
> exclusively
> >> > "Roman" but I believe that the Oriental Institute and the Art Museum
> will
> >> > accomodate our "Romanesque" (Romans loved art) are modern
> interpretations.
> >> >
> >> > I know there is a strong possibility of a Roman Re-Enactment group
> located
> >> > in Chicago, we can research and see what's popping what's popping with
> >> them.
> >> >
> >> > Canasta is a strategy based card-game very similar to Gin-Rummy but
> one
> >> > level of degree of complexity more. I can play spades as well although
> I
> >> > will need a refresher course.
> >> >
> >> > I was also thinking everyone may not want to see all the sites, they
> may
> >> > like me be late sleepers. I don't function before 10 a.m. most of the
> time
> >> > I don't even eat until after 10 a.m.. I was wondering also about
> malls, >>
> and
> >> > if the hotels will have spas, and definitely shoe stores. Maybe we
> ladies
> >> > can plan a nice shopping excursion I dunno just throwing the idea out
> >> there.
> >> >
> >> > P.S. Lets keep this off the ML for now because I think we are still
> now
> >> > debating on days and such.
> >> >
> >> > Valete,
> >> > Aeternia
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:33 PM, LIA <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Salve, et salvete,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I know we have just begun discussions regarding activity however
> are >>>
> there
> >>> > > going to be a few even remotely "Roman" activities planned. A Roman
> or
> >>> Nova
> >>> > > Roma Conventus revolves around Roman activities. Once those are
> >>> identified
> >>> > > than other activities are planned. I understand that is in Nova
> Roma's
> >>> > > history and I really have no problem with a relaxed atmosphere if
> this
> is
> >>> > > what everyone else wants but this should be addressed now.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Of course seizing the opportunity to take advantage of Chicago's
> art and
> >>> > > culture is a very Roman thing to do. Just don't want to pack too
> much in
> -
> >>> > > we want to also allow plenty of time to socialize and get to know
> one
> >>> > > another. When planning activities consideration must be given to
> the
> >>> varied
> >>> > > ages/generations, interests and fitness level. For example if some
> of
> you
> >>> > > would like to go to a theme park, I would probably bow out and
> simply
> >>> find
> >>> > > something else to do.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > For night activities I might enjoy playing Spades betting loose
> change
> or
> >>> > > sestertius;), maybe the ballet - I think "Dracula" might be
> playing, >>>
> there
> >>> > > are even haunted houses that open the first of October or Drag
> Shows if
> >>> > > anyone is interested. There will be a lot of events associated with
> fall
> and
> >>> > > Halloween that time of the year. Just hanging out is ok also or
> doing
> >>> > > something spontaneous.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Planning should incorporate a flexible schedule around a common
> interest
> we
> >>> > > all have - "things Roman."
> >>> > >
> >>> > > It would be a big help if we had an idea from each of you what your
> >>> > > interests are.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Just a few thoughts.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Wait. One last thought. It might be quite interesting to play
> canasta
> >>> > > (however that is played) while taking turns at karaoke in a Goth
> club
> and
> >>> > > drinking wine, beer and vodka into the wee hours of the morning
> reciting
> >>> > > poetry.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Vale, et valete
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Julia
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Sent from somewhere in the universe
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@
> ...>
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > > Salvete:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I have worked something in my head..
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Gualterus, you and myself are now the Activity Directors.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Gualterus will take care of Daytime activities (i.e Musesums,
> etc
> >>>> etc)---
> >>> > > you're the scholarly one and the local resident
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > and I will be in charge of the Nighttime activities (pubs,
> theatre
> >>>> shows,
> >>> > > etc etc) because from what I have been reading and such Chicago has
> a
> >>> huge
> >>> > > theatre scene, it's 4th largest city in the population of "goths"
> and
> I'm
> >>> > > sure there are plenty of Coffeehouses just waiting to be tracked
> down
> for
> >>> > > some good poetry reading.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Each night I will also hold a game of Canasta for those who like
> to
> play,
> >>> > > for the nightowls...
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Sulla-- I'd like you to keep researching on Hotels and
> Restaurants...
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Are we to be centered in the downtown area???
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Metellus has offered to be the RSVP guy when the time comes to
> do
> so...
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I know there are things I missed, so feel free to fill in the
> gaps,
> and
> >>> > > if you want to help the Activity Directors feel free to volunteer!
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Valete,
> >>>> > > > Aeternia
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84222 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
voluntatis S.P.D.

Almost done with posting the latest grades, and am calling it a night.

> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.
>
>
> I actually knew you would respond to this mishap Magistra and you are very
> quick to assume I would cast some shadow of deception.

ATS: Not necessarily...but one has to wonder.

> But I am prepared
> for your complaint.

ATS: More like an inquiry.
>
> And in light of the recent tax changes it is obvious we are in a rough
> economic climate and it makes no sense for citizens who cannot pay a 25$ tax

ATS: I hope they haven't assessed that much on everyone.

> on average but be expected to attend two different Conventi, and when I say
> "attend" I mean the following: Pay for airfare, pay for hotels, pay for
> meals, and possible transportation costs two times.

ATS: Oh, I agree.

>When you complained
> about having citizens pay a 25$ a year tax, why do you feel the need to have
> two different conventi when you opposed meeting Nova Roma's financial
> obligations.

ATS: I don't...I just wondered!
>
> On a second note as for the "Lottery" idea that I came up with at the very
> beginning of my term, I did indeed to propose to all of the Governors within
> the North American continent and it received a very chilly reception.

ATS: Oh? The govs don't want to get involved?

>So
> with those problems it makes sense to have one NA Conventi,

ATS: One conventus...and the plural is conventús, with a long u. It's
in the fourth declension, as are many useful words, such as senatus and
census...and I agree.

>and even I must
> face economic constraints because I have five pets and you cannot imagine
> what feeding them all and making sure their needs are covered, along with
> paying bills on top of that.

ATS: I expect it might be difficult to find someplace which would
welcome them while you travel, too...pets can be wonderful companions, but
they are not cheap. Not even little birdies are cost-free.
>
> I believe we see where I'm going with this, sacrifices must be made in these
> hard times. But I must say Scholastica I'd be delighted to meet you in
> person in Chicago, hearing latin from the Master herself, yes the Conventus
> would be richer by your presence.

ATS: Well, Chicago is one of the easier places for me to access...a
straight shot on the train, but my interests do not jibe with those of many
of your Western friends. Moreover, I have even less discretionary cash than
you do, and we do want to visit Caeca, somehow, somewhere, someway. She
can't do Chi at this point. Don't think I can...wouldn't mind seeing my
favorite U again, but there's too much against this.
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia

Vale optime,

Scholastica
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:45 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
> fororom@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
>> voluntatis
>>> S.P.D.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Salvete,
>>>
>>> *sighs* Bugger!!!
>>>
>>> Oh Bloody heck, well this is a sign...
>>>
>>> Yes the Conventus will be in Chicago, we're looking at the last week of
>>> September - Second Week of Octoberish...
>>>
>>> ATS: Inasmuch as this has reached the ML...It was my understanding that
>>> the Chicago meeting was for members of the Back Alley, and that there
>> would be
>>> a lottery for the actual, non-Back Alley Conventus. Have we been
>> deceived?
>>> Some of us would prefer not to associate with certain others. I for one
>> do
>>> not share the value system of many of the BA / quondam Boni members, and
>> would
>>> not seek such parties out.
>>
>>>
>>> It's a worldwide gig, everyone is invited..
>>>
>>> And I hope someone likes Canasta.
>>>
>>> More details will follow in the next few days and weeks.
>>>
>>> That's all she wrote.
>>>
>>> Valete,
>>> Aeternua
>>>
>>> Vale, et valete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>> Belle
>>
>>> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Salvete,
>>>>>
>>>>> Julia does bring up a good point. I disagree that it should be
>> exclusively
>>>>> "Roman" but I believe that the Oriental Institute and the Art Museum
>> will
>>>>> accomodate our "Romanesque" (Romans loved art) are modern
>> interpretations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know there is a strong possibility of a Roman Re-Enactment group
>> located
>>>>> in Chicago, we can research and see what's popping what's popping with
>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canasta is a strategy based card-game very similar to Gin-Rummy but
>> one
>>>>> level of degree of complexity more. I can play spades as well although
>> I
>>>>> will need a refresher course.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was also thinking everyone may not want to see all the sites, they
>> may
>>>>> like me be late sleepers. I don't function before 10 a.m. most of the
>> time
>>>>> I don't even eat until after 10 a.m.. I was wondering also about
>> malls, >>
>> and
>>>>> if the hotels will have spas, and definitely shoe stores. Maybe we
>> ladies
>>>>> can plan a nice shopping excursion I dunno just throwing the idea out
>>>> there.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Lets keep this off the ML for now because I think we are still
>> now
>>>>> debating on days and such.
>>>>>
>>>>> Valete,
>>>>> Aeternia
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:33 PM, LIA <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Salve, et salvete,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know we have just begun discussions regarding activity however
>> are >>>
>> there
>>>>>>> going to be a few even remotely "Roman" activities planned. A Roman
>> or
>>>>> Nova
>>>>>>> Roma Conventus revolves around Roman activities. Once those are
>>>>> identified
>>>>>>> than other activities are planned. I understand that is in Nova
>> Roma's
>>>>>>> history and I really have no problem with a relaxed atmosphere if
>> this
>> is
>>>>>>> what everyone else wants but this should be addressed now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course seizing the opportunity to take advantage of Chicago's
>> art and
>>>>>>> culture is a very Roman thing to do. Just don't want to pack too
>> much in
>> -
>>>>>>> we want to also allow plenty of time to socialize and get to know
>> one
>>>>>>> another. When planning activities consideration must be given to
>> the
>>>>> varied
>>>>>>> ages/generations, interests and fitness level. For example if some
>> of
>> you
>>>>>>> would like to go to a theme park, I would probably bow out and
>> simply
>>>>> find
>>>>>>> something else to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For night activities I might enjoy playing Spades betting loose
>> change
>> or
>>>>>>> sestertius;), maybe the ballet - I think "Dracula" might be
>> playing, >>>
>> there
>>>>>>> are even haunted houses that open the first of October or Drag
>> Shows if
>>>>>>> anyone is interested. There will be a lot of events associated with
>> fall
>> and
>>>>>>> Halloween that time of the year. Just hanging out is ok also or
>> doing
>>>>>>> something spontaneous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Planning should incorporate a flexible schedule around a common
>> interest
>> we
>>>>>>> all have - "things Roman."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be a big help if we had an idea from each of you what your
>>>>>>> interests are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a few thoughts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wait. One last thought. It might be quite interesting to play
>> canasta
>>>>>>> (however that is played) while taking turns at karaoke in a Goth
>> club
>> and
>>>>>>> drinking wine, beer and vodka into the wee hours of the morning
>> reciting
>>>>>>> poetry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vale, et valete
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Julia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from somewhere in the universe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@
>> ...>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Salvete:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have worked something in my head..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gualterus, you and myself are now the Activity Directors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gualterus will take care of Daytime activities (i.e Musesums,
>> etc
>>>>>> etc)---
>>>>>>> you're the scholarly one and the local resident
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and I will be in charge of the Nighttime activities (pubs,
>> theatre
>>>>>> shows,
>>>>>>> etc etc) because from what I have been reading and such Chicago has
>> a
>>>>> huge
>>>>>>> theatre scene, it's 4th largest city in the population of "goths"
>> and
>> I'm
>>>>>>> sure there are plenty of Coffeehouses just waiting to be tracked
>> down
>> for
>>>>>>> some good poetry reading.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Each night I will also hold a game of Canasta for those who like
>> to
>> play,
>>>>>>> for the nightowls...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sulla-- I'd like you to keep researching on Hotels and
>> Restaurants...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are we to be centered in the downtown area???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Metellus has offered to be the RSVP guy when the time comes to
>> do
>> so...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know there are things I missed, so feel free to fill in the
>> gaps,
>> and
>>>>>>> if you want to help the Activity Directors feel free to volunteer!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Valete,
>>>>>>>>> Aeternia
>>>>>>>

>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84223 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.

see my comments below deck.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:13 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...
> wrote:

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> Almost done with posting the latest grades, and am calling it a night.
>

Aeternia: Yes is past 2 a.m. here and I'm not feeling well at all, I think
we both could use some shut eye.

>
>
> > Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.
> >
> >
> > I actually knew you would respond to this mishap Magistra and you are
> very
> > quick to assume I would cast some shadow of deception.
>
> ATS: Not necessarily...but one has to wonder.
>

Aeternia: Wonder what?

>
>
> > But I am prepared
> > for your complaint.
>
> ATS: More like an inquiry.
>


>
> >
> > And in light of the recent tax changes it is obvious we are in a rough
> > economic climate and it makes no sense for citizens who cannot pay a 25$
> tax
>
> ATS: I hope they haven't assessed that much on everyone.
>



>
>
> > on average but be expected to attend two different Conventi, and when I
> say
> > "attend" I mean the following: Pay for airfare, pay for hotels, pay for
> > meals, and possible transportation costs two times.
>
> ATS: Oh, I agree.
>

Aeternia: Exactly, we must acknowledge these are just hard times currently.


>
>
> >When you complained
> > about having citizens pay a 25$ a year tax, why do you feel the need to
> have
> > two different conventi when you opposed meeting Nova Roma's financial
> > obligations.
>
> ATS: I don't...I just wondered!
>



>
> >
> > On a second note as for the "Lottery" idea that I came up with at the
> very
> > beginning of my term, I did indeed to propose to all of the Governors
> within
> > the North American continent and it received a very chilly reception.
>
> ATS: Oh? The govs don't want to get involved?
>

Aeternia: Most of them didn't seem to feel it, I take silence to be the
answer "no". So I came up with a Plan B.

>
>
> >So
> > with those problems it makes sense to have one NA Conventi,
>
> ATS: One conventus...and the plural is convent�s, with a long u. It's
> in the fourth declension, as are many useful words, such as senatus and
> census...and I agree.
>

Aeternia: It's after 2 a.m. and I get credit for trying to do everything the
CA is supposed to be doing :-).

>
>
> >and even I must
> > face economic constraints because I have five pets and you cannot imagine
> > what feeding them all and making sure their needs are covered, along with
> > paying bills on top of that.
>
> ATS: I expect it might be difficult to find someplace which would
> welcome them while you travel, too...pets can be wonderful companions, but
> they are not cheap. Not even little birdies are cost-free.
>
>
Aeternia: No the children will be have a babysitter, I haven't been out of
this state in almost two years. Pet free weekend is a welcoming prospect.

> >
> > I believe we see where I'm going with this, sacrifices must be made in
> these
> > hard times. But I must say Scholastica I'd be delighted to meet you in
> > person in Chicago, hearing latin from the Master herself, yes the
> Conventus
> > would be richer by your presence.
>
> ATS: Well, Chicago is one of the easier places for me to access...a
> straight shot on the train, but my interests do not jibe with those of many
> of your Western friends. Moreover, I have even less discretionary cash than
> you do, and we do want to visit Caeca, somehow, somewhere, someway. She
> can't do Chi at this point. Don't think I can...wouldn't mind seeing my
> favorite U again, but there's too much against this.
>

Aeternia: I won't speak for Caeca, but I'm willing to try and make this
Conventus happen, I'd like to meet more NR folks, we need to focus more on
community than the bickering and dissension.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia

> >
> > Vale Optime,
> > Aeternia
>
> Vale optime,
>
> Scholastica
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:45 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
> > fororom@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
> >> voluntatis
> >>> S.P.D.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Salvete,
> >>>
> >>> *sighs* Bugger!!!
> >>>
> >>> Oh Bloody heck, well this is a sign...
> >>>
> >>> Yes the Conventus will be in Chicago, we're looking at the last week of
> >>> September - Second Week of Octoberish...
> >>>
> >>> ATS: Inasmuch as this has reached the ML...It was my understanding that
> >>> the Chicago meeting was for members of the Back Alley, and that there
> >> would be
> >>> a lottery for the actual, non-Back Alley Conventus. Have we been
> >> deceived?
> >>> Some of us would prefer not to associate with certain others. I for one
> >> do
> >>> not share the value system of many of the BA / quondam Boni members,
> and
> >> would
> >>> not seek such parties out.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It's a worldwide gig, everyone is invited..
> >>>
> >>> And I hope someone likes Canasta.
> >>>
> >>> More details will follow in the next few days and weeks.
> >>>
> >>> That's all she wrote.
> >>>
> >>> Valete,
> >>> Aeternua
> >>>
> >>> Vale, et valete.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> ,
> >> Belle
> >>
> >>> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Salvete,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Julia does bring up a good point. I disagree that it should be
> >> exclusively
> >>>>> "Roman" but I believe that the Oriental Institute and the Art Museum
> >> will
> >>>>> accomodate our "Romanesque" (Romans loved art) are modern
> >> interpretations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know there is a strong possibility of a Roman Re-Enactment group
> >> located
> >>>>> in Chicago, we can research and see what's popping what's popping
> with
> >>>> them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Canasta is a strategy based card-game very similar to Gin-Rummy but
> >> one
> >>>>> level of degree of complexity more. I can play spades as well
> although
> >> I
> >>>>> will need a refresher course.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was also thinking everyone may not want to see all the sites, they
> >> may
> >>>>> like me be late sleepers. I don't function before 10 a.m. most of the
> >> time
> >>>>> I don't even eat until after 10 a.m.. I was wondering also about
> >> malls, >>
> >> and
> >>>>> if the hotels will have spas, and definitely shoe stores. Maybe we
> >> ladies
> >>>>> can plan a nice shopping excursion I dunno just throwing the idea out
> >>>> there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P.S. Lets keep this off the ML for now because I think we are still
> >> now
> >>>>> debating on days and such.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Valete,
> >>>>> Aeternia
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:33 PM, LIA <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Salve, et salvete,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I know we have just begun discussions regarding activity however
> >> are >>>
> >> there
> >>>>>>> going to be a few even remotely "Roman" activities planned. A Roman
> >> or
> >>>>> Nova
> >>>>>>> Roma Conventus revolves around Roman activities. Once those are
> >>>>> identified
> >>>>>>> than other activities are planned. I understand that is in Nova
> >> Roma's
> >>>>>>> history and I really have no problem with a relaxed atmosphere if
> >> this
> >> is
> >>>>>>> what everyone else wants but this should be addressed now.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course seizing the opportunity to take advantage of Chicago's
> >> art and
> >>>>>>> culture is a very Roman thing to do. Just don't want to pack too
> >> much in
> >> -
> >>>>>>> we want to also allow plenty of time to socialize and get to know
> >> one
> >>>>>>> another. When planning activities consideration must be given to
> >> the
> >>>>> varied
> >>>>>>> ages/generations, interests and fitness level. For example if some
> >> of
> >> you
> >>>>>>> would like to go to a theme park, I would probably bow out and
> >> simply
> >>>>> find
> >>>>>>> something else to do.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For night activities I might enjoy playing Spades betting loose
> >> change
> >> or
> >>>>>>> sestertius;), maybe the ballet - I think "Dracula" might be
> >> playing, >>>
> >> there
> >>>>>>> are even haunted houses that open the first of October or Drag
> >> Shows if
> >>>>>>> anyone is interested. There will be a lot of events associated with
> >> fall
> >> and
> >>>>>>> Halloween that time of the year. Just hanging out is ok also or
> >> doing
> >>>>>>> something spontaneous.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Planning should incorporate a flexible schedule around a common
> >> interest
> >> we
> >>>>>>> all have - "things Roman."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It would be a big help if we had an idea from each of you what your
> >>>>>>> interests are.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just a few thoughts.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wait. One last thought. It might be quite interesting to play
> >> canasta
> >>>>>>> (however that is played) while taking turns at karaoke in a Goth
> >> club
> >> and
> >>>>>>> drinking wine, beer and vodka into the wee hours of the morning
> >> reciting
> >>>>>>> poetry.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Vale, et valete
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Julia
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sent from somewhere in the universe
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@
> >> ...>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Salvete:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have worked something in my head..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Gualterus, you and myself are now the Activity Directors.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Gualterus will take care of Daytime activities (i.e Musesums,
> >> etc
> >>>>>> etc)---
> >>>>>>> you're the scholarly one and the local resident
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and I will be in charge of the Nighttime activities (pubs,
> >> theatre
> >>>>>> shows,
> >>>>>>> etc etc) because from what I have been reading and such Chicago has
> >> a
> >>>>> huge
> >>>>>>> theatre scene, it's 4th largest city in the population of "goths"
> >> and
> >> I'm
> >>>>>>> sure there are plenty of Coffeehouses just waiting to be tracked
> >> down
> >> for
> >>>>>>> some good poetry reading.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Each night I will also hold a game of Canasta for those who like
> >> to
> >> play,
> >>>>>>> for the nightowls...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sulla-- I'd like you to keep researching on Hotels and
> >> Restaurants...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Are we to be centered in the downtown area???
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Metellus has offered to be the RSVP guy when the time comes to
> >> do
> >> so...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I know there are things I missed, so feel free to fill in the
> >> gaps,
> >> and
> >>>>>>> if you want to help the Activity Directors feel free to volunteer!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Valete,
> >>>>>>>>> Aeternia
> >>>>>>>
>
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84224 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Inclusiveness and Prayer to the Capitoline Triad
Iulia Regillae Voluso omnibusque in foro S.P.D

"I will walk dressed and armed with weapons of Mars in order that my enemies, having feet, can't reach me; having hands, can't catch me; having eyes, can't see me and in thought can't hurt me. Firearms will not reach my body, knives and spears break without touching my body, ropes and chains burst without tying my body.

Iupiter, protect me and defend me with the power of your holy and divine blessings, be my defender against the wickedness and persecution of my enemies.

Juno, cover me with your sacred and divine mantle, protecting me in all my sorrows and afflictions.

Glorious Minerva, extend me your shield and your powerful weapons, defending me with your strenght and greatness and that underneath of your faithful rider´s feet my enemies stay humble and submissive to you.

Ilicet, with the power of Iupiter, Iuno, Minerva, and Mars phalanx."

Regilla, that is a lovely prayer and I thank you so very much for sharing it!

Voluse, thank you as well. Your attitude is one I hope we all adapt. Your mention of Hindu deities is a perfect example of inclusiveness as more and more the similarities of pre-vedic and vedic to Roman aspects are being discussed by scholars. India loves Ancient Rome and in many respects it is similar, even now, to Ancient Rome. From one Hindu Temple to another, even in the same sect, they vary and incorporate deities with ancient influences from the peoples who settled in the areas. The ancient Jewish people as well, esp. after the Babylonian Exile, held, mostly in secret, a belief in other deities of Middle Eastern and Egyptian influence. Yet the religious tenets and philosophies of the Hindus and the Jewish people survive and flourish today!

Io Floralia!

Curate ut valeatis optime!

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84225 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
Iulia pont. Regillae Sicinio omnibusque in foro S.P.D

Io Floralia!

Regilla, thank you for your application and your willingness to serve! Please feel free to contact me with any questions! You should also post the link to your wonderful blog in the forum as well.

For those of you interested if you cannot read Spanish and use google chrome it will automatically translate her blog into into English, it is well worth a look.

Sicini, although you feel you are not the priestly type I am taking this opportunity to ask you to contribute to a small project;) An undertaking really, "Roman Prayer Project" to replace the Roman Prayers that someone indiscriminately defiled by removing prayers, written by Ancient Romans, for all the Deities from their prayer page. Although I have performed a piaculum, the Gods may still be very displeased for those responsible.
So, since you asked;)(and the timing is perfect btw) if you should come across a passage that is also, or will work, as a prayer to a specific Deity you can either post it yourself on the Wiki or... send it to me and I will post it on the appropriate Deity's page.
This will be a truly magnificent way to honor Mercurius, Pan, Saturn and Liber Pater/Bacchus. I thank you personally, the CP thanks you and Nova Roma thanks you!

Curate ut valeatis optime!

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Ty Sponchia <muskegcorner@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> As a follower of Mercury i would like to extend a helping hand to any who need help researching the God of Trade. I had considered applying for a position myself but i am not the priestly type. I celebrate His holidays and give thanks before and after a deal and I must say that with His help my import business has survived the down turn and expanded.
>
> Please let me know how i can be of help. I have been doing research on Pan and Saturn as well.
>
> Since I am a wine maker as a hobby and for drinking i make sure to thank and acknowledge Liber; the Etruscan God of Harvest and wine that has become entangled with the upstart Greek God of Wine.
>
> Titus Sicinius Metellus
>
> --- On Fri, 4/22/11, Denise D. <aemilia.regilla@...> wrote:
>
> From: Denise D. <aemilia.regilla@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
> To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: "ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com" <ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com>
> Received: Friday, April 22, 2011, 4:23 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salvete,
>
>
>
> I sent my application for priesthood in pvt to T.I. Sabinus and G.C. Lentulus e-mails.
>
>
>
> Valete,
>
>  
>
> --
>
> V.A. Regilla
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84226 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.(Reposting from our PM)
SALVETE!

Nova Roma is accepting applications based of simple test knowledge for various
Priesthoods. If you are interested in helping to rebuild the Religio Romana and
the worship of the ancient Roman deities on an official public basis, we would
be pleased to hear from you. The Priesthoods in Nova Roma are open to both men
and women, with the exception of the Vestals. As Priesthood is an important
position of responsibility we do ask that you read the following guidelines:

- We ask that applicants have sincere religious feeling for the deity who's
priesthood they wish to undertake. It is necessary that the applicant worship
that deity in private life in addition to being willing to preside over public
rituals on behalf of Nova Roma. As our central goal is to restore sincere as
well as traditional worship of the ancient Gods, we cannot grant Priesthood
status to Citizens who apply only for reasons of historical curiosity or for
purposes of secular historical reenactment.
- We ask that Priesthood applicants have real time to devote toward advancing
the worship of their chosen deity both within Nova Roma and in the outside
world. This involves being available for public correspondence concerning the
worship of the God or Goddess they serve, assisting others in their personal
worship, working to reconstruct rites, prayers and other religious liturgy
related to their deity, being available for public rites sponsored by Nova Roma,
and ideally, organizing public rites/temples on their own as well. We feel that
Priesthood is defined by active service on many levels. Therefore we cannot
provide empty "titles" for those who are unable to put forth genuine effort.
- We must ask that all Priesthood applicants be able to do College-level
literary research to recover the historical facts of their Priesthood, and the
worship of the God or Goddess they seek to serve. The restoration of the Religio
Romana is still in its first stages and it is the Priesthood that must do the
historical work to make their chosen path come alive again. Each Priestess or
Priest will be required to create a complete written "plan" for rebuilding the
worship of their deity at some point, This will need to include not only a
historical overview of their God or Goddesses ancient worship, but also written
rituals for the deities festival days, prayers and rites for others who seek to
worship that deity, offering liturgy, etc. We recommend that applicants have
access to one or more good libraries, or have the means to find/buy scholarly
books and resource materials.
- We must also request that applicants agree to act within a Roman
reconstructionist format while acting as an official Priestess or Priest of Nova
Roma. This means being as historically accurate as possible in rituals,
offerings, prayers, written text, etc. As we are seeking to build the Religio
Romana as a distinct religion in the modern world, it is important that it's
practices be as unique today as they were in the antiquity.
- We ask that applicants be involved with Nova Roma as a Citizen for six months
before applying for a Priesthood position. This is important because members of
the Priesthood are acting on behalf of Nova Roma itself, and some experience
with the community you will be working with is necessary. This can only come
with time.
- We ask that applicants to obtain and maintain the assidui status (taxpayer)
during their term of service in Priesthood.

All interested applicants can contact the Collegium Pontificum through any of
the Nova Roma pontifices, using their contact section of the Album Civium page.
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_pontificum_%28Nova_Roma%29
or presented their interest in Nova Roma main list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
and Religio Romana list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/
no late than pr. Non. Mai. 2764 a.U.c (6th of May 2011.


Available positions but not limited to:

Apollinis Aedis Sacerdotes
Iani Aedis Sacerdotes
Iovis Aedes Sacerdotes
Iuno Aedis Sacerdotes
Magnae Matris Deum Aedis Sacerdotes
Mentis Aedis Sacerdotes
Minervae Aedis Sacerdotes
Neptuni Aedis Sacerdotes
Palatuae Aedis Sacerdotes

Flamines Minores:
Flamen Carmentalis
Flamen Cerealis
Flamen Falacer
Flamen Florealis
Flamen Palatualis
Flamen Portunalis - under direct supervision and training of current flamen
Petronius Dexter.
Flamen Volcanalis
Flamen Volturnalis

Virgines Vestales 5 positions

Quirites!

Let's celebrate the founding of Rome with great interest and effective serving
the Roman Religion.

VALETE,
Sabinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84227 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Roman Prayer Project - Just a few moments of your time si placet..
Iulia Pontifex Quiritibus S.P.D.


Not all of you are aware that someone indiscriminately defiled the prayer pages of our Roman Gods by removing the prayers to them that were written by ancient authors.
I was, and am, appalled by this act of vandalism against the Gods and the dignity of the ancient Roman authors.
I have performed a piaculum, but the Gods may still be very displeased at those responsible. I leave those consequences to the Gods, it is not worth my time to find out who committed such an act or to seek retribution for our Gods I would rather expend my energy in the positive actions of rebuilding these pages thereby honoring our Gods in the best possible way.

I ask all Novi Romani to help out, si placet, just a few moments of your time; if everyone does just a little we will rebuild these pages!

Many of you occasionally come across a Roman prayer while reading a passage from ancient Roman authors or even while surfing the internet. I humbly ask that should you come across such a passage from "literary and epigraphic sources" that you post it on the Nova Roma wiki under the appropriate God/dess here:
http://novaroma.org/nr/Prayers
Or send it to me and I will post it on the appropriate Deity's page.
If able it would be great to post the prayer in both English *and* Latin - but please do not allow this to keep you from posting the prayer. Maybe those who have Latin or Latin resources can help in this respect.

Please contribute to this small project, which is not an "official" project of NR or the CP, but a project of the people, of you, the citizens for our Gods and the Respublica!

There is no time limit, no pressure, no committees to join - just do what you can when you can, even if it is a one-line prayer.

Si placet.

Please help honor the Gods and the Respublica!

Gratias, I appreciate your time and attention

Curate ut valeatis optime!

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84228 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Io Floralia!"Incipis Aprili, transis in tempora Maii:
alter te fugiens, cum venit alter habet.cum tua sint cedantque tibi
confinia mensum, convenit in laudes ille vel ille tuas.Circus in
hunc exit clamataque palma theatris; hoc quoque cum Circi munere
carmen eat.""You start in April and cross to the time of MayOne has
you as it leaves, one as it comesSince the edges of these months are
yours and deferTo you, either of them suits your praises.The Circus
continues and the theatre's lauded palm,Let this song, too, join the
Circus spectacle."Ovid, Fasti (V.185-190)

<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7539109126124400750&postID=14\
66375888602009528> "Mater, ades, florum, ludis celebranda
iocosis" "Come, Mother of Flowers, that we may honor thee with
merry games"Ovid, Fasti (V.183)
Flora: A temple was built to honor the goddess of flowers and blossoming
plants, Flora. In 263 BCE it was dedicated on April 28 (to May 2nd or
3rd)to the Goddess Flora and the festival of Floralia was first declared
to solicit her protection, propitiousness of crops and flowers in
gardens and fields and wealth. Favonius, the God of the West Wind had
authority over plants and flowers and upon taking by force, the Nymph,
Flora, into marriage He gifted that dominion to the Goddess as amends.
Flora was honored as a fertility Goddess by the Sabines an old Italic
tribe of the Apennines before the founding of Rome. The Goddess can
avert the fungal disease of plants, particularly wheat, known as rust
that causes iron colored growths.

<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7539109126124400750&postID=14\
66375888602009528> "Itaque iidem floralia iiii kal. easdem
instituerunt urbis anno dxvi ex oraculis sibyllae, ut omnia bene
deflorescerent. hunc diem Varro determinat sole tauri partem xiiii
obtinente. ergo si in hoc quadriduum inciderit plenilunium, fruges et
omnia, quae florebunt, laedi necesse erit.""The same people
also, in the year of the City 513, instituted the Floralia, a festival
held upon the fourth before the calends of May, in accordance with the
oracular injunctions of the Sibyl, to secure a favorable season for the
blossoms and flowers. Varro fixes this day as the time at which the sun
enters the fourteenth degree of Taurus. [April 28] If there should
happen to be a full moon during the four days at this period, injury to
the corn and all the plants that are in blossom will be the necessary
result."Pliny the Elder Natural History Plin. Nat. 18.103

<http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J1Kf7GxsZ1E/Tbd4zWJAS3I/AAAAAAAAAZ8/ZBal1nX2f\
rA/s1600/Floralia+pa_villa_igiea_immagine4bis.gif>
Ludi Florae: Great Banquets and Games were in abundance. Romans wore
colorful garments and walked around clutching bouquets of flowers and
wore wreaths of flowers around their neck or in their hair. They
scattered the flowers of lupines, bean and vetch about. Romans attended
bawdy plays where prostitutes and female actresses performed naked at
the demand of the crowds, cheered and jeered at licentious farces and
mimes, attended gladiatorial games and chariot races where chickpeas
were thrown to the people and hunted the symbols of fertility; deer (or
goats[1]
<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Jenna%20Rose/My%20Documents/1Relg\
ioRomana/Flora%20Floralia.docx#_ftn1> ) and hare. The festivities began
in the morning with the rituals continuing as Romans danced, drank and
surrounded themselves with flowers into the night.
Floralia in ancient times was the quintessential nature festival earning
moral judgments from Cato the Younger, Ausonius, Lactantius, and
Augustine. However Floralia is recognized as a valuable festival and
noted in good regard from Varro, Pliny, Ovid, Juvenal, Persius, Martial,
Aulus Gellius and Valerius Maximas. At one time the Floralia was labeled
superstitio and discontinued but it was revived again in 173 BCE when
violent winds, hail and rain fell destroyed the blossoms and crops. The
ancient Romans felt that this was Flora's wrath for neglecting Her
festival (Ovid, Fasti, V). Floralia symbolizes the renewal of life.

<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v49Oia84c90/Tbd5H3xdPAI/AAAAAAAAAaA/k_v8GuMFE\
wM/s1600/Floralia_Plate1.JPG>

Modern Floralia: When I was still living at my Parent's home fresh
cut large purple Lilacs filled our home with the most wonderful scent
around the time of the Floralia! Flowers, from my Mother's garden and
also from the florist, were given to other family members, friends and
placed on the graves of my ancestors. Beginning with Juno, Matronalia,
on the kalends of March and honoring the Spring Goddesses such as Venus
Mater, to whom I was dedicated, and Ceres, we continued our Spring
celebrations honoring Flora. I continue this tradition today - and like
my Father I also incorporated chocolate animals and eggs (which we also
got on "Eastre", sometimes getting a jump on Floralia, so we
would not feel so different from others - and on May 1st we would attend
a "flower dance" and a Maypole celebration if one was available. This
tradition of attending public "flower dances" I occasionally
have continued after moving to the south, however when I was on business
in Europe there were no lack of "flower dances" and Maypole
celebrations. The main feast was held on the first Sunday of Floralia
and included roasted Lamb, homemade breads, fresh and roasted spring
vegetables, fruits, nuts and a variety of delicious pastries –
although now more often than not we go to a restaurant.
"They also set up a May-pole, drinking and dancing about it many days
togaether, inviting the Indean women, for their consorts, dancing and
frisking togither, (like so many fairies, or furies rather,) and worse
practises. As if they had anew revived & celebrated the feasts of ye
Roman Goddess Flora, or ye beasly practieses of ye madd
Bacchinalians." Bradford, William (1856). History of Plymouth.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company. pp. 237–238.
Not as "Bacchanalian" as I had been in my youth, I still enjoy
the indulgences of Floralia doing my part to keep the festival alive!
Continue I the tradition of reading selections from Ovid's Fasti
Liber V to my ancestors' descendants and adapt an ancient closing
prayer into my ritual, personalized with my name in lieu of Ovid's:
"Mansit odor; posses scire fuisse deam. Floreat ut toto carmen
Nasonis in aevo,sparge, precor, donis pectora nostra tuis."
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7539109126124400750&postID=14\
66375888602009528> "A fragrance lingered; you could know a goddess
had been there. That Naso's lay may bloom for aye, O strew, I pray
thee, goddess, thy boons upon my breast!"
Ovid Fasti (V. 376 - 378)
The Goddess-Nymph speaks to Ovidus:
"Forsitan in teneris tantum mea regna coronisesse putes. tangit
numen et arva meum.si bene floruerint segetes, erit area dives:si bene
floruerit vinea, Bacchus erit;si bene floruerint oleae, nitidissimus
annus, pomaque proventum temporis huius habent.flore semel
laeso pereunt viciaeque fabaeque,et pereunt lentes, advena Nile,
tuae.vina quoque in magnis operose condita cellisflorent, et nebulae
dolia summa tegunt. mella meum munus: volucres ego mella
daturasad violam et cytisos et thyma cana voco.'(nos quoque idem facimus
tunc, cum iuvenalibus annisluxuriant animi, corporaque ipsa
vigent.)""Perhaps you may think that I am queen only of dainty
garlands; but my divinity has to do also with the tilled fields. If the
crops have blossomed well, the threshing-floor will be piled high; if
the vines have blossomed well, there will be wine; if the olive-trees
have blossomed well, most buxom will be the year; and the fruitage will
be according to the time of blossoming. If once the blossom is nipped,
the vetches and beans wither, and thy lentils, O Nile that comest from
afar, do likewise wither. Wines also bloom, laboriously stored in great
cellars, and a scum covers their surface in the jars. Honey is my gift.
`Tis I who call the winged creatures, which yield honey, to the
violet, and the clover, and the grey thyme. (`Tis I, too, who
discharge the same function when in youthful years spirits run riot and
bodies are robust.)"
Ovid Fasti (V. 261 – 274)

<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H7X9-ZOD3fU/Tbd55abzfXI/AAAAAAAAAaI/N8YNo8ArA\
wY/s1600/Primavera-Flora-and-Spring.jpg>
In closing, a reminder to honor the Gods from Flora herself:
"'nos quoque tangit honor: festis gaudemus et aris,
turbaque caelestes ambitiosa sumus.
saepe deos aliquis peccando fecit iniquos,
et pro delictis hostia blanda fuit;
saepe Iovem vidi, cum iam sua mittere vellet
fulmina, ture dato sustinuisse manum.
at si neglegimur, magnis iniuria poenis
solvitur, et iustum praeterit ira modum.""We, too, are
touched by honor; we delight in festivals and altars; we heavenly beings
are a greedy gang. Often by sinning has a man disposed the gods against
him, and a sacrificial victim has been a sop for crimes. Often have I
seen Jupiter, when he was just about to launch his thunderbolts, hold
his hand on the receipt of incense. But if we are neglected, we avenge
the wrong by heavenly penalties, and our wrath exceeds just bounds."
Ovid Fasti (V. 297 – 304)


[1]
<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Jenna%20Rose/My%20Documents/1Relg\
ioRomana/Flora%20Floralia.docx#_ftnref1> Ovid refers to deer as 1)
Ovid (Ovid: Fasti) refers to deer as "capreae" while some
translate this to "row deer (pl)" others translate it to
"goats" as "caprae" is plural for female goats and
"capreae" is the ancient name for the goat abundant Isle of
Capri. Since this festival was not of wild vegetation and wild animals
it might stand to reason that the animals were domesticated rabbits and
goats rather than rabbits and deer as deer cannot truly be domesticated
although they can, with difficulty, be penned but this is mainly a
modern practice. Rabbits, while a general symbol of fertility are also
specifically a symbol of female fertility and goats are a symbol of male
fertility. Deer on the other hand are also a general symbol of fertility
but they too are also specifically a female symbol of fertility. As
symbols of fertility, the rabbit and the goat would be symbolic of a
fertile union.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84229 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: A Floralia Challenge w/ a Prize!
Salvete!

To celebrate Floralia, and in honor of The Goddess Flora, I would like to offer a challenge to all citizens and reward a shiny NR sestertius to the citizen who contributes the most prayers to the Gods through the period of the festival: April 28 - May 3.

The rules:
1) the prayers must be from an ancient source
2) any Deity may be honored
3) email your entries to me at luciaiuliaaquila AT hotmail.com

More info here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/84227

Io Floralia!

Curate ut valeatis optime!

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84230 From: Cato Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: a.d. IV Kal. Mai.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem IV Kalendas Maius; haec dies comitialis est.

"But enough! For such important testimonies from her witnesses has
Fortune to support her. But we must also introduce the testimony of
the very events of history, taking as the beginning of our account the
beginning of Rome. To begin with, who would not at once declare
touching the birth, the preservation, the nurture, the development of
Romulus, bthat Fortune laid the foundations, and that Virtue finished
the building? In the first place, then, it appears that the
circumstances surrounding the origin and the birth of the very
founders and builders of Rome were of a marvellous good fortune. For
their mother is said to have consorted with a god; and even as they
relate that Heracles was conceived during a long night (for the day
was retarded in contrariety to nature, and the sun delayed), so
regarding the generation and conception of Romulus they record that
the sun was eclipsed and came into exact conjunction with the moon at
the time when Mars, a god, consorted with the mortal Silvia. And this
same thing, they say, happened to Romulus also at the very time of his
translation from this life; for they relate that he disappeared during
an eclipse of the sun on the Capratine Nones, on which day, even to
the present time, they hold high festival.

Later, when the children were born and the despot gave orders to do
away with them, by the decree of Fortune no barbarous or savage
servant but a compassionate and humane man received them, with the
result that he did not kill them; but there was a margin of the river,
bordering upon a green meadow, shaded round about with lowly shrubs;
and here the servant deposited the infants near a certain wild fig-
tree, to which people later gave the name Ruminalis. Then a she-wolf,
that had newly whelped, with her dugs distended and overflowing with
milk because her young had perished, being herself in great need of
relief, circled around the infants and then gave them suck, thus
ridding herself of the pain caused by the milk as if it had been a
second birth-pang. And a bird sacred to Mars, which they call the
woodpecker, visited them and, perching near on tiptoe, would, with its
claw, open the mouth of each child in turn and place therein a morsel,
sharing with them a portion of its own food. Wherefore they named this
wild fig-tree Ruminalis, from the teat (ruma) which the wolf offered
to the children as she crouched beside the tree. And for a long time
the people who dwelt near this place preserved the custom of never
exposing any of the new-born infants, but they acknowledged and reared
them all, in honour of Romulus's experience and the similarity of the
children's case with his.

And, in truth, the fact that they were not discovered while they were
being reared and educated in Gabii, and that it was unknown that they
were the sons of Silvia and the grandchildren of king Numitor surely
appears to have been a furtive and shrewd device of Fortune, so that
they might not, because of their lineage, be put to death before
performing their tasks, but that they might in their very successes be
discovered, by bringing to notice their noble qualities as tokens by
which to recognize their high birth.

At this point there occurs to me the remark of a great and prudent
general, Themistocles, which was made to certain of the generals who
came into favour at Athens after him and felt that they deserved to be
rated above him. He said that the Day-After contended with the Feast-
Day, saying that the Feast-Day was full of wearying tasks and labours,
but on the Day-After men enjoyed in quiet all things that had been
made ready. Then the Feast-Day said, 'What you say is true; but if I
had not been, where would you be?' 'And so,' said Themistocles, 'if I
had not been at the time of the Persian Wars, what benefit would now
come from you?' And this, methinks, is what Fortune says to the
Virtue of Romulus: 'Brilliant and mighty are your deeds, and in very
truth you have proved yourself to be divine in blood and birth. But do
you observe how far you fall behind me? For if, at the time of his
birth, I had not accompanied him in a helpful and humane guise, but
had deserted and abandoned the infants, how could you have come into
being and whence had you derived such lustre? If on that occasion
there had not come to them a female beast swollen with the abundance
and the burden of her milk, and in need of some creature to be fed
rather than of something to yield her sustenance, but if instead there
had come some utterly savage and ravening creature, would not even now
these fair palaces and temples, theatres, promenades, fora, and public
buildings be herdsmen's huts and folds of shepherds who paid homage to
some man of Alba or Etruria or Latium as their lord?' The beginning,
as every one knows, is of supreme importance in everything, and
particularly in the founding and building of a city; and this Fortune
provided, since she had preserved and protected the founder. For
Virtue made Romulus great, but Fortune watched over him until he
became great." - Plutarch, "On the Fortunes of The Romans" 8

Of all the deities, Fortuna was the most absolute and the most
universally worshiped; for she kept all men at her feet, the
prosperous through fear and the unfortunate through hope. She was also
an eccentric goddess, not only favoring the brave according to the
familiar maxim of Terence, but likewise being decidedly partial to
fools if we may believe another classical saying: "Fortuna favet
fatuis." And again, as an ancient poet wrote: "Legem veretur nocens,
Fortunam innocens." The satirist Juvenal said that if men were
discreet, Fortune had no power over them. When she entered Rome she
folded her wings as a sign that she wished to remain there; and, as
has been aptly remarked, she is there still, for the modern Roman is
as firm a believer in luck, whether good or bad, as was the Roman
citizen two thousand years ago. Among the ancients, a lucky event,
something opportune occurring unexpectedly, was ascribed to a sudden
caprice or whim on the part of the goddess, while success in an
undertaking was thought to be due to her favor when in a sober mood.

"All over the world, in all places and at all times, Fortune is the
only god whom every one invokes: she alone is spoken of; she alone is
accused and is supposed to be guilty; she alone is in our thoughts, is
praised and blamed, and is loaded with reproaches; wavering as she is,
conceived by the generality of mankind to be blind, wandering,
inconstant, uncertain, variable, and often favoring the unworthy. To
her are referred all our losses and all our gains, and, in casting up
the accounts of mortals, she alone balances the two pages of our
sheet. We are so much in the power of chance, that chance itself is
considered as a god." - Pliny, Natural History

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84231 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Salvete,

Just a comment regarding the following statement i made about the upcoming conventus in case anyone is concerned:

"Wait. One last thought. It might be quite interesting to play canasta (however that is played) while taking turns at karaoke in a Goth club and drinking wine, beer and vodka into the wee hours of the morning reciting poetry."

Unfortunately it was taken out of context by one citizen. It appeared as an error to a large body of planning emails, this particular one also included "free time" activities. It was not meant to be serious, it was a joke tinged with a bit of good natured sarcasm~

Valete,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, LIA <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> Salve, et salvete,
>
> I know we have just begun discussions regarding activity however are there going to be a few even remotely "Roman" activities planned. A Roman or Nova Roma Conventus revolves around Roman activities. Once those are identified than other activities are planned. I understand that is in Nova Roma's history and I really have no problem with a relaxed atmosphere if this is what everyone else wants but this should be addressed now.
>
> Of course seizing the opportunity to take advantage of Chicago's art and culture is a very Roman thing to do. Just don't want to pack too much in - we want to also allow plenty of time to socialize and get to know one another. When planning activities consideration must be given to the varied ages/generations, interests and fitness level. For example if some of you would like to go to a theme park, I would probably bow out and simply find something else to do.
>
> For night activities I might enjoy playing Spades betting loose change or sestertius;), maybe the ballet - I think "Dracula" might be playing, there are even haunted houses that open the first of October or Drag Shows if anyone is interested. There will be a lot of events associated with fall and Halloween that time of the year. Just hanging out is ok also or doing something spontaneous.
>
> Planning should incorporate a flexible schedule around a common interest we all have - "things Roman."
>
> It would be a big help if we had an idea from each of you what your interests are.
>
> Just a few thoughts.
>
> Wait. One last thought. It might be quite interesting to play canasta (however that is played) while taking turns at karaoke in a Goth club and drinking wine, beer and vodka into the wee hours of the morning reciting poetry.
>
> Vale, et valete
>
> Julia
>
> Sent from somewhere in the universe
>
> On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> > Salvete:
> >
> > I have worked something in my head..
> >
> >
> > Gualterus, you and myself are now the Activity Directors.
> >
> > Gualterus will take care of Daytime activities (i.e Musesums, etc etc)--- you're the scholarly one and the local resident
> >
> > and I will be in charge of the Nighttime activities (pubs, theatre shows, etc etc) because from what I have been reading and such Chicago has a huge theatre scene, it's 4th largest city in the population of "goths" and I'm sure there are plenty of Coffeehouses just waiting to be tracked down for some good poetry reading.
> >
> > Each night I will also hold a game of Canasta for those who like to play, for the nightowls...
> >
> > Sulla-- I'd like you to keep researching on Hotels and Restaurants...
> >
> > Are we to be centered in the downtown area???
> >
> > Metellus has offered to be the RSVP guy when the time comes to do so...
> >
> > I know there are things I missed, so feel free to fill in the gaps, and if you want to help the Activity Directors feel free to volunteer!
> >
> > Valete,
> > Aeternia
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84232 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Salvete!

Thank you for this post. Julia, I have always been fond of Flora, perhaps because I am so very fond of her, gifts. I find it extremely and delightfully appropriate that, on my little chest sits a lovely bouquet of purple irises and roses which were sent to me by very dear friends for my birthday.

When I lived in northern Virginia, flowers and flowering trees were everywhere. And whenever you walked down the street. It was as though you walked in Flora's bower. I miss that very much. Every spring, I yearn to go back home and walk beneath the cherry and Magnolia. By the way, I have been known to follow the scent of lilacs for several blocks. When I find them even if they are behind a fence, I always find a way to bury my face in the flowers and enjoy them to my hearts content.

In my way. I honor the goddess Flora each spring and as long as flowers bloom, I always will.

Valete,
Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84233 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Ave Maria!

You have made me homesick for Long Island, what you beautifully described is spring at home! Gratias tibi!
I am thinking road trip on the east coast next spring. *smile* Ya think?
As for Lilacs, they do not do well here, and what i do find are a strange kind of French lilac with very small flowers and barely a scent. Pretty, but hey, where's the scent?
Whomever sent you those flowers have got to be the best friends a girl can have! *smile*

Vale bene amica mea,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete!
>
> Thank you for this post. Julia, I have always been fond of Flora, perhaps because I am so very fond of her, gifts. I find it extremely and delightfully appropriate that, on my little chest sits a lovely bouquet of purple irises and roses which were sent to me by very dear friends for my birthday.
>
> When I lived in northern Virginia, flowers and flowering trees were everywhere. And whenever you walked down the street. It was as though you walked in Flora's bower. I miss that very much. Every spring, I yearn to go back home and walk beneath the cherry and Magnolia. By the way, I have been known to follow the scent of lilacs for several blocks. When I find them even if they are behind a fence, I always find a way to bury my face in the flowers and enjoy them to my hearts content.
>
> In my way. I honor the goddess Flora each spring and as long as flowers bloom, I always will.
>
> Valete,
> Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84234 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Ave!

This is why the jokes are left to the BA! LOL

People take things way to seriously sometimes!!!!

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:58 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete,
>
> Just a comment regarding the following statement i made about the upcoming
> conventus in case anyone is concerned:
>
>
> "Wait. One last thought. It might be quite interesting to play canasta
> (however that is played) while taking turns at karaoke in a Goth club and
> drinking wine, beer and vodka into the wee hours of the morning reciting
> poetry."
>
> Unfortunately it was taken out of context by one citizen. It appeared as an
> error to a large body of planning emails, this particular one also included
> "free time" activities. It was not meant to be serious, it was a joke tinged
> with a bit of good natured sarcasm~
>
> Valete,
>
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, LIA <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve, et salvete,
> >
> > I know we have just begun discussions regarding activity however are
> there going to be a few even remotely "Roman" activities planned. A Roman or
> Nova Roma Conventus revolves around Roman activities. Once those are
> identified than other activities are planned. I understand that is in Nova
> Roma's history and I really have no problem with a relaxed atmosphere if
> this is what everyone else wants but this should be addressed now.
> >
> > Of course seizing the opportunity to take advantage of Chicago's art and
> culture is a very Roman thing to do. Just don't want to pack too much in -
> we want to also allow plenty of time to socialize and get to know one
> another. When planning activities consideration must be given to the varied
> ages/generations, interests and fitness level. For example if some of you
> would like to go to a theme park, I would probably bow out and simply find
> something else to do.
> >
> > For night activities I might enjoy playing Spades betting loose change or
> sestertius;), maybe the ballet - I think "Dracula" might be playing, there
> are even haunted houses that open the first of October or Drag Shows if
> anyone is interested. There will be a lot of events associated with fall and
> Halloween that time of the year. Just hanging out is ok also or doing
> something spontaneous.
> >
> > Planning should incorporate a flexible schedule around a common interest
> we all have - "things Roman."
> >
> > It would be a big help if we had an idea from each of you what your
> interests are.
> >
> > Just a few thoughts.
> >
> > Wait. One last thought. It might be quite interesting to play canasta
> (however that is played) while taking turns at karaoke in a Goth club and
> drinking wine, beer and vodka into the wee hours of the morning reciting
> poetry.
> >
> > Vale, et valete
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > Sent from somewhere in the universe
> >
> > On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Salvete:
> > >
> > > I have worked something in my head..
> > >
> > >
> > > Gualterus, you and myself are now the Activity Directors.
> > >
> > > Gualterus will take care of Daytime activities (i.e Musesums, etc
> etc)--- you're the scholarly one and the local resident
> > >
> > > and I will be in charge of the Nighttime activities (pubs, theatre
> shows, etc etc) because from what I have been reading and such Chicago has a
> huge theatre scene, it's 4th largest city in the population of "goths" and
> I'm sure there are plenty of Coffeehouses just waiting to be tracked down
> for some good poetry reading.
> > >
> > > Each night I will also hold a game of Canasta for those who like to
> play, for the nightowls...
> > >
> > > Sulla-- I'd like you to keep researching on Hotels and Restaurants...
> > >
> > > Are we to be centered in the downtown area???
> > >
> > > Metellus has offered to be the RSVP guy when the time comes to do so...
> > >
> > > I know there are things I missed, so feel free to fill in the gaps, and
> if you want to help the Activity Directors feel free to volunteer!
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > > Aeternia
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84235 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: LUDI CERIALES - Final race!
Salvete Omnes!

Semper Albata! Albata Victoria! Hermanus and Arienrhod will be back!

Valete Bene!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84236 From: Tragedienne Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Salve Caeca et Salvete Omnes:

The flowers sound absolutely lovely Caeca, an unusual yet pretty combination.

Io Floralia Caeca and to all the citizens of NR, enjoy it well.


Vale et Valete bene,
Aeternia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete!
>
> Thank you for this post. Julia, I have always been fond of Flora, perhaps because I am so very fond of her, gifts. I find it extremely and delightfully appropriate that, on my little chest sits a lovely bouquet of purple irises and roses which were sent to me by very dear friends for my birthday.
>
> When I lived in northern Virginia, flowers and flowering trees were everywhere. And whenever you walked down the street. It was as though you walked in Flora's bower. I miss that very much. Every spring, I yearn to go back home and walk beneath the cherry and Magnolia. By the way, I have been known to follow the scent of lilacs for several blocks. When I find them even if they are behind a fence, I always find a way to bury my face in the flowers and enjoy them to my hearts content.
>
> In my way. I honor the goddess Flora each spring and as long as flowers bloom, I always will.
>
> Valete,
> Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84237 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: LUDI CERIALES - Closing ceremony
Salve Crasse!
Tribune, you did a truly awesome job with these games, and, under fairly extreme pressure, you showed us all how Romans behave. The more the pressure, the more gloriously our ancestors reacted, and you carry on that tradition with great finesse and honor.

On a personal note, thank you (and all of you) for your incredible kindness and expressions of concern and support for me during a very dark and difficult time. I have great news, too. It looks as though there will not be a final surgery after all, *and* they removed that shackle of a brace from my left arm!

Vale et valete Bene!

Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84238 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Caeca Sal!

But ... (big smile) Amice Carissima! You chose that bouquet, so you *know* how lovely it is, and, soon, you shall have pictures to prove it! I'd send them here, but this list does not, wisely, I think, allow attachments. so, trust me on this, they are lovely!

Vale et valete bene!
CMC

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84239 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> How nice it is to address you on the ML, Caeca amica! I see your new
> software is working perfectly! Optimé!
>
>
> Salvete!
>
> Thank you for this post. Julia, I have always been fond of Flora, perhaps
> because I am so very fond of her, gifts. I find it extremely and delightfully
> appropriate that, on my little chest sits a lovely bouquet of purple irises
> and roses which were sent to me by very dear friends for my birthday.
>
> When I lived in northern Virginia, flowers and flowering trees were
> everywhere. And whenever you walked down the street. It was as though you
> walked in Flora's bower. I miss that very much.
>
> ATS: And there aren¹t any in Georgia (even before the tornados...)?
>
>
> Every spring, I yearn to go back home and walk beneath the cherry and
> Magnolia. By the way, I have been known to follow the scent of lilacs for
> several blocks. When I find them even if they are behind a fence, I always
> find a way to bury my face in the flowers and enjoy them to my hearts
> content.
>
> ATS: Mine are just budding in this unusually cold and extremely wet
> April, but the flower buds are forming. Soon they will send forth their
> beautiful perfume; perhaps a north wind may carry it to you. They don¹t keep,
> or I would send you some...but you are welcome to come and bury your face in
> my lilac patch any time.
>
> In my way. I honor the goddess Flora each spring and as long as flowers
> bloom, I always will.
>
> Valete,
> Maria Caeca
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84240 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: LUDI CERIALES - Closing ceremony
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae C. Aemilio Crasso quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Salve Crasse!
> Tribune, you did a truly awesome job with these games, and, under fairly
> extreme pressure, you showed us all how Romans behave.
>
> ATS: Indeed he did...and in the midst of working on my final exam, too!
>
>
> The more the pressure, the more gloriously our ancestors reacted, and you
> carry on that tradition with great finesse and honor.
>
> ATS: Yes; he did a wonderful job! He stepped up to the plate and didn¹t
> whine that this was not part of his job description or run away. He is a
> Roman, and did what had to be done.
>
> On a personal note, thank you (and all of you) for your incredible kindness
> and expressions of concern and support for me during a very dark and difficult
> time.
>
> ATS: It was my (and presumably our) pleasure to cheer you in this
> extremely difficult time. We are your family, and we care deeply about you.
>
> I have great news, too. It looks as though there will not be a final surgery
> after all, *and* they removed that shackle of a brace from my left arm!
>
> ATS: Yippee! Optimé! What great news!
>
> Vale et valete Bene!
>
> Et tu, et vos!
>
> Caeca
>
> ATS
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84241 From: Denise D. Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Res: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
Salve,

I added a gadget that translates the whole site in one click. It´s a google
translate so maybe the texts may not be correct in another language. We choose
some festivals to do activities and we write a little about cultus in Brazil;
it´s a partnership between Taura, Blandia and
me: http://cultusdeorum.blogspot.com/

=)
--
Regilla





________________________________
De: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Enviadas: Quinta-feira, 28 de Abril de 2011 12:55:02
Assunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.


Iulia pont. Regillae Sicinio omnibusque in foro S.P.D

Io Floralia!

Regilla, thank you for your application and your willingness to serve! Please
feel free to contact me with any questions! You should also post the link to
your wonderful blog in the forum as well.


For those of you interested if you cannot read Spanish and use google chrome it
will automatically translate her blog into into English, it is well worth a
look.

Sicini, although you feel you are not the priestly type I am taking this
opportunity to ask you to contribute to a small project;) An undertaking really,
"Roman Prayer Project" to replace the Roman Prayers that someone
indiscriminately defiled by removing prayers, written by Ancient Romans, for all
the Deities from their prayer page. Although I have performed a piaculum, the
Gods may still be very displeased for those responsible.
So, since you asked;)(and the timing is perfect btw) if you should come across a
passage that is also, or will work, as a prayer to a specific Deity you can
either post it yourself on the Wiki or... send it to me and I will post it on
the appropriate Deity's page.
This will be a truly magnificent way to honor Mercurius, Pan, Saturn and Liber
Pater/Bacchus. I thank you personally, the CP thanks you and Nova Roma thanks
you!


Curate ut valeatis optime!

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Ty Sponchia <muskegcorner@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> As a follower of Mercury i would like to extend a helping hand to any who need
>help researching the God of Trade. I had considered applying for a position
>myself but i am not the priestly type. I celebrate His holidays and give thanks
>before and after a deal and I must say that with His help my import business has
>survived the down turn and expanded.
>
> Please let me know how i can be of help. I have been doing research on Pan and
>Saturn as well.
>
>
> Since I am a wine maker as a hobby and for drinking i make sure to thank and
>acknowledge Liber; the Etruscan God of Harvest and wine that has become
>entangled with the upstart Greek God of Wine.
>
> Titus Sicinius Metellus
>
> --- On Fri, 4/22/11, Denise D. <aemilia.regilla@...> wrote:
>
> From: Denise D. <aemilia.regilla@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
> To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: "ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com" <ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com>
> Received: Friday, April 22, 2011, 4:23 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salvete,
>
>
>
> I sent my application for priesthood in pvt to T.I. Sabinus and G.C. Lentulus
>e-mails.
>
>
>
> Valete,
>
> Â
>
> --
>
> V.A. Regilla
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84242 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-28
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Aeternia C. Mariae Caecae sal:

Why yes I did and here I was attempting nonchalance lol, in the end a group
effort all around.

Glad you're back Caeca.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia




On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:30 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeca Sal!
>
> But ... (big smile) Amice Carissima! You chose that bouquet, so you *know*
> how lovely it is, and, soon, you shall have pictures to prove it! I'd send
> them here, but this list does not, wisely, I think, allow attachments. so,
> trust me on this, they are lovely!
>
> Vale et valete bene!
> CMC
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84243 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
voluntatis S.P.D.

> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> see my comments below deck.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:13 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
>> voluntatis S.P.D.
>>
>> Almost done with posting the latest grades, and am calling it a night.
>>
>
> Aeternia: Yes is past 2 a.m. here and I'm not feeling well at all, I think
> we both could use some shut eye.

ATS: And I am bleary-eyed from correcting papers and posting the grades
and corrections on our course site...and was more so at that point. There's
hope for all of us: a college freshman got a slightly higher mark than two
Latin teachers!
>
>>
>>
>>> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> I actually knew you would respond to this mishap Magistra and you are
>> very
>>> quick to assume I would cast some shadow of deception.
>>
>> ATS: Not necessarily...but one has to wonder.
>>
>
> Aeternia: Wonder what?

ATS2: Essentially, what happened to convert the BA conventus to the
all-purpose one.
>
>>
>>
>>> But I am prepared
>>> for your complaint.
>>
>> ATS: More like an inquiry.
>>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> And in light of the recent tax changes it is obvious we are in a rough
>>> economic climate and it makes no sense for citizens who cannot pay a 25$
>> tax
>>
>> ATS: I hope they haven't assessed that much on everyone.
>>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> on average but be expected to attend two different Conventi, and when I
>> say
>>> "attend" I mean the following: Pay for airfare, pay for hotels, pay for
>>> meals, and possible transportation costs two times.
>>
>> ATS: Oh, I agree.
>>
>
> Aeternia: Exactly, we must acknowledge these are just hard times currently..

ATS2: Yes...too hard for *any* discretionary travel.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> When you complained
>>> about having citizens pay a 25$ a year tax, why do you feel the need to
>> have
>>> two different conventi when you opposed meeting Nova Roma's financial
>>> obligations.
>>
>> ATS: I don't...I just wondered!
>>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> On a second note as for the "Lottery" idea that I came up with at the
>> very
>>> beginning of my term, I did indeed to propose to all of the Governors
>> within
>>> the North American continent and it received a very chilly reception.
>>
>> ATS: Oh? The govs don't want to get involved?
>>
>
> Aeternia: Most of them didn't seem to feel it, I take silence to be the
> answer "no".

ATS2: Sometimes it isn't; simply being busy or away or having a sick
computer.

> So I came up with a Plan B.
>
>>
>>
>>> So
>>> with those problems it makes sense to have one NA Conventi,
>>
>> ATS: One conventus...and the plural is convent�s, with a long u. It's
>> in the fourth declension, as are many useful words, such as senatus and
>> census...and I agree.
>>
>
> Aeternia: It's after 2 a.m. and I get credit for trying to do everything the
> CA is supposed to be doing :-).

ATS2: Oh, I think you're the head ludi planner, with able assistance
from Crassus!
>
>>
>>
>>> and even I must
>>> face economic constraints because I have five pets and you cannot imagine
>>> what feeding them all and making sure their needs are covered, along with
>>> paying bills on top of that.
>>
>> ATS: I expect it might be difficult to find someplace which would
>> welcome them while you travel, too...pets can be wonderful companions, but
>> they are not cheap. Not even little birdies are cost-free.
>>
>>
> Aeternia: No the children will be have a babysitter, I haven't been out of
> this state in almost two years. Pet free weekend is a welcoming prospect.

ATS2: LOL! No kitties on the laptop or dogs dining on the cell phone?
I hear Apple has a locator on those iPhones, so perhaps you can trace
yours...
>
>>>
>>> I believe we see where I'm going with this, sacrifices must be made in
>> these
>>> hard times. But I must say Scholastica I'd be delighted to meet you in
>>> person in Chicago, hearing latin from the Master herself, yes the
>> Conventus
>>> would be richer by your presence.


>>
>> ATS: Well, Chicago is one of the easier places for me to access...a
>> straight shot on the train, but my interests do not jibe with those of many
>> of your Western friends. Moreover, I have even less discretionary cash than
>> you do, and we do want to visit Caeca, somehow, somewhere, someway. She
>> can't do Chi at this point. Don't think I can...wouldn't mind seeing my
>> favorite U again, but there's too much against this.
>>
>
> Aeternia: I won't speak for Caeca,

ATS2: I hope we can get together with her. She surely cannot go that
far--even liberated from that confounded brace and the prospect of more
surgery (dis gratias!).

> but I'm willing to try and make this
> Conventus happen, I'd like to meet more NR folks, we need to focus more on
> community than the bickering and dissension.

ATS2: Many attitudes must change for that to happen. When it is open
season on anyone whose politics don't suit the more aggressive members of
the conservative faction, that bickering and dissension will continue.

> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
>>>
>>> Vale Optime,
>>> Aeternia
>>
Vale optime,

Scholastica
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:45 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
>>> fororom@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
>>>> voluntatis
>>>>> S.P.D.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Salvete,
>>>>>
>>>>> *sighs* Bugger!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh Bloody heck, well this is a sign...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes the Conventus will be in Chicago, we're looking at the last week of
>>>>> September - Second Week of Octoberish...
>>>>>
>>>>> ATS: Inasmuch as this has reached the ML...It was my understanding that
>>>>> the Chicago meeting was for members of the Back Alley, and that there
>>>> would be
>>>>> a lottery for the actual, non-Back Alley Conventus. Have we been
>>>> deceived?
>>>>> Some of us would prefer not to associate with certain others. I for one
>>>> do
>>>>> not share the value system of many of the BA / quondam Boni members,
>> and
>>>> would
>>>>> not seek such parties out.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a worldwide gig, everyone is invited..
>>>>>
>>>>> And I hope someone likes Canasta.
>>>>>
>>>>> More details will follow in the next few days and weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all she wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Valete,
>>>>> Aeternua
>>>>>
>>>>> Vale, et valete.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>> ,
>>>> Belle
>>>>
>>>>> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Salvete,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Julia does bring up a good point. I disagree that it should be
>>>> exclusively
>>>>>>> "Roman" but I believe that the Oriental Institute and the Art Museum
>>>> will
>>>>>>> accomodate our "Romanesque" (Romans loved art) are modern
>>>> interpretations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know there is a strong possibility of a Roman Re-Enactment group
>>>> located
>>>>>>> in Chicago, we can research and see what's popping what's popping
>> with
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Canasta is a strategy based card-game very similar to Gin-Rummy but
>>>> one
>>>>>>> level of degree of complexity more. I can play spades as well
>> although
>>>> I
>>>>>>> will need a refresher course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was also thinking everyone may not want to see all the sites, they
>>>> may
>>>>>>> like me be late sleepers. I don't function before 10 a.m. most of the
>>>> time
>>>>>>> I don't even eat until after 10 a.m.. I was wondering also about
>>>> malls, >>
>>>> and
>>>>>>> if the hotels will have spas, and definitely shoe stores. Maybe we
>>>> ladies
>>>>>>> can plan a nice shopping excursion I dunno just throwing the idea out
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P.S. Lets keep this off the ML for now because I think we are still
>>>> now
>>>>>>> debating on days and such.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Valete,
>>>>>>> Aeternia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:33 PM, LIA <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Salve, et salvete,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know we have just begun discussions regarding activity however
>>>> are >>>
>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> going to be a few even remotely "Roman" activities planned. A Roman
>>>> or
>>>>>>> Nova
>>>>>>>>> Roma Conventus revolves around Roman activities. Once those are
>>>>>>> identified
>>>>>>>>> than other activities are planned. I understand that is in Nova
>>>> Roma's
>>>>>>>>> history and I really have no problem with a relaxed atmosphere if
>>>> this
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> what everyone else wants but this should be addressed now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course seizing the opportunity to take advantage of Chicago's
>>>> art and
>>>>>>>>> culture is a very Roman thing to do. Just don't want to pack too
>>>> much in
>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> we want to also allow plenty of time to socialize and get to know
>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> another. When planning activities consideration must be given to
>>>> the
>>>>>>> varied
>>>>>>>>> ages/generations, interests and fitness level. For example if some
>>>> of
>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> would like to go to a theme park, I would probably bow out and
>>>> simply
>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>> something else to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For night activities I might enjoy playing Spades betting loose
>>>> change
>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> sestertius;), maybe the ballet - I think "Dracula" might be
>>>> playing, >>>
>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> are even haunted houses that open the first of October or Drag
>>>> Shows if
>>>>>>>>> anyone is interested. There will be a lot of events associated with
>>>> fall
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> Halloween that time of the year. Just hanging out is ok also or
>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>> something spontaneous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Planning should incorporate a flexible schedule around a common
>>>> interest
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> all have - "things Roman."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be a big help if we had an idea from each of you what your
>>>>>>>>> interests are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just a few thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wait. One last thought. It might be quite interesting to play
>>>> canasta
>>>>>>>>> (however that is played) while taking turns at karaoke in a Goth
>>>> club
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> drinking wine, beer and vodka into the wee hours of the morning
>>>> reciting
>>>>>>>>> poetry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vale, et valete
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Julia
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent from somewhere in the universe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@
>>>> ...>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Salvete:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have worked something in my head..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gualterus, you and myself are now the Activity Directors.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gualterus will take care of Daytime activities (i.e Musesums,
>>>> etc
>>>>>>>> etc)---
>>>>>>>>> you're the scholarly one and the local resident
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and I will be in charge of the Nighttime activities (pubs,
>>>> theatre
>>>>>>>> shows,
>>>>>>>>> etc etc) because from what I have been reading and such Chicago has
>>>> a
>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>> theatre scene, it's 4th largest city in the population of "goths"
>>>> and
>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>> sure there are plenty of Coffeehouses just waiting to be tracked
>>>> down
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> some good poetry reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Each night I will also hold a game of Canasta for those who like
>>>> to
>>>> play,
>>>>>>>>> for the nightowls...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sulla-- I'd like you to keep researching on Hotels and
>>>> Restaurants...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are we to be centered in the downtown area???
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Metellus has offered to be the RSVP guy when the time comes to
>>>> do
>>>> so...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know there are things I missed, so feel free to fill in the
>>>> gaps,
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> if you want to help the Activity Directors feel free to volunteer!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Valete,
>>>>>>>>>>> Aeternia
>>>>>>>>>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84244 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Salvete,

My last response to this thread, after this probably best to take it
privately... Floralia is going on and the stage should be passed to Pontifex
Julia Aquila and her colleagues.

<snippage for brevity sake>

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:20 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
fororom@...> wrote:

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> > Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:13 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
> fororom@...
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
> >> voluntatis S.P.D.
> >>
> >>
>
> ATS: And I am bleary-eyed from correcting papers and posting the grades
> and corrections on our course site...and was more so at that point. There's
> hope for all of us: a college freshman got a slightly higher mark than two
> Latin teachers!
>


SCVJA: You must be proud of your chicks :-)

> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> ATS2: Essentially, what happened to convert the BA conventus to the
> all-purpose one.
>

SCVJA: The formula has been given an explanation.

> >
> >>
> >>
>
> >
>
>
> ATS2: Sometimes it isn't; simply being busy or away or having a sick
> computer.
>
>
> SCVJA: Which I would agree to a very large extent, life happens to us
> all.. Then there are cases where even a one sentence e-mail wouldn't hurt
> either.
> >
> >
>
>
> ATS2: Oh, I think you're the head ludi planner, with able assistance
> from Crassus!
>

SCVJA: I am Mother Bee and all that it encompasses :-).

> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ATS2: LOL! No kitties on the laptop or dogs dining on the cell phone?
> I hear Apple has a locator on those iPhones, so perhaps you can trace
> yours...
>



> SCVJA: No my Canis is well behaved now my Feles are a different story.
> >>>
>
>
> ATS2: I hope we can get together with her. She surely cannot go that
> far--even liberated from that confounded brace and the prospect of more
> surgery (dis gratias!).
>
>
SCVJA: I will see Caeca our paths are simply destined to meet, it will
happen and when it does it will be most spiffy.

>
>
> ATS2: Many attitudes must change for that to happen. When it is open
> season on anyone whose politics don't suit the more aggressive members of
> the conservative faction, that bickering and dissension will continue.
>

SCVJA: I would humbly disagree Magistra, it has to come from both sides.
And people must take account of their own words and actions, an individual
cannot have a temper tantrum with no merit and blame the opposing faction
simply because they have a different viewpoint. People can have different
political views and still get along it happens literally all the time why
does it have to be different in NR? It's all about choice: you can choose
to pout in a corner and blame the other side and do nothing, you can choose
to make a change despite what others may think, but in the end its about the
choice the individual makes it is they who have to live with it no matter
what in the end.

And that was somehow an unintentional random soapbox moment goodness
gracious.

Valete bene,
Aeternia

>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84245 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
>
>
> Salve, Aeternia, et salvete, quirites bonae voluntatis
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> My last response to this thread, after this probably best to take it
> privately... Floralia is going on and the stage should be passed to Pontifex
> Julia Aquila and her colleagues.
>
> <snippage for brevity sake>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:20 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
> fororom@... <mailto:fororom%40localnet.com> > wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
>> > voluntatis S.P.D.
>> >
>>> > > Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.
>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:13 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
>> > fororom@... <mailto:fororom%40localnet.com>
>>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus bonae
>>>> > >> voluntatis S.P.D.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>> >
>> > ATS: And I am bleary-eyed from correcting papers and posting the grades
>> > and corrections on our course site...and was more so at that point. There's
>> > hope for all of us: a college freshman got a slightly higher mark than two
>> > Latin teachers!
>> >
>
> SCVJA: You must be proud of your chicks :-)
>
> ATS3: Most students in Combined are quite good; the pace is brutal, and
> even some Latin teachers drop to the slightly slower separate Sermo I and
> Sermo II. On this exam, which I consider the worst of the four exams in
> Combined, I had four A¹s out of seven survivors. I just got an application
> for that class, too, from a Spanish speaker who is going to have to decipher
> my explanation as to why he cannot enter the class... which is on its last
> lesson, has an assignment due Sunday, and then gets to face the music if all
> of them submit the assignment. If not, they wait. I certainly don¹t want to
> remove students this late in the course, and that is the penalty for unexcused
> tardiness in Sermo.
>
>>> > >
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >>> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>>
>> > ATS2: Essentially, what happened to convert the BA conventus to the
>> > all-purpose one.
>> >
>
> SCVJA: The formula has been given an explanation.
>
> ATS3: Well, cost is an issue, but surely there must be something else.
>
>>> > >
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>> >
>>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > ATS2: Sometimes it isn't; simply being busy or away or having a sick
>> > computer.
>> >
>> >
>> > SCVJA: Which I would agree to a very large extent, life happens to us
>> > all.. Then there are cases where even a one sentence e-mail wouldn't hurt
>> > either.
>
> ATS3: No, but we didn¹t get one for the Cereales, either.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > ATS2: Oh, I think you're the head ludi planner, with able assistance
>> > from Crassus!
>> >
>
> SCVJA: I am Mother Bee and all that it encompasses :-).
>
> ATS3: LOL!
>
>>> > >
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ATS2: LOL! No kitties on the laptop or dogs dining on the cell phone?
>> > I hear Apple has a locator on those iPhones, so perhaps you can trace
>> > yours...
>> >
>
>> > SCVJA: No my Canis is well behaved now my Feles are a different story.
>
>
> ATS3: Well, cats have to defend their reputation.
>>>>> > >>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ATS2: I hope we can get together with her. She surely cannot go that
>> > far--even liberated from that confounded brace and the prospect of more
>> > surgery (dis gratias!).
>> >
>> >
> SCVJA: I will see Caeca our paths are simply destined to meet, it will
> happen and when it does it will be most spiffy.
>
> ATS3: I¹m sure you will someday. Julia and I were delighted to meet her
> at the last Conventus.
>
>> >
>> >
>> > ATS2: Many attitudes must change for that to happen. When it is open
>> > season on anyone whose politics don't suit the more aggressive members of
>> > the conservative faction, that bickering and dissension will continue.
>> >
>
> SCVJA: I would humbly disagree Magistra, it has to come from both sides.
>
> ATS3: True, but most stems from aggressive persons on your side. Believe
> me, I can do without certain pit bulls on the more liberal side, and am glad
> that they are gone.
>
> And people must take account of their own words and actions, an individual
> cannot have a temper tantrum with no merit and blame the opposing faction
> simply because they have a different viewpoint. People can have different
> political views and still get along it happens literally all the time why
> does it have to be different in NR?
>
> ATS3: There must be some reason, perhaps malo auspicato, as Plautus makes
> Congrio say in the Aulularia. Indeed even Rs and Ds get along in the US, but
> in NR...
>
>
> It's all about choice: you can choose
> to pout in a corner and blame the other side and do nothing, you can choose
> to make a change despite what others may think, but in the end its about the
> choice the individual makes it is they who have to live with it no matter
> what in the end.
>
> ATS3: Yes.
>
> And that was somehow an unintentional random soapbox moment goodness
> gracious.
>
> ATS3: Yes.
>
> Valete bene,
> Aeternia
>
> Vale, et valete bene,
>
> Scholastica
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84246 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: De Sacerdotio
Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.

Saluete, Quirites.

Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
who has, or how many have, responded privately.

The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly fitting
to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced by
the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has been
made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
duties to the Res Publica.

Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium Pontificum
and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the safety
and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to do?

What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There is
nothing more than that.

Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these offices
to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without even
the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.

There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current operating
procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at hand.

What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
expenses. But I digress....

The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.

This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.

All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them the
history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently having
a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please note
that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
authoritative list came into being.

How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is not
up to the desires of the purchaser.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84247 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Salvete Omnes!

I just wanted to say that currently, my plans are to attend conventus in Chicago. This, of course, depends on my continued recovery, which I fully expect. Since the conventus is in October, I should have time to regain most of my health and I look forward to having a wonderful time.

Keep in mind that planning is in the early stages, and right now we are throwing out ideas in the same way, certain fine Italian cooks throw pasta against the wall to see if it's done. Some stick, some don't, but this is the nature of brainstorming. I fully expect that by the time we all gather in Chicago, we will have a great program with everything that we want, lots of free time, and a plan of campaign to explore the city!

Valete Bene,
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84248 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: PRAYER EMERGENCY
Salve Aquila,
What!! Who ever took our Roman prayers should put them back.


Please respect our freedom of religion, and recognize that a prayer to Apollo and Mars is just at valid as a prayer to Jesus, Mary, or Saint Joseph. Why?! Because behind each of these entities is a soul.

 
Anyone; everyone, Pater Mars: please help us Nova Roma restore our Roman prayers and heritage.

Sincerely,
Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Roman Prayer Project - Just a few moments of your time si placet..


 
Iulia Pontifex Quiritibus S.P.D.

Not all of you are aware that someone indiscriminately defiled the prayer pages of our Roman Gods by removing the prayers to them that were written by ancient authors.
I was, and am, appalled by this act of vandalism against the Gods and the dignity of the ancient Roman authors.
I have performed a piaculum, but the Gods may still be very displeased at those responsible. I leave those consequences to the Gods, it is not worth my time to find out who committed such an act or to seek retribution for our Gods I would rather expend my energy in the positive actions of rebuilding these pages thereby honoring our Gods in the best possible way.

I ask all Novi Romani to help out, si placet, just a few moments of your time; if everyone does just a little we will rebuild these pages!

Many of you occasionally come across a Roman prayer while reading a passage from ancient Roman authors or even while surfing the internet. I humbly ask that should you come across such a passage from "literary and epigraphic sources" that you post it on the Nova Roma wiki under the appropriate God/dess here:
http://novaroma.org/nr/Prayers
Or send it to me and I will post it on the appropriate Deity's page.
If able it would be great to post the prayer in both English *and* Latin - but please do not allow this to keep you from posting the prayer. Maybe those who have Latin or Latin resources can help in this respect.

Please contribute to this small project, which is not an "official" project of NR or the CP, but a project of the people, of you, the citizens for our Gods and the Respublica!

There is no time limit, no pressure, no committees to join - just do what you can when you can, even if it is a one-line prayer.

Si placet.

Please help honor the Gods and the Respublica!

Gratias, I appreciate your time and attention

Curate ut valeatis optime!

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84249 From: Sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
SALVETE!

Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that time and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood positions is the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277

VALETE,
Sabinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
>
> Saluete, Quirites.
>
> Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> who has, or how many have, responded privately.
>
> The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly fitting
> to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced by
> the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has been
> made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
> of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> duties to the Res Publica.
>
> Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium Pontificum
> and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the safety
> and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to do?
>
> What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There is
> nothing more than that.
>
> Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these offices
> to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without even
> the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
>
> There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current operating
> procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at hand.
>
> What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
> of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
> even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
> expenses. But I digress....
>
> The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
> be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
> expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
> without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
>
> This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
>
> All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them the
> history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently having
> a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please note
> that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
> the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
> me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> authoritative list came into being.
>
> How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is not
> up to the desires of the purchaser.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84250 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
C. Maria Caeca Sal!

I have always said that I will be happy to help celebrate anybody's holidays, religious or secular, especially if they involve good food and merriment. I still say that, particularly for those holidays involving dancing and cool ale!

Valete Bene!

Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84251 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Iulia Caecilio omnibusque S.P.D.


>It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
>fill the seats,

There is no "simply" about it. As Pontifex it is a duty to not just talk about a program, but to be proactive and teach, to mentor, for real (as opposed to imagine)those Sacerdotes in need of instruction as I had been doing for our Vestal complete with a lesson, reading material and a weekly meeting to discuss said lesson and reading material - and this shall resume when she is ready. In addition any student of mine will know that I am available as needed.
Pontifex Maximus Sabinus is aware of this endeavor.

I learned initially through mentorship and study and have continued my studies throughout the decades, and continue to this day - this was how the priesthoods taught in ancient times - we have no written programs of priesthood for the religio. They may not have existed or may not have survived, regardless they do not exist for us at this moment. This methodical training occurs within the Vedic and Yahwist religions mainly because they have several specific religious texts - even at that those religions were well developed before actual ritual actions were written down. Look it up. We do not have that resource.

I am proud to say I still have mentors every now and again and there is always something new for me to learn. Education in the Religio is should be ongoing which contributes to a competent Sacerdos, Flamine and Pontifex.

It is a dignified and wise action to bring this up within the CP rather than post a rant on the ML about something you, yourself, should take the initiative to offer the services of your knowledge to a Camillii who needs such mentorship. An instruction project was mentioned in the CP and an effort was made to get the CP to begin work on the education of Camillii and Sacerdotes - with no response from you to lend a hand. A fairly comprehensive outline, an encyclopedia as Pontifex Petronius called it, was presented, that also served as rough guideline for teaching Camillii and Sacerdotes - but not a word or suggestion from you. It is in the files and ready to be built upon.
So I must ask, since you have not had the benefit of a training program does this mean you are not qualified to be Pontifex?
Certainly not say I.

The time and energy it took to write this rant you could have created a basic outline for one lesson for aspiring Sacerdotes.

In short I am a Pontifex of action who can lay aside her pointy hat and walk amongst the citizens and offer a hand in public or in privatum. I have spoken to those interested, which includes one of the applicants, even on facebook. Rather than simply write missives, I do the actual work, online with the citizens, as well as offline with living breathing cultores. I know Pontifex Sabinus to be this sort of Pontifex as well.

Simul triumphamus, Pontifex Metelle. Are you ready to begin the work Pontifex Metelle?

I also know one of the applicants to be a studious cultore who has been practicing the religio for some time and has a wonderful blog.
I walk the walk Pontifex Metelle, do you? Until now I have not felt the need to paste "what I do" all over Nova Roma because it is a duty and should be expected, but I do so now in answer to your missive.
When was the last time you performed a ritual in honor of the Gods to benefit the public?
My last time was April 28th to Flora at my outdoor sacullum, on April 1st the Veneralia ritual was done at the area and lagoon consecrated to Venus. (To name two as April is a very busy month) Every morning a ritual is offered to Venus.

Quirites, I offer the hand of mentorship to any new Camilla/us or any co-opted Sacerdos so he or she can contribute to ensuring the safety
and welfare of our Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
satisfaction with our organization.

Bene valete in pacem deorum

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVETE!
>
> Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that time and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood positions is the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
>
> VALETE,
> Sabinus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> >
> > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> >
> > Saluete, Quirites.
> >
> > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> >
> > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly fitting
> > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced by
> > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has been
> > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
> > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > duties to the Res Publica.
> >
> > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium Pontificum
> > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, But what, precisely, is one to do?
> >
> > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There is
> > nothing more than that.
> >
> > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these offices
> > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without even
> > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> >
> > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current operating
> > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at hand.
> >
> > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
> > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
> > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
> > expenses. But I digress....
> >
> > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
> > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
> > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
> > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> >
> > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> >
> > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them the
> > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently having
> > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please note
> > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
> > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
> > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > authoritative list came into being.
> >
> > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is not
> > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84252 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: PRAYER EMERGENCY
Ave Marce,

Thank you!

The removal of the prayers had nothing to do with freedom of religion, I can say with confidence this was not the work of a peregrine cultus.

However Good News! I have had wonderful response and with the contributions of citizen Scriptrix and Vestal Caeca we are in the beginning stages of restoring these pages. In some cases we will still need the Latin. And of course we still want all cives to participate and either post to the wiki themselves or send me the prayer so I can do so if they feel unsure about posting to the wiki.
Also the "contest" will continue until May 3rd.

Optime valete in pace Veneris,

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Aquila,
> What!! Who ever took our Roman prayers should put them back.
>
>
> Please respect our freedom of religion, and recognize that a prayer to Apollo and Mars is just at valid as a prayer to Jesus, Mary, or Saint Joseph. Why?! Because behind each of these entities is a soul.
>
>  
> Anyone; everyone, Pater Mars: please help us Nova Roma restore our Roman prayers and heritage.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Roman Prayer Project - Just a few moments of your time si placet..
>
>
>  
> Iulia Pontifex Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Not all of you are aware that someone indiscriminately defiled the prayer pages of our Roman Gods by removing the prayers to them that were written by ancient authors.
> I was, and am, appalled by this act of vandalism against the Gods and the dignity of the ancient Roman authors.
> I have performed a piaculum, but the Gods may still be very displeased at those responsible. I leave those consequences to the Gods, it is not worth my time to find out who committed such an act or to seek retribution for our Gods I would rather expend my energy in the positive actions of rebuilding these pages thereby honoring our Gods in the best possible way.
>
> I ask all Novi Romani to help out, si placet, just a few moments of your time; if everyone does just a little we will rebuild these pages!
>
> Many of you occasionally come across a Roman prayer while reading a passage from ancient Roman authors or even while surfing the internet. I humbly ask that should you come across such a passage from "literary and epigraphic sources" that you post it on the Nova Roma wiki under the appropriate God/dess here:
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Prayers
> Or send it to me and I will post it on the appropriate Deity's page.
> If able it would be great to post the prayer in both English *and* Latin - but please do not allow this to keep you from posting the prayer. Maybe those who have Latin or Latin resources can help in this respect.
>
> Please contribute to this small project, which is not an "official" project of NR or the CP, but a project of the people, of you, the citizens for our Gods and the Respublica!
>
> There is no time limit, no pressure, no committees to join - just do what you can when you can, even if it is a one-line prayer.
>
> Si placet.
>
> Please help honor the Gods and the Respublica!
>
> Gratias, I appreciate your time and attention
>
> Curate ut valeatis optime!
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> Pontifex Novæ Romæ
> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84253 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Ave Maria Caeca!

> I have always said that I will be happy to help celebrate anybody's holidays, religious or secular, especially if they involve good food and merriment. I still say that, particularly for those holidays involving dancing and cool ale!

And pomegranate vodka....*smile*

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca Sal!
>
> I have always said that I will be happy to help celebrate anybody's holidays, religious or secular, especially if they involve good food and merriment. I still say that, particularly for those holidays involving dancing and cool ale!
>
> Valete Bene!
>
> Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84254 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Salve Maria

To celebrate your return, I certainly raised a glass of cool, best Kentish ale in your honour.

Vale bene
Crispus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca Sal!
>
> I have always said that I will be happy to help celebrate anybody's holidays, religious or secular, especially if they involve good food and merriment. I still say that, particularly for those holidays involving dancing and cool ale!
>
> Valete Bene!
>
> Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84255 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Res: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
Salve Amelia!

This is wonderful! A beautiful page!
When next I get a chance I may ask you to help me add that to the Aedes Venus blog as well!

Vale bene in pacem deorum

Julia
Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Denise D." <aemilia.regilla@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> I added a gadget that translates the whole site in one click. It´s a google
> translate so maybe the texts may not be correct in another language. We choose
> some festivals to do activities and we write a little about cultus in Brazil;
> it´s a partnership between Taura, Blandia and
> me: http://cultusdeorum.blogspot.com/
>
> =)
> --
> Regilla
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Enviadas: Quinta-feira, 28 de Abril de 2011 12:55:02
> Assunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
>
>
> Iulia pont. Regillae Sicinio omnibusque in foro S.P.D
>
> Io Floralia!
>
> Regilla, thank you for your application and your willingness to serve! Please
> feel free to contact me with any questions! You should also post the link to
> your wonderful blog in the forum as well.
>
>
> For those of you interested if you cannot read Spanish and use google chrome it
> will automatically translate her blog into into English, it is well worth a
> look.
>
> Sicini, although you feel you are not the priestly type I am taking this
> opportunity to ask you to contribute to a small project;) An undertaking really,
> "Roman Prayer Project" to replace the Roman Prayers that someone
> indiscriminately defiled by removing prayers, written by Ancient Romans, for all
> the Deities from their prayer page. Although I have performed a piaculum, the
> Gods may still be very displeased for those responsible.
> So, since you asked;)(and the timing is perfect btw) if you should come across a
> passage that is also, or will work, as a prayer to a specific Deity you can
> either post it yourself on the Wiki or... send it to me and I will post it on
> the appropriate Deity's page.
> This will be a truly magnificent way to honor Mercurius, Pan, Saturn and Liber
> Pater/Bacchus. I thank you personally, the CP thanks you and Nova Roma thanks
> you!
>
>
> Curate ut valeatis optime!
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> Pontifex Novæ Romæ
> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Ty Sponchia <muskegcorner@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > As a follower of Mercury i would like to extend a helping hand to any who need
> >help researching the God of Trade. I had considered applying for a position
> >myself but i am not the priestly type. I celebrate His holidays and give thanks
> >before and after a deal and I must say that with His help my import business has
> >survived the down turn and expanded.
> >
> > Please let me know how i can be of help. I have been doing research on Pan and
> >Saturn as well.
> >
> >
> > Since I am a wine maker as a hobby and for drinking i make sure to thank and
> >acknowledge Liber; the Etruscan God of Harvest and wine that has become
> >entangled with the upstart Greek God of Wine.
> >
> > Titus Sicinius Metellus
> >
> > --- On Fri, 4/22/11, Denise D. <aemilia.regilla@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Denise D. <aemilia.regilla@>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
> > To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: "ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com" <ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com>
> > Received: Friday, April 22, 2011, 4:23 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> >
> >
> > I sent my application for priesthood in pvt to T.I. Sabinus and G.C. Lentulus
> >e-mails.
> >
> >
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Â
> >
> > --
> >
> > V.A. Regilla
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84256 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Caeca Sal!

Excuse me, but the issue of pomegranate vodka is supposed to be sub Rosa! let us not get off track! (Big smile)

Vale Bene!

C.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84257 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Salve Crispe, et salvete omnes!

I hope that all of you are willing to bear with me while I practiced using my magic software. (Smile). The best way to learn how to use it is to practice, so I am!

Chrispe, and you did not share? We will have to discuss this! (Smile)

Come to Chicago, and you will have an opportunity to redeem your self. (big smile)

Vale et valete bene,
Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84258 From: Lyn Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Sal yourself, Caeca. Edepol, it is good to have you back!



Vale bene,

LAM



_____

From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of C.Maria Caeca
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:36 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: St. George's Day





Caeca Sal!

Excuse me, but the issue of pomegranate vodka is supposed to be sub Rosa!
let us not get off track! (Big smile)

Vale Bene!

C.

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





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84259 From: Cato Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: a.d. III Kal. Mai.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem III Kalendas Maias; haec dies comitialis est.

"And in truth, it is generally agreed that a marvellous good Fortune
guided the reign of Numa which endured for so many years. For the
tale that a certain Egeria, a dryad and a wise divinity, consorted in
love with the man, and helped him in instituting and shaping the
government of his State, is perhaps somewhat fabulous. For other
mortals who are said to have attained divine marriages and to have
been beloved of goddesses, men like Peleus and Anchises, Orion and
Emathion, by no means lived through their lives in a satisfactory, or
even painless, manner. On the contrary, it appears likely that Numa
had Good Fortune as his true wife, counsellor, and colleague; and she
took the city in charge when it was being carried hither and yon amid
the enmity and fierceness of bordering tribes and neighbours, as in
the midst of turbulent billows of a troubled sea and was inflamed by
countless struggles and dissensions; and she calmed those opposing
passions and jealousies as though they had been but gusts of wind.
Even as they relate that the sea, when it has received the brood of
halcyons in the stormy season, keeps them safe and assists in their
nurture, even such a calm in the affairs of Rome, free from war or
pestilence or danger or terror, Fortune caused to overspread and
surround the city, and thus afforded the opportunity to a newly
settled and sorely shaken people to take root and to establish their
city on a firm foundation where it might grow in quiet, securely and
unhindered. It is as with a merchantman or a trireme, which is
constructed by blows and with great violence, and is buffeted by
hammers and nails, bolts and saws and axes, and, when it is completed,
it must remain at rest and grow firm for a suitable period of time
until its bonds hold tight and its fastenings have acquired affinity;
but if it be launched while its joinings are still damp and slippery,
these will all be loosened when they are racked by the waves, and will
admit the sea. Even so the first ruler and artificer of Rome, in
organizing the city from rustics and shepherds, as though building up
from a stout keel, took upon himself no few labours, nor of slight
moment were the wars and dangers that he withstood in warding off, of
necessity, those who opposed the creation and foundation of Rome.

But he who was the second to take over the State gained time by good
fortune to consolidate and make assured the enlargement of Rome; for
much peace did he secure for her and much quiet. But if at that time
a Porsenna had pressed hard upon the city and had erected an Etruscan
stockade and a camp beside the new walls which were still moist and
unstable, or if from the Marsi had come some rebellious chief filled
with warlike frenzy, or some Lucanian, incited by envy and love of
strife, a man contentious and warlike, as later was Mutilus or the
bold Silo or Sulla's last antagonist, Telesinus, arming all Italy at
any time one preconcerted signal, as it were â€" if one of these had
sounded his trumpets round about Numa, the lover of wisdom, while he
was sacrificing and praying, the early beginnings of the City would
not have been able to hold out against such a mighty surge and billow,
nor would they ever have increased to such a goodly and numerous
people. But as it is, it seems likely that the peace of Numa's reign
was a provision to equip them for their subsequent wars, and that the
people, like an athlete, having, during a period of forty-three years
following the contests of Romulus's time, trained themselves in quiet
and made their strength staunch enough to cope in battle with those
who later arrayed themselves against them. For they relate that no
famine nor pestilence nor failure of crops nor any unseasonable
occurrence in either summer or winter vexed Rome during that time, as
if it were not a wise human counsel, but divine Fortune that was
Rome's guardian during those crucial days. Therefore at that time the
double door of Janus's temple was shut, which the Romans call the
Portal of War; for it is open when there is war, but closed when peace
has been made. But after Numa died it was opened, since the war with
the Albans had broken out. Then countless of the wars followed in
continuous succession until again, after four hundred and eighty
years, it was closed in the peace following the Punic War, when Gaius
Atilius and Titus Manlius were consuls. After this year it was again
opened and the wars continued until Caesar's victory at Actium. Then
the arms of Rome were idle for a time, but not for long; for the
tumults caused by the Cantabri and Gaul, breaking forth at the same
time with the Germans, disturbed the peace. These facts are added to
the record as proofs of Numa's good fortune." - Plutarch, "On the
Fortune of The Romans" 8

"In this connexion an important figure in the grove was the water-
nymph Egeria, who was worshipped by pregnant women because she, like
Diana, could grant them an easy delivery. From this it seems fairly
safe to conclude that, like many other springs, the water of Egeria
was credited with a power of facilitating conception as well as
delivery. The votive offerings found on the spot, which clearly refer
to the begetting of children, may possibly have been dedicated to
Egeria rather than to Diana, or perhaps we should rather say that the
water-nymph Egeria is only another form of the great nature-goddess
Diana herself, the mistress of sounding rivers as well as of
umbrageous woods, who had her home by the lake and her mirror in its
calm waters, and whose Greek counterpart Artemis loved to haunt meres
and springs. The identification of Egeria with Diana is confirmed by a
statement of Plutarch that Egeria was one of the oak-nymphs whom the
Romans believed to preside over every green oak-grove; for, while
Diana was a goddess of the woodlands in general, she appears to have
been intimately associated with oaks in particular, especially at her
sacred grove of Nemi. Perhaps, then, Egeria was the fairy of a spring
that flowed from the roots of a sacred oak. Such a spring is said to
have gushed from the foot of the great oak at Dodona, and from its
murmurous flow the priestess drew oracles. Among the Greeks a draught
of water from certain sacred springs or wells was supposed to confer
prophetic powers. This would explain the more than mortal wisdom with
which, according to tradition, Egeria inspired her royal husband or
lover Numa. When we remember how very often in early society the king
is held responsible for the fall of rain and the fruitfulness of the
earth, it seems hardly rash to conjecture that in the legend of the
nuptials of Numa and Egeria we have a reminiscence of a sacred
marriage which the old Roman kings regularly contracted with a goddess
of vegetation and water for the purpose of enabling him to discharge
his divine or magical functions. In such a rite the part of the
goddess might be played either by an image or a woman, and if by a
woman, probably by the Queen. If there is any truth in this
conjecture, we may suppose that the King and Queen of Rome masqueraded
as god and goddess at their marriage, exactly as the King and Queen of
Egypt appear to have done. The legend of Numa and Egeria points to a
sacred grove rather than to a house as the scene of the nuptial union,
which, like the marriage of the King and Queen of May, or of the vine-
god and the Queen of Athens, may have been annually celebrated as a
charm to ensure the fertility not only of the earth but of man and
beast." - Sir James Frazer, "The Golden Bough" 13.1

"After forming treaties of alliance with all his neighbours and
closing the temple of Janus, Numa turned his attention to domestic
matters. The removal of all danger from without would induce his
subjects to luxuriate in idleness, as they would be no longer
restrained by the fear of an enemy or by military discipline. To
prevent this, he strove to inculcate in their minds the fear of the
gods, regarding this as the most powerful influence which could act
upon an uncivilised and, in those ages, a barbarous people. But, as
this would fail to make a deep impression without some claim to
supernatural wisdom, he pretended that he had nocturnal interviews
with the nymph Egeria: that it was on her advice that he was
instituting the ritual most acceptable to the gods and appointing for
each deity his own special priests. First of all he divided the year
into twelve months, corresponding to the moon's revolutions. But as
the moon does not complete thirty days in each month, and so there are
fewer days in the lunar year than in that measured by the course of
the sun, he interpolated intercalary months and so arranged them that
every twentieth year the days should coincide with the same position
of the sun as when they started, the whole twenty years being thus
complete. He also established a distinction between the days on which
legal business could be transacted and those on which it could not,
because it would sometimes be advisable that there should be no
business transacted with the people." - Livy, History of Rome 1.19

"By this name the Latins designated the Muses, but included under it
also some other deities, principally nymphs of fountains. Egeria was
one of them, whose fountain and grotto are still shown. It was said
that Numa, the second king of Rome, was favored by this nymph with
secret interviews, in which she taught him those lessons of wisdom and
of law which he imbodied in the institutions of his rising nation.
After the death of Numa the nymph pined away and was changed into a
fountain." - Thomas Bullfinch, Mythology XXII.e

"Here didst thou dwell, in this enchanted cover,
Egeria! all thy heavenly bosom beating
For the far footsteps of thy mortal lover;
The purple midnight veiled that mystic meeting
With her most starry canopy." - Lord Byron, "Childe Harold" IV

"Holding one hand against his ear,
To list a footfall ere he saw
The wood-nymph, stayed the Tuscan king to hear
Of wisdom and of law." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson, "The Palace of Art"

"When Aurora's left Tithonus, kin to Phrygian Assaracus,
And raised her light three times in the vast heavens,
A goddess comes framed in a thousand varied garlands
Of flowers: and the stage has freer license for mirth.
The rites of Flora also stretch to the Kalends of May:
Then I'll speak again, now a greater task is needed.
Vesta, bear the day onwards! Vesta�s been received,
At her kinsman's threshold: so the Senators justly decreed.
Phoebus takes part of the space there: a further part remains
For Vesta, and the third part that's left, Caesar occupies.
Long live the laurels of the Palatine: long live that house
Decked with branches of oak: one place holds three eternal gods." -
Ovid, Fasti IV

Today is the first day of the Floralia. The Floralia festival began
in Rome in 238 B.C., to please the goddess Flora into protecting the
blossoms. The Floralia fell out of favor and was discontinued until
173 B.C., when the senate, concerned with wind, hail, and other damage
to the flowers, ordered Flora's celebration reinstated as the Ludi
Florales. The Ludi Florales included theatrical events, including
mimes, naked actresses and prostitutes. In the Renaissance, some
writers thought that Flora had been a human prostitute who was turned
into a goddess, possibly because of the licentiousness of the Ludi
Florales or because, according to David Lupher, Flora was a common
name for prostitutes in ancient Rome.

The celebration in honor of Flora included floral wreaths worn in the
hair much like modern participants in May Day celebrations. After the
theatrical performances, the celebration continued in the Circus
Maximus, where animals were set free and beans scattered to insure
fertility. Although the ancient Roman holiday of Floralia began in
April, it was really an ancient May Day celebration. Flora, the Roman
goddess in whose honor the festival was held, was a goddess of
flowers, which generally begin to bloom in the spring. The holiday for
Flora (as officially determined by Julius Caesar when he fixed the
Roman calendar) ran from April 29 to May 3.

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84260 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Salve et salvete!

You have no idea how wonderful it is to be snuggled in the midst of my nova Roman family! I had felt over the last couple of months, as though I had been in a dark, difficult, and usually unpleasant exile. It is so good to be back home!

Vale et valete!

Caeca

Gratias tibi ago, Lyn!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84261 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Salve Caeca, et salvete omnes

I am, and I am certain all of us are thrilled by the success you are having, both with the new software and generally. I had expected the software would struggle to cope with Roman ways, and that you would have to find lots of work-arounds. But, even if you are having to invent ways round, you are doing it so brilliantly that we will all be delighted for you.

You might not like ale - although perhaps we can work on that at some future time) but as a pomegranate (which I call grenadine) drinker myself, you need to give me the recipe for pomegranate vodka. How many parts of each?

Lets see how the conventus plans shape up - if not this year then soon.

Vale, et valete omnes
Crispus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Crispe, et salvete omnes!
>
> I hope that all of you are willing to bear with me while I practiced using my magic software. (Smile). The best way to learn how to use it is to practice, so I am!
>
> Chrispe, and you did not share? We will have to discuss this! (Smile)
>
> Come to Chicago, and you will have an opportunity to redeem your self. (big smile)
>
> Vale et valete bene,
> Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84262 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: St. George's Day
Salve Crispe et salvete omnes!

Oh, I have not even begun to teach Dragon to speak Latin. Yet! I need to become more familiar with the inner workings of the software before I make that attempt. What I am doing is writing in the Latin phrases, which is why they are so short and to the point (smile). As to pomegranate vodka,, I buy it in a store! I am not a Brewer, or a distiller.

Actually, I have tasted some ale that I like, including Guinness. But I am certainly willing to experiment (smile) . All in the interests of science, naturally.

Vale et valete!

C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84263 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: Floralia, The Goddess Flora April 28 - May 3
Salvete Omnes!!!

Another beautiful day here in the south after several days of Tornadoes and severe storms! Flower are blooming in abundance! We are supposed to have a couple more days of lovely weather and then we will be gifted with more rain which should contribute to an abundance of flowers and grain!

Io Floralia!

This is not an ancient poem but very lovely from the latter half of the 18th century by Poet William Morris:

Flora

am the handmaid of the earth,
I broider fair her glorious gown,
And deck her on her days of mirth
With many a garland of renown.

And while Earth's little ones are fain
And play about the Mother's hem,
I scatter every gift I gain
From sun and wind to gladden them.


I have posted some images of the Goddess Flora here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/fbx/?set=a.10150159940971176.294586.556351175
And also have added an album of a variety of ancient Roman masks to my flikr acccount:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/l_j_a/sets/72157626464981747/

Enjoy!!!

Bene valete in pacem deorum

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Aeternia C. Mariae Caecae sal:
>
> Why yes I did and here I was attempting nonchalance lol, in the end a group
> effort all around.
>
> Glad you're back Caeca.
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:30 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Caeca Sal!
> >
> > But ... (big smile) Amice Carissima! You chose that bouquet, so you *know*
> > how lovely it is, and, soon, you shall have pictures to prove it! I'd send
> > them here, but this list does not, wisely, I think, allow attachments. so,
> > trust me on this, they are lovely!
> >
> > Vale et valete bene!
> > CMC
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84264 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Senate Call
Ex officio Tribunus Plebis Gaius Aemilius Crassus



With the auspices having been taken by Augur Gaius Tullius Valerianus
Germanicus and found to be propitious, notice is given to the Roman people
that Consul Equitius Cato has called the Senate into session.



Consul C. Equitius Cato has called the Senate to meet during the following
times



Session

Beginning: 2 pm, a.d. VI Kal. Mai. (Apr. 26) ; end: sunset a.d. V Non. Mai.
2764 auc (Mai. 3, 2011)

Contio

Beginning: 2 pm, a.d. VI Kal. Mai. (Apr. 26) ; end: 2 pm a.d. pr. Kal. Apr.
2764 auc (Apr. 30, 2011 )

Vote

Beginning: 2 pm, pr. Kal. Mai. (Apr. 30) ; end: sunset a.d. V Non. Mai. 2764
auc (Mai. 3, 2011)



The Consul has set as the following as the preliminary agenda:



- A method by which the voting peculiarities of Nova Roma can be at least
temporarily re-established.



Valete



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84265 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave. He is the
one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility by
actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if I
recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:

>
>
> SALVETE!
>
> Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that time
> and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood positions is
> the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
>
> VALETE,
> Sabinus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
> >
> > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> >
> > Saluete, Quirites.
> >
> > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> >
> > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly fitting
> > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced by
> > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has been
> > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
> > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > duties to the Res Publica.
> >
> > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium Pontificum
> > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the safety
> > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to do?
> >
> > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There is
> > nothing more than that.
> >
> > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these offices
> > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without even
> > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> >
> > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current operating
> > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at hand.
> >
> > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
> > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
> > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
> > expenses. But I digress....
> >
> > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
> > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
> > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
> > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> >
> > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> >
> > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them the
> > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently having
> > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please note
> > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
> > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
> > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > authoritative list came into being.
> >
> > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is not
> > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84266 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

You are asking what Metellus does? Seriously?

The Calendar does not count?
Making sure the Auspices are conducted correctly - remember the crap
Modianus pulled? I dont think you have that short of a memory Iulia :)
Preparing the Calendar for the next 10 years in advance?
SUMMONING the CP?

That is not enough to show an active pontiff? Really? Then I suggest all
the Pontiffs should resign!

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:03 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

>
>
> Iulia Caecilio omnibusque S.P.D.
>
>
> >It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> >fill the seats,
>
> There is no "simply" about it. As Pontifex it is a duty to not just talk
> about a program, but to be proactive and teach, to mentor, for real (as
> opposed to imagine)those Sacerdotes in need of instruction as I had been
> doing for our Vestal complete with a lesson, reading material and a weekly
> meeting to discuss said lesson and reading material - and this shall resume
> when she is ready. In addition any student of mine will know that I am
> available as needed.
> Pontifex Maximus Sabinus is aware of this endeavor.
>
> I learned initially through mentorship and study and have continued my
> studies throughout the decades, and continue to this day - this was how the
> priesthoods taught in ancient times - we have no written programs of
> priesthood for the religio. They may not have existed or may not have
> survived, regardless they do not exist for us at this moment. This
> methodical training occurs within the Vedic and Yahwist religions mainly
> because they have several specific religious texts - even at that those
> religions were well developed before actual ritual actions were written
> down. Look it up. We do not have that resource.
>
> I am proud to say I still have mentors every now and again and there is
> always something new for me to learn. Education in the Religio is should be
> ongoing which contributes to a competent Sacerdos, Flamine and Pontifex.
>
> It is a dignified and wise action to bring this up within the CP rather
> than post a rant on the ML about something you, yourself, should take the
> initiative to offer the services of your knowledge to a Camillii who needs
> such mentorship. An instruction project was mentioned in the CP and an
> effort was made to get the CP to begin work on the education of Camillii and
> Sacerdotes - with no response from you to lend a hand. A fairly
> comprehensive outline, an encyclopedia as Pontifex Petronius called it, was
> presented, that also served as rough guideline for teaching Camillii and
> Sacerdotes - but not a word or suggestion from you. It is in the files and
> ready to be built upon.
> So I must ask, since you have not had the benefit of a training program
> does this mean you are not qualified to be Pontifex?
> Certainly not say I.
>
> The time and energy it took to write this rant you could have created a
> basic outline for one lesson for aspiring Sacerdotes.
>
> In short I am a Pontifex of action who can lay aside her pointy hat and
> walk amongst the citizens and offer a hand in public or in privatum. I have
> spoken to those interested, which includes one of the applicants, even on
> facebook. Rather than simply write missives, I do the actual work, online
> with the citizens, as well as offline with living breathing cultores. I know
> Pontifex Sabinus to be this sort of Pontifex as well.
>
> Simul triumphamus, Pontifex Metelle. Are you ready to begin the work
> Pontifex Metelle?
>
> I also know one of the applicants to be a studious cultore who has been
> practicing the religio for some time and has a wonderful blog.
> I walk the walk Pontifex Metelle, do you? Until now I have not felt the
> need to paste "what I do" all over Nova Roma because it is a duty and should
> be expected, but I do so now in answer to your missive.
> When was the last time you performed a ritual in honor of the Gods to
> benefit the public?
> My last time was April 28th to Flora at my outdoor sacullum, on April 1st
> the Veneralia ritual was done at the area and lagoon consecrated to Venus.
> (To name two as April is a very busy month) Every morning a ritual is
> offered to Venus.
>
> Quirites, I offer the hand of mentorship to any new Camilla/us or any
> co-opted Sacerdos so he or she can contribute to ensuring the safety
> and welfare of our Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> satisfaction with our organization.
>
> Bene valete in pacem deorum
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> Pontifex Nov� Rom�
> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
>
> Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> >
> > SALVETE!
> >
> > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that time
> and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood positions is
> the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> >
> > VALETE,
> > Sabinus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > >
> > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > >
> > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > >
> > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> fitting
> > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
> by
> > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> been
> > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
> > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > >
> > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> Pontificum
> > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, But what,
> precisely, is one to do?
>
> > >
> > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There is
> > > nothing more than that.
> > >
> > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> offices
> > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without even
> > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > >
> > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> operating
> > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> hand.
> > >
> > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
> > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
> > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
> > > expenses. But I digress....
> > >
> > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
> > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
> > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
> > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > >
> > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> > >
> > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> the
> > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> having
> > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please note
> > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
> > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
> > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > authoritative list came into being.
> > >
> > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is not
> > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84267 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave Sulla,

I understand that, and I am glad for it, but that is not what we were discussing, we were discussing performing rituals in honor of the Gods.
We were discussing teaching new Camilla and the absence of a formal program.

Sabinus and I did nothing to warrant that diatribe and my response was the consequence of that action. We also do quite a lot that is not mentioned beyond the scope of this particular issue.

Vale

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> You are asking what Metellus does? Seriously?
>
> The Calendar does not count?
> Making sure the Auspices are conducted correctly - remember the crap
> Modianus pulled? I dont think you have that short of a memory Iulia :)
> Preparing the Calendar for the next 10 years in advance?
> SUMMONING the CP?
>
> That is not enough to show an active pontiff? Really? Then I suggest all
> the Pontiffs should resign!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:03 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Iulia Caecilio omnibusque S.P.D.
> >
> >
> > >It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> > >fill the seats,
> >
> > There is no "simply" about it. As Pontifex it is a duty to not just talk
> > about a program, but to be proactive and teach, to mentor, for real (as
> > opposed to imagine)those Sacerdotes in need of instruction as I had been
> > doing for our Vestal complete with a lesson, reading material and a weekly
> > meeting to discuss said lesson and reading material - and this shall resume
> > when she is ready. In addition any student of mine will know that I am
> > available as needed.
> > Pontifex Maximus Sabinus is aware of this endeavor.
> >
> > I learned initially through mentorship and study and have continued my
> > studies throughout the decades, and continue to this day - this was how the
> > priesthoods taught in ancient times - we have no written programs of
> > priesthood for the religio. They may not have existed or may not have
> > survived, regardless they do not exist for us at this moment. This
> > methodical training occurs within the Vedic and Yahwist religions mainly
> > because they have several specific religious texts - even at that those
> > religions were well developed before actual ritual actions were written
> > down. Look it up. We do not have that resource.
> >
> > I am proud to say I still have mentors every now and again and there is
> > always something new for me to learn. Education in the Religio is should be
> > ongoing which contributes to a competent Sacerdos, Flamine and Pontifex.
> >
> > It is a dignified and wise action to bring this up within the CP rather
> > than post a rant on the ML about something you, yourself, should take the
> > initiative to offer the services of your knowledge to a Camillii who needs
> > such mentorship. An instruction project was mentioned in the CP and an
> > effort was made to get the CP to begin work on the education of Camillii and
> > Sacerdotes - with no response from you to lend a hand. A fairly
> > comprehensive outline, an encyclopedia as Pontifex Petronius called it, was
> > presented, that also served as rough guideline for teaching Camillii and
> > Sacerdotes - but not a word or suggestion from you. It is in the files and
> > ready to be built upon.
> > So I must ask, since you have not had the benefit of a training program
> > does this mean you are not qualified to be Pontifex?
> > Certainly not say I.
> >
> > The time and energy it took to write this rant you could have created a
> > basic outline for one lesson for aspiring Sacerdotes.
> >
> > In short I am a Pontifex of action who can lay aside her pointy hat and
> > walk amongst the citizens and offer a hand in public or in privatum. I have
> > spoken to those interested, which includes one of the applicants, even on
> > facebook. Rather than simply write missives, I do the actual work, online
> > with the citizens, as well as offline with living breathing cultores. I know
> > Pontifex Sabinus to be this sort of Pontifex as well.
> >
> > Simul triumphamus, Pontifex Metelle. Are you ready to begin the work
> > Pontifex Metelle?
> >
> > I also know one of the applicants to be a studious cultore who has been
> > practicing the religio for some time and has a wonderful blog.
> > I walk the walk Pontifex Metelle, do you? Until now I have not felt the
> > need to paste "what I do" all over Nova Roma because it is a duty and should
> > be expected, but I do so now in answer to your missive.
> > When was the last time you performed a ritual in honor of the Gods to
> > benefit the public?
> > My last time was April 28th to Flora at my outdoor sacullum, on April 1st
> > the Veneralia ritual was done at the area and lagoon consecrated to Venus.
> > (To name two as April is a very busy month) Every morning a ritual is
> > offered to Venus.
> >
> > Quirites, I offer the hand of mentorship to any new Camilla/us or any
> > co-opted Sacerdos so he or she can contribute to ensuring the safety
> > and welfare of our Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > satisfaction with our organization.
> >
> > Bene valete in pacem deorum
> >
> > L. Iulia Aquila
> > Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> > Pontifex Novæ Romæ
> > http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
> >
> > Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > SALVETE!
> > >
> > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that time
> > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood positions is
> > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> > >
> > > VALETE,
> > > Sabinus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > > >
> > > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > > >
> > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > > >
> > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> > fitting
> > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
> > by
> > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> > been
> > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
> > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > > >
> > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> > Pontificum
> > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, But what,
> > precisely, is one to do?
> >
> > > >
> > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There is
> > > > nothing more than that.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> > offices
> > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without even
> > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > > >
> > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> > operating
> > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> > hand.
> > > >
> > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
> > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
> > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
> > > > expenses. But I digress....
> > > >
> > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
> > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
> > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
> > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > > >
> > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> > > >
> > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> > the
> > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> > having
> > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please note
> > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
> > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
> > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > > authoritative list came into being.
> > > >
> > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is not
> > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84268 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

Maybe you and Sabinus felt it was unwarranted, but perhaps Metellus thought
it entirely relevant? This is why if you felt it was unwarranted you would
respond to the substantive points he made in his post...instead of just
deflecting....I wonder if there is an internet rule that if one deflects
then they immediately lose the conversation kinda like Godwins rule? LOL.
So, back to the topic...if you think that the post was unwarranted - respond
to the substantive points that Metellus made in his post. :) Then we the
People can weigh both sides.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:43 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ave Sulla,
>
> I understand that, and I am glad for it, but that is not what we were
> discussing, we were discussing performing rituals in honor of the Gods.
> We were discussing teaching new Camilla and the absence of a formal
> program.
>
> Sabinus and I did nothing to warrant that diatribe and my response was the
> consequence of that action. We also do quite a lot that is not mentioned
> beyond the scope of this particular issue.
>
> Vale
>
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > You are asking what Metellus does? Seriously?
> >
> > The Calendar does not count?
> > Making sure the Auspices are conducted correctly - remember the crap
> > Modianus pulled? I dont think you have that short of a memory Iulia :)
> > Preparing the Calendar for the next 10 years in advance?
> > SUMMONING the CP?
> >
> > That is not enough to show an active pontiff? Really? Then I suggest all
> > the Pontiffs should resign!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:03 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Iulia Caecilio omnibusque S.P.D.
> > >
> > >
> > > >It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> > > >fill the seats,
> > >
> > > There is no "simply" about it. As Pontifex it is a duty to not just
> talk
> > > about a program, but to be proactive and teach, to mentor, for real (as
> > > opposed to imagine)those Sacerdotes in need of instruction as I had
> been
> > > doing for our Vestal complete with a lesson, reading material and a
> weekly
> > > meeting to discuss said lesson and reading material - and this shall
> resume
> > > when she is ready. In addition any student of mine will know that I am
> > > available as needed.
> > > Pontifex Maximus Sabinus is aware of this endeavor.
> > >
> > > I learned initially through mentorship and study and have continued my
> > > studies throughout the decades, and continue to this day - this was how
> the
> > > priesthoods taught in ancient times - we have no written programs of
> > > priesthood for the religio. They may not have existed or may not have
> > > survived, regardless they do not exist for us at this moment. This
> > > methodical training occurs within the Vedic and Yahwist religions
> mainly
> > > because they have several specific religious texts - even at that those
> > > religions were well developed before actual ritual actions were written
> > > down. Look it up. We do not have that resource.
> > >
> > > I am proud to say I still have mentors every now and again and there is
> > > always something new for me to learn. Education in the Religio is
> should be
> > > ongoing which contributes to a competent Sacerdos, Flamine and
> Pontifex.
> > >
> > > It is a dignified and wise action to bring this up within the CP rather
> > > than post a rant on the ML about something you, yourself, should take
> the
> > > initiative to offer the services of your knowledge to a Camillii who
> needs
> > > such mentorship. An instruction project was mentioned in the CP and an
> > > effort was made to get the CP to begin work on the education of
> Camillii and
> > > Sacerdotes - with no response from you to lend a hand. A fairly
> > > comprehensive outline, an encyclopedia as Pontifex Petronius called it,
> was
> > > presented, that also served as rough guideline for teaching Camillii
> and
> > > Sacerdotes - but not a word or suggestion from you. It is in the files
> and
> > > ready to be built upon.
> > > So I must ask, since you have not had the benefit of a training program
> > > does this mean you are not qualified to be Pontifex?
> > > Certainly not say I.
> > >
> > > The time and energy it took to write this rant you could have created a
> > > basic outline for one lesson for aspiring Sacerdotes.
> > >
> > > In short I am a Pontifex of action who can lay aside her pointy hat and
> > > walk amongst the citizens and offer a hand in public or in privatum. I
> have
> > > spoken to those interested, which includes one of the applicants, even
> on
> > > facebook. Rather than simply write missives, I do the actual work,
> online
> > > with the citizens, as well as offline with living breathing cultores. I
> know
> > > Pontifex Sabinus to be this sort of Pontifex as well.
> > >
> > > Simul triumphamus, Pontifex Metelle. Are you ready to begin the work
> > > Pontifex Metelle?
> > >
> > > I also know one of the applicants to be a studious cultore who has been
> > > practicing the religio for some time and has a wonderful blog.
> > > I walk the walk Pontifex Metelle, do you? Until now I have not felt the
> > > need to paste "what I do" all over Nova Roma because it is a duty and
> should
> > > be expected, but I do so now in answer to your missive.
> > > When was the last time you performed a ritual in honor of the Gods to
> > > benefit the public?
> > > My last time was April 28th to Flora at my outdoor sacullum, on April
> 1st
> > > the Veneralia ritual was done at the area and lagoon consecrated to
> Venus.
> > > (To name two as April is a very busy month) Every morning a ritual is
> > > offered to Venus.
> > >
> > > Quirites, I offer the hand of mentorship to any new Camilla/us or any
> > > co-opted Sacerdos so he or she can contribute to ensuring the safety
> > > and welfare of our Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > > satisfaction with our organization.
> > >
> > > Bene valete in pacem deorum
> > >
> > > L. Iulia Aquila
> > > Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> > > Pontifex Nov� Rom�
> > > http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > > Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > SALVETE!
> > > >
> > > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
> time
> > > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
> positions is
> > > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> > > >
> > > > VALETE,
> > > > Sabinus
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> > > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T
> Iulius,
> > > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting
> to
> > > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot
> say
> > > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> > > fitting
> > > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as
> evidenced
> > > by
> > > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
> simply
> > > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> > > been
> > > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
> positions
> > > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > > > >
> > > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> > > Pontificum
> > > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions
> is
> > > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, But what,
> > > precisely, is one to do?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of
> these
> > > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance.
> There
> > > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*.
> There is
> > > > > nothing more than that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> > > offices
> > > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
> even
> > > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions
> be
> > > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too,
> there
> > > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum,
> with
> > > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or
> even
> > > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> > > operating
> > > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> > > hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the
> priesthood?
> > > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
> servants
> > > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
> cannot
> > > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
> operating
> > > > > expenses. But I digress....
> > > > >
> > > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
> to
> > > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
> are
> > > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
> performance,
> > > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > > > >
> > > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus,
> the
> > > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these
> two
> > > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to
> continue.
> > > > >
> > > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever
> you
> > > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet
> those
> > > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant
> them
> > > the
> > > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> > > having
> > > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
> note
> > > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
> all
> > > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here."
> As
> > > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no
> current
> > > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my
> time
> > > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
> grant
> > > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > > > authoritative list came into being.
> > > > >
> > > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
> not
> > > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84269 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
SALVE!
 
Thank you for reply, it is really appreciated. I will think to something to work together.
 
VALE,
Sabinus

--- On Mon, 4/25/11, Ty Sponchia <muskegcorner@...> wrote:



As a follower of Mercury i would like to extend a helping hand to any who need help researching the God of Trade. I had considered applying for a position myself but i am not the priestly type. I celebrate His holidays and give thanks before and after a deal and I must say that with His help my import business has survived the down turn and expanded.

Please let me know how i can be of help. I have been doing research on Pan and Saturn as well.

Since I am a wine maker as a hobby and for drinking i make sure to thank and acknowledge Liber; the Etruscan God of Harvest and wine that has become entangled with the upstart Greek God of Wine.

Titus Sicinius Metellus

--- On Fri, 4/22/11, Denise D. <aemilia.regilla@...> wrote:

From: Denise D. <aemilia.regilla@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com" <ReligioRomana@yahoogroups.com>
Received: Friday, April 22, 2011, 4:23 PM

 

Salvete,

I sent my application for priesthood in pvt to T.I. Sabinus and G.C. Lentulus e-mails.

Valete,

 

--

V.A. Regilla

________________________________

De: Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>

Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Enviadas: Quinta-feira, 21 de Abril de 2011 11:30

Assunto: [Nova-Roma] Open gates to Nova Roma priesthood.

 

SALVETE!

Nova Roma is accepting applications based of simple test knowledge for various Priesthoods. If you are interested in helping to rebuild the Religio Romana and the worship of the ancient Roman deities on an official public basis, we would be pleased to hear from you. The Priesthoods in Nova Roma are open to both men and women, with the exception of the Vestals. As Priesthood is an important position of responsibility we do ask that you read the following guidelines:

- We ask that applicants have sincere religious feeling for the deity who's priesthood they wish to undertake. It is necessary that the applicant worship that deity in private life in addition to being willing to preside over public rituals on behalf of Nova Roma. As our central goal is to restore sincere as well as traditional worship of the ancient Gods, we cannot grant Priesthood status to Citizens who apply only for reasons of historical curiosity or for purposes of secular historical reenactment.

- We ask that Priesthood applicants have real time to devote toward advancing the worship of their chosen deity both within Nova Roma and in the outside world. This involves being available for public correspondence concerning the worship of the God or Goddess they serve, assisting others in their personal worship, working to reconstruct rites, prayers and other religious liturgy related to their deity, being available for public rites sponsored by Nova Roma,

and ideally, organizing public rites/temples on their own as well. We feel that Priesthood is defined by active service on many levels. Therefore we cannot provide empty "titles" for those who are unable to put forth genuine effort.

- We must ask that all Priesthood applicants be able to do College-level literary research to recover the historical facts of their Priesthood, and the worship of the God or Goddess they seek to serve. The restoration of the Religio Romana is still in its first stages and it is the Priesthood that must do the historical work to make their chosen path come alive again. Each Priestess or Priest will be required to create a complete written "plan" for rebuilding the

worship of their deity at some point, This will need to include not only a historical overview of their God or Goddesses ancient worship, but also written rituals for the deities festival days, prayers and rites for others who seek to worship that deity, offering liturgy, etc. We recommend that applicants have access to one or more good libraries, or have the means to find/buy scholarly books and resource materials.

- We must also request that applicants agree to act within a Roman

reconstructionist format while acting as an official Priestess or Priest of Nova Roma. This means being as historically accurate as possible in rituals, offerings, prayers, written text, etc. As we are seeking to build the Religio Romana as a distinct religion in the modern world, it is important that it's practices be as unique today as they were in the antiquity.

- We ask that applicants be involved with Nova Roma as a Citizen for six months before applying for a Priesthood position. This is important because members of the Priesthood are acting on behalf of Nova Roma itself, and some experience with the community you will be working with is necessary. This can only come with time.

- We ask that applicants to obtain and maintain the assidui status (taxpayer) during their term of service in Priesthood.

All interested applicants can contact the Collegium Pontificum through any of the Nova Roma pontifices, using their contact section of the Album Civium page.

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_pontificum_%28Nova_Roma%29

or presented their interest in Nova Roma main list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

and Religio Romana list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligioRomana/

no late than pr. Non. Mai. 2764 a.U.c (6th of May 2011.

Available positions but not limited to:

Apollinis Aedis Sacerdotes

Iani Aedis Sacerdotes

Iovis Aedes Sacerdotes

Iuno Aedis Sacerdotes

Magnae Matris Deum Aedis Sacerdotes

Mentis Aedis Sacerdotes

Minervae Aedis Sacerdotes

Neptuni Aedis Sacerdotes

Palatuae Aedis Sacerdotes

Flamines Minores:

Flamen Carmentalis

Flamen Cerealis

Flamen Falacer

Flamen Florealis

Flamen Palatualis

Flamen Portunalis - under direct supervision and training of current flamen

Petronius Dexter.

Flamen Volcanalis

Flamen Volturnalis

Virgines Vestales 5 positions

Quirites!

Let's celebrate the founding of Rome with great interest and effective serving the Roman Religion.

VALETE,

Sabinus

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

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










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84270 From: Sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
SALVE!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

> I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave.>>>

At that time when the item was discussed he was:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/268

More than that, today, he removed the Senators Tullia Scholastica and Popillius Laenas from the CP list even if the SC voted at the midle of November last year, article 9, give them the right to subscribe on the CP list:
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/SC_2763_Nov._1-1_%28Nova_Roma%29

Strange things!

VALE,
Sabinus


He is the
> one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility by
> actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if I
> recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SALVETE!
> >
> > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that time
> > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood positions is
> > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> >
> > VALETE,
> > Sabinus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > >
> > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > >
> > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > >
> > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly fitting
> > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced by
> > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has been
> > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
> > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > >
> > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium Pontificum
> > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the safety
> > > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to do?
> > >
> > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There is
> > > nothing more than that.
> > >
> > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these offices
> > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without even
> > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > >
> > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current operating
> > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at hand.
> > >
> > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
> > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
> > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
> > > expenses. But I digress....
> > >
> > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
> > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
> > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
> > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > >
> > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> > >
> > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them the
> > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently having
> > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please note
> > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
> > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
> > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > authoritative list came into being.
> > >
> > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is not
> > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84271 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

What I don't get is that whenever someone voices an opinion that criticizes
other individuals the first response is to toss back....so what have you
done? Maior was FAMOUS for that or should I say INFAMOUS for it....If you
cannot substantively answer his critical statements maybe it is time to
reflect that his criticisms are valid and action needs to be halted for
proper reflection.

I know when I wrote the CFO Proposal I made sure there was a job description
about what is expected. To my knowlendge no religio position has any
description - hence inactive Pontiffs and relying on a statement of this is
what I have done this year is just not proper way of conducting and making
sure that a position is adequately needed or filled. So maybe if you cannot
counter Metellus's claims subsantively...you in the CP should go back in the
drawing board and work out detailed job descriptions from the top
down....Pontifex Maximus and Pontiffs (since both are equal) then the
Augurs....then the Major Flamines..then the Minor..Flamens. And you know
what maybe if this was done the BS that happened about the Rex Sacorum would
never have happened earlier this year? Perhaps?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...
> wrote:

> Ave!
>
> You are asking what Metellus does? Seriously?
>
> The Calendar does not count?
> Making sure the Auspices are conducted correctly - remember the crap
> Modianus pulled? I dont think you have that short of a memory Iulia :)
> Preparing the Calendar for the next 10 years in advance?
> SUMMONING the CP?
>
> That is not enough to show an active pontiff? Really? Then I suggest all
> the Pontiffs should resign!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:03 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Iulia Caecilio omnibusque S.P.D.
>>
>>
>> >It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
>> >fill the seats,
>>
>> There is no "simply" about it. As Pontifex it is a duty to not just talk
>> about a program, but to be proactive and teach, to mentor, for real (as
>> opposed to imagine)those Sacerdotes in need of instruction as I had been
>> doing for our Vestal complete with a lesson, reading material and a weekly
>> meeting to discuss said lesson and reading material - and this shall resume
>> when she is ready. In addition any student of mine will know that I am
>> available as needed.
>> Pontifex Maximus Sabinus is aware of this endeavor.
>>
>> I learned initially through mentorship and study and have continued my
>> studies throughout the decades, and continue to this day - this was how the
>> priesthoods taught in ancient times - we have no written programs of
>> priesthood for the religio. They may not have existed or may not have
>> survived, regardless they do not exist for us at this moment. This
>> methodical training occurs within the Vedic and Yahwist religions mainly
>> because they have several specific religious texts - even at that those
>> religions were well developed before actual ritual actions were written
>> down. Look it up. We do not have that resource.
>>
>> I am proud to say I still have mentors every now and again and there is
>> always something new for me to learn. Education in the Religio is should be
>> ongoing which contributes to a competent Sacerdos, Flamine and Pontifex.
>>
>> It is a dignified and wise action to bring this up within the CP rather
>> than post a rant on the ML about something you, yourself, should take the
>> initiative to offer the services of your knowledge to a Camillii who needs
>> such mentorship. An instruction project was mentioned in the CP and an
>> effort was made to get the CP to begin work on the education of Camillii and
>> Sacerdotes - with no response from you to lend a hand. A fairly
>> comprehensive outline, an encyclopedia as Pontifex Petronius called it, was
>> presented, that also served as rough guideline for teaching Camillii and
>> Sacerdotes - but not a word or suggestion from you. It is in the files and
>> ready to be built upon.
>> So I must ask, since you have not had the benefit of a training program
>> does this mean you are not qualified to be Pontifex?
>> Certainly not say I.
>>
>> The time and energy it took to write this rant you could have created a
>> basic outline for one lesson for aspiring Sacerdotes.
>>
>> In short I am a Pontifex of action who can lay aside her pointy hat and
>> walk amongst the citizens and offer a hand in public or in privatum. I have
>> spoken to those interested, which includes one of the applicants, even on
>> facebook. Rather than simply write missives, I do the actual work, online
>> with the citizens, as well as offline with living breathing cultores. I know
>> Pontifex Sabinus to be this sort of Pontifex as well.
>>
>> Simul triumphamus, Pontifex Metelle. Are you ready to begin the work
>> Pontifex Metelle?
>>
>> I also know one of the applicants to be a studious cultore who has been
>> practicing the religio for some time and has a wonderful blog.
>> I walk the walk Pontifex Metelle, do you? Until now I have not felt the
>> need to paste "what I do" all over Nova Roma because it is a duty and should
>> be expected, but I do so now in answer to your missive.
>> When was the last time you performed a ritual in honor of the Gods to
>> benefit the public?
>> My last time was April 28th to Flora at my outdoor sacullum, on April 1st
>> the Veneralia ritual was done at the area and lagoon consecrated to Venus.
>> (To name two as April is a very busy month) Every morning a ritual is
>> offered to Venus.
>>
>> Quirites, I offer the hand of mentorship to any new Camilla/us or any
>> co-opted Sacerdos so he or she can contribute to ensuring the safety
>> and welfare of our Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
>> satisfaction with our organization.
>>
>> Bene valete in pacem deorum
>>
>> L. Iulia Aquila
>> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
>> Pontifex Nov� Rom�
>> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > SALVETE!
>> >
>> > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
>> time and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
>> positions is the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
>> >
>> > VALETE,
>> > Sabinus
>> >
>> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
>> <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
>> > >
>> > > Saluete, Quirites.
>> > >
>> > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
>> > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
>> > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
>> > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
>> > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
>> > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
>> > >
>> > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
>> fitting
>> > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
>> by
>> > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
>> > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
>> > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
>> been
>> > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
>> > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
>> > > duties to the Res Publica.
>> > >
>> > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
>> > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
>> Pontificum
>> > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
>> > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
>> > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, But what,
>> precisely, is one to do?
>>
>> > >
>> > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
>> > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
>> > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
>> > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
>> is
>> > > nothing more than that.
>> > >
>> > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
>> offices
>> > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
>> > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
>> even
>> > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
>> > >
>> > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
>> > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
>> > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
>> > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
>> > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
>> > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
>> operating
>> > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
>> hand.
>> > >
>> > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
>> > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
>> > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
>> > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
>> > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
>> > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
>> > > expenses. But I digress....
>> > >
>> > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
>> > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
>> > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
>> > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
>> > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
>> > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
>> > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
>> > >
>> > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
>> > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
>> > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
>> > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
>> > >
>> > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
>> > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
>> > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
>> > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
>> > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
>> > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
>> the
>> > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
>> having
>> > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
>> note
>> > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
>> > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
>> > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
>> > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
>> > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
>> > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
>> > > authoritative list came into being.
>> > >
>> > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
>> > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
>> not
>> > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84272 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave Sulla,


> What I don't get is that whenever someone voices an opinion that criticizes
> other individuals the first response is to toss back....so what have you
> done? Maior was FAMOUS for that or should I say INFAMOUS for it....

You have your moments in this respect as well my friend;)

>If you
> cannot substantively answer his critical statements maybe it is time to
> reflect that his criticisms are valid and action needs to be halted for
> proper reflection.

I answered his questions substantively and I do not think his criticisms are valid. There is an issue of a lack of educational resource and programs. But criticisms without a working solution, rather than a litany of long term goals is not going to get the job done. We can stand on soap boxes all day long and flap our jaws but if we are not ready to roll up our sleeves, and there have been many opportunities, then, yes, proper reflection is in order.

>you in the CP should go back in the
> drawing board and work out detailed job descriptions from the top
> down....Pontifex Maximus and Pontiffs (since both are equal) then the
> Augurs....then the Major Flamines..then the Minor..Flamens. And you know
> what maybe if this was done the BS that happened about the Rex Sacorum would
> never have happened earlier this year? Perhaps?

That was not the issue being discussed. Talk about deflection;)

While I appreciate you coming to your friend's defense, I think Pontifex Metellus, being Pontifex, should respond for himself.

Vale bene,

Julia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> What I don't get is that whenever someone voices an opinion that criticizes
> other individuals the first response is to toss back....so what have you
> done? Maior was FAMOUS for that or should I say INFAMOUS for it....If you
> cannot substantively answer his critical statements maybe it is time to
> reflect that his criticisms are valid and action needs to be halted for
> proper reflection.
>
> I know when I wrote the CFO Proposal I made sure there was a job description
> about what is expected. To my knowlendge no religio position has any
> description - hence inactive Pontiffs and relying on a statement of this is
> what I have done this year is just not proper way of conducting and making
> sure that a position is adequately needed or filled. So maybe if you cannot
> counter Metellus's claims subsantively...you in the CP should go back in the
> drawing board and work out detailed job descriptions from the top
> down....Pontifex Maximus and Pontiffs (since both are equal) then the
> Augurs....then the Major Flamines..then the Minor..Flamens. And you know
> what maybe if this was done the BS that happened about the Rex Sacorum would
> never have happened earlier this year? Perhaps?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...
> > wrote:
>
> > Ave!
> >
> > You are asking what Metellus does? Seriously?
> >
> > The Calendar does not count?
> > Making sure the Auspices are conducted correctly - remember the crap
> > Modianus pulled? I dont think you have that short of a memory Iulia :)
> > Preparing the Calendar for the next 10 years in advance?
> > SUMMONING the CP?
> >
> > That is not enough to show an active pontiff? Really? Then I suggest all
> > the Pontiffs should resign!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:03 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Iulia Caecilio omnibusque S.P.D.
> >>
> >>
> >> >It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> >> >fill the seats,
> >>
> >> There is no "simply" about it. As Pontifex it is a duty to not just talk
> >> about a program, but to be proactive and teach, to mentor, for real (as
> >> opposed to imagine)those Sacerdotes in need of instruction as I had been
> >> doing for our Vestal complete with a lesson, reading material and a weekly
> >> meeting to discuss said lesson and reading material - and this shall resume
> >> when she is ready. In addition any student of mine will know that I am
> >> available as needed.
> >> Pontifex Maximus Sabinus is aware of this endeavor.
> >>
> >> I learned initially through mentorship and study and have continued my
> >> studies throughout the decades, and continue to this day - this was how the
> >> priesthoods taught in ancient times - we have no written programs of
> >> priesthood for the religio. They may not have existed or may not have
> >> survived, regardless they do not exist for us at this moment. This
> >> methodical training occurs within the Vedic and Yahwist religions mainly
> >> because they have several specific religious texts - even at that those
> >> religions were well developed before actual ritual actions were written
> >> down. Look it up. We do not have that resource.
> >>
> >> I am proud to say I still have mentors every now and again and there is
> >> always something new for me to learn. Education in the Religio is should be
> >> ongoing which contributes to a competent Sacerdos, Flamine and Pontifex.
> >>
> >> It is a dignified and wise action to bring this up within the CP rather
> >> than post a rant on the ML about something you, yourself, should take the
> >> initiative to offer the services of your knowledge to a Camillii who needs
> >> such mentorship. An instruction project was mentioned in the CP and an
> >> effort was made to get the CP to begin work on the education of Camillii and
> >> Sacerdotes - with no response from you to lend a hand. A fairly
> >> comprehensive outline, an encyclopedia as Pontifex Petronius called it, was
> >> presented, that also served as rough guideline for teaching Camillii and
> >> Sacerdotes - but not a word or suggestion from you. It is in the files and
> >> ready to be built upon.
> >> So I must ask, since you have not had the benefit of a training program
> >> does this mean you are not qualified to be Pontifex?
> >> Certainly not say I.
> >>
> >> The time and energy it took to write this rant you could have created a
> >> basic outline for one lesson for aspiring Sacerdotes.
> >>
> >> In short I am a Pontifex of action who can lay aside her pointy hat and
> >> walk amongst the citizens and offer a hand in public or in privatum. I have
> >> spoken to those interested, which includes one of the applicants, even on
> >> facebook. Rather than simply write missives, I do the actual work, online
> >> with the citizens, as well as offline with living breathing cultores. I know
> >> Pontifex Sabinus to be this sort of Pontifex as well.
> >>
> >> Simul triumphamus, Pontifex Metelle. Are you ready to begin the work
> >> Pontifex Metelle?
> >>
> >> I also know one of the applicants to be a studious cultore who has been
> >> practicing the religio for some time and has a wonderful blog.
> >> I walk the walk Pontifex Metelle, do you? Until now I have not felt the
> >> need to paste "what I do" all over Nova Roma because it is a duty and should
> >> be expected, but I do so now in answer to your missive.
> >> When was the last time you performed a ritual in honor of the Gods to
> >> benefit the public?
> >> My last time was April 28th to Flora at my outdoor sacullum, on April 1st
> >> the Veneralia ritual was done at the area and lagoon consecrated to Venus.
> >> (To name two as April is a very busy month) Every morning a ritual is
> >> offered to Venus.
> >>
> >> Quirites, I offer the hand of mentorship to any new Camilla/us or any
> >> co-opted Sacerdos so he or she can contribute to ensuring the safety
> >> and welfare of our Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> >> satisfaction with our organization.
> >>
> >> Bene valete in pacem deorum
> >>
> >> L. Iulia Aquila
> >> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> >> Pontifex Novæ Romæ
> >> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
> >>
> >> Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
> >>
> >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > SALVETE!
> >> >
> >> > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
> >> time and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
> >> positions is the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> >> >
> >> > VALETE,
> >> > Sabinus
> >> >
> >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> >> <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> >> > >
> >> > > Saluete, Quirites.
> >> > >
> >> > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> >> > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> >> > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> >> > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> >> > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> >> > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> >> > >
> >> > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> >> fitting
> >> > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
> >> by
> >> > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> >> > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> >> > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> >> been
> >> > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
> >> > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> >> > > duties to the Res Publica.
> >> > >
> >> > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> >> > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> >> Pontificum
> >> > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> >> > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> >> > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, But what,
> >> precisely, is one to do?
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> >> > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> >> > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> >> > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
> >> is
> >> > > nothing more than that.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> >> offices
> >> > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> >> > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
> >> even
> >> > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> >> > >
> >> > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> >> > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> >> > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> >> > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> >> > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> >> > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> >> operating
> >> > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> >> hand.
> >> > >
> >> > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> >> > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
> >> > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> >> > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> >> > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
> >> > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
> >> > > expenses. But I digress....
> >> > >
> >> > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> >> > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> >> > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
> >> > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
> >> > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> >> > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
> >> > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> >> > >
> >> > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> >> > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> >> > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> >> > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> >> > >
> >> > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> >> > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> >> > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> >> > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> >> > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> >> > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> >> the
> >> > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> >> having
> >> > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
> >> note
> >> > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
> >> > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> >> > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> >> > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> >> > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
> >> > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> >> > > authoritative list came into being.
> >> > >
> >> > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> >> > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
> >> not
> >> > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84273 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
SALVE SULLA!
 
In some points you are correct. The CP from a few months tries to develop a program for NR priesthood positions. That includes a few steps. Now we are at the first one seeking interested people. From here to appointments is some distance. The CP will analyze applications, will talk with applicants, ask questions and vote if the applicant will be appointed or if need training from a mentor. Things are not simple and there is not only a fulfillment of positions. However these were discussed in the CP and some points already approved. Other points can be included if are proposed.
 
I thank you both, you and pontifex Metellus, for your fine concern to NR Religion development. I assure you that all what is happen has a normal course of action in line with what was discussed and approved until now.
 
VALE,
Sabinus

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Fri, 4/29/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:


From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sacerdotio
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 29, 2011, 9:38 PM


Ave!

What I don't get is that whenever someone voices an opinion that criticizes
other individuals the first response is to toss back....so what have you
done?  Maior was FAMOUS for that or should I say INFAMOUS for it....If you
cannot substantively answer his critical statements maybe it is time to
reflect that his criticisms are valid and action needs to be halted for
proper reflection.

I know when I wrote the CFO Proposal I made sure there was a job description
about what is expected.  To my knowlendge no religio position has any
description - hence inactive Pontiffs and relying on a statement of this is
what I have done this year is just not proper way of conducting and making
sure that a position is adequately needed or filled.  So maybe if you cannot
counter Metellus's claims subsantively...you in the CP should go back in the
drawing board and work out detailed job descriptions from the top
down....Pontifex Maximus and Pontiffs (since both are equal) then the
Augurs....then the Major Flamines..then the Minor..Flamens.  And you know
what maybe if this was done the BS that happened about the Rex Sacorum would
never have happened earlier this year?  Perhaps?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...
> wrote:

> Ave!
>
> You are asking what Metellus does?  Seriously?
>
> The Calendar does not count?
> Making sure the Auspices are conducted correctly - remember the crap
> Modianus pulled?  I dont think you have that short of a memory Iulia :)
> Preparing the Calendar for the next 10 years in advance?
> SUMMONING the CP?
>
> That is not enough to show an active pontiff?  Really?  Then I suggest all
> the Pontiffs should resign!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:03 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Iulia Caecilio omnibusque S.P.D.
>>
>>
>> >It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
>> >fill the seats,
>>
>> There is no "simply" about it. As Pontifex it is a duty to not just talk
>> about a program, but to be proactive and teach, to mentor, for real (as
>> opposed to imagine)those Sacerdotes in need of instruction as I had been
>> doing for our Vestal complete with a lesson, reading material and a weekly
>> meeting to discuss said lesson and reading material - and this shall resume
>> when she is ready. In addition any student of mine will know that I am
>> available as needed.
>> Pontifex Maximus Sabinus is aware of this endeavor.
>>
>> I learned initially through mentorship and study and have continued my
>> studies throughout the decades, and continue to this day - this was how the
>> priesthoods taught in ancient times - we have no written programs of
>> priesthood for the religio. They may not have existed or may not have
>> survived, regardless they do not exist for us at this moment. This
>> methodical training occurs within the Vedic and Yahwist religions mainly
>> because they have several specific religious texts - even at that those
>> religions were well developed before actual ritual actions were written
>> down. Look it up. We do not have that resource.
>>
>> I am proud to say I still have mentors every now and again and there is
>> always something new for me to learn. Education in the Religio is should be
>> ongoing which contributes to a competent Sacerdos, Flamine and Pontifex.
>>
>> It is a dignified and wise action to bring this up within the CP rather
>> than post a rant on the ML about something you, yourself, should take the
>> initiative to offer the services of your knowledge to a Camillii who needs
>> such mentorship. An instruction project was mentioned in the CP and an
>> effort was made to get the CP to begin work on the education of Camillii and
>> Sacerdotes - with no response from you to lend a hand. A fairly
>> comprehensive outline, an encyclopedia as Pontifex Petronius called it, was
>> presented, that also served as rough guideline for teaching Camillii and
>> Sacerdotes - but not a word or suggestion from you. It is in the files and
>> ready to be built upon.
>> So I must ask, since you have not had the benefit of a training program
>> does this mean you are not qualified to be Pontifex?
>> Certainly not say I.
>>
>> The time and energy it took to write this rant you could have created a
>> basic outline for one lesson for aspiring Sacerdotes.
>>
>> In short I am a Pontifex of action who can lay aside her pointy hat and
>> walk amongst the citizens and offer a hand in public or in privatum. I have
>> spoken to those interested, which includes one of the applicants, even on
>> facebook. Rather than simply write missives, I do the actual work, online
>> with the citizens, as well as offline with living breathing cultores. I know
>> Pontifex Sabinus to be this sort of Pontifex as well.
>>
>> Simul triumphamus, Pontifex Metelle. Are you ready to begin the work
>> Pontifex Metelle?
>>
>> I also know one of the applicants to be a studious cultore who has been
>> practicing the religio for some time and has a wonderful blog.
>> I walk the walk Pontifex Metelle, do you? Until now I have not felt the
>> need to paste "what I do" all over Nova Roma because it is a duty and should
>> be expected, but I do so now in answer to your missive.
>> When was the last time you performed a ritual in honor of the Gods to
>> benefit the public?
>> My last time was April 28th to Flora at my outdoor sacullum, on April 1st
>> the Veneralia ritual was done at the area and lagoon consecrated to Venus.
>> (To name two as April is a very busy month) Every morning a ritual is
>> offered to Venus.
>>
>> Quirites, I offer the hand of mentorship to any new Camilla/us or any
>> co-opted Sacerdos so he or she can contribute to ensuring the safety
>> and welfare of our Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
>> satisfaction with our organization.
>>
>> Bene valete in pacem deorum
>>
>> L. Iulia Aquila
>> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
>> Pontifex Novæ Romæ
>> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > SALVETE!
>> >
>> > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
>> time and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
>> positions is the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
>> >
>> > VALETE,
>> > Sabinus
>> >
>> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
>> <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
>> > >
>> > > Saluete, Quirites.
>> > >
>> > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
>> > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
>> > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
>> > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
>> > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
>> > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
>> > >
>> > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
>> fitting
>> > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
>> by
>> > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
>> > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
>> > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
>> been
>> > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into positions
>> > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
>> > > duties to the Res Publica.
>> > >
>> > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
>> > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
>> Pontificum
>> > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
>> > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
>> > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, But what,
>> precisely, is one to do?
>>
>> > >
>> > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
>> > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
>> > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
>> > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
>> is
>> > > nothing more than that.
>> > >
>> > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
>> offices
>> > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
>> > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
>> even
>> > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
>> > >
>> > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
>> > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
>> > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
>> > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
>> > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
>> > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
>> operating
>> > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
>> hand.
>> > >
>> > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
>> > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as servants
>> > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
>> > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
>> > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it cannot
>> > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current operating
>> > > expenses. But I digress....
>> > >
>> > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
>> > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
>> > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected to
>> > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They are
>> > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
>> > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their performance,
>> > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
>> > >
>> > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
>> > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
>> > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
>> > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
>> > >
>> > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
>> > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
>> > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
>> > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
>> > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
>> > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
>> the
>> > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
>> having
>> > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
>> note
>> > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World, all
>> > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
>> > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
>> > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
>> > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps grant
>> > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
>> > > authoritative list came into being.
>> > >
>> > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
>> > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
>> not
>> > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> 
>>
>
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84274 From: eljefe3126@netscape.net Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Egeria, was: Re: a.d. III Kal. Mai.
Licinius omnibus in foro SPD

After reading through the passages by Bullfinch and Byron quoted by Cato, I thought that it would be difficult to tell the tale of Numa Pompilus and Egeria to another Roman without giving reference to some local spring, or at least saying that the location of the spring was known only to the Gods. And that led me to this passage from Wikipedia, and to this image:

A grove sacred to Egeria in connection with Numa stood close by a busy gate of Rome, the Porta Capena , near where the Baths of Caracalla were built in the third century. In the second century, when Herodes Atticus recast an inherited villa nearby as a great landscaped estate, the natural grotto was formalized as an arched interior with an apsidal end where a statue of Egeria once stood in a niche; the surfaces were enriched with revetments of green and white marble facings and green porphyry flooring and friezes of mosaic. The primeval spring, one of dozens of springs that flow into the river Almone, was made to feed large pools, one of which was known as Lacus Salutaris or "Lake of Health". Juvenal regretted an earlier phase of architectural elaboration:

Nymph of the Spring! More honour'd hadst thou been,
If, free from art, an edge of living green,
Thy bubbling fount had circumscribed alone,
And marble ne'er profaned the native stone.

[Juvenal, Satire 3.17–20, as translated by William Gifford]

The ninfeo was a favored picnic spot for nineteenth-century Romans and can still be visited in the archaeological park of the Caffarella, between the Appian Way and the even more ancient Via Latina.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Ninfeo_egeria.jpg

Valete bene!

P. Porcius Licinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> Hodiernus dies est ante diem III Kalendas Maias; haec dies comitialis est.
>

Many excellent writings provided by Cato deleted for brevity.

>
> "By this name the Latins designated the Muses, but included under it
> also some other deities, principally nymphs of fountains. Egeria was
> one of them, whose fountain and grotto are still shown. It was said
> that Numa, the second king of Rome, was favored by this nymph with
> secret interviews, in which she taught him those lessons of wisdom and
> of law which he imbodied in the institutions of his rising nation.
> After the death of Numa the nymph pined away and was changed into a
> fountain." - Thomas Bullfinch, Mythology XXII.e
>
> "Here didst thou dwell, in this enchanted cover,
> Egeria! all thy heavenly bosom beating
> For the far footsteps of thy mortal lover;
> The purple midnight veiled that mystic meeting
> With her most starry canopy." - Lord Byron, "Childe Harold" IV
>

More deletions.

>
> Valete bene!
>
> Cato
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84275 From: Cato Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Egeria, was: Re: a.d. III Kal. Mai.
Cato Porcio Licinio sal.

Excellent!

During the conventus that was held in Rome a few years ago we actually saw the spring itself (the one pictured). We did not see Egeria, however.

Vale!

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, eljefe3126@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Licinius omnibus in foro SPD
>
> After reading through the passages by Bullfinch and Byron quoted by Cato, I thought that it would be difficult to tell the tale of Numa Pompilus and Egeria to another Roman without giving reference to some local spring, or at least saying that the location of the spring was known only to the Gods. And that led me to this passage from Wikipedia, and to this image:
>
> A grove sacred to Egeria in connection with Numa stood close by a busy gate of Rome, the Porta Capena , near where the Baths of Caracalla were built in the third century. In the second century, when Herodes Atticus recast an inherited villa nearby as a great landscaped estate, the natural grotto was formalized as an arched interior with an apsidal end where a statue of Egeria once stood in a niche; the surfaces were enriched with revetments of green and white marble facings and green porphyry flooring and friezes of mosaic. The primeval spring, one of dozens of springs that flow into the river Almone, was made to feed large pools, one of which was known as Lacus Salutaris or "Lake of Health". Juvenal regretted an earlier phase of architectural elaboration:
>
> Nymph of the Spring! More honour'd hadst thou been,
> If, free from art, an edge of living green,
> Thy bubbling fount had circumscribed alone,
> And marble ne'er profaned the native stone.
>
> [Juvenal, Satire 3.17–20, as translated by William Gifford]
>
> The ninfeo was a favored picnic spot for nineteenth-century Romans and can still be visited in the archaeological park of the Caffarella, between the Appian Way and the even more ancient Via Latina.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Ninfeo_egeria.jpg
>
> Valete bene!
>
> P. Porcius Licinus
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84276 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

And, yes I am well aware of his statement about his leave of absence. Just
like I am well aware when Fabius voted for him he was not too happy with the
proxy vote done on his behalf which basically ended the leave. Funny again,
how this is about Metellus but nothing you or Iulia have said stated
anything regarding to the content stated in Metellus's statement. Do you
have nothing to say that would refute the statement of Metellus? Is NR
bound to repeat the same BS that we did when NR foolishly appointed someone
utterly unqualified with no job description as Rex Sacorum?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave.>>>
>
> At that time when the item was discussed he was:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/268
>
> More than that, today, he removed the Senators Tullia Scholastica and
> Popillius Laenas from the CP list even if the SC voted at the midle of
> November last year, article 9, give them the right to subscribe on the CP
> list:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/SC_2763_Nov._1-1_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
> Strange things!
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
>
> He is the
> > one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility by
> > actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if
> I
> > recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SALVETE!
> > >
> > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
> time
> > > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
> positions is
> > > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> > >
> > > VALETE,
> > > Sabinus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> > > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > > >
> > > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > > >
> > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > > >
> > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> fitting
> > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
> by
> > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
> simply
> > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> been
> > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
> positions
> > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > > >
> > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> Pontificum
> > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the
> safety
> > > > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > > > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to
> do?
> > > >
> > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
> is
> > > > nothing more than that.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> offices
> > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
> even
> > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > > >
> > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> operating
> > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> hand.
> > > >
> > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
> servants
> > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
> cannot
> > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
> operating
> > > > expenses. But I digress....
> > > >
> > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
> to
> > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
> are
> > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
> performance,
> > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > > >
> > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> > > >
> > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> the
> > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> having
> > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
> note
> > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
> all
> > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
> grant
> > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > > authoritative list came into being.
> > > >
> > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
> not
> > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84277 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

To my knowledge no Senator is allowed to be subscribed to the CP list. If
that was the case.. why am I not there! I have to actually go to the
Yahoogroups and look up the URL when I want to see what goes on the CP
list.

When did that policy change?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave.>>>
>
> At that time when the item was discussed he was:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/268
>
> More than that, today, he removed the Senators Tullia Scholastica and
> Popillius Laenas from the CP list even if the SC voted at the midle of
> November last year, article 9, give them the right to subscribe on the CP
> list:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/SC_2763_Nov._1-1_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
> Strange things!
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
>
> He is the
> > one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility by
> > actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if
> I
> > recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SALVETE!
> > >
> > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
> time
> > > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
> positions is
> > > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> > >
> > > VALETE,
> > > Sabinus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> > > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > > >
> > > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > > >
> > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > > >
> > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> fitting
> > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
> by
> > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
> simply
> > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> been
> > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
> positions
> > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > > >
> > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> Pontificum
> > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the
> safety
> > > > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > > > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to
> do?
> > > >
> > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
> is
> > > > nothing more than that.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> offices
> > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
> even
> > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > > >
> > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> operating
> > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> hand.
> > > >
> > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
> servants
> > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
> cannot
> > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
> operating
> > > > expenses. But I digress....
> > > >
> > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
> to
> > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
> are
> > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
> performance,
> > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > > >
> > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> > > >
> > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> the
> > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> having
> > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
> note
> > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
> all
> > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
> grant
> > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > > authoritative list came into being.
> > > >
> > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
> not
> > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84278 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
SALVE!

--- On Sat, 4/30/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

<<To my knowledge no Senator is allowed to be subscribed to the CP list.>>>
 
In this case, what I can say more? If you don't know what you voted in the Senate and take a look to the SC link I posted, I let our people to judge.
 
<<If that was the case.. why am I not there!  I have to actually go to the
Yahoogroups and look up the URL when I want to see what goes on the CP
list.>>>
 
Read the SC, Senator. It is your right to be subscribed, so ask for that.

When did that policy change?>>>
 
On 14 Nov last year.
 
VALE,
Sabinus

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave.>>>
>
> At that time when the item was discussed he was:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/268
>
> More than that, today, he removed the Senators Tullia Scholastica and
> Popillius Laenas from the CP list even if the SC voted at the midle of
> November last year, article 9, give them the right to subscribe on the CP
> list:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/SC_2763_Nov._1-1_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
> Strange things!
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
>
> He is the
> > one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility by
> > actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if
> I
> > recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SALVETE!
> > >
> > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
> time
> > > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
> positions is
> > > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> > >
> > > VALETE,
> > > Sabinus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> > > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > > >
> > > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > > >
> > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > > >
> > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> fitting
> > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
> by
> > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
> simply
> > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> been
> > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
> positions
> > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > > >
> > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> Pontificum
> > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the
> safety
> > > > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > > > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to
> do?
> > > >
> > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
> is
> > > > nothing more than that.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> offices
> > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
> even
> > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > > >
> > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> operating
> > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> hand.
> > > >
> > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
> servants
> > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
> cannot
> > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
> operating
> > > > expenses. But I digress....
> > > >
> > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
> to
> > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
> are
> > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
> performance,
> > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > > >
> > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> > > >
> > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> the
> > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> having
> > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
> note
> > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
> all
> > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
> grant
> > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > > authoritative list came into being.
> > > >
> > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
> not
> > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84279 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
SALVE!
 
No, I have nothing to say to Metellus statement. The CP approved a course of action and that is all.
 
VALE,
Sabinus

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Sat, 4/30/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:


From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sacerdotio
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 1:24 AM


Ave!

And, yes I am well aware of his statement about his leave of absence.  Just
like I am well aware when Fabius voted for him he was not too happy with the
proxy vote done on his behalf which basically ended the leave.  Funny again,
how this is about Metellus but nothing you or Iulia have said stated
anything regarding to the content stated in Metellus's statement.  Do you
have nothing to say that would refute the statement of Metellus?  Is NR
bound to repeat the same BS that we did when NR foolishly appointed someone
utterly unqualified with no job description as Rex Sacorum?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave.>>>
>
> At that time when the item was discussed he was:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/268
>
> More than that, today, he removed the Senators Tullia Scholastica and
> Popillius Laenas from the CP list even if the SC voted at the midle of
> November last year, article 9, give them the right to subscribe on the CP
> list:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/SC_2763_Nov._1-1_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
> Strange things!
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
>
> He is the
> > one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility by
> > actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if
> I
> > recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SALVETE!
> > >
> > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
> time
> > > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
> positions is
> > > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> > >
> > > VALETE,
> > > Sabinus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> > > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > > >
> > > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > > >
> > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > > >
> > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> fitting
> > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
> by
> > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
> simply
> > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> been
> > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
> positions
> > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > > >
> > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> Pontificum
> > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the
> safety
> > > > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > > > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to
> do?
> > > >
> > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
> is
> > > > nothing more than that.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> offices
> > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
> even
> > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > > >
> > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> operating
> > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> hand.
> > > >
> > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
> servants
> > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
> cannot
> > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
> operating
> > > > expenses. But I digress....
> > > >
> > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
> to
> > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
> are
> > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
> performance,
> > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > > >
> > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> > > >
> > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> the
> > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> having
> > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
> note
> > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
> all
> > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
> grant
> > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > > authoritative list came into being.
> > > >
> > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
> not
> > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84280 From: Robert Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

So the cp has not learned from the David Kling fiasco as Rex sacrum? Ok.

Vale

Sulla

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 29, 2011, at 3:54 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:

> SALVE!
>
> No, I have nothing to say to Metellus statement. The CP approved a course of action and that is all.
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Sat, 4/30/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sacerdotio
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 1:24 AM
>
> Ave!
>
> And, yes I am well aware of his statement about his leave of absence. Just
> like I am well aware when Fabius voted for him he was not too happy with the
> proxy vote done on his behalf which basically ended the leave. Funny again,
> how this is about Metellus but nothing you or Iulia have said stated
> anything regarding to the content stated in Metellus's statement. Do you
> have nothing to say that would refute the statement of Metellus? Is NR
> bound to repeat the same BS that we did when NR foolishly appointed someone
> utterly unqualified with no job description as Rex Sacorum?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave.>>>
> >
> > At that time when the item was discussed he was:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/268
> >
> > More than that, today, he removed the Senators Tullia Scholastica and
> > Popillius Laenas from the CP list even if the SC voted at the midle of
> > November last year, article 9, give them the right to subscribe on the CP
> > list:
> > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/SC_2763_Nov._1-1_%28Nova_Roma%29
> >
> > Strange things!
> >
> > VALE,
> > Sabinus
> >
> >
> > He is the
> > > one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility by
> > > actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if
> > I
> > > recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SALVETE!
> > > >
> > > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
> > time
> > > > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
> > positions is
> > > > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> > > >
> > > > VALETE,
> > > > Sabinus
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> > > > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> > fitting
> > > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
> > by
> > > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
> > simply
> > > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> > been
> > > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
> > positions
> > > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > > > >
> > > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> > Pontificum
> > > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the
> > safety
> > > > > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > > > > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to
> > do?
> > > > >
> > > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
> > is
> > > > > nothing more than that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> > offices
> > > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
> > even
> > > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> > operating
> > > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> > hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
> > servants
> > > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
> > cannot
> > > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
> > operating
> > > > > expenses. But I digress....
> > > > >
> > > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
> > to
> > > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
> > are
> > > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
> > performance,
> > > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > > > >
> > > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> > > > >
> > > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> > the
> > > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> > having
> > > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
> > note
> > > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
> > all
> > > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
> > grant
> > > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > > > authoritative list came into being.
> > > > >
> > > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
> > not
> > > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84281 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Salvete Omnes:


Caeca has spoken very true words and I'm glad she is attending the
Conventus. All are welcome to attend this event no matter where on the
globe you are located. I want to stress that above all things..

I'm meanwhile extending the invitation for Caeca (health depending of course
and her complete utter choice) to join in this mighty task of Conventus
planning, for she is my Prima Scribe in the Cohors, and her infinite wisdom
and sharp notice of detail will be welcome and needed.


For the citizens of Europe I have not forgotten you at all, my colleague the
last we spoke mentioned a desire to plan a gathering for those located in
Europe. I know he is very very often travelling abroad but I encourage the
European cives sending him e-mails regarding this.. If that does not work
out, I will try to get a pow wow together with the prominent European cives
(i.e. Lentulus,Crassus, the Censorii, etc) to see what can least be done and
discuss options if there is a desire to do so.

Valete bene,
Aeternia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84282 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

You know...it is very illuminating what one finds on the Yahoogroups,
Sabinus! Especially the CP list!

Since Scholastica has now brought up the issue in the Senate..there seems to
be some inconsistency (and BOY do I loathe inconsistency) and now I want to
know who's fault in the CP this is!

According to the description of the CP list description it states:

The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to the
members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription requests
aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is open to the
public.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/

Therefore not illegal.

If Senators are supposed to be subscribed. Why were not the rest of us
added?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave.>>>
>
> At that time when the item was discussed he was:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/268
>
> More than that, today, he removed the Senators Tullia Scholastica and
> Popillius Laenas from the CP list even if the SC voted at the midle of
> November last year, article 9, give them the right to subscribe on the CP
> list:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/SC_2763_Nov._1-1_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
> Strange things!
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
>
> He is the
> > one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility by
> > actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if
> I
> > recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SALVETE!
> > >
> > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
> time
> > > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
> positions is
> > > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> > >
> > > VALETE,
> > > Sabinus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> > > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> > > >
> > > > Saluete, Quirites.
> > > >
> > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting to
> > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot say
> > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> > > >
> > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> fitting
> > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as evidenced
> by
> > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
> simply
> > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> been
> > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
> positions
> > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> > > > duties to the Res Publica.
> > > >
> > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> Pontificum
> > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions is
> > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the
> safety
> > > > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> > > > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to
> do?
> > > >
> > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance. There
> > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
> is
> > > > nothing more than that.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> offices
> > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
> even
> > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> > > >
> > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or even
> > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> operating
> > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> hand.
> > > >
> > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the priesthood?
> > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
> servants
> > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
> cannot
> > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
> operating
> > > > expenses. But I digress....
> > > >
> > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
> to
> > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
> are
> > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
> performance,
> > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> > > >
> > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus, the
> > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these two
> > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> > > >
> > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> the
> > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> having
> > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
> note
> > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
> all
> > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here." As
> > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no current
> > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my time
> > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
> grant
> > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> > > > authoritative list came into being.
> > > >
> > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
> not
> > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84283 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

At this point I think both Sabinus and Iulia owe Metellus an apology for
keeping the CP list in compliance with the description of the Yahoogroups.
Unless the CP list is trying to create an environment where some Senators
are more equal than others.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave!
>
> You know...it is very illuminating what one finds on the Yahoogroups,
> Sabinus! Especially the CP list!
>
> Since Scholastica has now brought up the issue in the Senate..there seems
> to be some inconsistency (and BOY do I loathe inconsistency) and now I want
> to know who's fault in the CP this is!
>
> According to the description of the CP list description it states:
>
> The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to the
> members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription requests
> aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is open to the
> public.
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/
>
> Therefore not illegal.
>
> If Senators are supposed to be subscribed. Why were not the rest of us
> added?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> SALVE!
>>
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave.>>>
>>
>> At that time when the item was discussed he was:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/268
>>
>> More than that, today, he removed the Senators Tullia Scholastica and
>> Popillius Laenas from the CP list even if the SC voted at the midle of
>> November last year, article 9, give them the right to subscribe on the CP
>> list:
>> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/SC_2763_Nov._1-1_%28Nova_Roma%29
>>
>> Strange things!
>>
>> VALE,
>> Sabinus
>>
>>
>> He is the
>> > one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility
>> by
>> > actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if
>> I
>> > recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Sulla
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > SALVETE!
>> > >
>> > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
>> time
>> > > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
>> positions is
>> > > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
>> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
>> > >
>> > > VALETE,
>> > > Sabinus
>> > >
>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
>> > > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
>> > > >
>> > > > Saluete, Quirites.
>> > > >
>> > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
>> > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
>> > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting
>> to
>> > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
>> > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot
>> say
>> > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
>> > > >
>> > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
>> fitting
>> > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as
>> evidenced by
>> > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
>> > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
>> simply
>> > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
>> been
>> > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
>> positions
>> > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
>> > > > duties to the Res Publica.
>> > > >
>> > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
>> > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
>> Pontificum
>> > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions
>> is
>> > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
>> > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the
>> safety
>> > > > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
>> > > > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to
>> do?
>> > > >
>> > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
>> > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance.
>> There
>> > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
>> > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
>> is
>> > > > nothing more than that.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
>> offices
>> > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
>> > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
>> even
>> > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
>> > > >
>> > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
>> > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
>> > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
>> > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or
>> even
>> > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
>> > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
>> operating
>> > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
>> hand.
>> > > >
>> > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the
>> priesthood?
>> > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
>> servants
>> > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
>> > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
>> > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
>> cannot
>> > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
>> operating
>> > > > expenses. But I digress....
>> > > >
>> > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
>> > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
>> > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
>> to
>> > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
>> are
>> > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
>> > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
>> performance,
>> > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
>> > > >
>> > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus,
>> the
>> > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
>> > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these
>> two
>> > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
>> > > >
>> > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
>> > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
>> > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
>> > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
>> > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
>> > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
>> the
>> > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
>> having
>> > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
>> note
>> > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
>> all
>> > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here."
>> As
>> > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no
>> current
>> > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my
>> time
>> > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
>> grant
>> > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
>> > > > authoritative list came into being.
>> > > >
>> > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
>> > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
>> not
>> > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84284 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2011-04-29
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.

Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer is
quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma.
Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum and
the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be rejected.
The message archive is open to the public."

Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three senators
subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul was
subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84285 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

Thank you for that. I think it is imperative that we learn from the
mistakes of the past and the entire situation with David Kling (Modianus)
was a huge mistake that we all must learn from and make sure we do not
repeat. The saying....it is the definition of insanity to do the same thing
yet expect a different result. The Senate has learned some mistakes from
last year and the CP needs to reflect on the issues and reform itself as
well or NR will be bound to repeat the same some of the same issues that we
had to face last year.

Thank you for your response.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:18 PM, iulius sabinus
<iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE SULLA!
>
> In some points you are correct. The CP from a few months tries to develop a
> program for NR priesthood positions. That includes a few steps. Now we are
> at the first one seeking interested people. From here to appointments is
> some distance. The CP will analyze applications, will talk with applicants,
> ask questions and vote if the applicant will be appointed or if need
> training from a mentor. Things are not simple and there is not only a
> fulfillment of positions. However these were discussed in the CP and some
> points already approved. Other points can be included if are proposed.
>
> I thank you both, you and pontifex Metellus, for your fine concern to NR
> Religion development. I assure you that all what is happen has a normal
> course of action in line with what was discussed and approved until now.
>
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Fri, 4/29/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sacerdotio
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, April 29, 2011, 9:38 PM
>
>
> Ave!
>
> What I don't get is that whenever someone voices an opinion that criticizes
> other individuals the first response is to toss back....so what have you
> done? Maior was FAMOUS for that or should I say INFAMOUS for it....If you
> cannot substantively answer his critical statements maybe it is time to
> reflect that his criticisms are valid and action needs to be halted for
> proper reflection.
>
> I know when I wrote the CFO Proposal I made sure there was a job
> description
> about what is expected. To my knowlendge no religio position has any
> description - hence inactive Pontiffs and relying on a statement of this is
> what I have done this year is just not proper way of conducting and making
> sure that a position is adequately needed or filled. So maybe if you
> cannot
> counter Metellus's claims subsantively...you in the CP should go back in
> the
> drawing board and work out detailed job descriptions from the top
> down....Pontifex Maximus and Pontiffs (since both are equal) then the
> Augurs....then the Major Flamines..then the Minor..Flamens. And you know
> what maybe if this was done the BS that happened about the Rex Sacorum
> would
> never have happened earlier this year? Perhaps?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine <
> robert.woolwine@...
> > wrote:
>
> > Ave!
> >
> > You are asking what Metellus does? Seriously?
> >
> > The Calendar does not count?
> > Making sure the Auspices are conducted correctly - remember the crap
> > Modianus pulled? I dont think you have that short of a memory Iulia :)
> > Preparing the Calendar for the next 10 years in advance?
> > SUMMONING the CP?
> >
> > That is not enough to show an active pontiff? Really? Then I suggest
> all
> > the Pontiffs should resign!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:03 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Iulia Caecilio omnibusque S.P.D.
> >>
> >>
> >> >It has been determined that it is of great importance to simply
> >> >fill the seats,
> >>
> >> There is no "simply" about it. As Pontifex it is a duty to not just talk
> >> about a program, but to be proactive and teach, to mentor, for real (as
> >> opposed to imagine)those Sacerdotes in need of instruction as I had been
> >> doing for our Vestal complete with a lesson, reading material and a
> weekly
> >> meeting to discuss said lesson and reading material - and this shall
> resume
> >> when she is ready. In addition any student of mine will know that I am
> >> available as needed.
> >> Pontifex Maximus Sabinus is aware of this endeavor.
> >>
> >> I learned initially through mentorship and study and have continued my
> >> studies throughout the decades, and continue to this day - this was how
> the
> >> priesthoods taught in ancient times - we have no written programs of
> >> priesthood for the religio. They may not have existed or may not have
> >> survived, regardless they do not exist for us at this moment. This
> >> methodical training occurs within the Vedic and Yahwist religions mainly
> >> because they have several specific religious texts - even at that those
> >> religions were well developed before actual ritual actions were written
> >> down. Look it up. We do not have that resource.
> >>
> >> I am proud to say I still have mentors every now and again and there is
> >> always something new for me to learn. Education in the Religio is should
> be
> >> ongoing which contributes to a competent Sacerdos, Flamine and Pontifex.
> >>
> >> It is a dignified and wise action to bring this up within the CP rather
> >> than post a rant on the ML about something you, yourself, should take
> the
> >> initiative to offer the services of your knowledge to a Camillii who
> needs
> >> such mentorship. An instruction project was mentioned in the CP and an
> >> effort was made to get the CP to begin work on the education of Camillii
> and
> >> Sacerdotes - with no response from you to lend a hand. A fairly
> >> comprehensive outline, an encyclopedia as Pontifex Petronius called it,
> was
> >> presented, that also served as rough guideline for teaching Camillii and
> >> Sacerdotes - but not a word or suggestion from you. It is in the files
> and
> >> ready to be built upon.
> >> So I must ask, since you have not had the benefit of a training program
> >> does this mean you are not qualified to be Pontifex?
> >> Certainly not say I.
> >>
> >> The time and energy it took to write this rant you could have created a
> >> basic outline for one lesson for aspiring Sacerdotes.
> >>
> >> In short I am a Pontifex of action who can lay aside her pointy hat and
> >> walk amongst the citizens and offer a hand in public or in privatum. I
> have
> >> spoken to those interested, which includes one of the applicants, even
> on
> >> facebook. Rather than simply write missives, I do the actual work,
> online
> >> with the citizens, as well as offline with living breathing cultores. I
> know
> >> Pontifex Sabinus to be this sort of Pontifex as well.
> >>
> >> Simul triumphamus, Pontifex Metelle. Are you ready to begin the work
> >> Pontifex Metelle?
> >>
> >> I also know one of the applicants to be a studious cultore who has been
> >> practicing the religio for some time and has a wonderful blog.
> >> I walk the walk Pontifex Metelle, do you? Until now I have not felt the
> >> need to paste "what I do" all over Nova Roma because it is a duty and
> should
> >> be expected, but I do so now in answer to your missive.
> >> When was the last time you performed a ritual in honor of the Gods to
> >> benefit the public?
> >> My last time was April 28th to Flora at my outdoor sacullum, on April
> 1st
> >> the Veneralia ritual was done at the area and lagoon consecrated to
> Venus.
> >> (To name two as April is a very busy month) Every morning a ritual is
> >> offered to Venus.
> >>
> >> Quirites, I offer the hand of mentorship to any new Camilla/us or any
> >> co-opted Sacerdos so he or she can contribute to ensuring the safety
> >> and welfare of our Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
> >> satisfaction with our organization.
> >>
> >> Bene valete in pacem deorum
> >>
> >> L. Iulia Aquila
> >> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> >> Pontifex Nov� Rom�
> >> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
> >>
> >> Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
> >>
> >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > SALVETE!
> >> >
> >> > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
> >> time and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
> >> positions is the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
> >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
> >> >
> >> > VALETE,
> >> > Sabinus
> >> >
> >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
> >> <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
> >> > >
> >> > > Saluete, Quirites.
> >> > >
> >> > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
> >> > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
> >> > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting
> to
> >> > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
> >> > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot
> say
> >> > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
> >> > >
> >> > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
> >> fitting
> >> > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as
> evidenced
> >> by
> >> > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
> >> > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
> simply
> >> > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
> >> been
> >> > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
> positions
> >> > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
> >> > > duties to the Res Publica.
> >> > >
> >> > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
> >> > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
> >> Pontificum
> >> > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions
> is
> >> > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
> >> > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, But what,
> >> precisely, is one to do?
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
> >> > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance.
> There
> >> > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
> >> > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
> >> is
> >> > > nothing more than that.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
> >> offices
> >> > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
> >> > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
> >> even
> >> > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
> >> > >
> >> > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
> >> > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
> >> > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
> >> > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or
> even
> >> > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
> >> > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
> >> operating
> >> > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
> >> hand.
> >> > >
> >> > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the
> priesthood?
> >> > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
> servants
> >> > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
> >> > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
> >> > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
> cannot
> >> > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
> operating
> >> > > expenses. But I digress....
> >> > >
> >> > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
> >> > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
> >> > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
> to
> >> > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
> are
> >> > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
> >> > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
> performance,
> >> > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
> >> > >
> >> > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus,
> the
> >> > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
> >> > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these
> two
> >> > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
> >> > >
> >> > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
> >> > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
> >> > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
> >> > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
> >> > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
> >> > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
> >> the
> >> > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
> >> having
> >> > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
> >> note
> >> > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
> all
> >> > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here."
> As
> >> > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no
> current
> >> > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my
> time
> >> > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
> grant
> >> > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
> >> > > authoritative list came into being.
> >> > >
> >> > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
> >> > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
> >> not
> >> > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84286 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,

> So the cp has not learned from the David Kling fiasco as Rex sacrum? Ok.

This fiasco was not Collegium's but was the own issue taken by Modianus after the senate decree about dual membership and apparently something said on the back alley.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Kalendas Maias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84287 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Ave!

No, not exactly.

I would agree with you that it was not solely the CP, but also the Senate.
BUT, what that should tell us is that this issue should have been resolved
100% before someone was appointed into the position and that all FORSEEABLE
irregularities would have been thrashed out before that person would be
voted into the office. But, as typical in Nova Roma....given the
announcement in present, and with the Rex issue in the past...we just go
along blindly forward. This is what I am trying to end. What is forseeable
should be handled beforehand.

In a job, when one is looking on Monster.com or careerbuilder.com and one is
looking for example a Financial Analyst position they type that in the
search and come up with a list of results. Each result lists a description
of the job that one (if hired) is expected to do. If Travel is apart of the
job and generally some of the benefits one would presume to get if hired.

There is NO REASON at all, the CP cannot come up with job descriptions,
details of what is to be expected, caveats (both within NR and outside of
NR) and also the benefits of holding those jobs.

The David Kling (Modianus) issue - specifically as it was on the BA was
throwing it back in his face that he said if he became Rex Sacorum he would
resign all other positions. He promised that. Yet when he became Rex...he
lied. He got called out on it. Then you had the Oath issue that happened in
January. Modianus lied....and proved to be an oath breaker (Not a big shock
to me - given that during the Hortensia episode he needed to know the
definition of the word ALL) but obviously it was to some individuals.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:04 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
>
>
> > So the cp has not learned from the David Kling fiasco as Rex sacrum? Ok.
>
> This fiasco was not Collegium's but was the own issue taken by Modianus
> after the senate decree about dual membership and apparently something said
> on the back alley.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> pridie Kalendas Maias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84288 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
SALVE!
 
The description of the list was written by Metellus on 3 Nov last year. Things were changed by the SC approved in 14 Nov. The SC state the Senators have the right to be subscribed. The only thing a Senator must to do is to ask. Who asked was subscribed.
Why the description was not changed based of the SC approved in Nov? I don't know - all pontifices are owners - but I guess you can obtain a better answer from those who – at that time - considered can write in better English the description.
 
VALE,
Sabinus

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Sat, 4/30/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:


From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sacerdotio
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 5:35 AM


Ave!

At this point I think both Sabinus and Iulia owe Metellus an apology for
keeping the CP list in compliance with the description of the Yahoogroups.
Unless the CP list is trying to create an environment where some Senators
are more equal than others.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave!
>
> You know...it is very illuminating what one finds on the Yahoogroups,
> Sabinus!  Especially the CP list!
>
> Since Scholastica has now brought up the issue in the Senate..there seems
> to be some inconsistency (and BOY do I loathe inconsistency) and now I want
> to know who's fault in the CP this is!
>
> According to the description of the CP list description it states:
>
> The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to the
> members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription requests
> aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is open to the
> public.
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/
>
> Therefore not illegal.
>
> If Senators are supposed to be subscribed.  Why were not the rest of us
> added?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> SALVE!
>>
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think we all know that Metellus has been anything but on leave.>>>
>>
>> At that time when the item was discussed he was:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/268
>>
>> More than that, today, he removed the Senators Tullia Scholastica and
>> Popillius Laenas from the CP list even if the SC voted at the midle of
>> November last year, article 9, give them the right to subscribe on the CP
>> list:
>> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/SC_2763_Nov._1-1_%28Nova_Roma%29
>>
>> Strange things!
>>
>> VALE,
>> Sabinus
>>
>>
>> He is the
>> > one Pontiff that I am aware of that actually does their responsibility
>> by
>> > actually summoning the CP into session, which it is or about to be....if
>> I
>> > recall correctly. No other Pontiff does that.
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Sulla
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > SALVETE!
>> > >
>> > > Just to remind to anyone (including the one who was on leave at that
>> time
>> > > and voted by proxy) that the current call for minor priesthood
>> positions is
>> > > the first step of what the CP approved as Item III:
>> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/message/277
>> > >
>> > > VALETE,
>> > > Sabinus
>> > >
>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus
>> > > <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
>> > > >
>> > > > Saluete, Quirites.
>> > > >
>> > > > Surely you have seen by now the solicitation from pontifex T Iulius,
>> > > > seeking applicants for various priesthoods within our organisation.
>> > > > Naturally, if that was missed, the pontifex L Iulia saw it fitting
>> to
>> > > > solicit individuals again, reposting the original missive. Two
>> > > > individuals have responded to the solicitation publicly; I cannot
>> say
>> > > > who has, or how many have, responded privately.
>> > > >
>> > > > The Collegium Pontificum, for whatever reason, sees it perfectly
>> fitting
>> > > > to simply work toward the business of filling positions, as
>> evidenced by
>> > > > the posting of these solicitations, in this forum and at least one
>> > > > other. It has been determined that it is of great importance to
>> simply
>> > > > fill the seats, and individuals have responded to the call that has
>> been
>> > > > made. The Collegium Pontificum seeks to put individuals into
>> positions
>> > > > of authority, real or imagined, and responsibility, positions with
>> > > > duties to the Res Publica.
>> > > >
>> > > > Titus Iulius Sabinus and Lucia Iulia Aquila have found it most
>> > > > appropriate to fill open positions, both within the Collegium
>> Pontificum
>> > > > and outside of it. The responsibility attendant to these positions
>> is
>> > > > of no little magnitude. Indeed, it rests with the holders of these
>> > > > positions to work toward, as I have many times said, ensuring the
>> safety
>> > > > and welfare of the Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods'
>> > > > satisfaction with our organisation. But what, precisely, is one to
>> do?
>> > > >
>> > > > What a great question! There is no job description, for any of these
>> > > > open positions. There is no set of expectations of performance.
>> There
>> > > > is not even any stated expectations of education and experience. At
>> > > > present, all that exists is a job *title*, and *entitlements*. There
>> is
>> > > > nothing more than that.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yet, there are decrees in place, subjecting the holders of these
>> offices
>> > > > to unclear, undefined, and outright unstated expectations of
>> > > > performance. One is expected to perform in one's position, without
>> even
>> > > > the benefit of knowing specifically what must be performed or how.
>> > > >
>> > > > There is an expectation, too, that the holders of these positions be
>> > > > experts in the various areas of the cultus publicus. Yet, too, there
>> > > > are no clear expectations laid out by the Collegium Pontificum, with
>> > > > respect to the education and training these individuals must, or
>> even
>> > > > should, have, prior to being brought into a position. Indeed, our
>> > > > 'expert' on any given sphere of reference could, under current
>> operating
>> > > > procedure, be the single most ignorant individual on the topics at
>> hand.
>> > > >
>> > > > What too, as we consider all this, for the holders of the
>> priesthood?
>> > > > Surely they cannot be expected to finance all their works, as
>> servants
>> > > > of the Res Publica. Nevertheless, they most certainly must, in our
>> > > > current situation, as our currently approved tax rate can not be
>> > > > expected to do anything toward helping with that enterprise: it
>> cannot
>> > > > even be expected to pay even the most minimal of our current
>> operating
>> > > > expenses. But I digress....
>> > > >
>> > > > The current situation is such that individuals are brought into
>> > > > positions, left to fly blindly in the dark. They are expected to
>> > > > perform duties, without any duties being defined. They are expected
>> to
>> > > > be experts, without any declaration of how they are to be so. They
>> are
>> > > > expected to fulfil responsibilities, without any stated
>> > > > responsibilities. At the end, they are evaluated on their
>> performance,
>> > > > without any guidance on how or what they were to have performed.
>> > > >
>> > > > This, Quirites, is the situation into which Titus Iulius Sabinus,
>> the
>> > > > chosen pontifex maximus, and Lucia Iulia Aquila, recently co-opted
>> > > > pontifex, wish to bring you. These are the kinds of experts these
>> two
>> > > > wish to provide you. This is how the cultus publicus is to continue.
>> > > >
>> > > > All this, though, is neverminding the list provided in the
>> > > > solicitations. As it were, that list which has been so graciously
>> > > > provided, is in itself either erroneous or incomplete, howsoever you
>> > > > prefer. There are a number of "lesser priesthoods" listed, yet those
>> > > > are only positions which have been held by individuals in the past.
>> > > > Surely the extensive experience of these pontifices would grant them
>> the
>> > > > history of that list, one which only listed the deities currently
>> having
>> > > > a sacerdos in service; as noted originally atop that list, "Please
>> note
>> > > > that since there are many Gods and Goddesses from the Roman World,
>> all
>> > > > the possible Sacerdos Priesthood positions cannot be listed here."
>> As
>> > > > it were, in the past, listings were removed when there was no
>> current
>> > > > sacerdos, which has not been the case in the recent past. But my
>> time
>> > > > and experience in Nova Roma, and the same as a pontifex, perhaps
>> grant
>> > > > me greater, well, education and experience, to know how this
>> > > > authoritative list came into being.
>> > > >
>> > > > How does one build a house without blueprints? And pity be upon the
>> > > > architect, who builds the house, and is told in the end, that it is
>> not
>> > > > up to the desires of the purchaser.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>> 
>>
>
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84289 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: [collegium_pontificum_nr] Re: Removal of Senators - why?
SALVE PONTIFEX METELLE ET SALVETE!
 
Thanks for your answer. I understand now where the mistake is. It resides in the list description which was not updated.
It's a mistake but not a big deal. As time all pontifices are group owners, keep in your mind that the law allow the Senators to be subscribed and if they request that, subscribe them and set their status to moderate one.

 
VALETE,
Sabinus

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Sat, 4/30/11, Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:


From: Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
Subject: [collegium_pontificum_nr] Re: Removal of Senators - why?
To: collegium_pontificum_nr@yahoogroups.com
Cc: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 5:41 AM


 



Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.

Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer is
quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma.
Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum and
the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be rejected.
The message archive is open to the public."

Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three senators
subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul was
subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84290 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: The Initial Planning--NA Conventus 2764
Salvete omnes,

it's not a conventus, but in Pannonia, as usual, we invite everyone to
participate to the Floralia event at the Aquincum Museum in Budapest, on May
21-22. We can host up to four people, and find cheap accommodation for more.
There will be a sacrifice to Flora, a Roman trial, the Roman fashion show,
and a lot of other events organized by other reenactor groups and legions.

Anyone who is interested may write to me or Lentulus.

Optime valete,
Livia

> Salvete Omnes:
>
>
> Caeca has spoken very true words and I'm glad she is attending the
> Conventus. All are welcome to attend this event no matter where on the
> globe you are located. I want to stress that above all things..
>
> I'm meanwhile extending the invitation for Caeca (health depending of
> course
> and her complete utter choice) to join in this mighty task of Conventus
> planning, for she is my Prima Scribe in the Cohors, and her infinite
> wisdom
> and sharp notice of detail will be welcome and needed.
>
>
> For the citizens of Europe I have not forgotten you at all, my colleague
> the
> last we spoke mentioned a desire to plan a gathering for those located in
> Europe. I know he is very very often travelling abroad but I encourage
> the
> European cives sending him e-mails regarding this.. If that does not work
> out, I will try to get a pow wow together with the prominent European
> cives
> (i.e. Lentulus,Crassus, the Censorii, etc) to see what can least be done
> and
> discuss options if there is a desire to do so.
>
> Valete bene,
> Aeternia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84291 From: Cato Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: prid. Kal. Mai.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est pridie Kalendas Maias; haec dies comitialis est.

"And even the kings who succeeded Numa honoured Fortune as the head
and foster-parent of Rome and, as Pindar has it, truly the "Prop of
the State." And Servius Tullius, the man who of all kings most
increased the power of his people, and introduced a well-regulated
government and imposed order upon both the holding of elections and
military procedure, and became the first censor and overseer of the
lives and decorum of the citizens, and held the highest repute for
courage and wisdom, of his own initiative attached himself to Fortune
and bound his sovereignty fast to her, with the result that it was
even thought that Fortune consorted with him, descending into his
chamber through a certain window which they now call the Porta
Fenestella. He, accordingly, built on the Capitoline a temple of
Fortune which is now called the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia (which
one might translate as "First-Born") and the Temple of Fortuna
Obsequens, which some think means "obedient" and others "gracious."
However, I prefer to abandon the Latin nomenclature, and shall
endeavour to enumerate in Greek the different functions of the shrines
of Fortune. There is, in fact, a shrine of Private Fortune on the
Palatine, and the shrine of the Fowler's Fortune which, even though it
be a ridiculous name, yet gives reason for reflexion on metaphorical
grounds, as if she attracted far-away objects and held them fast when
they come into contact with her. Beside the mossy Spring, as it is
called, there is even yet a temple of Virgin Fortune; and on the
Esquiline a shrine of Regardful Fortune. In the Angiportus Longusd
there is an altar of Fortune of Good Hope; and there is also beside
the altar of Venus of the Basket a shrine of the Men's Fortune. And
there are countless other honours and appellations of Fortune, the
greater part of which Servius instituted; for he knew that "Fortune is
of great moment, or rather, she is everything in human affairs," and
particularly since he himself, through good fortune, had been promoted
from the family of a captive enemy to the kingship. For, when the town
of Corniculum was taken by the Romans, a captive maiden Ocrisia, whose
fortune could not obscure either her beauty or her character, was
given to be a slave to Tanaquil, the wife of king Tarquin; and a
certain dependent, one of these whom the Romans call clientes, had her
to wife; from these parents Servius was born. Others deny this, but
assert that Ocrisia was a maiden who took the first-fruits and the
libations on all occasions from the royal table and brought them to
the hearth; and once on a time when she chanced, as usual, to be
casting the offerings upon the fire, suddenly, as the flames died
down, the member of a man rose up out of the hearth; and this the
girl, greatly frightened, told to Tanaquil only. Now Tanaquil was an
intelligent and understanding woman, and she decked the maiden in
garments such as become a bride, and shut her up in the room with the
apparition, for she judged it to be of a divine nature. Some declare
that this love was manifested by the Lar of the house, others that it
was by Vulcan. At any rate, it resulted in the birth of Servius, and,
while he was still a child, his head shone with a radiance very like
the gleam of lightning. But Antias and his school say not so, but
relate that when Servius's wife Gegania lay dying, in the presence of
his mother he feel into a sleep from dejection and grief; and as he
slept, his face was seen by the women to be surrounded by the gleam of
fire. This was a token of his birth from fire and an excellent sign
pointing to his unexpected accession to the kingship, which he gained
after the death of Tarquin, by the zealous assistance of Tanaquil.
Inasmuch as he of all kings is thought to have been naturally the
least suited to monarchy and the least desirous of it, he who was
minded to resign the kingship, but was prevented from doing so; for it
appears that Tanaquil on her death-bed made him swear that he would
remain in power and would ever set before him the ancestral Roman form
of government. Thus to Fortune wholly belongs the kingship of Servius,
which he received contrary to his expectations and retained against
his will." - Plutarch, "On the Fortunes of The Romans" 10

"At that time a prodigy was seen in the palace, which was marvellous
in its result. It is related that the head of a boy, called Servius
Tullius, as he lay asleep, blazed with fire in the presence of several
spectators: that, on a great noise being made at so miraculous a
phenomenon, the king and queen were awakened: and when one of the
servants was bringing water to put out the flame, that he was kept
back by the queen, and after the disturbance was quieted, that she
forbade the boy to be disturbed till he should awaken of his own
accord. As soon as he awoke the flame disappeared. Then Tanaquil,
taking her husband apart, said: 'Do you see this boy whom bringing up
in so mean a style? Be assured that some time hereafter he will be a
light to us in our adversity, and a protector of our royal house when
in distress. Henceforth let us, with all the tenderness we can, train
up this youth, who is destined to prove the source of great glory to
our family and state.' From this time the boy began to be treated as
their own son, and instructed in those accomplishments by which men's
minds are roused to maintain high rank with dignity. This was easily
done, as it was agreeable to the gods. The young man turned out to be
of truly royal disposition: nor when a son-in-law was being sought
for Tarquin, could any of the Roman youth be compared to him in any
accomplishment: therefore the king betrothed his own daughter to
him. The fact of this high honour being conferred upon him from
whatever cause, forbids us to believe that he was the son of a slave,
or that he had himself been a slave when young. I am rather of the
opinion of those who say that, on the taking of Corniculum, the wife
of Servius Tullius, who had been the leading man in that city, being
pregnant when her husband was slain, since she was known among the
other female prisoners, and, in consequence of her distinguished rank,
exempted from servitude by the Roman queen, was delivered of a child
at Rome, in the house of Tarquinius Priscus: upon this, that both the
intimacy between the women was increased by so great a kindness,
and that the boy, as he had been brought up in the family from his
infancy, was beloved and respected; that his mother's lot, in having
fallen into the hands of the enemy after the capture of her native
city, caused him to be thought to be the son of a slave." - Livy,
History of Rome 1.39-40

Servius Tullius was the sixth legendary King of Rome. According to one
account he was the son of the household genius (lar) and a slave named
Ocrisia, of the household of Tarquinius Priscus. He married a daughter
of Tarquinius and succeeded to the throne by the contrivance of his
mother-in-law Tanaquil, who was skilled in divination and foresaw his
greatness. Another legend, alluded to in a speech by the emperor
Claudius (fragments of which were discovered on abronze tablet dug up
at Lyons in 1524), represented him as an Etruscan soldier of fortune
named Mastarna, who attached himself to Caeles Vibenna (Caelius
Vivenna), the founder of an Etruscan city on the Caelian Hill. An
important event of his reign was the conclusion of an alliance with
the Latins, whereby Rome and the cities of Latium became members of
one great league, whose common sanctuary was the temple of Diana on
the Aventine. His reign of forty-four years was brought to a close by
a conspiracy headed by his son-in-law, Tarquinius Superbus. The
legend of Servius presents certain similarities to that of the founder
of Rome. His miraculous birth, commemorated by Servius himself in the
festival established by him in honor of the Lares, recalls that of
Romulus. Again, as Romulus was the author of the patrician groundwork
of the constitution, so Servius was regarded as the originator of a
new classification of the people, which laid the foundation of the
gradual political enfranchisement of the plebeians.

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84292 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: APOLLO, Mars, et al
Ave Aquila,

One of the first things I did in Nova Roma is print the prayer to Mars. For some reason I consider my ancestors descendants of Mars, as I have met the descendants of Apollo - if you met us you may sense some truth to this outrageous belief.

To that, I can't imagine how sacred prayers to our Roman Gods could be lost. 
Gratiae a million,
Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: PRAYER EMERGENCY


 
Ave Marce,

Thank you!

The removal of the prayers had nothing to do with freedom of religion, I can say with confidence this was not the work of a peregrine cultus.

However Good News! I have had wonderful response and with the contributions of citizen Scriptrix and Vestal Caeca we are in the beginning stages of restoring these pages. In some cases we will still need the Latin. And of course we still want all cives to participate and either post to the wiki themselves or send me the prayer so I can do so if they feel unsure about posting to the wiki.
Also the "contest" will continue until May 3rd.

Optime valete in pace Veneris,

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Aquila,
> What!! Who ever took our Roman prayers should put them back.
>
>
> Please respect our freedom of religion, and recognize that a prayer to Apollo and Mars is just at valid as a prayer to Jesus, Mary, or Saint Joseph. Why?! Because behind each of these entities is a soul.
>
>  
> Anyone; everyone, Pater Mars: please help us Nova Roma restore our Roman prayers and heritage.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Roman Prayer Project - Just a few moments of your time si placet..
>
>
>  
> Iulia Pontifex Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Not all of you are aware that someone indiscriminately defiled the prayer pages of our Roman Gods by removing the prayers to them that were written by ancient authors.
> I was, and am, appalled by this act of vandalism against the Gods and the dignity of the ancient Roman authors.
> I have performed a piaculum, but the Gods may still be very displeased at those responsible. I leave those consequences to the Gods, it is not worth my time to find out who committed such an act or to seek retribution for our Gods I would rather expend my energy in the positive actions of rebuilding these pages thereby honoring our Gods in the best possible way.
>
> I ask all Novi Romani to help out, si placet, just a few moments of your time; if everyone does just a little we will rebuild these pages!
>
> Many of you occasionally come across a Roman prayer while reading a passage from ancient Roman authors or even while surfing the internet. I humbly ask that should you come across such a passage from "literary and epigraphic sources" that you post it on the Nova Roma wiki under the appropriate God/dess here:
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Prayers
> Or send it to me and I will post it on the appropriate Deity's page.
> If able it would be great to post the prayer in both English *and* Latin - but please do not allow this to keep you from posting the prayer. Maybe those who have Latin or Latin resources can help in this respect.
>
> Please contribute to this small project, which is not an "official" project of NR or the CP, but a project of the people, of you, the citizens for our Gods and the Respublica!
>
> There is no time limit, no pressure, no committees to join - just do what you can when you can, even if it is a one-line prayer.
>
> Si placet.
>
> Please help honor the Gods and the Respublica!
>
> Gratias, I appreciate your time and attention
>
> Curate ut valeatis optime!
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> Pontifex Novæ Romæ
> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84293 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: APOLLO, Mars, et al
Salve Quadra,
if you ever come to Italy or Hungary, let me know. I'd like to challenge you
to a duel. Then we'll see if you are descendant of Mars. Don't think of
anything deadly: we can use swords with sheaths on, but it should be
sufficient to see if your "ancestor" helps you.

Optime vale,
Livia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Marquardt" <remarq777@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 4:33 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] APOLLO, Mars, et al


Ave Aquila,

One of the first things I did in Nova Roma is print the prayer to Mars. For
some reason I consider my ancestors descendants of Mars, as I have met the
descendants of Apollo - if you met us you may sense some truth to this
outrageous belief.

To that, I can't imagine how sacred prayers to our Roman Gods could be lost.
Gratiae a million,
Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: PRAYER EMERGENCY



Ave Marce,

Thank you!

The removal of the prayers had nothing to do with freedom of religion, I can
say with confidence this was not the work of a peregrine cultus.

However Good News! I have had wonderful response and with the contributions
of citizen Scriptrix and Vestal Caeca we are in the beginning stages of
restoring these pages. In some cases we will still need the Latin. And of
course we still want all cives to participate and either post to the wiki
themselves or send me the prayer so I can do so if they feel unsure about
posting to the wiki.
Also the "contest" will continue until May 3rd.

Optime valete in pace Veneris,

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Aquila,
> What!! Who ever took our Roman prayers should put them back.
>
>
> Please respect our freedom of religion, and recognize that a prayer to
> Apollo and Mars is just at valid as a prayer to Jesus, Mary, or Saint
> Joseph. Why?! Because behind each of these entities is a soul.
>
> Â
> Anyone; everyone, Pater Mars: please help us Nova Roma restore our Roman
> prayers and heritage.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Roman Prayer Project - Just a few moments of your
> time si placet..
>
>
> Â
> Iulia Pontifex Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Not all of you are aware that someone indiscriminately defiled the prayer
> pages of our Roman Gods by removing the prayers to them that were written
> by ancient authors.
> I was, and am, appalled by this act of vandalism against the Gods and the
> dignity of the ancient Roman authors.
> I have performed a piaculum, but the Gods may still be very displeased at
> those responsible. I leave those consequences to the Gods, it is not worth
> my time to find out who committed such an act or to seek retribution for
> our Gods I would rather expend my energy in the positive actions of
> rebuilding these pages thereby honoring our Gods in the best possible way.
>
> I ask all Novi Romani to help out, si placet, just a few moments of your
> time; if everyone does just a little we will rebuild these pages!
>
> Many of you occasionally come across a Roman prayer while reading a
> passage from ancient Roman authors or even while surfing the internet. I
> humbly ask that should you come across such a passage from "literary and
> epigraphic sources" that you post it on the Nova Roma wiki under the
> appropriate God/dess here:
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Prayers
> Or send it to me and I will post it on the appropriate Deity's page.
> If able it would be great to post the prayer in both English *and* Latin -
> but please do not allow this to keep you from posting the prayer. Maybe
> those who have Latin or Latin resources can help in this respect.
>
> Please contribute to this small project, which is not an "official"
> project of NR or the CP, but a project of the people, of you, the citizens
> for our Gods and the Respublica!
>
> There is no time limit, no pressure, no committees to join - just do what
> you can when you can, even if it is a one-line prayer.
>
> Si placet.
>
> Please help honor the Gods and the Respublica!
>
> Gratias, I appreciate your time and attention
>
> Curate ut valeatis optime!
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> Pontifex Novæ Romæ
> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84294 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: APOLLO, Mars, et al
Livia?!

Do you really think Mars will let his children in the war? I thought we just strategize. Thanks for the invite; and sure, if I make it to Europe I just might visit you. BTW, why Italy or Hungary - you live in both countries?

Optime vale,
Marci


________________________________
From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] APOLLO, Mars, et al


 
Salve Quadra,
if you ever come to Italy or Hungary, let me know. I'd like to challenge you
to a duel. Then we'll see if you are descendant of Mars. Don't think of
anything deadly: we can use swords with sheaths on, but it should be
sufficient to see if your "ancestor" helps you.

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Marquardt" <remarq777@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 4:33 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] APOLLO, Mars, et al

Ave Aquila,

One of the first things I did in Nova Roma is print the prayer to Mars. For
some reason I consider my ancestors descendants of Mars, as I have met the
descendants of Apollo - if you met us you may sense some truth to this
outrageous belief.

To that, I can't imagine how sacred prayers to our Roman Gods could be lost.
Gratiae a million,
Ti. Marci Quadra

________________________________
From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: PRAYER EMERGENCY

Ave Marce,

Thank you!

The removal of the prayers had nothing to do with freedom of religion, I can
say with confidence this was not the work of a peregrine cultus.

However Good News! I have had wonderful response and with the contributions
of citizen Scriptrix and Vestal Caeca we are in the beginning stages of
restoring these pages. In some cases we will still need the Latin. And of
course we still want all cives to participate and either post to the wiki
themselves or send me the prayer so I can do so if they feel unsure about
posting to the wiki.
Also the "contest" will continue until May 3rd.

Optime valete in pace Veneris,

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Aquila,
> What!! Who ever took our Roman prayers should put them back.
>
>
> Please respect our freedom of religion, and recognize that a prayer to
> Apollo and Mars is just at valid as a prayer to Jesus, Mary, or Saint
> Joseph. Why?! Because behind each of these entities is a soul.
>
> Â
> Anyone; everyone, Pater Mars: please help us Nova Roma restore our Roman
> prayers and heritage.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Roman Prayer Project - Just a few moments of your
> time si placet..
>
>
> Â
> Iulia Pontifex Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Not all of you are aware that someone indiscriminately defiled the prayer
> pages of our Roman Gods by removing the prayers to them that were written
> by ancient authors.
> I was, and am, appalled by this act of vandalism against the Gods and the
> dignity of the ancient Roman authors.
> I have performed a piaculum, but the Gods may still be very displeased at
> those responsible. I leave those consequences to the Gods, it is not worth
> my time to find out who committed such an act or to seek retribution for
> our Gods I would rather expend my energy in the positive actions of
> rebuilding these pages thereby honoring our Gods in the best possible way.
>
> I ask all Novi Romani to help out, si placet, just a few moments of your
> time; if everyone does just a little we will rebuild these pages!
>
> Many of you occasionally come across a Roman prayer while reading a
> passage from ancient Roman authors or even while surfing the internet. I
> humbly ask that should you come across such a passage from "literary and
> epigraphic sources" that you post it on the Nova Roma wiki under the
> appropriate God/dess here:
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Prayers
> Or send it to me and I will post it on the appropriate Deity's page.
> If able it would be great to post the prayer in both English *and* Latin -
> but please do not allow this to keep you from posting the prayer. Maybe
> those who have Latin or Latin resources can help in this respect.
>
> Please contribute to this small project, which is not an "official"
> project of NR or the CP, but a project of the people, of you, the citizens
> for our Gods and the Respublica!
>
> There is no time limit, no pressure, no committees to join - just do what
> you can when you can, even if it is a one-line prayer.
>
> Si placet.
>
> Please help honor the Gods and the Respublica!
>
> Gratias, I appreciate your time and attention
>
> Curate ut valeatis optime!
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> Pontifex Novæ Romæ
> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84295 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: APOLLO, Mars, et al
Salve Marci,

I basically live in both countries. But on second thoughts, it's better to
meet in Hungary, because in Italy even possession of a blunt sword is enough
to send you to jail.

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Marquardt" <remarq777@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] APOLLO, Mars, et al


Livia?!

Do you really think Mars will let his children in the war? I thought we just
strategize. Thanks for the invite; and sure, if I make it to Europe I just
might visit you. BTW, why Italy or Hungary - you live in both countries?

Optime vale,
Marci


________________________________
From: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] APOLLO, Mars, et al



Salve Quadra,
if you ever come to Italy or Hungary, let me know. I'd like to challenge you
to a duel. Then we'll see if you are descendant of Mars. Don't think of
anything deadly: we can use swords with sheaths on, but it should be
sufficient to see if your "ancestor" helps you.

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Marquardt" <remarq777@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 4:33 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] APOLLO, Mars, et al

Ave Aquila,

One of the first things I did in Nova Roma is print the prayer to Mars. For
some reason I consider my ancestors descendants of Mars, as I have met the
descendants of Apollo - if you met us you may sense some truth to this
outrageous belief.

To that, I can't imagine how sacred prayers to our Roman Gods could be lost.
Gratiae a million,
Ti. Marci Quadra

________________________________
From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: PRAYER EMERGENCY

Ave Marce,

Thank you!

The removal of the prayers had nothing to do with freedom of religion, I can
say with confidence this was not the work of a peregrine cultus.

However Good News! I have had wonderful response and with the contributions
of citizen Scriptrix and Vestal Caeca we are in the beginning stages of
restoring these pages. In some cases we will still need the Latin. And of
course we still want all cives to participate and either post to the wiki
themselves or send me the prayer so I can do so if they feel unsure about
posting to the wiki.
Also the "contest" will continue until May 3rd.

Optime valete in pace Veneris,

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Aquila,
> What!! Who ever took our Roman prayers should put them back.
>
>
> Please respect our freedom of religion, and recognize that a prayer to
> Apollo and Mars is just at valid as a prayer to Jesus, Mary, or Saint
> Joseph. Why?! Because behind each of these entities is a soul.
>
> Â
> Anyone; everyone, Pater Mars: please help us Nova Roma restore our Roman
> prayers and heritage.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Roman Prayer Project - Just a few moments of your
> time si placet..
>
>
> Â
> Iulia Pontifex Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Not all of you are aware that someone indiscriminately defiled the prayer
> pages of our Roman Gods by removing the prayers to them that were written
> by ancient authors.
> I was, and am, appalled by this act of vandalism against the Gods and the
> dignity of the ancient Roman authors.
> I have performed a piaculum, but the Gods may still be very displeased at
> those responsible. I leave those consequences to the Gods, it is not worth
> my time to find out who committed such an act or to seek retribution for
> our Gods I would rather expend my energy in the positive actions of
> rebuilding these pages thereby honoring our Gods in the best possible way.
>
> I ask all Novi Romani to help out, si placet, just a few moments of your
> time; if everyone does just a little we will rebuild these pages!
>
> Many of you occasionally come across a Roman prayer while reading a
> passage from ancient Roman authors or even while surfing the internet. I
> humbly ask that should you come across such a passage from "literary and
> epigraphic sources" that you post it on the Nova Roma wiki under the
> appropriate God/dess here:
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Prayers
> Or send it to me and I will post it on the appropriate Deity's page.
> If able it would be great to post the prayer in both English *and* Latin -
> but please do not allow this to keep you from posting the prayer. Maybe
> those who have Latin or Latin resources can help in this respect.
>
> Please contribute to this small project, which is not an "official"
> project of NR or the CP, but a project of the people, of you, the citizens
> for our Gods and the Respublica!
>
> There is no time limit, no pressure, no committees to join - just do what
> you can when you can, even if it is a one-line prayer.
>
> Si placet.
>
> Please help honor the Gods and the Respublica!
>
> Gratias, I appreciate your time and attention
>
> Curate ut valeatis optime!
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
> Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
> Pontifex Novæ Romæ
> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84296 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
>
> Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
> why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer is
> quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
> Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma.
> Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum and
> the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be rejected.
> The message archive is open to the public."
>
> Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three senators
> subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul was
> subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
>
> ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senatús Consultum giving Senators
> and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped your
> powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other removed
> Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
>
> Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
> subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite them.
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84297 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Ave!

So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the
description of the CP list was incorrect? Or change the description of the
CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...
> wrote:

>
>
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae voluntatis
> S.P.D.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
> >
> > Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
> > why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer is
> > quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
> > Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma.
> > Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum and
> > the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be rejected.
> > The message archive is open to the public."
> >
> > Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three senators
> > subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul was
> > subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
> >
> > ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senat�s Consultum giving Senators
> > and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped your
> > powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other removed
> > Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
> >
> > Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
> > subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite them.
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84298 From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Kalends, 5/1/2011, 12:00 am
Reminder from:   Nova-Roma Yahoo! Group
 
Title:   Kalends
 
Date:   Sunday May 1, 2011
Time:   All Day
Repeats:   This event repeats every month.
Notes:   Every Kalends is sacred to Juno
"Be well, Queen Juno, look down and preserve us. Accept this offering
of incense and look kindly and favorably upon me and the Senate and
people of Nova Roma."
(Incense is placed in focus)

"Queen Juno, in addition to my virtuous offering of incense, be
honored by this offering of wine that I pour in libation. May you look
kindly and favorably upon the Senate and people of Nova Roma."
(Libation is poured for the Goddess)
 
Copyright © 2011  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84299 From: Sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
SALVE!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

> So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the description of the CP list was incorrect? Or change the description of the CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?>>>

I guess nobody observed that. For example the description of the Senate list is: "A restricted list for the Senators and magistrates of Nova Roma". Curule aediles and quaestores are not members of the Senate list even if from description one can suppose that.
Therefore a description is a description and do not replace the law.
I admit that what happened is not big issue and is easy to correct it. However is better as one who takes action in sensitive points to communicate first in order to avoid misunderstandings.

VALE,
Sabinus

>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae voluntatis
> > S.P.D.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
> > >
> > > Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
> > > why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer is
> > > quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
> > > Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma.
> > > Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum and
> > > the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be rejected.
> > > The message archive is open to the public."
> > >
> > > Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three senators
> > > subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul was
> > > subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
> > >
> > > ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senatús Consultum giving Senators
> > > and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped your
> > > powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other removed
> > > Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
> > >
> > > Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
> > > subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite them.
> > >
> > > Vale, et valete.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84300 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Ave!

Agreed. And, if the Senate description needs to be adjusted then it should
be as well. It is just housekeeping. But it is regular housekeeping that
prevents issues like this.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
>
> > So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the
> description of the CP list was incorrect? Or change the description of the
> CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?>>>
>
> I guess nobody observed that. For example the description of the Senate
> list is: "A restricted list for the Senators and magistrates of Nova Roma".
> Curule aediles and quaestores are not members of the Senate list even if
> from description one can suppose that.
> Therefore a description is a description and do not replace the law.
> I admit that what happened is not big issue and is easy to correct it.
> However is better as one who takes action in sensitive points to communicate
> first in order to avoid misunderstandings.
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae voluntatis
> > > S.P.D.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
> > > > why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer
> is
> > > > quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
> > > > Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova
> Roma.
> > > > Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum
> and
> > > > the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be
> rejected.
> > > > The message archive is open to the public."
> > > >
> > > > Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three
> senators
> > > > subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul
> was
> > > > subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
> > > >
> > > > ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senat�s Consultum giving
> Senators
> > > > and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped
> your
> > > > powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other
> removed
> > > > Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
> > > > subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite
> them.
> > > >
> > > > Vale, et valete.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84301 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
A. Tullia Scholastica L. Cornelio quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

> Ave!
>
> So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the
> description of the CP list was incorrect?

I noticed it, and may have pointed that out at the time I subscribed.

> Or change the description of the
> CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?

Senators do not have the power to change the list description; only
moderators with that power or list owners may do that. Sabinus is correct
in that this is best done by a native speaker of the language in question,
but not all of them seem to understand that their powers are not unlimited.
In any case, I have been restored to membership, hope that the other
affected Senatores will be as well, and that other members of the Senate who
wish to subscribe will be added to this list in conformity with our legal
instruments.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

Valete.


>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae voluntatis
>> S.P.D.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
>>>
>>> Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
>>> why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer is
>>> quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
>>> Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma.
>>> Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum and
>>> the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be rejected.
>>> The message archive is open to the public."
>>>
>>> Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three senators
>>> subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul was
>>> subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
>>>
>>> ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senat�s Consultum giving Senators
>>> and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped your
>>> powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other removed
>>> Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
>>>
>>> Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
>>> subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite them.
>>>
>>> Vale, et valete.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84302 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Ave!

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...
> wrote:

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Cornelio quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> > Ave!
> >
> > So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the
> > description of the CP list was incorrect?
>
> I noticed it, and may have pointed that out at the time I subscribed.
>

Great! :) Then I wont hammer on you for at least mentioning it, if you did
mention it.


>
>
> > Or change the description of the
> > CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?
>
> Senators do not have the power to change the list description; only
> moderators with that power or list owners may do that. Sabinus is correct
> in that this is best done by a native speaker of the language in question,
> but not all of them seem to understand that their powers are not unlimited.
> In any case, I have been restored to membership, hope that the other
> affected Senatores will be as well, and that other members of the Senate
> who
> wish to subscribe will be added to this list in conformity with our legal
> instruments.
>

Really? I can name at least three Senators who had the ability to post on
the CP list that a change was needed once the Senatus Consulta was passed:

Sabinus
Dexter
Fabius
Agricola - who was subscribed at the time

All 4 of them could have said....after the SC passed that hey....I think we
need to fix our list description. All of them failed to follow up on basic
housekeeping that needed to be done once the SC was passed.

Vale,

Sulla


> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
> Valete.
>
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae voluntatis
> >> S.P.D.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
> >>> why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer is
> >>> quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
> >>> Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma.
> >>> Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum and
> >>> the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be rejected.
> >>> The message archive is open to the public."
> >>>
> >>> Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three senators
> >>> subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul was
> >>> subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
> >>>
> >>> ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senat�s Consultum giving Senators
>
> >>> and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped
> your
> >>> powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other
> removed
> >>> Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
> >>>
> >>> Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
> >>> subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite them.
> >>>
> >>> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84303 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.

Saluete, Quirites.

L Iulia has commented that she has responded substantively to the issues
I raised. In fact, this is precisely what she has failed to do. She
has responded to Senator L Sulla by saying "I answered his questions
substantively and I do not think his criticisms are valid."
Furthermore, and in the same post, she has stated "That was not the
issue being discussed," this in response to the Senator's statement (in
part) "...you in the CP should go back in the
drawing board and work out detailed job descriptions from the top
down". In fact, that is precisely one such of the issues, as I noted
when I said, "There is no job description, for any of these
open positions."

To that very issue -- the fact that there exists no job description --
neither L Iulia nor T Iulius have responded. In point of fact, T Iulius
has stated outright that he refuses to respond to the issue, as he has
stated: "No, I have nothing to say to Metellus statement." So, then, it
would appear that these two individuals are content to persevere in this
course of action, whereby individuals will be brought into office, with
no statement of their duties and responsibilities, no clear and
documented guidance on what they are expected to do. Again, my pity on
he who accepts a position, and is later told they have not fulfilled its
requirements, when such requirements have not been stated.

And let me not go without addressing the education and training issue,
which I made a part of my previous address. Indeed, this is a problem.
Again, though, this relates back to the issue of expectations, as I
addressed the case of education and training in its own merit within the
College. As it concerns the greater part of things, as I stated
previously, individuals brought into these offices are expected to be,
and are frequently looked upon as, experts. A close reading of my
previous missive shows where the issue here lies: with no clear and
documented expectations of learning and experience, how can the Senate,
how can our magistrates, and how can we, the People, rest assured that
the advice given by the holders of these positions is expert? That is
the issue, to which neither L Iulia nor T Iulius have responded.

Again, Quirites, neither L Iulia nor T Iulius have responded to these
concerns. In all their statements thus far, neither of these concerns
have been addressed. I appreciate the dedication of the two known
applicants, and I have no intention of diminishing their intentions or
sincerity. But I am concerned for them, that they might be brought into
positions then, as the saying goes, hung out to dry. And I am concerned
for you, Quirites, because you cannot rest assured of what you are
getting in your sacerdotes publici.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84304 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Ave,

And Sabinus is clearly competent enough to create the new list so using the
English card just is not going to fly. That is a cowards way out when he
clearly shows repeatedly how skillful he is when using English in posts on
this list, the Senate list, the CP list, the Augurs list...and probably many
other lists. He has created lists. And, it is BENEATH him to use the
Language card as a means to disavow his responsibility. If that is the case
then he should not even be Pontifex Maximus given his inability to
understand English, the official language of Nova Roma!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave!
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
> fororom@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Cornelio quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>>
>>
>> > Ave!
>> >
>> > So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the
>> > description of the CP list was incorrect?
>>
>> I noticed it, and may have pointed that out at the time I subscribed.
>>
>
> Great! :) Then I wont hammer on you for at least mentioning it, if you did
> mention it.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Or change the description of the
>> > CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?
>>
>> Senators do not have the power to change the list description; only
>> moderators with that power or list owners may do that. Sabinus is correct
>> in that this is best done by a native speaker of the language in question,
>> but not all of them seem to understand that their powers are not
>> unlimited.
>> In any case, I have been restored to membership, hope that the other
>> affected Senatores will be as well, and that other members of the Senate
>> who
>> wish to subscribe will be added to this list in conformity with our legal
>> instruments.
>>
>
> Really? I can name at least three Senators who had the ability to post on
> the CP list that a change was needed once the Senatus Consulta was passed:
>
> Sabinus
> Dexter
> Fabius
> Agricola - who was subscribed at the time
>
> All 4 of them could have said....after the SC passed that hey....I think we
> need to fix our list description. All of them failed to follow up on basic
> housekeeping that needed to be done once the SC was passed.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Sulla
>>
>> Valete.
>>
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae voluntatis
>> >> S.P.D.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
>> >>> why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer is
>> >>> quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
>> >>> Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma.
>> >>> Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum
>> and
>> >>> the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be rejected.
>> >>> The message archive is open to the public."
>> >>>
>> >>> Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three senators
>> >>> subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul was
>> >>> subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
>> >>>
>> >>> ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senat�s Consultum giving Senators
>>
>> >>> and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped
>> your
>> >>> powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other
>> removed
>> >>> Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
>> >>> subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite
>> them.
>> >>>
>> >>> Vale, et valete.
>>
>>
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84305 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 16:03 -0700, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> Ave,
>
> And Sabinus is clearly competent enough to create the new list so using the
> English card just is not going to fly. That is a cowards way out when he
> clearly shows repeatedly how skillful he is when using English in posts on
> this list, the Senate list, the CP list, the Augurs list...and probably many
> other lists. He has created lists. And, it is BENEATH him to use the
> Language card as a means to disavow his responsibility. If that is the case
> then he should not even be Pontifex Maximus given his inability to
> understand English, the official language of Nova Roma!

I suppose it's worth noting this line from the logs:

Apr 30, 2011 1:46 am Changed group description by iulius_sabinus

(Timestamp in MST)

- Metellus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84306 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Ave!

Oh and I notice, now that I am subscrbed to the CP list....the description
has changed. According to Metellus, Sabinus changed it. So therefore
Sabinus saying English is a challenge for him is either lying and therefore
needs to cease being Censor and Pontifex Maximus. Or English is NOT a
challenge for Sabinus, therefore again Sabinus was just trying to cover for
himself. Either way it is conduct not acceptable for a Pontifex. Censor and
Senator. Period. Hiding behind language issues is the act of a coward when
we all know he is clearly smarter than that. That is a blemish he will need
to carry on his dignitas for all of NR to see and one that he will need to
make a mends for. And you too for trying to cover for him, Scholastica.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave,
>
> And Sabinus is clearly competent enough to create the new list so using the
> English card just is not going to fly. That is a cowards way out when he
> clearly shows repeatedly how skillful he is when using English in posts on
> this list, the Senate list, the CP list, the Augurs list...and probably many
> other lists. He has created lists. And, it is BENEATH him to use the
> Language card as a means to disavow his responsibility. If that is the case
> then he should not even be Pontifex Maximus given his inability to
> understand English, the official language of Nova Roma!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Robert Woolwine <
> robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
>> Ave!
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
>> fororom@...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Cornelio quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Ave!
>>> >
>>> > So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the
>>> > description of the CP list was incorrect?
>>>
>>> I noticed it, and may have pointed that out at the time I subscribed.
>>>
>>
>> Great! :) Then I wont hammer on you for at least mentioning it, if you
>> did mention it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Or change the description of the
>>> > CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?
>>>
>>> Senators do not have the power to change the list description; only
>>> moderators with that power or list owners may do that. Sabinus is correct
>>> in that this is best done by a native speaker of the language in
>>> question,
>>> but not all of them seem to understand that their powers are not
>>> unlimited.
>>> In any case, I have been restored to membership, hope that the other
>>> affected Senatores will be as well, and that other members of the Senate
>>> who
>>> wish to subscribe will be added to this list in conformity with our legal
>>> instruments.
>>>
>>
>> Really? I can name at least three Senators who had the ability to post on
>> the CP list that a change was needed once the Senatus Consulta was passed:
>>
>> Sabinus
>> Dexter
>> Fabius
>> Agricola - who was subscribed at the time
>>
>> All 4 of them could have said....after the SC passed that hey....I think
>> we need to fix our list description. All of them failed to follow up on
>> basic housekeeping that needed to be done once the SC was passed.
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> Sulla
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> > Vale,
>>> >
>>> > Sulla
>>>
>>> Valete.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae voluntatis
>>> >> S.P.D.
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
>>> >>> why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer
>>> is
>>> >>> quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
>>> >>> Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova
>>> Roma.
>>> >>> Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum
>>> and
>>> >>> the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be
>>> rejected.
>>> >>> The message archive is open to the public."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three
>>> senators
>>> >>> subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul
>>> was
>>> >>> subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senat�s Consultum giving
>>> Senators
>>>
>>> >>> and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped
>>> your
>>> >>> powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other
>>> removed
>>> >>> Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
>>> >>> subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite
>>> them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Vale, et valete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84307 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
SALVE METELLE!
 
I maintain my position. I have nothing to comment to your statement. I put in practice what the CP approved and yes, I will continue with that until the CP will decide something else.
About your concerns I have doubts. They are false. There were some months when the subject was discussed and you were silent. It was simple to present your concerns and to come with ideas. You didn't do that. Now, when the things started to move on, you come with concerns. I am sorry but I can not take you in serious. I am afraid that after these concerns you will find new ones to your own ideas, ideas which now are only in your mind.

 
VALE,
Sabinus

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Sun, 5/1/11, Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:


From: Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De Sacerdotio
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:02 AM


 



Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.

Saluete, Quirites.

L Iulia has commented that she has responded substantively to the issues
I raised. In fact, this is precisely what she has failed to do. She
has responded to Senator L Sulla by saying "I answered his questions
substantively and I do not think his criticisms are valid."
Furthermore, and in the same post, she has stated "That was not the
issue being discussed," this in response to the Senator's statement (in
part) "...you in the CP should go back in the
drawing board and work out detailed job descriptions from the top
down". In fact, that is precisely one such of the issues, as I noted
when I said, "There is no job description, for any of these
open positions."

To that very issue -- the fact that there exists no job description --
neither L Iulia nor T Iulius have responded. In point of fact, T Iulius
has stated outright that he refuses to respond to the issue, as he has
stated: "No, I have nothing to say to Metellus statement." So, then, it
would appear that these two individuals are content to persevere in this
course of action, whereby individuals will be brought into office, with
no statement of their duties and responsibilities, no clear and
documented guidance on what they are expected to do. Again, my pity on
he who accepts a position, and is later told they have not fulfilled its
requirements, when such requirements have not been stated.

And let me not go without addressing the education and training issue,
which I made a part of my previous address. Indeed, this is a problem.
Again, though, this relates back to the issue of expectations, as I
addressed the case of education and training in its own merit within the
College. As it concerns the greater part of things, as I stated
previously, individuals brought into these offices are expected to be,
and are frequently looked upon as, experts. A close reading of my
previous missive shows where the issue here lies: with no clear and
documented expectations of learning and experience, how can the Senate,
how can our magistrates, and how can we, the People, rest assured that
the advice given by the holders of these positions is expert? That is
the issue, to which neither L Iulia nor T Iulius have responded.

Again, Quirites, neither L Iulia nor T Iulius have responded to these
concerns. In all their statements thus far, neither of these concerns
have been addressed. I appreciate the dedication of the two known
applicants, and I have no intention of diminishing their intentions or
sincerity. But I am concerned for them, that they might be brought into
positions then, as the saying goes, hung out to dry. And I am concerned
for you, Quirites, because you cannot rest assured of what you are
getting in your sacerdotes publici.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84308 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
SALVE!
 
I am competent in English in the way I am. Enough to communicate with you.
The point is that when I wrote the initial list description, Metellus made an offer to write it based of the fact he is native speaker. That was correct. Our pontifices know very well the episode. What you think was coward from my part it was in fact common sense.

 
VALE,
Sabinus

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:


From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Removal of Senators - why?
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:03 AM


 



Ave,

And Sabinus is clearly competent enough to create the new list so using the
English card just is not going to fly. That is a cowards way out when he
clearly shows repeatedly how skillful he is when using English in posts on
this list, the Senate list, the CP list, the Augurs list...and probably many
other lists. He has created lists. And, it is BENEATH him to use the
Language card as a means to disavow his responsibility. If that is the case
then he should not even be Pontifex Maximus given his inability to
understand English, the official language of Nova Roma!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave!
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
> fororom@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Cornelio quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>>
>>
>> > Ave!
>> >
>> > So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the
>> > description of the CP list was incorrect?
>>
>> I noticed it, and may have pointed that out at the time I subscribed.
>>
>
> Great! :) Then I wont hammer on you for at least mentioning it, if you did
> mention it.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Or change the description of the
>> > CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?
>>
>> Senators do not have the power to change the list description; only
>> moderators with that power or list owners may do that. Sabinus is correct
>> in that this is best done by a native speaker of the language in question,
>> but not all of them seem to understand that their powers are not
>> unlimited.
>> In any case, I have been restored to membership, hope that the other
>> affected Senatores will be as well, and that other members of the Senate
>> who
>> wish to subscribe will be added to this list in conformity with our legal
>> instruments.
>>
>
> Really? I can name at least three Senators who had the ability to post on
> the CP list that a change was needed once the Senatus Consulta was passed:
>
> Sabinus
> Dexter
> Fabius
> Agricola - who was subscribed at the time
>
> All 4 of them could have said....after the SC passed that hey....I think we
> need to fix our list description. All of them failed to follow up on basic
> housekeeping that needed to be done once the SC was passed.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Sulla
>>
>> Valete.
>>
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae voluntatis
>> >> S.P.D.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well as
>> >>> why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer is
>> >>> quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
>> >>> Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma.
>> >>> Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum
>> and
>> >>> the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be rejected.
>> >>> The message archive is open to the public."
>> >>>
>> >>> Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three senators
>> >>> subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul was
>> >>> subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
>> >>>
>> >>> ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senat�s Consultum giving Senators
>>
>> >>> and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped
>> your
>> >>> powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other
>> removed
>> >>> Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
>> >>> subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite
>> them.
>> >>>
>> >>> Vale, et valete.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84309 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
SALVE!
 
And what is with that? Yesterday I corrected the list description adding the word "Senators" in order as it to be in line with the law.
 
VALE,
Sabinus 

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Sun, 5/1/11, Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:


From: Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Removal of Senators - why?
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:10 AM


 



On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 16:03 -0700, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> Ave,
>
> And Sabinus is clearly competent enough to create the new list so using the
> English card just is not going to fly. That is a cowards way out when he
> clearly shows repeatedly how skillful he is when using English in posts on
> this list, the Senate list, the CP list, the Augurs list...and probably many
> other lists. He has created lists. And, it is BENEATH him to use the
> Language card as a means to disavow his responsibility. If that is the case
> then he should not even be Pontifex Maximus given his inability to
> understand English, the official language of Nova Roma!

I suppose it's worth noting this line from the logs:

Apr 30, 2011 1:46 am Changed group description by iulius_sabinus

(Timestamp in MST)

- Metellus








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84310 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
Ave!

Your competency in English is enough that you are able to create email
lists, following the necessary instructions - the list in question.
You established the original list description - before Metellus changed it.
And enough to change the list description - by adding two words - to the
current list.

Therefore to hide behind the issue of language in this particular issue was
just a cop out. You are better than that. We all know that. It was not
necessary in this, since you already resolved the issue.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:24 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
> I am competent in English in the way I am. Enough to communicate with you.
> The point is that when I wrote the initial list description, Metellus made
> an offer to write it based of the fact he is native speaker. That was
> correct. Our pontifices know very well the episode. What you think was
> coward from my part it was in fact common sense.
>
>
> VALE,
>
> Sabinus
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Removal of Senators - why?
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:03 AM
>
>
>
>
> Ave,
>
> And Sabinus is clearly competent enough to create the new list so using the
> English card just is not going to fly. That is a cowards way out when he
> clearly shows repeatedly how skillful he is when using English in posts on
> this list, the Senate list, the CP list, the Augurs list...and probably
> many
> other lists. He has created lists. And, it is BENEATH him to use the
> Language card as a means to disavow his responsibility. If that is the case
> then he should not even be Pontifex Maximus given his inability to
> understand English, the official language of Nova Roma!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...>wrote:
>
> > Ave!
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
> > fororom@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Cornelio quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Ave!
> >> >
> >> > So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the
> >> > description of the CP list was incorrect?
> >>
> >> I noticed it, and may have pointed that out at the time I subscribed.
> >>
> >
> > Great! :) Then I wont hammer on you for at least mentioning it, if you
> did
> > mention it.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Or change the description of the
> >> > CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?
> >>
> >> Senators do not have the power to change the list description; only
> >> moderators with that power or list owners may do that. Sabinus is
> correct
> >> in that this is best done by a native speaker of the language in
> question,
> >> but not all of them seem to understand that their powers are not
> >> unlimited.
> >> In any case, I have been restored to membership, hope that the other
> >> affected Senatores will be as well, and that other members of the Senate
> >> who
> >> wish to subscribe will be added to this list in conformity with our
> legal
> >> instruments.
> >>
> >
> > Really? I can name at least three Senators who had the ability to post on
> > the CP list that a change was needed once the Senatus Consulta was
> passed:
> >
> > Sabinus
> > Dexter
> > Fabius
> > Agricola - who was subscribed at the time
> >
> > All 4 of them could have said....after the SC passed that hey....I think
> we
> > need to fix our list description. All of them failed to follow up on
> basic
> > housekeeping that needed to be done once the SC was passed.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Vale,
> >> >
> >> > Sulla
> >>
> >> Valete.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis
> >> >> S.P.D.
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well
> as
> >> >>> why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer
> is
> >> >>> quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
> >> >>> Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova
> Roma.
> >> >>> Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum
> >> and
> >> >>> the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be
> rejected.
> >> >>> The message archive is open to the public."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three
> senators
> >> >>> subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul
> was
> >> >>> subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senat�s Consultum giving
> Senators
> >>
> >> >>> and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped
> >> your
> >> >>> powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other
> >> removed
> >> >>> Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
> >> >>> subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite
> >> them.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Vale, et valete.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84311 From: Sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Removal of Senators - why?
SALVE!

When native speakers offer to help I think they have priority. It is normal. That was happen on 3rd of Nov last year. See my next forward message.

VALE,
Sabinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> Your competency in English is enough that you are able to create email
> lists, following the necessary instructions - the list in question.
> You established the original list description - before Metellus changed it.
> And enough to change the list description - by adding two words - to the
> current list.
>
> Therefore to hide behind the issue of language in this particular issue was
> just a cop out. You are better than that. We all know that. It was not
> necessary in this, since you already resolved the issue.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:24 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> > I am competent in English in the way I am. Enough to communicate with you.
> > The point is that when I wrote the initial list description, Metellus made
> > an offer to write it based of the fact he is native speaker. That was
> > correct. Our pontifices know very well the episode. What you think was
> > coward from my part it was in fact common sense.
> >
> >
> > VALE,
> >
> > Sabinus
> >
> > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
> >
> > --- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Removal of Senators - why?
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:03 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > And Sabinus is clearly competent enough to create the new list so using the
> > English card just is not going to fly. That is a cowards way out when he
> > clearly shows repeatedly how skillful he is when using English in posts on
> > this list, the Senate list, the CP list, the Augurs list...and probably
> > many
> > other lists. He has created lists. And, it is BENEATH him to use the
> > Language card as a means to disavow his responsibility. If that is the case
> > then he should not even be Pontifex Maximus given his inability to
> > understand English, the official language of Nova Roma!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Robert Woolwine
> > <robert.woolwine@...>wrote:
> >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <
> > > fororom@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Cornelio quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Ave!
> > >> >
> > >> > So why did none of the Senators who are in the CP even NOTICE that the
> > >> > description of the CP list was incorrect?
> > >>
> > >> I noticed it, and may have pointed that out at the time I subscribed.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Great! :) Then I wont hammer on you for at least mentioning it, if you
> > did
> > > mention it.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Or change the description of the
> > >> > CP list once the Senatus Consulta passed?
> > >>
> > >> Senators do not have the power to change the list description; only
> > >> moderators with that power or list owners may do that. Sabinus is
> > correct
> > >> in that this is best done by a native speaker of the language in
> > question,
> > >> but not all of them seem to understand that their powers are not
> > >> unlimited.
> > >> In any case, I have been restored to membership, hope that the other
> > >> affected Senatores will be as well, and that other members of the Senate
> > >> who
> > >> wish to subscribe will be added to this list in conformity with our
> > legal
> > >> instruments.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Really? I can name at least three Senators who had the ability to post on
> > > the CP list that a change was needed once the Senatus Consulta was
> > passed:
> > >
> > > Sabinus
> > > Dexter
> > > Fabius
> > > Agricola - who was subscribed at the time
> > >
> > > All 4 of them could have said....after the SC passed that hey....I think
> > we
> > > need to fix our list description. All of them failed to follow up on
> > basic
> > > housekeeping that needed to be done once the SC was passed.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Vale,
> > >> >
> > >> > Sulla
> > >>
> > >> Valete.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> A. Tullia Scholastica Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibus bonae
> > voluntatis
> > >> >> S.P.D.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Q Caecilius Metellus T Iulio Sabino Quiritibusque s.d.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Regarding the question of why three senators were removed (as well
> > as
> > >> >>> why, although not mentioned, both consuls were invited), the answer
> > is
> > >> >>> quickly found in the description on the main page of the Collegium
> > >> >>> Pontificum group, which reads: "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova
> > Roma.
> > >> >>> Membership is restricted to the members of the Collegium Pontificum
> > >> and
> > >> >>> the Consules. Subscription requests aside from these will be
> > rejected.
> > >> >>> The message archive is open to the public."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Upon viewing the membership, and noting that there were three
> > senators
> > >> >>> subscribed yet not members of the college, and that neither consul
> > was
> > >> >>> subscribed, I took steps to remedy that. It's that simple.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> ATS: And in so doing, you violated a Senat�s Consultum giving
> > Senators
> > >>
> > >> >>> and the Senatrix the right to subscribe to this list and overstepped
> > >> your
> > >> >>> powers. I expect to be re-subscribed, and imagine that the other
> > >> removed
> > >> >>> Senatores also wish to be re-subscribed.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Secondly, if Cato and / or Venator were interested, they might have
> > >> >>> subscribed on their own...but at least it was not wrong to invite
> > >> them.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Vale, et valete.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84312 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Priority for native speakers even if my written description was not so bad.
 
Sabinus

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Wed, 11/3/10, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:


From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
To: "Quintus Caecilius Metellus" <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
Cc: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 8:17 AM









SALVE!
 
No problem.
 
VALE,
Sabinus
 
"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Wed, 11/3/10, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:


From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
To: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 7:44 AM


Saluete iterum, Collegae:

I want to make you all aware (again) of a slight change I've made,
this time to the group description.  I have only changed it to clarify
its language.  It read previously:

"The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted. The
messages archive is open to public."

As I have changed it, the text is now:

"The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to
the members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription
requests aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is
open to the public."

It is my hope that with the minor additions I have made, citizens will
better understand why their subscription requests are being refused.
Again, this change can be easily reverted if it is desirable.

Valete Optime!

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84313 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Ave!

Sabinus, you need to stop. You are digging your hole even worse!! Stop
Digging! This just goes to show that you OKd Metellus's change on November
3rd that Senators were not allowed to be members to the CP list. Hence,
without the SC and the necessary house cleaning the CP should have done,
everything Metellus did was absolutely correct.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> Priority for native speakers even if my written description was not so bad.
>
> Sabinus
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Wed, 11/3/10, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
> Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> To: "Quintus Caecilius Metellus" <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> Cc: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 8:17 AM
>
> SALVE!
>
> No problem.
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Wed, 11/3/10, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
> q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> To: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 7:44 AM
>
> Saluete iterum, Collegae:
>
> I want to make you all aware (again) of a slight change I've made,
> this time to the group description. I have only changed it to clarify
> its language. It read previously:
>
> "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted. The
> messages archive is open to public."
>
> As I have changed it, the text is now:
>
> "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to
> the members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription
> requests aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is
> open to the public."
>
> It is my hope that with the minor additions I have made, citizens will
> better understand why their subscription requests are being refused.
> Again, this change can be easily reverted if it is desirable.
>
> Valete Optime!
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84314 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Ave,

And this proves that Scholastica's attempt at saying it was malicious
intent on the part of Metellus was false and sanctioned by you, Sabinus. :)
Thank you for posting this! Good to know that Scholastica is as wrong as
usual.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave!
>
> Sabinus, you need to stop. You are digging your hole even worse!! Stop
> Digging! This just goes to show that you OKd Metellus's change on November
> 3rd that Senators were not allowed to be members to the CP list. Hence,
> without the SC and the necessary house cleaning the CP should have done,
> everything Metellus did was absolutely correct.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Priority for native speakers even if my written description was not so
>> bad.
>>
>> Sabinus
>>
>> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>>
>> --- On Wed, 11/3/10, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
>> Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
>> To: "Quintus Caecilius Metellus" <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
>> Cc: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 8:17 AM
>>
>> SALVE!
>>
>> No problem.
>>
>> VALE,
>> Sabinus
>>
>> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>>
>> --- On Wed, 11/3/10, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
>> q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
>> Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
>> To: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 7:44 AM
>>
>> Saluete iterum, Collegae:
>>
>> I want to make you all aware (again) of a slight change I've made,
>> this time to the group description. I have only changed it to clarify
>> its language. It read previously:
>>
>> "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted. The
>> messages archive is open to public."
>>
>> As I have changed it, the text is now:
>>
>> "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to
>> the members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription
>> requests aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is
>> open to the public."
>>
>> It is my hope that with the minor additions I have made, citizens will
>> better understand why their subscription requests are being refused.
>> Again, this change can be easily reverted if it is desirable.
>>
>> Valete Optime!
>>
>> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84315 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
SALVE!
 
Even if one can think in the way you think I remind you that the SC allowing Senators on the various official NR lists was approved on the 14 Nov. Eleven days after the description was wrote.
I agreed with the Metellus text in the same way as any pontifex agreed with it, as time that was a communication among all pontifices.
Therefore I will not stop. You think I will stop when I just started? No way.

 
VALE,
Sabinus
 

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:


From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:40 AM


Ave!

Sabinus, you need to stop.  You are digging your hole even worse!!  Stop
Digging! This just goes to show that you OKd Metellus's change on November
3rd that Senators were not allowed to be members to the CP list.  Hence,
without the SC and the necessary house cleaning the CP should have done,
everything Metellus did was absolutely correct.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> Priority for native speakers even if my written description was not so bad.
>
> Sabinus
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Wed, 11/3/10, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
> Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> To: "Quintus Caecilius Metellus" <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> Cc: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 8:17 AM
>
> SALVE!
>
> No problem.
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Wed, 11/3/10, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
> q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> To: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 7:44 AM
>
> Saluete iterum, Collegae:
>
> I want to make you all aware (again) of a slight change I've made,
> this time to the group description.  I have only changed it to clarify
> its language.  It read previously:
>
> "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted. The
> messages archive is open to public."
>
> As I have changed it, the text is now:
>
> "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to
> the members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription
> requests aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is
> open to the public."
>
> It is my hope that with the minor additions I have made, citizens will
> better understand why their subscription requests are being refused.
> Again, this change can be easily reverted if it is desirable.
>
> Valete Optime!
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84316 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Ave!

I understand that. And this is why I pointed out that there were 4
individuals who are in the Senate list who are also in the CP list who
should have said..."Yo, the Senate just passed this SC. Do we need to do
any housekeeping to be in compliance with the SC? OH YEAH yes we do..we need
to change the description of the CP list!"

But that was NOT DONE

Those four individuals are:

Sabinus,
Fabius,
Dexter
Agricola

The CP failed to keep proper house cleaning. You proved my point. This is
why I suggested you stop digging the hole for your own benefit. WOW this is
becoming an almost BA joke thread!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:48 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
> Even if one can think in the way you think I remind you that the SC
> allowing Senators on the various official NR lists was approved on the 14
> Nov. Eleven days after the description was wrote.
> I agreed with the Metellus text in the same way as any pontifex agreed with
> it, as time that was a communication among all pontifices.
> Therefore I will not stop. You think I will stop when I just started? No
> way.
>
>
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:40 AM
>
>
> Ave!
>
> Sabinus, you need to stop. You are digging your hole even worse!! Stop
> Digging! This just goes to show that you OKd Metellus's change on November
> 3rd that Senators were not allowed to be members to the CP list. Hence,
> without the SC and the necessary house cleaning the CP should have done,
> everything Metellus did was absolutely correct.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...
> >wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Priority for native speakers even if my written description was not so
> bad.
> >
> > Sabinus
> >
> > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/3/10, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
> > Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > To: "Quintus Caecilius Metellus" <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> > Cc: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 8:17 AM
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> > No problem.
> >
> > VALE,
> > Sabinus
> >
> > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/3/10, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
> > q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> > Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > To: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 7:44 AM
> >
> > Saluete iterum, Collegae:
> >
> > I want to make you all aware (again) of a slight change I've made,
> > this time to the group description. I have only changed it to clarify
> > its language. It read previously:
> >
> > "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted. The
> > messages archive is open to public."
> >
> > As I have changed it, the text is now:
> >
> > "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to
> > the members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription
> > requests aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is
> > open to the public."
> >
> > It is my hope that with the minor additions I have made, citizens will
> > better understand why their subscription requests are being refused.
> > Again, this change can be easily reverted if it is desirable.
> >
> > Valete Optime!
> >
> > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84317 From: iulius sabinus Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
SALVE!
 
Ok. I accept that. The Senators members of the CP list were not able to update the list description.
However that doesn’t allow anyone to remove Senators based of lists description as time the law states otherwise. Not knowing the law is not an excuse. No one from those you mentioned here (4 Senators) don't removed the other subscribed Senators. I guess you understand my point.

 
VALE,
Sabinus

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:


From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:53 AM


Ave!

I understand that.  And this is why I pointed out that there were 4
individuals who are in the Senate list who are also in the CP list who
should have said..."Yo, the Senate just passed this SC.  Do we need to do
any housekeeping to be in compliance with the SC? OH YEAH yes we do..we need
to change the description of the CP list!"

But that was NOT DONE

Those four individuals are:

Sabinus,
Fabius,
Dexter
Agricola

The CP failed to keep proper house cleaning.  You proved my point.  This is
why I suggested you stop digging the hole for your own benefit.  WOW this is
becoming an almost BA joke thread!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:48 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
> Even if one can think in the way you think I remind you that the SC
> allowing Senators on the various official NR lists was approved on the 14
> Nov. Eleven days after the description was wrote.
> I agreed with the Metellus text in the same way as any pontifex agreed with
> it, as time that was a communication among all pontifices.
> Therefore I will not stop. You think I will stop when I just started? No
> way.
>
>
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:40 AM
>
>
> Ave!
>
> Sabinus, you need to stop.  You are digging your hole even worse!!  Stop
> Digging! This just goes to show that you OKd Metellus's change on November
> 3rd that Senators were not allowed to be members to the CP list.  Hence,
> without the SC and the necessary house cleaning the CP should have done,
> everything Metellus did was absolutely correct.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...
> >wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Priority for native speakers even if my written description was not so
> bad.
> >
> > Sabinus
> >
> > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/3/10, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
> > Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > To: "Quintus Caecilius Metellus" <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> > Cc: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 8:17 AM
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> > No problem.
> >
> > VALE,
> > Sabinus
> >
> > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/3/10, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
> > q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> > Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > To: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 7:44 AM
> >
> > Saluete iterum, Collegae:
> >
> > I want to make you all aware (again) of a slight change I've made,
> > this time to the group description.  I have only changed it to clarify
> > its language.  It read previously:
> >
> > "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted. The
> > messages archive is open to public."
> >
> > As I have changed it, the text is now:
> >
> > "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to
> > the members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription
> > requests aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is
> > open to the public."
> >
> > It is my hope that with the minor additions I have made, citizens will
> > better understand why their subscription requests are being refused.
> > Again, this change can be easily reverted if it is desirable.
> >
> > Valete Optime!
> >
> > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84318 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: De Sacerdotio
Iulia Pontifex Caecilio Pontifici omnibusque S.P.D.

Q. Caecili, Pontifex, I appreciate that you are finally responding. Rather than your usual pontificating and talking *about* Sabinus and I, the dignified action worthy of a Pontifex would have been to approach us both in private, speaking to us and not about us, or address your concerns in the CP where everyone could have seen your accusations anyway, as this appears to be your objective, or to have taken the opportunity that arose to work towards those issues you addressed.
The way you pontificated appeared to be out of anger, frustration and impulsiveness and this is never a good idea.
It is your manner that disturbs me, and I for one, have entertained it long enough. After this post I will consider this discussion having run its course and if you will, we can move forward and work together to resolve the issues.
This arguing gets us no where and certainly will not instill trust – you are a bridge builder, not a bridge destroyer.

>L Iulia has commented that she has responded substantively to the issues
>I raised. In fact, this is precisely what she has failed to do. She
>has responded to Senator L Sulla by saying "I answered his questions
>substantively and I do not think his criticisms are valid."

Word games, – your criticisms of myself and Sabinus, esp. the way you went about them, are not valid and wholly uncalled for. This is not the way to build the Religio by tearing it down from within.

> she has stated "That was not the
>issue being discussed," this in response to the Senator's statement (in
>part) "...you in the CP should go back in the
>drawing board and work out detailed job descriptions from the top
>down".

You are adept at taking things out of context. I had, and have now, the good manners and decency to speak directly to you rather than *about* you, and I never did address, or discuss, the issue of "job descriptions" that you briefly mentioned in your tirade. Although the Ancient Romans didn't have them and we follow what we so know as far as possible, that is another project we can work on.
I addressed to you the issues of 1) instructing new Camilli and of offering the hand of mentorship to any new Camilla/us or any co-opted Sacerdos so he or she can contribute to 2) ensuring the safety and welfare of our Res Publica by working to maintain the Gods' satisfaction with our organization. I then apprised you of how I am going about it.
That's substantive – I am actually doing it – teaching and mentoring - while I am working on a training program; the documentation is in the CP list and I mentioned that. That's substantive.
We have six Pontifices, we should be able to teach prospective Camilli while working on a comprehensive program. No need for us to stop everything until we have a teaching program in place – based on past performance in NR either we'll argue about it until no one wants to work together or it will never get done. In the meantime the Religio will suffer; the Gods will not be honored. We have to break that cycle and your rant is not the way to do such.
Some of us are actually working on projects that were discussed in the CP, had you simply asked, you could have saved us all a lot of grief.
You seem to forget that our applicants must have quite a bit of knowledge in the Religio and must be practicing – more than a "lay" cultore. I have seen applicants denied for lack of practice and knowledge. We are not accepting applicants just because they like the Gods or want to simply learn to be a Priest.

Q. Caecili, If you would like to work on an education program with me I publicly invite you to; I have been working on it for a few months now and gathering information and I welcome the opportunity to work alongside you. Gratias tibi.

Bene valete in pacem deorum

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/

Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
>
> Saluete, Quirites.
>
> L Iulia has commented that she has responded substantively to the issues
> I raised. In fact, this is precisely what she has failed to do. She
> has responded to Senator L Sulla by saying "I answered his questions
> substantively and I do not think his criticisms are valid."
> Furthermore, and in the same post, she has stated "That was not the
> issue being discussed," this in response to the Senator's statement (in
> part) "...you in the CP should go back in the
> drawing board and work out detailed job descriptions from the top
> down". In fact, that is precisely one such of the issues, as I noted
> when I said, "There is no job description, for any of these
> open positions."
>
> To that very issue -- the fact that there exists no job description --
> neither L Iulia nor T Iulius have responded. In point of fact, T Iulius
> has stated outright that he refuses to respond to the issue, as he has
> stated: "No, I have nothing to say to Metellus statement." So, then, it
> would appear that these two individuals are content to persevere in this
> course of action, whereby individuals will be brought into office, with
> no statement of their duties and responsibilities, no clear and
> documented guidance on what they are expected to do. Again, my pity on
> he who accepts a position, and is later told they have not fulfilled its
> requirements, when such requirements have not been stated.
>
> And let me not go without addressing the education and training issue,
> which I made a part of my previous address. Indeed, this is a problem.
> Again, though, this relates back to the issue of expectations, as I
> addressed the case of education and training in its own merit within the
> College. As it concerns the greater part of things, as I stated
> previously, individuals brought into these offices are expected to be,
> and are frequently looked upon as, experts. A close reading of my
> previous missive shows where the issue here lies: with no clear and
> documented expectations of learning and experience, how can the Senate,
> how can our magistrates, and how can we, the People, rest assured that
> the advice given by the holders of these positions is expert? That is
> the issue, to which neither L Iulia nor T Iulius have responded.
>
> Again, Quirites, neither L Iulia nor T Iulius have responded to these
> concerns. In all their statements thus far, neither of these concerns
> have been addressed. I appreciate the dedication of the two known
> applicants, and I have no intention of diminishing their intentions or
> sincerity. But I am concerned for them, that they might be brought into
> positions then, as the saying goes, hung out to dry. And I am concerned
> for you, Quirites, because you cannot rest assured of what you are
> getting in your sacerdotes publici.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84319 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Ave Sulla

Being disrespectful will not get anything done Sulla you told Sabinus that he is "clearly competent enough to create the new list so using the English card just is not going to fly." I have a few foreign friends who, while I think they speak good English (better than Sabinus whose I think speaks well), have difficulty understanding when hammered (the tactic you mentioned to Scholastica), esp. when idioms etc. are used. My friends do write in English but it takes them quite a while, and can be difficult while they do fairly well at reading. I have problems writing in other languages as well, but can read much better (this is common btw) and would defer to a native speaker. Your tactic is unfair. The premise is unfair. Your needling and hammering and wordplay/twisting to suit your opinion is conduct unbecoming a Senator. English speaking folk did not notice the text was not changed either.

Sulla, this has gone on long enough. A question was asked of Metellus by Sabinus, and I asked that question as well, without accusation or assumption. A reasonable answer was given and well met. It's over.

We are now at the point of beating a dead horse. We have more serious issues to expend our energy on. In your position of the CFO for example, it is a hard job and you are up against many obstacles – rather than needling Sabinus you could have been getting some of it done. Metellus could have written one job description by now. You know, that old saying, if you are not part of the solution than you are part of the problem.

So let's move on. Feel free to email me.


Bene vale

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVE!
>  
> Ok. I accept that. The Senators members of the CP list were not able to update the list description.
> However that doesn’t allow anyone to remove Senators based of lists description as time the law states otherwise. Not knowing the law is not an excuse. No one from those you mentioned here (4 Senators) don't removed the other subscribed Senators. I guess you understand my point.
>
>  
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:53 AM
>
>
> Ave!
>
> I understand that.  And this is why I pointed out that there were 4
> individuals who are in the Senate list who are also in the CP list who
> should have said..."Yo, the Senate just passed this SC.  Do we need to do
> any housekeeping to be in compliance with the SC? OH YEAH yes we do..we need
> to change the description of the CP list!"
>
> But that was NOT DONE
>
> Those four individuals are:
>
> Sabinus,
> Fabius,
> Dexter
> Agricola
>
> The CP failed to keep proper house cleaning.  You proved my point.  This is
> why I suggested you stop digging the hole for your own benefit.  WOW this is
> becoming an almost BA joke thread!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:48 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> > Even if one can think in the way you think I remind you that the SC
> > allowing Senators on the various official NR lists was approved on the 14
> > Nov. Eleven days after the description was wrote.
> > I agreed with the Metellus text in the same way as any pontifex agreed with
> > it, as time that was a communication among all pontifices.
> > Therefore I will not stop. You think I will stop when I just started? No
> > way.
> >
> >
> >
> > VALE,
> > Sabinus
> >
> >
> > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
> >
> > --- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:40 AM
> >
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Sabinus, you need to stop.  You are digging your hole even worse!!  Stop
> > Digging! This just goes to show that you OKd Metellus's change on November
> > 3rd that Senators were not allowed to be members to the CP list.  Hence,
> > without the SC and the necessary house cleaning the CP should have done,
> > everything Metellus did was absolutely correct.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...
> > >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Priority for native speakers even if my written description was not so
> > bad.
> > >
> > > Sabinus
> > >
> > > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 11/3/10, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
> > > Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > > To: "Quintus Caecilius Metellus" <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> > > Cc: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 8:17 AM
> > >
> > > SALVE!
> > >
> > > No problem.
> > >
> > > VALE,
> > > Sabinus
> > >
> > > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 11/3/10, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
> > > q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
> > > Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > > To: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 7:44 AM
> > >
> > > Saluete iterum, Collegae:
> > >
> > > I want to make you all aware (again) of a slight change I've made,
> > > this time to the group description.  I have only changed it to clarify
> > > its language.  It read previously:
> > >
> > > "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted. The
> > > messages archive is open to public."
> > >
> > > As I have changed it, the text is now:
> > >
> > > "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to
> > > the members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules. Subscription
> > > requests aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is
> > > open to the public."
> > >
> > > It is my hope that with the minor additions I have made, citizens will
> > > better understand why their subscription requests are being refused.
> > > Again, this change can be easily reverted if it is desirable.
> > >
> > > Valete Optime!
> > >
> > > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84320 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
Ave!

Iulia, Iulia, Iulia...ah Iulia Iulia where do I begin! You know what...I
stand by what I said...disrespectful or not. It certainly DID NOT need to
go there except for the fact that Sabinus tried to defend his position and
failed..not only failed but FAILED miserable. As I clearly pointed out and
he basically agreed.

Sabinus was more than capable of creating the email list after the purge of
Piscinus. FACT
Sabinus created the description of the email list that he created. FACT
Sabinus ok'ed the change that Metellus did in November 3rd. FACT

Just with that alone he has more than a passing grasp of English enough to
follow those basic instructions. This isnt speaking, this is reading and
comprehension, which is DIFFERENT than speaking. So, no I disagree with you
the premise is actually fair and it undercuts any attempt to defect the
issue at hand.

The CP list issue is a deadhorse now that the description has been changed
(by Sabinus) and Senators (myself included) are being added.

The other issues are still alive and well and no where near done being
beaten.

Respect and dignitas is something that is earned but can easily be eroded as
well by behavior that is not exactly ethical that is my issue with this,
hence my involvement in this matter the coverup and deflection I found to be
despicable and then we have Scholastica's attempt to try to put malicious
intent involved which was utter BS. And absolutely necessary to be called
out on public since again she was proven to be wrong.

The CFO stuff is just a red herring since it is not applicable at all to the
discussion or any discussion beyond issues I have been raising with the
Consuls and Paulinus, but again, nice try at deflection.

Vale,

Sulla



On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:44 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ave Sulla
>
> Being disrespectful will not get anything done Sulla you told Sabinus that
> he is "clearly competent enough to create the new list so using the English
> card just is not going to fly." I have a few foreign friends who, while I
> think they speak good English (better than Sabinus whose I think speaks
> well), have difficulty understanding when hammered (the tactic you mentioned
> to Scholastica), esp. when idioms etc. are used. My friends do write in
> English but it takes them quite a while, and can be difficult while they do
> fairly well at reading. I have problems writing in other languages as well,
> but can read much better (this is common btw) and would defer to a native
> speaker. Your tactic is unfair. The premise is unfair. Your needling and
> hammering and wordplay/twisting to suit your opinion is conduct unbecoming a
> Senator. English speaking folk did not notice the text was not changed
> either.
>
> Sulla, this has gone on long enough. A question was asked of Metellus by
> Sabinus, and I asked that question as well, without accusation or
> assumption. A reasonable answer was given and well met. It's over.
>
> We are now at the point of beating a dead horse. We have more serious
> issues to expend our energy on. In your position of the CFO for example, it
> is a hard job and you are up against many obstacles � rather than needling
> Sabinus you could have been getting some of it done. Metellus could have
> written one job description by now. You know, that old saying, if you are
> not part of the solution than you are part of the problem.
>
> So let's move on. Feel free to email me.
>
> Bene vale
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > SALVE!
> > �
>
> > Ok. I accept that. The Senators members of the CP list were not able to
> update the list description.
> > However that doesn���t allow anyone to remove Senators based of lists
> description as time the law states otherwise. Not knowing the law is not an
> excuse. No one from those you mentioned here (4 Senators) don't removed the
> other subscribed Senators. I guess you understand my point.
> >
> > �
>
> > VALE,
> > Sabinus
> >
> > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
> >
> > --- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:53 AM
> >
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > I understand that.� And this is why I pointed out that there were 4
>
> > individuals who are in the Senate list who are also in the CP list who
> > should have said..."Yo, the Senate just passed this SC.� Do we need to
> do
>
> > any housekeeping to be in compliance with the SC? OH YEAH yes we do..we
> need
> > to change the description of the CP list!"
> >
> > But that was NOT DONE
> >
> > Those four individuals are:
> >
> > Sabinus,
> > Fabius,
> > Dexter
> > Agricola
> >
> > The CP failed to keep proper house cleaning.� You proved my point.�
> This is
> > why I suggested you stop digging the hole for your own benefit.� WOW
> this is
>
> > becoming an almost BA joke thread!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:48 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@
> ...>wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SALVE!
> > >
> > > Even if one can think in the way you think I remind you that the SC
> > > allowing Senators on the various official NR lists was approved on the
> 14
> > > Nov. Eleven days after the description was wrote.
> > > I agreed with the Metellus text in the same way as any pontifex agreed
> with
> > > it, as time that was a communication among all pontifices.
> > > Therefore I will not stop. You think I will stop when I just started?
> No
> > > way.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > VALE,
> > > Sabinus
> > >
> > >
> > > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius
> Claudius
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 5/1/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Fw: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 2:40 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > Sabinus, you need to stop.� You are digging your hole even worse!!�
> Stop
>
> > > Digging! This just goes to show that you OKd Metellus's change on
> November
> > > 3rd that Senators were not allowed to be members to the CP list.�
> Hence,
>
> > > without the SC and the necessary house cleaning the CP should have
> done,
> > > everything Metellus did was absolutely correct.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...
>
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Priority for native speakers even if my written description was not
> so
> > > bad.
> > > >
> > > > Sabinus
> > > >
> > > > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius
> Claudius
> > > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 11/3/10, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
>
> > > > Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > > > To: "Quintus Caecilius Metellus" <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
>
> > > > Cc: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 8:17 AM
> > > >
> > > > SALVE!
> > > >
> > > > No problem.
> > > >
> > > > VALE,
> > > > Sabinus
> > > >
> > > > "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius
> Claudius
> > > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 11/3/10, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
> > > > q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
>
> > > > Subject: Re: Collegium Pontificum Settings
> > > > To: collegium_pontificum_nr-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 7:44 AM
> > > >
> > > > Saluete iterum, Collegae:
> > > >
> > > > I want to make you all aware (again) of a slight change I've made,
> > > > this time to the group description.� I have only changed it to
> clarify
> > > > its language.� It read previously:
>
> > > >
> > > > "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted. The
> > > > messages archive is open to public."
> > > >
> > > > As I have changed it, the text is now:
> > > >
> > > > "The Collegium Pontificum of Nova Roma. Membership is restricted to
> > > > the members of the Collegium Pontificum and the Consules.
> Subscription
> > > > requests aside from these will be rejected. The message archive is
> > > > open to the public."
> > > >
> > > > It is my hope that with the minor additions I have made, citizens
> will
> > > > better understand why their subscription requests are being refused.
> > > > Again, this change can be easily reverted if it is desirable.
> > > >
> > > > Valete Optime!
> > > >
> > > > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >�
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 84321 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2011-04-30
Subject: on several things
C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.

I have been reading the two current discussions, and I will try very hard to
address only the issues involved. Concerning the Yahoo list description and
the removal of senators, yes, the ball got dropped. The list description
should have been changed. The moment this Senatus Consultum was passed.
Since that did not happen, one of the senators on the CP list or one of the
C P members themselves should have pointed out the discrepancy. Obviously,
that did not happen either. Yes, this is not good housekeeping, and we
should certainly be more careful. It might have been better had Metellus
simply changed the list description and left the senators subscribed,
especially since a Yahoo group list description does not supersede the laws
of our Res publica. The problem has been fixed, and I hope that we can stop
apportioning blame, learn from our errors, and do better next time.

As to the matter of the selection and training of priests, all have made
pertinent and valuable points. I will say, and I can say from experience
that Julia Aquila Pontifex , And Q. Caecillius Metellus Pontifex have both
worked with me extensively and been most helpful.

We are just in the process of revamping our training program, and it will
take time. However, I firmly believe that the C P is fully aware of the
vital nature and seriousness of having well-trained, well qualified priests.
There are things that people should know before they even apply, most
assuredly; and there are things that they must learn after they have been
accepted into training. There are, also, things that must be present. That
cannot be learned. These things are internal and have to do with attitudes,
demeanor, and reverence. These things cannot be taught but they can be
demonstrated, especially in an interview process. We have a great deal of
work to do, and from what I am seeing, we are well started.

Yes, we have asked for interested people to contact the CP. But that is
only the first step in what will be a fairly long and involved process, and
those who contact us are not guaranteed anything.

I think the input of all citizens is important, because it is only through
that input that we can learn the expectations of our citizens concerning how
we conduct the Sacra publica. I would hope that such input would be offered
in the spirit of helpfulness and respect, since, ultimately, we all have the
same goal.

When Pontifex Maximus Sabbinus took office, he had much to concern him, and
he has done, as far as I am concerned, an admirable job.

I respectfully propose that the CP prepare a set of expectations for each
priesthood consisting of two parts. The first part would apply to all
religious officials, and the second part would be specific to the priesthood
involved. I think this would address the issues that Metellus Pontifex has
raised, and it would also be helpful to any applicant wishing to serve our
Republic. I also asked respectfully, for the support of our citizens in
what the CP is trying to do. Please make suggestions, but also, please be
patient with us.

Valete bene.
C. Maria Caeca