Greetings. As you know, Sarmatia has obtained some land in the Aquilo Opiddum. This is the northernmost land in the history of the Roman revival. We want to build there including religious buildings. Therefore, a number of questions arose, solving these issues, it turned out that the Templum project has an incorrect start, so the sacred procedure was originally violated. I use an online translator, so I can not always use the terms correctly.
We want to create the most northerly Roman religious (ritual) complex in the world. Everything is known that the Roman religion is very formalized and maximally ritualistic, and that the violation of the order of the ritual or rite leads to the insignificance of the results of such a sacred action. The land available for us is in collective use, we transferred it to the nominal property of the Roman Republic, so that it would have the status - ager publicus.
The Roman gods and the Roman religion are social, they are connected with the Roman community, so we transferred nominaly the land to the Roman community, that this land would become an element of the "community-deity" bundle. The temple and public altar is an element of public worship, so before the construction this land should be dedicated, that is, transferred from human property in a divine property, given to the deity. The making of a public worship is the prerogative of the higher magistrates, especially since only they can change the status of the land from the public to the sacral. In the case of Sarmatia, we now have a senior magistrate, this is Consul Titus Flavius Severus Magnus, who has a sacred authority, however, the Templum project is different. They build a Temple - the object of the public worship of the Roman Religion, on a land that was not properly (in a certain sacred order) transferred from the Roman community to the deity, and then this land was not by the highest magistrate properly dedicated to the deity. It is also very doubtful that after organizing the temple (and the land?) dedicated to Jupiter, in this earth dedicated to one deity, Templum organizers place dedicatory objects and prayers to other deities, this is similar to disrespecting the deity of Jupiter.
Does anyone have any additions or suggestions on how to properly organize the sanctuary in our country and prepare the earth for this?
PS It seems to me that due to the violation of the sacred order of preparation, the Templum project violated the agreement between the deities of the Roman community and the Roman community itself, so it is not sacred, and is unlikely to be associated with deities that have become the object of commercialization and monitization for the leadership of this project.
Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
12 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Quintus Vergilius Crassus » Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:43 am
Re: Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Gaius Florius Lupus » Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:31 am
Salvete!
When the land was formally transferred to the Republic, was the property title issued in the name of the corporation of our Republic? Is this legally possible in Sarmatia that non profit organizations constituted under foreign law can own land?
The procedure as described here transferring public land into sacred land is certainly correct for the city of Rome. But in the provinces other rules must have been applied. I cannot imagine that a Roman praetor or consul had to travel all the way from Rome to a remote province like Syria just to inaugurate a temple. I am sure that this was done by the duumviri of the respective civitas.
Valete!
C. Florius Lupus
When the land was formally transferred to the Republic, was the property title issued in the name of the corporation of our Republic? Is this legally possible in Sarmatia that non profit organizations constituted under foreign law can own land?
The procedure as described here transferring public land into sacred land is certainly correct for the city of Rome. But in the provinces other rules must have been applied. I cannot imagine that a Roman praetor or consul had to travel all the way from Rome to a remote province like Syria just to inaugurate a temple. I am sure that this was done by the duumviri of the respective civitas.
Valete!
C. Florius Lupus
Re: Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Titus Flavius Severus » Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:37 pm
Severus Con. sal.,
Personally, I always tried to avoid the topic of the Poltava project, but once this topic was raised, I too will express my opinion, however, I will first focus on those questions that Lupus asked, since Crassus - the culprit of this topic, did not bother to answer (=
As Сrassus has already said, the land was originally not obtained in private ownership, by a specific inhabitant of Sarmatia, it was obtained by a legal entity, in which the province of Sarmatia was registered. Nevertheless, in order to keep to the end the rule and custom, we decided to "nominally" (as Crassus himself noted) to transfer this land from the province to the Republic, and did this through the praetor, which is Alba, who customarily made this transition. From this moment the earth became - ager publicus.
We faced a number of serious problems. As noted by Crassus, the Roman religion is the same law, and in order not to make mistakes, we had to work out very carefully the ways of solving the problems that we faced from a formal point of view. Thus, we decided to use the praetor because there is a significant gap in the organization of the Republic. Historically, Roman Religion is the religion of the City of Rome, and it is inseparable from it. In our Republic there is a duality, on the one hand, we are all citizens of Rome, because we are in tribes and centuria, but at the same time we still live in the provinces, that is, we are, as it were, part of these provinces. Hence the question arose when our community received land, what status did this land have? The status of the Roman public land, since it received the Roman community, or the status of provincial land, since the same citizens who received it are residents of the province. To avoid this duality, through praetor law, we nominally gave this land to Rome.
As mentioned earlier, Roman Religion is the religion of the City of Rome, without Rome there is no Roman religion. How the Templum project positions itself can be seen on the open resources devoted to this project, it is also possible to follow the religious component of the preparation of this project quite clearly. You yourself can easily understand exactly how this project positions itself, as it is actually Roman or provincial. But the matter is different, in the pursuit of the implementation of this project, the organizer of this project did not begin to burden themselves with detailed and comprehensive elaboration and preparation. Thus, ignorance or willful, but they violated the established order, and given the formalism of the Roman region, its bright ritalistic, this is evidence of the complete religious nullity of all the results of the project. It must be recognized, taken and passed on again, and correctly. To fix the error, you need to recognize its existence. Until new correct rituals are performed, the whole idea, all these objects, all these prayers on paper and everything else, all this is not sacred, it's all profane, and all this makes no sense, except for the monetization of religious fiction.
But in addition, even if you do not take into account the fact of the violation of procedures, it remains an open question of why, when dedicating an object to a deity, specifically to Jupiter, there are other deities placed in the same place, as Crassus correctly noted, does not this indicate a disparaging attitude to the Roman Religions?
Roman religion is not a game, it is a sort of religious law, where everything is clearly formalized, and the error inevitably leads to negative consequences.
Sanctification is a complex procedure. It is possible only in Roman territory, which was "liberated and defined" and, if necessary, is inaugurated. After the official decision to proceed to consecration (which was called constitutio), this space is cleared, the boundaries of the building are marked and the first stone is put. Tacitus gives an excellent description of this in his account of the purification and definition (through suovetaurili - the sacrifice of a pig, a sheep and a bull) of a temple on the Capitol that burned down during the civil war of 69 AD:
"The eleventh day before the July calends was clear and cloudless; the place reserved for the construction of the temple was surrounded with wreaths and curled with holy ribbons; In the formed space came the soldiers, who carried especially happy names, holding in their hands branches of trees, promising luck. Then the vestals, accompanied by boys and girls who had a father and mother alive, were bathed in water scooped from rivers and clean springs. Praetor Helvidius Priscus joined after the pontiff Plutius Elianus to the place of the future temple, cleansed him, sacrificing a pig, a sheep and a bull, and, spreading the insides of the animals on the grass, appealed to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, to the gods-patrons of the empire, asking them to bestow success and, with their divine right hand, to elevate to the top of glory the dwelling intended for them, to the construction of which people are now embarking. After uttering a prayer, Helvidius took hold of the sacred bandages with which he saw a stone and ropes that entwined it. Immediately all
the rest: magistrates, sarcedors, senators, equesterians, a lot of people from the common people, - struggling with all their might, moved and shouted a huge lump of shouting. From everywhere in the base of the temple threw ingots of gold, silver, raw ore, which did not yet know ore ... " (History, 4, 53)
Once the construction was finished, the building was dedicated or consecrated. The initiate took the door-post (or touched the altar, if the altar was consecrated) and pronounced the dedication formula (lex dedicationis) at the dictation of the pontiff, which translated this structure and space from public ownership to the ownership of the deity: from now on they were sacred. Lex dedicationis also formulates a certain number of conditions relating to rules of worship. Often the dedicates referred to the model of law (lex), established during the dedication of the altar of Diana on Aventine (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 4, 26)
Here are just a couple of quotes on this topic. In order not to seem biased towards the Poltava project, although I wish them only good and prosperity, I suggest that everyone just check the quotes given above about how the religious procedures were conducted in the Poltava project and you will understand everything yourself.
Personally, I always tried to avoid the topic of the Poltava project, but once this topic was raised, I too will express my opinion, however, I will first focus on those questions that Lupus asked, since Crassus - the culprit of this topic, did not bother to answer (=
When the land was formally transferred to the Republic, was the property title issued in the name of the corporation of our Republic? Is this legally possible in Sarmatia that non profit organizations constituted under foreign law can own land?
As Сrassus has already said, the land was originally not obtained in private ownership, by a specific inhabitant of Sarmatia, it was obtained by a legal entity, in which the province of Sarmatia was registered. Nevertheless, in order to keep to the end the rule and custom, we decided to "nominally" (as Crassus himself noted) to transfer this land from the province to the Republic, and did this through the praetor, which is Alba, who customarily made this transition. From this moment the earth became - ager publicus.
We faced a number of serious problems. As noted by Crassus, the Roman religion is the same law, and in order not to make mistakes, we had to work out very carefully the ways of solving the problems that we faced from a formal point of view. Thus, we decided to use the praetor because there is a significant gap in the organization of the Republic. Historically, Roman Religion is the religion of the City of Rome, and it is inseparable from it. In our Republic there is a duality, on the one hand, we are all citizens of Rome, because we are in tribes and centuria, but at the same time we still live in the provinces, that is, we are, as it were, part of these provinces. Hence the question arose when our community received land, what status did this land have? The status of the Roman public land, since it received the Roman community, or the status of provincial land, since the same citizens who received it are residents of the province. To avoid this duality, through praetor law, we nominally gave this land to Rome.
The procedure as described here transferring public land into sacred land is certainly correct for the city of Rome. But in the provinces other rules must have been applied. I cannot imagine that a Roman praetor or consul had to travel all the way from Rome to a remote province like Syria just to inaugurate a temple. I am sure that this was done by the duumviri of the respective civitas.
As mentioned earlier, Roman Religion is the religion of the City of Rome, without Rome there is no Roman religion. How the Templum project positions itself can be seen on the open resources devoted to this project, it is also possible to follow the religious component of the preparation of this project quite clearly. You yourself can easily understand exactly how this project positions itself, as it is actually Roman or provincial. But the matter is different, in the pursuit of the implementation of this project, the organizer of this project did not begin to burden themselves with detailed and comprehensive elaboration and preparation. Thus, ignorance or willful, but they violated the established order, and given the formalism of the Roman region, its bright ritalistic, this is evidence of the complete religious nullity of all the results of the project. It must be recognized, taken and passed on again, and correctly. To fix the error, you need to recognize its existence. Until new correct rituals are performed, the whole idea, all these objects, all these prayers on paper and everything else, all this is not sacred, it's all profane, and all this makes no sense, except for the monetization of religious fiction.
But in addition, even if you do not take into account the fact of the violation of procedures, it remains an open question of why, when dedicating an object to a deity, specifically to Jupiter, there are other deities placed in the same place, as Crassus correctly noted, does not this indicate a disparaging attitude to the Roman Religions?
Roman religion is not a game, it is a sort of religious law, where everything is clearly formalized, and the error inevitably leads to negative consequences.
Sanctification is a complex procedure. It is possible only in Roman territory, which was "liberated and defined" and, if necessary, is inaugurated. After the official decision to proceed to consecration (which was called constitutio), this space is cleared, the boundaries of the building are marked and the first stone is put. Tacitus gives an excellent description of this in his account of the purification and definition (through suovetaurili - the sacrifice of a pig, a sheep and a bull) of a temple on the Capitol that burned down during the civil war of 69 AD:
"The eleventh day before the July calends was clear and cloudless; the place reserved for the construction of the temple was surrounded with wreaths and curled with holy ribbons; In the formed space came the soldiers, who carried especially happy names, holding in their hands branches of trees, promising luck. Then the vestals, accompanied by boys and girls who had a father and mother alive, were bathed in water scooped from rivers and clean springs. Praetor Helvidius Priscus joined after the pontiff Plutius Elianus to the place of the future temple, cleansed him, sacrificing a pig, a sheep and a bull, and, spreading the insides of the animals on the grass, appealed to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, to the gods-patrons of the empire, asking them to bestow success and, with their divine right hand, to elevate to the top of glory the dwelling intended for them, to the construction of which people are now embarking. After uttering a prayer, Helvidius took hold of the sacred bandages with which he saw a stone and ropes that entwined it. Immediately all
the rest: magistrates, sarcedors, senators, equesterians, a lot of people from the common people, - struggling with all their might, moved and shouted a huge lump of shouting. From everywhere in the base of the temple threw ingots of gold, silver, raw ore, which did not yet know ore ... " (History, 4, 53)
Once the construction was finished, the building was dedicated or consecrated. The initiate took the door-post (or touched the altar, if the altar was consecrated) and pronounced the dedication formula (lex dedicationis) at the dictation of the pontiff, which translated this structure and space from public ownership to the ownership of the deity: from now on they were sacred. Lex dedicationis also formulates a certain number of conditions relating to rules of worship. Often the dedicates referred to the model of law (lex), established during the dedication of the altar of Diana on Aventine (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 4, 26)
Here are just a couple of quotes on this topic. In order not to seem biased towards the Poltava project, although I wish them only good and prosperity, I suggest that everyone just check the quotes given above about how the religious procedures were conducted in the Poltava project and you will understand everything yourself.
Quae medicamenta non sanat, ferrum sanat; quae ferrum non sanat, ignis sanat. Quae vero ignis non sanat, insanabilia reputari oportet...
-
Titus Flavius Severus - Consul
- Senator
- Sarmatia Magna
- Cultus Mithrae
- Lictor Curiatus
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:24 am
- Location: SARMATIA MAGNA
|
|
|
| | |
| | |
Re: Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Gaius Florius Lupus » Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:49 am
Salvete!
I am still not convinced that the procedure applied to temples outside of Roman city territory like in coloniae or other civitates. The local administration (duumviri) was in charge of the registry of land ownership. Only they would be able to dedicate the land first as ager publicus and then sacer. There were many temples of recognized Roman gods (e.g. of Apollo in Delphi) that had certainly not undergone any administrative act by a Roman magistrate.
In our time the situation is even more complicated. We have no state authority and do not manage property titles. Therefore the proper modern procedure would require a representative of the local authorities, e.g. the mayor of the town to participate in the ceremony (making it public land and then dedicating it to our religious community). Considering the power of the Eastern Orthodox Church this could cause considerable political problems.
Maybe the augurs should be consulted to find out what would be the proper procedure adjusted to the political situation of our time.
Regarding the altars of other gods at a temple of Iuppiter, is there really no precedent in history that altars of other gods were close to a temple? I know that many temples were dedicated to more than one god (temple of Castor and Pollux, temple of Roma and Venus, the Pantheon). Maybe we can then simply dedicate the land to all gods that the TEMPLVM project plans an altar fAor. If this worked for the Pantheon in Rome, why not for TEMPLVM?
Valete!
I am still not convinced that the procedure applied to temples outside of Roman city territory like in coloniae or other civitates. The local administration (duumviri) was in charge of the registry of land ownership. Only they would be able to dedicate the land first as ager publicus and then sacer. There were many temples of recognized Roman gods (e.g. of Apollo in Delphi) that had certainly not undergone any administrative act by a Roman magistrate.
In our time the situation is even more complicated. We have no state authority and do not manage property titles. Therefore the proper modern procedure would require a representative of the local authorities, e.g. the mayor of the town to participate in the ceremony (making it public land and then dedicating it to our religious community). Considering the power of the Eastern Orthodox Church this could cause considerable political problems.
Maybe the augurs should be consulted to find out what would be the proper procedure adjusted to the political situation of our time.
Regarding the altars of other gods at a temple of Iuppiter, is there really no precedent in history that altars of other gods were close to a temple? I know that many temples were dedicated to more than one god (temple of Castor and Pollux, temple of Roma and Venus, the Pantheon). Maybe we can then simply dedicate the land to all gods that the TEMPLVM project plans an altar fAor. If this worked for the Pantheon in Rome, why not for TEMPLVM?
Valete!
Re: Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Quintus Vergilius Crassus » Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:47 pm
I have not seen any mention of how and how the consecrations took place in cities outside of Rome. I have not seen any mention of how the consecrations took place in cities outside of Rome. If someone has such evidence, then let him share. But then again it turns out that the ceremony is not authentic, that is, the procedure is broken, because it is not exactly known how it passed. This is a different situation, they dedicated the earth to one deity, and images of other deities to which the earth was not dedicated were placed on this earth (or put - I do not follow them), this violation.
Re: Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Gaius Florius Lupus » Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:07 pm
Salve!
We can assume that the consecrations all over the Empire were different from case to case, because they had to adjust to the legal circumstances in each city.
In the same way we have to adjust to the legal circumstances in our time. We should not forget that the local government has state authority, we do not. We are just a religious/cultural community. Our magistrates do not represent a state and would therefore not be entitled to conduct a formal consecration according to the Mos Maiorum.
We have to see how things can be done in each case, then we ask the gods for approval through the augurs. Problem solved!
If the TEMPLVM project gets the approval by the augurs, who could claim, it was invalid.
More transparency in the process would be helpful however, I have to admit.
Vale!
We can assume that the consecrations all over the Empire were different from case to case, because they had to adjust to the legal circumstances in each city.
In the same way we have to adjust to the legal circumstances in our time. We should not forget that the local government has state authority, we do not. We are just a religious/cultural community. Our magistrates do not represent a state and would therefore not be entitled to conduct a formal consecration according to the Mos Maiorum.
We have to see how things can be done in each case, then we ask the gods for approval through the augurs. Problem solved!
If the TEMPLVM project gets the approval by the augurs, who could claim, it was invalid.
More transparency in the process would be helpful however, I have to admit.
Vale!
Re: Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Quintus Vergilius Crassus » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:19 am
If we start making such an assumption, then it turns out that what we are doing is not Roman Religion at all, but a role-playing game in the Roman Religion. Templum was opened by Nova Roma's public religious figures, the project positions itself as a manifestation of a public worship, but it violates the procedures of public worship. Violation of the cult results in insignificance of results, offends the deities, and must be redeemed. If they indicate that Templum is the object of a private cult or religious society, but not a !!!Roman public cult!!! - then there are no questions to them.
Re: Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Gaius Florius Lupus » Sat Aug 04, 2018 10:47 am
Salve!
Role playing is assuming that our magistrates are actual government officials of a Roman state.
The actual authorities in Sarmatia are the governments of the Russian Federation (Moscow is Tertia Roma and has continued the Palaiologos dynasty of Constantinople.) and Ukraine. They keep a registry of land titles. So they have to transfer land into an ager publicus and afterwards sacer.
Vale!
Role playing is assuming that our magistrates are actual government officials of a Roman state.
The actual authorities in Sarmatia are the governments of the Russian Federation (Moscow is Tertia Roma and has continued the Palaiologos dynasty of Constantinople.) and Ukraine. They keep a registry of land titles. So they have to transfer land into an ager publicus and afterwards sacer.
Vale!
Re: Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Quintus Vergilius Crassus » Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:27 am
I consulted with knowledgeable people in the field of Roman Religion, from the Sarmatians, which would sum up this discussion, so I want to say this:
1) This topic was started by me, because I was looking for advice and possible mistakes in the process of working with the land. At first, I wanted to do everything as I was doing in the Templum project, but when I studied their material, I realized that they had committed blatant mistakes in religious procedures.
2) We, Sarmatians, want to do everything right, so that we would not make any mistakes, so we carefully study the sources available to us, we are ready for criticism, and we will listen to practical advice, because we do not want that we got it all as a Templum project, we do not want to make critical mistakes at the initial stage, so that they can be constantly corrected.
3) If we can not historically reliably conduct all the religious procedures of the public Roman Religion, in particular bring real animal sacrifices, or we will not have a magistrate with the empire - then we will not start all this and issue our project for the object of the public Roman religion, we make it an object of a private nature, and the object of public Roman Religion and all.
4) Roman Religion, especially its public part, is subject to clear laws and procedures, their violation entails irreversible consequences.
5) Until now, sources have come down, showing how these or other religious procedures were conducted. If in modern times these procedures are not performed as described in historical sources, it means that religious procedures are not performed correctly, and it does not matter for what reason (the absence of magistrates with the empire, the ban on killing animals, etc.) the point is that the religious procedure was not carried out as it should have been done, that is, it was broken. Has Templum violated religious procedures, as they are described by ancient authors - yes, this project violated these religious procedures. For what reason the Templum project violated these procedures does not matter, any reason, even the most weighty, will not make the wrongly executed procedure right.
6) If the Templum project is private, and is not the object of a public Roman Religion, then all my reasons do not apply to it. And if this is the object of public Roman Religion, as it is implicitly positioned by its organizers in open sources, then my arguments regarding them are correct.
7) The Imperium is given by society and is appropriated by the CCu. We have a people as a community of people, they historically reliably elect magistrates, and those in their turn from the CCu receive their own imperial. The procedure is observed. Therefore, for me, the higher magistrates have the Imperium, because the procedures are followed.
1) This topic was started by me, because I was looking for advice and possible mistakes in the process of working with the land. At first, I wanted to do everything as I was doing in the Templum project, but when I studied their material, I realized that they had committed blatant mistakes in religious procedures.
2) We, Sarmatians, want to do everything right, so that we would not make any mistakes, so we carefully study the sources available to us, we are ready for criticism, and we will listen to practical advice, because we do not want that we got it all as a Templum project, we do not want to make critical mistakes at the initial stage, so that they can be constantly corrected.
3) If we can not historically reliably conduct all the religious procedures of the public Roman Religion, in particular bring real animal sacrifices, or we will not have a magistrate with the empire - then we will not start all this and issue our project for the object of the public Roman religion, we make it an object of a private nature, and the object of public Roman Religion and all.
4) Roman Religion, especially its public part, is subject to clear laws and procedures, their violation entails irreversible consequences.
5) Until now, sources have come down, showing how these or other religious procedures were conducted. If in modern times these procedures are not performed as described in historical sources, it means that religious procedures are not performed correctly, and it does not matter for what reason (the absence of magistrates with the empire, the ban on killing animals, etc.) the point is that the religious procedure was not carried out as it should have been done, that is, it was broken. Has Templum violated religious procedures, as they are described by ancient authors - yes, this project violated these religious procedures. For what reason the Templum project violated these procedures does not matter, any reason, even the most weighty, will not make the wrongly executed procedure right.
6) If the Templum project is private, and is not the object of a public Roman Religion, then all my reasons do not apply to it. And if this is the object of public Roman Religion, as it is implicitly positioned by its organizers in open sources, then my arguments regarding them are correct.
7) The Imperium is given by society and is appropriated by the CCu. We have a people as a community of people, they historically reliably elect magistrates, and those in their turn from the CCu receive their own imperial. The procedure is observed. Therefore, for me, the higher magistrates have the Imperium, because the procedures are followed.
Re: Consecration of land and problems of the Templvm project
by Gaius Florius Lupus » Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:38 pm
Imperium is the right over life and death as symbolized by the axe in the fasces. We do therefore not have magistrates with imperium.
12 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2