Writings on the Reformist Idea

[Gaius Florius Aetius]

Salvete amici!

This is a very interesting discussion with well elaborated thoughts. Many good points have been made.
[CUT]
s of every citizen.

Valete!
C. Florius Lupus

I make it as a list, sorry if that seems sort of cold. I can sort of ideas easier in a list.

- I did not mean to impose anything. I guess if you re-read my thesis, it says multiple times that the ideas are meant as suggestions, and that any final form and content should lie with the local/regional group, like a network. I have always been against the idea of religious authority, including my own. I am speaking about MY personal view and advertise for it. If there is a movement that represents that version, good for me. If not, then not.

- I never suggested a centalized priesthood. I refer you again to Thesis 11, 14 ("14. It is suggested that the Priesthood is organized in local networks, from bottom to top."), 18 ("18. There is no body that can make anything mandatory, any regulations concerning Cult Practice are always recommendations, for each individual is free before the Gods."), 26, 32 and 33. On the contrary I think a network is the ideal organization form of the present time.

- Your idea to establish a Cultus Deorum Novum beside or within the regular CD sounds like a generally good idea. I have not made any particular plans, since my degenerating health grants me only a small window of hours each day I am capable to do anything, so my want is alas out of the reach of my powers. Even just writing this, taxes my health, I can tell you.

I am all for compromise, when it is possible. Of course I enter a debate with a coherent list. I have never made a secret that as Thelemite I am a Spiritual Seeker, and I understand others are not. Even though I have difficulties to grasp why one would even seek out the Gods when one has no Spiritual desire as such, I accept and respect that it is what people chose. If the Republic ackowledges a Cultus Novum movement as special department, that is good enough for me, and it would leave people with both interest sides untouched in their preferrence. I do not really have had the plan to create an entirely organization. I see myself as creator of an idea, a new or different perspective. It is a bit like Catholicism vs Protestantism, I am more for the "Message" than the "Form", so to speak. I have always been profoundly convinced this is the next step for the human race, to elevate itself as spiritual beings, and I am still deeply convinced the Roman Religion is a good form inside to do that, but under terms of the 21st Century. (Or 28th, if you prefer.)

I am by no means "hellbent" on this. I just suggest and advertise for the ideas. That is all. If the collegium in general disagrees, than that is fine for me. I will try to find likeminded individuals, who are interested to continue to research what can be done along these lines, and I am open to see where this goes. I merely invite people to Spirituality, like one would invite someone to Dance. Because Dancing is fun. But if someone thinks, nah I pass, then it is ok to me too. I am a Social Scientist and Philosopher. I look at humanity for a good number of years and ponder, what does it need to fix the mess? And this is part of my search for a fix of the mess of humanity. Yes, I am having high goals, I know. XD

(I am extremely grateful for your kind reply, brother of my house. Your words gave me great peace of mind.)

[Gaius Curtius Philo]

You assume that you're interested in spirituality while others are not... Sigh... Even your kinsman Lupus did not say that he follows a purely Beurocratic path. All he said is that the Sacra Publica was for him suppost to be so. Leaving spiritual matters to the Sacra Privata and Philosophy...

And regarding forming a collegium: Surely you can.

[Gaius Florius Aetius]

You assume that you're interested in spirituality while others are not... Sigh... Even your kinsman Lupus did not say that he follows a purely Beurocratic path. All he said is that the Sacra Publica was for him suppost to be so. Leaving spiritual matters to the Sacra Privata and Philosophy...

And regarding forming a collegium: Surely you can.

Quoting Lupus: "Yes, I am one of those "traditionalists" who take the sacra publica as a bureaucratic act, and I do not want this to be changed. This is why I would even prefer everything to be in Latin, because I do not believe that it is necessary to understand what is said."

Please read what people really write, not what you think they write. I can not discuss, when you do not reply to what is objectively there.

Also: I never wrote NOBODY but me is interested in spirituality.


I am not for a centralized Hierarchy or Authority. I have in my 33 Thesis mentioned several times I want the local groups to be as independent as possible.

I do not try to enforce, I could not even if I would, since I am not Ghengis Khan with his Horde. I just suggest. Anything I suggest is point by point open to debate. If some points get through and others not, that is ok.

I did not see the part of my practical suggestions - the 33 Thesis - as so focussed on spirituality, but then maybe other people define the term different? As of now, it is merely *my personal* statement. If others take some of these views over, good. If not, then not. I advertise for ideas, I am not Caesar trying to take anything over. XD I dont know what sort of bad experiences you guys have behind you, though I get the feeling it was massive the way some react.

My concept is less going along with the idea of a Mystery School, and rather a Monastic Order, like Jesuits or Dominican Monks. A Monastic Order has this idea, to live under greater obligation than the layman and the normal clergy. They put themselves under a special rule, put greater demands upon them, and their writings and ideas from this more dedicated perspective may influence the exoteric view sometimes, sometimes not.

I mean, I am convinced of these idea. Like, a lot. I do not lie about that. But at least from the vast majority of leading people in the RR, I am still unsure whether my suggestions are more a hindrance than a help, or whether I should just move to the Hellenists or Byzantines, who recently talked to me because of my writings. I am still not at the point to "move to Byzantium". And I would only do that if the common sensus is that my zeal for a spiritual focus does overly harm. I am not forcing it, as some said, because it is neither my nature to force, nor would I have any leverage to force anyone. So that feels a it like a funny accusation. ^^;

Anywho... I am just looking for people interested in the debate what can or should be reformed. People interested can PM me. I never planned to push this in any way. I just was mentioning my ideas. It's like planting seeds. At some time you have to wait and see what grows.

[Gaius Curtius Philo]

You assume that you're interested in spirituality while others are not... Sigh... Even your kinsman Lupus did not say that he follows a purely Beurocratic path. All he said is that the Sacra Publica was for him suppost to be so. Leaving spiritual matters to the Sacra Privata and Philosophy...

And regarding forming a collegium: Surely you can.

Quoting Lupus: "Yes, I am one of those "traditionalists" who take the sacra publica as a bureaucratic act, and I do not want this to be changed. This is why I would even prefer everything to be in Latin, because I do not believe that it is necessary to understand what is said."

Please read what people really write, not what you think they write. I can not discuss, when you do not reply to what is objectively there.

Also: I never wrote NOBODY but me is interested in spirituality.

Read it yourself. He said SACRA PUBLICA. And afterwards talked about how spirituality is a private matter of Philosophy and Sacra Privata.

Take this phrase: "I am doing something different than what is being done now. Among the things that this something different defends is religion actually being X instead of Y." If for you this does not mean that the norm does Y while you do X then you are very bad at expressing yourself.

And please, you KNOW this is what you meant, because you have said that you believed it to be so many different times in many different places. You see traditionalists as naturally "unspiritualized" while you would be an alternative to that. If you wish to have a more exoteric version of our religion, fine by me, but don't assume things of people without knowing. I have yet to meet a single Traditionalist that does not follow their own spiritual beliefs. The fact that they don't force it onto people does not mean they don't have them

[Gaius Florius Aetius]

You assume that you're interested in spirituality while others are not... Sigh... Even your kinsman Lupus did not say that he follows a purely Beurocratic path. All he said is that the Sacra Publica was for him suppost to be so. Leaving spiritual matters to the Sacra Privata and Philosophy...

And regarding forming a collegium: Surely you can.

Quoting Lupus: "Yes, I am one of those "traditionalists" who take the sacra publica as a bureaucratic act, and I do not want this to be changed. This is why I would even prefer everything to be in Latin, because I do not believe that it is necessary to understand what is said."

Please read what people really write, not what you think they write. I can not discuss, when you do not reply to what is objectively there.

Also: I never wrote NOBODY but me is interested in spirituality.

Read it yourself. He said SACRA PUBLICA. And afterwards talked about how spirituality is a private matter of Philosophy and Sacra Privata.

Take this phrase: "I am doing something different than what is being done now. Among the things that this something different defends is religion actually being X instead of Y." If for you this does not mean that the norm does Y while you do X then you are very bad at expressing yourself.

And please, you KNOW this is what you meant, because you have said that you believed it to be so many different times in many different places. You see traditionalists as naturally "unspiritualized" while you would be an alternative to that. If you wish to have a more exoteric version of our religion, fine by me, but don't assume things of people without knowing. I have yet to meet a single Traditionalist that does not follow their own spiritual beliefs. The fact that they don't force it onto people does not mean they don't have them

Again, what you say and what I say seem to come from.. different interpretations of what happens. I leave this sort of debate, because I find it pointless to endlessly continue the "you said - I said" game. It is clear we have different views on even what WAS discussed, which is sort of frustrating, but something do not wish to dwell on longer. I said what I wanted to say, and it is in my two Thesis Papers. I see no point is continually trying to repeat myself.

Just one sidenote. You seem to assume that the spirituality of a religion is either entirely relegated to the individual quirk of the Sacra Privata, OR it would be "forced" if the Sacra Publica took it up. I deny it is such a simple black-white dichotomy. I can imagine a Public Cult can suggest some *interpretations* without forcing people. I can imagine nuanced levels. But maybe in your mind any suggestion or interpretation is immediately "forced".

I spent several paragraphs as to why I would like to see the stark seperation between Sacra Privata and Publica be softened. One does not have to agree, but at least read it properly. Let's say there is a Myth, a story of Apollo or Ares. Now one Sacerdos tells it and says what he think it means as SUGGESTION - NOT as authotarian command. What would be so bad about it? Or if, as part of a Ceremony, the Sacerdos explains what does the idea of Light, Art, Virtue and the attributes of Apollo say to us in modern times? I made a video where I spoke free about what the idea of Apollo and what he stands for, means in our time. I speculate as part of my work as Priest of Apollo. I never claim to have the final answer, but I do not restrict sharing my view to the Private, but I share my interpretation of the Gods as part of the Public, and I do not see why that should mean I "force" people. I mean, I am not a magician who can hypnotize people to blindly accept my interpretation. So why all the anxiety?


EDIT: To make it less theoretical. Here is an example. It is a video I made last Saturnalia time, and I elaborated freely about the Sol Invictus holiday. As Sacerdos I gave an interpretation and suggested ideas, as part of my "Public" work. That is how *I* define being a Priest. Giving people advise, guidelines, new points of view into their real life. That is what I think a Priest should do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxdVbGfEtKw&t=1s

And as 2nd example, my speech at the Kalends of March. That is what I meant with, spiritual and worldly advise and guidance as part of the Public service:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbZM8cMXkvA

Now you go on and tell me, what is wrong in saying what I said there? Is that authotarian forcing??

[Gaius Curtius Philo]

I never said anything against suggesting meanings after a rite. Unless you have forgotten, I actually praised you for doing that after your rite to Apollo. Or did you forget? The "Traditionalist" view has NOTHING against sacerdotes debating informally meaning behind anything. In fact we have encouraged it. What we are against (and that is not just me but traditionally minded cultores in general) is our organizagion taking an official stance on things of theological and philosophical interpretation.

[Lucius Curtius Philo]

Or if, as part of a Ceremony, the Sacerdos explains what does the idea of Light, Art, Virtue and the attributes of Apollo say to us in modern times? I made a video where I spoke free about what the idea of Apollo and what he stands for, means in our time. I speculate as part of my work as Priest of Apollo. I never claim to have the final answer, but I do not restrict sharing my view to the Private, but I share my interpretation of the Gods as part of the Public, and I do not see why that should mean I "force" people. I mean, I am not a magician who can hypnotize people to blindly accept my interpretation.

Salve Aetii,

This quote above is the only thing I agree with you on. I am trying hard to not rip up your arguments. So I will only comment on the one thing I find agreeable. I am trying to be more positive. A hard thing to do at this point in my old life.

As far as I am aware the Societas Numaea long agreed that such a modern adaptation was useful as part of the redditio. Aetius, you have read the Societas Numaea protocol before starting this drive for reform, right?

vale.

[Gaius Florius Lupus]

Salvete amici!

In order to avoid this discussion to escalate into a personal conflict I would suggest that we abstain from criricizing someone's methods in arguing and focus instead on the actual topic.
It is good that Curtius Philo brought up the Societas Numae. A societas is exactly the form, in which Aetius' ideas should be implemented. There were many such societates and some of them had important functions in public festivals, e.g. the Salii.
There were no monastic orders in ancient Rome, but I think what Aetius hasin mind is such a religious societas.

I really would suggest, Aeti, that yougo ahead and found a societas in order to implement your ideas, but please do not call it Cultus Deorum Novum! As I explained, the name is grammatically wrong. Cultus is masculinum, it has to be Novus. Besides I would suggest a more appealing name, because "Novus - New" suggests that it is something separate from the original one. Your societas however should be integral part of the Cultus Deorum.

I fail to see any real incompatibility of the views expressed in this thread.
We all agree about the essential issues:
- No follower of the Religio should be forced to something
- There should be a place for spirituality in the Cultus Deorum
- The separation of the sacra publica (mandatory for all) and the sacra privata (voluntary and adjusted to the individual) should be maintained.
- A new organization within the Religio is needed to appeal to the modern neo-pagan community.

What needs to be done is the creation of a new Societas. I think we can also agree on this. Aetius should take charge of it, since he is the driving force behind this "reformist" approach.
Perhaps we should just go ahead and discuss less. Especially discussions turning into personal criticism should be avoided.

Valete!