Category talk:Acta Pontificum (Nova Roma) - Revision history

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Reply

2006-06-27T21:18:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 27 June 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:

	: As things go on, however, I think we will be seeing more ''responsa'' and less ''decreta'', though only time can tell.		: As things go on, however, I think we will be seeing more ''responsa'' and less ''decreta'', though only time can tell.
		+
		+	==Discussion==

	::When this is sorted we can make nice templates to put on top explaining which each article is.		::When this is sorted we can make nice templates to put on top explaining which each article is.
		+
		+	:::Yes; but the above is meant to be legal commentary / analysis, as I did with the ''lex Minucia Moravia de civitate ejuranda''. Since no legal text mentions ''responsa'' I couldn't append it as commentary to a text so I thought I'd put it here. The plan is that whenever I come across any useful discussion about points of law or constitutional procedure I'll put it on the wiki in this format as legal commentary. [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 16:18, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

M. Lucretius Agricola at 12:45, 26 June 2006

2006-06-26T12:45:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 26 June 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:

	: As things go on, however, I think we will be seeing more ''responsa'' and less ''decreta'', though only time can tell.		: As things go on, however, I think we will be seeing more ''responsa'' and less ''decreta'', though only time can tell.
		+
		+	::When this is sorted we can make nice templates to put on top explaining which each article is.

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Corrections

2006-06-26T12:44:32Z

Corrections

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 26 June 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:
	[[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)\|Q. Metellus]] [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)\|pontifex]] replied (message 8855):		[[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)\|Q. Metellus]] [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)\|pontifex]] replied (message 8855):

−	: Simply, ~~the first two~~ carry specific legal implications, per the ''lex constitutiva''. ~~The last,~~ however, does not carry any specific legal implications, and is simply a statement by the College on a given topic (i.e., a response).	+	: Simply, [''decreta''] carry specific legal implications, per the ''lex constitutiva''. [A ''responsum''] however, does not carry any specific legal implications, and is simply a statement by the College on a given topic (i.e., a response).

	: As things go on, however, I think we will be seeing more ''responsa'' and less ''decreta'', though only time can tell.		: As things go on, however, I think we will be seeing more ''responsa'' and less ''decreta'', though only time can tell.

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Corrected link

2006-06-26T12:36:42Z

Corrected link

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:36, 26 June 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:
	: Is this intended to be a technical distinction and, if so, what do the pontifices intend the terms to mean?		: Is this intended to be a technical distinction and, if so, what do the pontifices intend the terms to mean?

−	[[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)\|Q. Metellus]] [[~~Pontifices~~ (Nova Roma)\|pontifex]] replied (message 8855):	+	[[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)\|Q. Metellus]] [[Pontifex (Nova Roma)\|pontifex]] replied (message 8855):

	: Simply, the first two carry specific legal implications, per the ''lex constitutiva''. The last, however, does not carry any specific legal implications, and is simply a statement by the College on a given topic (i.e., a response).		: Simply, the first two carry specific legal implications, per the ''lex constitutiva''. The last, however, does not carry any specific legal implications, and is simply a statement by the College on a given topic (i.e., a response).

	: As things go on, however, I think we will be seeing more ''responsa'' and less ''decreta'', though only time can tell.		: As things go on, however, I think we will be seeing more ''responsa'' and less ''decreta'', though only time can tell.

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Commentary

2006-06-26T12:23:54Z

Commentary

New page

==Decreta & Responsa : Commentary==

A. d. VII Kal. Qui. {{2006}} on the ReligioRomana e-mail list (message 8854 in the archive) [[Aulus Apollonius Cordus (Nova Roma)|A. Apollonius]] asked about ''decreta'' and ''responsa'':

: Is this intended to be a technical distinction and, if so, what do the pontifices intend the terms to mean?

[[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus (Nova Roma)|Q. Metellus]] [[Pontifices (Nova Roma)|pontifex]] replied (message 8855):

: Simply, the first two carry specific legal implications, per the ''lex constitutiva''. The last, however, does not carry any specific legal implications, and is simply a statement by the College on a given topic (i.e., a response).

: As things go on, however, I think we will be seeing more ''responsa'' and less ''decreta'', though only time can tell.