• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Knights Templar Thread

thanks for the link SJWK. Its the path that goes past the entrance to the church. Tho i checked today and its not really a maltese in a circle thats on the geave- i was mistaken. However if you along Kebel road and turn right (coming from st.giles) there is definitely a carved maltese in a circle on the side of Keble college about a foot of the ground- its pretty big.

What was your last post about, Inverurie?
 
barndad said:
What was your last post about, Inverurie?
Click to expand...
Monty Python quote by my reckoning ;)

I take it you're talking about a cross symbol on the side of the chapel? And not turning right from Keble Road into Blackhall Road? Everything's modern that backs onto Blackhall Road.

Steve.
 
This is really not that unusual. If you walk into the Grand Lodge in London you can buy a set of the Laws and Constitutions for about £2.

The meeting places and times of the Order are not their secrets. Their secrets are their means of recognition through signs, grips and passwords. With each is imparted a history of parable illustrating a lesson of wisdom or development to aid the candidate to develop as a person to be more useful to his fellow man.

LD
 
My grandad showed me photos of the meetings, which he wasn't supposed to - there was nothing 'secret', just comical! Grown men wearing bishops mitres and tassled aprons. Maybe that's why it's so secret - they don't want people to laugh at them! ;)
 
I actually wandered in on a meeting once, when my dad was involved... I was three at the time, so I could get away with it *angel smiley*
 
Knights Templar seek papal apology for 700 years of persecution

By Paul Kelbie

29 November 2004

Seven hundred years after they were denounced as heretics and condemned to torture and death, the Knights Templar are calling for a public apology from the Roman Catholic Church.

The secretive organisation which was formed at the time of the Crusades has written to Pope John Paul II requesting that the Vatican officially atone for the persecution of the order.

The formal request for reconciliation to the Vatican has come from an English-based sept and is signed by the "Council of Chaplains, for and on behalf of the acting Grand Master". The letter asks for "an apology from the Vatican for the persecution of our brothers of the Knights Templar and the torture and murder of our leadership, under Pope Clement V during the 14th century AD".

The Hertfordshire-based group, one of thousands of Templar lodges around the world, is hopeful of a satisfactory outcome. "There have been some unofficial responses over the telephone and we have received certain indications from officials within the church that leaves us hopeful that an apology might be forthcoming," said a member of the order.

The Knights Templar order was formed in 1118 at the end of the First Crusade to protect Christian pilgrims en route to the Holy Land. The organisation built up vast riches from booty it pillaged while fighting in the Holy Lands. Within two centuries the order, which enjoyed the backing of the Holy See and European monarchies, had become powerful enough to defy all but the Pope. By 1307 it had fallen foul of Philip IV of France who needed funds for his war against England. With the blessing of Pope Clement V, the king moved against the Templars on Friday 13 October of that year and had them all arrested for heresy. More than 2,000 Templars were tortured and forced to confess to crimes of homosexuality and sodomy; spitting and trampling on the cross; and devil worshipping. As a result King Philip was able to seize their money and assets and by 1314 when the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, Jacques de Molay, was burnt at the stake they had ceased to officially exist.

Some of the Templars fled to Scotland, where they are reputed to have helped Robert the Bruce defeat the English at Bannockburn, and under his protection many of their rituals survived. Today many groups from Freemasons to the Cult of the Solar Temple claim the Templars as ancestors and the modern order still includes numerous influential members.

Now, with the 700th anniversary of its persecution approaching, sources within the Knights Templar claim the order wants to improve relations with the Catholic Church and win some sort of acknowledgement for the suffering inflicted.

There were signs last year that the relationship between the Templars and the Vatican was improving when, in a church behind the Colosseum, a Catholic priest presided over the first Knights Templar ceremony in Rome for 522 years.
Click to expand...

Source

November 29, 2004

The last crusade of the Templars

By Ruth Gledhill

The knights want a Papal apology nearly 700 years after they were disbanded and hounded into exile

THE VATICAN is giving “serious consideration” to apologising for the persecution that led to the suppression of the Knights Templar.

The suppression, which began on Friday , October 13, 1307, gave Friday the Thirteenth its superstitious legacy.

A Templar Order in Britain that claims to be descended from the original Knights Templar has asked that the Pope should make the apology.

The Templars, based in Hertford, are hoping for an apology by 2007, the 700th anniversary of the start of the persecution, which culminated with the torture and burning at the stake of the Grand Master Jacques de Molay for heresy and the dissolution of the Order by apostolic decree in 1312.

The letter, signed by the Secretary of the Council of Chaplains on behalf of the Grand Master of the Poor Fellow Soldiers of Jesus Christ and the Temple of Solomon Grand Preceptory, with a PO box address in Hertford, formally requests an apology “for the torture and murder of our leadership”, instigated by Pope Clement V.

“We shall witness the 700th anniversary of the persecution of our order on 13th October 2007,” the letter says. “It would be just and fitting for the Vatican to acknowledge our grievance in advance of this day of mourning.”

Apologies have already been made by the Roman Catholic Church for the persecution of Galileo and for the Crusades. The Templars hope that these precedents will make their suit more likely to succeed.

Hertford Templar Tim Acheson, who is descended from the Scottish Acheson family that has established Templar links and whose family lived until recently in Bailey Hall, Hertford, said: “This letter is a serious attempt by a Templar group which traces its roots back to the medieval Order to solicit an apology from the Papacy.”

He added: “The Papacy and the Kingdom of France conspired to destroy the Order for reasons which modern historians judge to be primarily political. Their methods and motives are now universally regarded as brutal, unfair and unjustified.

“The Knights Templar officially ceased to exist in the early 1300s, but the order continued underground. It was a huge organisation and the vast majority of Templars survived the persecution, including most of their leaders, along with much of their treasure and, most importantly, their original values and traditions.”

The Hertford Mercury newspaper has reported newly discovered Templar links with Hertford, including a warren of tunnels beneath the town. At the heart of the maze of tunnels is Hertford Castle, where in 1309 four Templars from Temple Dinsley near Hitchin were imprisoned after their arrest by Edward II, who believed that they were holding a lost treasure. The treasure was never found.

When Subterranea Britannica, a group of amateur archaeologists, expressed an interest in investigating Hertford’s tunnels last month, they received anonymous threats telling them not to.

The Templars captured Jerusalem during the Crusades and were known as “keepers of the Holy Grail”, said to be the cup used at the Last Supper or as the receptacle used by Joseph of Arimathea to catch Christ’s blood as he bled on the Cross, or both.

Interest in the Templars and the Holy Grail is at an unprecedented high after the success of books such as The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, and the earlier Holy Blood Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, which claimed that Jesus survived the crucifixion and settled in France.

The Knights Templar were founded by Hugh de Payens, a French knight from the Champagne area of Burgundy, and eight companions in 1118 during the reign of Baldwin II of Jerusalem, when they took a perpetual vow to defend the Christian kingdom. They were assigned quarters next to the Temple. In 1128, they took up the white habit of the Cistercians, adding a red cross. The order knights, sergeants, farmers and chaplains amassed enormous wealth.

In Rome, a Vatican spokesman said that the demand for an apology would be given “serious consideration”. However, Vatican insiders said that the Pope, 84, was under pressure from conservative cardinals to “stop saying sorry” for the errors of the past, after a series of papal apologies for the Crusades, the Inquisition, Christian anti-Semitism and the persecution of scientists and “heretics” such as Galileo.
Click to expand...

Source
 
I've been having a read through the more 'historical' and less 'speculative' books on the Templars (Barber, Piers Paul Read, Burman) - and it does occur to me that there is little in the way of hard evidence to suggest that the Knights Templar were anything other than crusading warrior monks. albeit quite an interesting story in itself, but the heresy, idol/head worship, etc - aren't these just false confessions made because of torture? Did the Inquisition have an idea of what it wanted to hear and asked questions accordingly (eg. denying Christ, obscene kisses, homosexuality, spitting on the cross) - weren't the Cathars and other 'outside' groups accused of very similar acts?

In which case, if the Templars were orthodox Catholics who - for whatever reason - were persecuted and destroyed, is there any reason to suppose the rumours of their being guardians of secret truths about Christianity (the Grail, scrolls discovered beneath the temple of Solomon, the Turin Shroud, Johannine heresy etc) are anything other than legends accrued over the centuries?

I would love for someone to prove me wrong and demonstrate otherwise, but - for instance - is there any real evidence to suggest that the Templars did, in their very early years, actually were involved in some sort of 'archaeological' expedition, excavating in Jerusalem?
 
I have been reading this thread, fascinated, since I have an interest in the Templars, but little knowledge, I believe St. Clair mentioned earlier that the templars probably would not have been permitted to excavate horizonatally into the temple of Solomon. I always thought they were persecuted because Philip ' the Fair ' of France was in dire financial straits and owed the Templars money, there were other reasons, but that's just a simple reason that I read a long while ago. So it was basically greed, and the charges were trumped up. ( so I read ) I do have a book that goes into this, but I think it's at my mothers, not here.
St Clair, I would also love to read your book, when the time comes. My interest goes back to when I was about 13 and read a book about the Crusades, it never made them out to be anything more than warrior monks, but that in itself interested me.
 
Lethe said:
I always thought they were persecuted because Philip ' the Fair ' of France was in dire financial straits and owed the Templars money, there were other reasons, but that's just a simple reason that I read a long while ago. So it was basically greed, and the charges were trumped up.
Click to expand...

I agree Lethe - that seems to me to be a far more likely explanation for their persecution than the idea that they possessed some secret harmful to orthodox Christianity. If they were in possession of such a secret (gnostic/Essene scrolls, the Ark, Jesus' embalmed head etc) wouldn't they have used this knowledge to their advantage and brought it into the open - 'we are the bearers of the Truth, the Church is founded on falsehood'? Or, if not, if that was too risky, then at the very least, surely rumours of their secret would have surfaced at the time?

But there doesn't seem to be any historical evidence for this ever having happened, not once, in the nearly 200 year period between the Templars' foundation and their destruction, although there is criticism of their arrogance and wealth.

The only thing I have come across so far in looking through the 'historical' Templar books that might accord with the 'speculative' ones, is the contemporary testimony about some Templars' escape. That word had got out about their imminent arrest (in 1307), so several Templar ships left La Rochelle taking their treasure with them. But it doesn't say where they went.

But at the moment I feel that there is less to the Templars than meets the eye, if you know what I mean. I would like to stress again that I'm not trying to wind anyone up and pour cold water on anyone's theories just for the sake of it - I would love it as much as anyone else were there to be strong evidence of a great secret surrounding the Templars.

Maybe there is more that I haven't come across - for instance, does anyone know are there demonstrable Templar links to Rosslyn Chapel, and thus, early Freemasonry? And similarly - is it historical fact that the Templars fought alongside Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn?
 
I think St Clair did cover this, several pages back, I also read about the Templar Fleet ' vanishing ' and links to Scotland, in my also vanished book. This is a long thread to read, but it's stuffed with so much information, ideas and also covers Rosslyn, I read it faster than i wished as some-one kept jumping on the pc, tomorrow when it's quiet, I shall re-read in peace.
 
I am interested in the fact that the requested apology is being reported in mainstream media and that the same sources are indicating that an apology might be forthcoming.

It may be something to do with the fact the SMOTJ were recognised as an NGO last year. Too many legitimate organisations are now claiming Templar ideals if not descent for the church to ignore it seems. So an easy way for them to have many people back into the fold is to simply absolve the Templars and welcome their descendants, whether real or imagined, back to the mother church.

All very dubious methinks. However, if an apology were made, who knows what material might be released, or what groups might emerge from the shadows to rweclaim their rightful place as the sword arm of the church.

LD
 
Templars and the Shroud of Turin

There's an interesting paragraph at the end of the "New Date for Shroud" article in FT 195:
Another hypothesis, championed by relic historian Rev David Sox, is that the shroud was the burial sheet of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Masterof the Knights Templar, burnt at the stake in 1314.
Click to expand...


<Skeptic alert>

As the image on the shroud clearly depicts a man with long flowing hair and a beard, either the burning at the stake was singularly ineffective, or the hair re-grew post mortem.

</Skeptic alert>
 
I must admit that when I read that line, I laughed out loud. Jaques was no saint - so miraculously reconstituting his flesh and hair was a bit tricky. And last time I looked, the image on the Shroud looks remarkably intact ... not like a giant jelly baby with smoked and barbecued gobbits of flesh and lard sticking to it.
 
Re: Templars and the Shroud of Turin

Arthur ASCII said:
There's an interesting paragraph at the end of the "New Date for Shroud" article in FT 195:
Another hypothesis, championed by relic historian Rev David Sox, is that the shroud was the burial sheet of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Masterof the Knights Templar, burnt at the stake in 1314.
Click to expand...


<Skeptic alert>

As the image on the shroud clearly depicts a man with long flowing hair and a beard, either the burning at the stake was singularly ineffective, or the hair re-grew post mortem.

</Skeptic alert>
Click to expand...

Oddly the Templars were banned from wearing their hair long, though many did.


Hey you guys should have come on my Templar walks then you would have known what they were all about! LOL

Steve
 
Re: Templars and the Shroud of Turin

Arthur ASCII said:
There's an interesting paragraph at the end of the "New Date for Shroud" article in FT 195:
Another hypothesis, championed by relic historian Rev David Sox, is that the shroud was the burial sheet of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Masterof the Knights Templar, burnt at the stake in 1314.
Click to expand...


<Skeptic alert>

As the image on the shroud clearly depicts a man with long flowing hair and a beard, either the burning at the stake was singularly ineffective, or the hair re-grew post mortem.

</Skeptic alert>
Click to expand...

In fairness, the argument posited by Knight & Lomas in 'The Hiram Key' (Ch. 14) was that de Molay was tortured before being burned - and that this torture comprised crucifixion. They argued that the imprint on the sheet was as a result of some sort of natural process (lactic acids from his blood reacting with frankincense or some such) as a result of the trauma of the torture.

Not that I'm endorsing this theory you understand LOL! There didn't seem to be much in the way of evidence, other than the image on the shroud of a long-haired beardie man bearing some resemblance to an engraving of de Molay where he is depicted as a long-haired beardie man.

And the latest re-dating of the Shroud (1400-3000 years old) would also tend to put the kibosh on their theory...
 
Interesting correspondence in this months' FT (April, no.195) letters page... Focussing on whether the early Templars really were in Jerusalem to protect pilgrims, or as archaeologists...I found Dr DG Hessayon's suggestion interesting - contrary to the view (as previously argued by Mike Powell - FT 192) that the original 9 Knights Templar would actually have comprised a group of up to 200 warriors - Dr Hessayon suggests that according to the Templars' own Rule, they would have had 3 horses and only one squire per Knight. Therefore a much smaller fighting force and therefore less able to defend pilgrims? (But there is still little or no hard evidence AFAIK for Templar excavations/archaeological discoveries).

What does everyone think? Any medievalists out there, who could settle this argument as to the numbers of fighting men accompanying a knight?
 
I imagine any questing knight would have a substantial reunite of squires/men-at-arms and other hangers on (chefs, wagonmasters etc...) From Europe to the Holy Land is a bloody long way and I wouldn't like to make it alone if I could afford not to.

I'm interested by this 'By their own rule.' business, does he state where this rule is from and back it up?
 
rjm said:
I imagine any questing knight would have a substantial reunite of squires/men-at-arms and other hangers on (chefs, wagonmasters etc...) From Europe to the Holy Land is a bloody long way and I wouldn't like to make it alone if I could afford not to.

I'm interested by this 'By their own rule.' business, does he state where this rule is from and back it up?
Click to expand...

Weeelll, Dr Hessayon (BTW could he be the same as the prolific and venerable 'gardeners' expert' series chap?) says that "According to Rule 138, each knight brother of the convent should have 3 horses and 1 squire; only with the master's permission could there be a 2nd squire and a 4th horse". His rationale for this is that they were the "Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ" so this rule was presumably in keeping with their monastic vow of poverty (the Rule was drawn up by Bernard of Clairvaux and has a lot of similarity, I gather, with that of the Cistercians.

However, I tried (briefly) to Google for this Rule 138, and the first 2 sites I came across only had 74 Rules... :?:

Try this one:

http://www.ordotempli.org/ancient_templar_rule_of_order.htm

Rule 51 seems to be the relevant one...also, 66, 67 and 68 refer to the squires.

But... would any additional and 'lesser' manservants not have been deemed worthy of mention, even though it woudl have been taken for granted that they would accompany a travelling knight and his squire? I should imagine that 3 horses would take some looking after...
 
I am still very sceptical. Until I see evidence quoted from an original manuscript or historical study and not some latter-day 'lets play Templars' website I will still have doubts.
 
rjm said:
I am still very sceptical. Until I see evidence quoted from an original manuscript or historical study and not some latter-day 'lets play Templars' website I will still have doubts.
Click to expand...

I am also sceptical about the Knights doing archaeology on the Temple Mount (although - to quote Keegan - I would love it, just love it, if it were true). I think I know what you mean about that website, but if you read the italicized introduction, it does seem to be a legitimate academic work they are quoting from. Boydell are AFAIK a reputable publisher. I am still curious as to where Dr Hessayon got Rule 138 from - next week, I should be able to get access to this Upton-Ward translation of the Rule, so can check it myself.

The following may also be of interest:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tyre-templars.html

See the 3rd paragraph which refers to the Knights' servants ('sergeants'), as well as countless 'brothers' ...although this was some time after the foundation of the order, with the original 9 Knights.
 
Re-reading Barber's The Trial of the Templars at the mo. Closest thing to primary sources I am likely to get to I reckon.

The thing that fascinates me in all this is that the head worshiping evidence seems to have been less widespread than some "revisionists" and "popular" historians would later have us believe.

I think that the issue of the papal apology, and the growing recognition of certain claimed descendants such as the SMOTJ (having received NGO status last year) means that in two years time on the anniversary of the arrests, 13/10/2007, there will probably be some public statement or coming out.

If the papal apology comes before then, and lets face it JP2 can't be too far from popping his proverbials, it is likely to be a significant date.

LD
 
sifaka said:
rjm said:
I am still very sceptical. Until I see evidence quoted from an original manuscript or historical study and not some latter-day 'lets play Templars' website I will still have doubts.
Click to expand...

I am also sceptical about the Knights doing archaeology on the Temple Mount (although - to quote Keegan - I would love it, just love it, if it were true). I think I know what you mean about that website, but if you read the italicized introduction, it does seem to be a legitimate academic work they are quoting from. Boydell are AFAIK a reputable publisher. I am still curious as to where Dr Hessayon got Rule 138 from - next week, I should be able to get access to this Upton-Ward translation of the Rule, so can check it myself.
Click to expand...

OK, have had a look at the J. Upton-Ward translation of the Rule - there is a rule 138 which states that Knights may have only 3 horses and 1 squire, unless they get specific permission from the Master. Rules 1-76 were the 'Primitive Rule' (written 1129), 77-278 were the 'Hierarchical Statutes' (written c.1165). 2 things struck me:

1) the Master was permitted to have, as part of his retinue, squires, a cook, servants, local 'Turcopole' warriors etc...which suggests that the average Knights weren't.

2) These Rules are very detailed and specific as regards conduct, clothing etc. But there is no mention of any excavation work or treasure hunting...it's all about delineating what is appropriate behaviour for fighting monks, AFAICS.

I guess what I am thinking is that, yes, there may well have been only 9 knights (plus squires) at the outset, but that this doesn't necessarily imply they were up to some covert excavation activity. Maybe it was seen as a dangerous mission which could well result in death, but would be a martyrdom? And maybe they knew that only 9 knights weren't enough to protect the pilrimages, but hoped (as indeed they did) to recruit more over the next few years?
 
lorddrakul said:
Re-reading Barber's The Trial of the Templars at the mo. Closest thing to primary sources I am likely to get to I reckon.

The thing that fascinates me in all this is that the head worshiping evidence seems to have been less widespread than some "revisionists" and "popular" historians would later have us believe.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. I can't recall who (Barber or Piers Paul Read?), but one of them cogently argued that the acts the Templars were accused of at their trial bore close resemblance to those levelled at other 'out' groups of the time (witches, Jews etc). Worshipping an idol, obscene kisses, indiscriminate coupling etc etc. In fact, the Romans accused the early Christians of similar things!

Did the Inquisition have preconceived ideas of the precise nature of the guilt and heresy of the Templars, and once one or two had confessed to these sorts of acts, the interrogators' questions would be determined by previous confessions? I suspect I would have admitted to anything they wanted if I was subjected to the kind of tortures they underwent...I found it astonishing that there were some victims who were steadfastly able to maintain their innocence despite being tortured...
 
Re: Templars and the Shroud of Turin

sifaka said:
In fairness, the argument posited by Knight & Lomas in 'The Hiram Key' (Ch. 14) was that de Molay was tortured before being burned - and that this torture comprised crucifixion. They argued that the imprint on the sheet was as a result of some sort of natural process (lactic acids from his blood reacting with frankincense or some such) as a result of the trauma of the torture.
Click to expand...
I still don't buy the arguement. Why wrap the body in an expensive winding cloth, only to unwrap it again for burning?....Tenuous speculation.
 
Apparently the tortures they underwent were horrendous, and yes, some did steadfastly maintain their innocence, there was a case of one knight carrying in some part of his body that had been removed ( I'll get the book from my mothers house ) it could be the broken bones of his fingers? I personally have never believed them guilty of anything more than being extremely wealthy and King Philip of France being broke, in debt to them, and greedy. Of course I'm only getting this from books too, but it sounds the most logical reason to me. I've never romanticed them, and I too have read that they ' aquired ' the Shroud, probably during the sack of Constantinople, and that the ' idol ' head they were accused of venerating, was what showed of the Shroud when it was folded up. All speculation, but interesting to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top