This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What this article states about the meeting of Guillaume de Nogaret and Pope Boniface VIII does not agree with what is stated in the article about him, see: Guillaume de Nogaret. Huldra 06:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed wording regarding the curse of Molay upon Clement V and Philip the Fair to read "According to legend......,' as this tidbit is not historically verifiable. Perhaps it should be moved to the legend section? DonaNobisPacem 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The removal of the reference to the Chinon parchment kind of negates the "pardon" part of this title. However, well-researched sources (such as Malcolm Barber's "The New Knighthood") indicate that the papal process did not denounce the overall order as heretic, and therefore had no need to be pardoned (see Chinon parchment, above). Overall, I have changed the section to reflect more accurately the end result of the claims of heresy, and the church's response. And out of necessity, of course, the title had to be re-worded. As a note - I have used Barber's book as a primary source, with some reference to the Newadvent.com article.

I apologize if it is not my usual carefully written style - I hammered this off a bit faster than usual, and will try to polish it up in the next little while.

It is perhaps expedient to also consider placing the claims of heresy before the ruin section - and some of the content I've just added might be a bit more appropriate there, now that I consider that. Input? DonaNobisPacem 06:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

PS - if you feel the need to revert, feel free to do so, but please provide explanations as to WHY and how the content I'm attempting to add could be made useful. I'm a bit of a newb, so don't mind input. That said, I've also done quite a bit of boring, conventional history on the Templars, and consider myself relatively knowledgeable in the subject. DonaNobisPacem 07:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for some stylistic changes - it has helped this section flow more smoothly. DonaNobisPacem 23:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed the wording "quickly became prime movers in the international politics of the Crusades period" should be changed to "became embroiled in the politics of the Crusades..." They were often manipulated by royalty, not the other way around; and were often swept along by situations rather than controlling them. The fact they were heavily politicized is true; to say they were the prime movers in those politics is misleading. For a more indepth look at the politics, read "The New Knighthood" by Malcolm Barber, a conventional Templar expert. DonaNobisPacem 00:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

....section needs to be rewritten, with the following in mind:

1.) Improved grammatical structure 2.) Establish if SMOTJ is of Masonic descent, as it appears there is some dispute over this.

DonaNobisPacem 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote - most internet sources did indicate the SMOTJ had an origin independant from Freemasonry, but pointed out there are similarities between it and the York Rite Knights Templar order - both of which claim (or have claimed) direct descent from the original Knights Templars. A few sources also indicated Masonic/SMOTJ dual membership is not unusual. DonaNobisPacem 06:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote- The origins of SMOTJ were most certainly as a split-off from the Masonic groups. See Draffen, George S. "Pour La Foy: A History of the Great Priory of Scotland." First Pub. by Dundee: George Winter and Son, 1948; repub. by Edinburgh: The Grand Lodge of Scotland, 2000.

Also see: Partner, Peter. "The Knights Templar and Their Myth." First pub. by: Oxford University press, 1981; revised edition pub. by Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books, 1990, especially Chapter 7 "The Romantic Dream."

The SMOTJ groups are greatly concerned with gaining "recognition," and are very reluctant to admit that their origins are relatively recent and connected with the Masonic Templar groups. The dream of many in SMOTJ is to gain "Royal Patronage" and recognition as the modern incarnation of the medieval Templars, and they see their actual origins as an impediment to this quest. T.A. Bruce 24 December 2005

Thanks TA Bruce - I have little knowledge in regards to the SMOTJ and went (and should have known better than this) by what I read on the first five or so web sites I visited. Most didn't claim direct descent from the Templars, but all seemed quite adament in claiming no origin within Freemasonry (despite the fact, as I mentioned in the article, dual membership is extremely common). In case anyone is wondering what the heck I'm doing on at this hour on Christmas eve, I'm the only one up and waiting for cookies to come out of the oven.....so I have an excuse, right?....right? DonaNobisPacem 08:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Good compromise Loremaster - not mentioning the Masonic thing at all might stop the constant reverts. DonaNobisPacem 16:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. As a major past contributor to the Knights Templar article, I decided to come back and do some cleanup. Loremaster 16:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am done. :) Loremaster 22:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been fascinating to see how quickly and how often the partisans of various Points of View change the references in the article to the Masonic and SMOTJ versions of modern templary. The article here would be greatly improved by removal of most references to these modern groups, but their respective adherents likely won't stop changing the statements to suit their own agendas.

While I can appriciate a view from both sides of the "aisle" I am nontheless compeled to say that A devout Roman Catholic nor a staunch Freemason can give an honest unbiased opinon about the origins of the Templars, or to its proper successors. The Church (Roman Catholicism) has already had enough egg on its face for the past centuries for anyone to be able to make a reasonable assurtion that the motive behind the suppression of the Templars was for monetary gain. Its another sad moment in the churches history (amoung them the De Medici Papacy, and the Inquisition) that I am sure it (the church) has tried desperately to forget and has had to apologize for. Copying and pasting the Catholic Churches opinon on the Templar Order from the Online Catholic Encylcopedia does not help either, It seems someone is taking another persons research as gospel without making there own conclusions or research.

The Church has done nothing but make excuses for its behavior instead to owing up to its mistakes. It has tried to usurp justice even today with its "sit on hands" policy regarding petifials in the church. It has stemmied freethinkers for generations that have been seen as subversive to the true mission of Rome. Continuing to this day to sell gods grace for a price instead of offering it to the truly penitent. This is noting more than a tying up loose ends measure for those that show blind loyalty to the church. Demolay WAS executed, Clement WAS Phillips puppet and the Templars fled and ran. If anyone can show me incontravertable evidence to the contrary without it coming from a papist mouth I am all ears.

Boy I am glad I live in the States, Rome has no power here. Do I believe in the Divity of Christ? you betcha! But I do not believe that one must pay homage to a human being in order to have a personal relationship with the savior. I do not believe that one must be "Educated" in order to recieve the eucharist. Jesus offered his followers bread and fish without cleansing them (the followers), and without reservation. He offered salvation to a prostitute, and murderer, and a thief on the cross without going through some arcane and grandiose ritual.

In my opinon the Templars were a powerful order that Rome and France thought had gotten "too big for thier Britches". Trumped up charges of heresy, sodomy, and satanism (not the first time Rome did this and certainly not the last). Executed all the Knights they could find, and divided the spoils amoung Phillip, Knights of St John, and Clement. Leaving a large contingent of Templars to stay with the already excommunicated Robert the Bruce in Scotland. Regardless of where the history starts again from there is a matter of conjecture. Whether or not the Roman Catholic Church had anything to do with it cannot be denied. Unless the papacy can admit to wrong doing without trying to sugar coat the facts, this controversy will continue for decades if not hundreds of years more.

I am sorry, I do not need a red candle to tell me Jesus is with me, all I have to do is pray and read the good book to know he is with me every step of the way. "Speas Mea en Deo Est"

Considering I had to write an unbiased research paper at a secular university, I would say yes, a Catholic can be unbiased - there is nothing wrong with admitting mistakes from the past of the Church...... DonaNobisPacem 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way - my info does come from a non-Catholic source - Malcolm Barber's "The New Knighthood," one of the best academic sources on the Knights. It actually makes many points to the fact that Clement, although bowing to pressure from Philip, was not his puppet; and also points to the fact that financial motivation, although a driving force for Philip, was most likely NOT the only reason for his actions - he probably was convinced by Nogaret and other ministers that the Templars were actually heretical, as he had been convinced in the case of the Jewish expulsion earlier on. DonaNobisPacem 15:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean to tell me the throne of PETER, the infallable seat of Rome "bowed to pressure" at the whims of a worldly king? Was it not enough that the Templars were the most loyal of Romes Soldiers at the time? What force or pressure could be great enough to have the Pope execute and burn at the sake, his most professional fighting unit. What motive would he have to not just simply disband the order, but kill every last Templar he could get his hands on? Allegations of heresy and sodomy were unfounded even by the churches own admission. Even if Nogaret managed to spread rumors of an alleged heresy convincing Phillip, the Order only answered to the Pope anyway, not to Phillip and certainly not to Nogaret.

Based on the track record of the Church the burden of evidence rests in my opinion for the church to definitvely prove otherwise. To me there is reasonable doubt to suspect that the charges leveled against the Templars were trumped up by an otherwise greedy king, and a jellyfish pope. In my line of work I find Greed can be a powerful motivation. It can corrupt the most sober of Judges, and the most honest of Businessmen. I don't see any reason why the Holy See or the King of France were any different. I also find it hard to believe a Church that had threatened to excommunicate Edward II of England if he did not turn over English Templar Holdings to the north, a church that would later excommunicate Henry VIII of England who was looking for a divorce. Could not have also tossed aside Phillips allegations at very little consequence imposed on the Holy See. Unless the church itself had something to gain (at least indirectly) as a result of the siezure, maybe money perhaps but we will never know for certain.

We read about history in a sterile environment, pondering the facts and not taking into account that these people who we are debating now were nonetheless human, had human flaws, vices and bad habits. I do not believe that because Clement was pope gave him any sort of exception to these flaws or vices and certainly not to Phillip. It has been generaly accepted that the charges against the Templars were indeed false. Only Clement and Phillip the Fair know for certain. Flawed as humans are were are nontheless inclined to our personal bias, people that have been raised or inclined to believe a certain way either by environment, or family will undoubetly write from thier own persepctive a perspective usually colored with thier own beliefs (the media calls it spin). That is why I believe an institution like the Roman Catholic Church and its parishoners cannont give an accurate depiction of the events surrounding the trail, torture, and execution of the Poor Knights of Christ.

I am sure if this case would ever go to a real trail a Roman Catholic, and even a Freemason would not make the jury selection. Its what makes our system in the United States so different from the tortured confessions of the middle ages. Here no MAN is holier than the law not even Saddam. "Speas Mea en Deo Est"

I assume I speak on behalf of all when I say "what the fuck are you talking about" and "what does this have to do with Wikipedia, or anything else". Adam Bishop 07:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

Gee, I thought I was talking about the subject matter. It is a talk forum right? I thought we had the opportunity for the free exchange of ideas and theories? I have given to no bad words like f---. I have made no personal attacks to any forum member, only my reasons for doubting the motives of the church, and why I believe Roman Catholics can not give an unbiased opinion on the trail of the Templars.

Whoa, no personal attacks? On a page about the Templars, on which the talk should focus, you've managed to cram in almost every stereotype of anti-Catholicism! And directed not towards the Church in general, but towards myself as a contributor! You've called me biased without (I am assuming) reading my sources, and obviously disregarding my many edits to the history of the Order that met with no criticism. As pointed out on your talk page, many of your comments violate Wikipedia's civility protocols. Please observe them, and try to contribute constructively to the discussion here. If you take issue with an edit, address it specifically; quote the objectionable content, cite your objections, your proposed edit, and give sources. Don't come into a forum to make random, abstract comments on bias with no substantiation. Please don't plead innocence with "Gee, I thought I was talking about the subject matter" - you addressed no particular point on the history, legends, etc, and instead wrote comments intended to provoke. DonaNobisPacem 19:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No I did not say "DonaNobisPacem tell lies" or that "DonaNobisPacem does not know what he is talking about" If you take my criticism of the Roman Catholic Churches handling of the Templar trials as a personal affront to your integrity as a scholar then that is something you will have to consider on your own. I also read the "civility" protocols you are so fond of mentioning. I have made no death threats to any contributor, I have made no ethnic or intimidating slurs. My contributions are based on recognized fact that the Churches "investigation" into the matter is to this day regarded by even the most ardent

of Templar Scholars as being a no less than a witchhunt, unsubstantiated by confessions brought on by torture. How am I not adressing historical fact when I stated "I also find it hard to believe a Church that had threatened to excommunicate Edward II of England if he did not turn over English Templar Holdings to the north" How is this not a fact?

For the record: Although I posted 2 links to 2 pages from one Masonic website, I am not a staunch Mason nor an anti-Mason. However, I think it's informative and refreshing to hear from Masons that do not believe that Freemasonry had its origins in the medieval Knights Templar. Loremaster 16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the civility issue, please refer to my response on my talk page. We can continue the discussion there if necessary.

In regards to the trial, I still am not sure what your issue is here. I shall list the facts of the trial, as I have researched them, and we can examine the issue point by point if necessary. My sources are, unless otherwise stated, Malcolm Barber's "The New Knighthood," Peter Partner's "Murdered Magicians," and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Barber was the primary reference; when either Partner or the Encyclopedia were used as reference, I checked the for conflict with Barber's book; if there was conflict, I defaulted to Barber's account.

• On Friday Oct 13, 1307, Philip IV orders the arrest of the Templars in France (most of whom were elderly, infirm, or serving brothers); this has been planned for a few months. The most likely motivation is desiring the wealth of the Order, but paired with a belief in the Order's heretical practices. The latter is given weight by the earlier expulsion of the Jews (he seized their wealth, but also believed they were desecrating the host), and his earlier actions against Pope Boniface VIII and Guichard, Bishop of Troyes; he was motivated by the belief the pope and the bishop were heretics. He was most likely under the influence of William of Nogaret (excommunicated for the kidnapping of Pope Boniface VIII) and other ministers, as well as French nobility who wanted to gain Templar lands and lessen Church authority. The common strand that runs through all of these events is Philip IV’s belief that he was the saviour of the “true Christianity of the sacred realm of France” from the heretical and diabolical actions of Boniface VIII, Guichard, the Jews, and lastly the Templars.

• The justification for the trial was given as the "revelations" of a few members who had lost their habit. The charges included spitting, trampling, or urinating on the cross; while naked, being kissed obscenely by the receptor on the lips, navel, and base of the spine; heresy and worship of idols; institutionalized homosexuality; and also accusations of contempt of the Holy Mass and denial of the sacraments

• Royal officials, acting nominally under the Inquisition but in reality under the direction of the French crown, began an investigation using torture. In one month of investigations, only 4 of 138 members denied the charges. Including those who confessed were Jacques de Molay, Hugh of Pairaud, the Visitor of the Temple in the West, and Geoffrey of Charney, the Preceptor of Normandy. Within weeks of their arrests Templars were brought into the public to confess to their crimes. The credibility of the trials is (obviously) dubious, as is made obvious by the confessions of knights such as John of Tour (read the book for more details :) )

• Objecting to the disregard of his authority, Clement annulled the proceedings, and suspended the powers of the French bishops and their inquisitors. But bowing to public (that part is important) and royal pressure, Clement eventually ordered a general arrest of Templars outside of France. He then started an investigation: within a month, several leaders recanted their testimonies; the pope stopped proceedings, and the trial stagnated for six months.

• In June 1308, not too pleased with how things were going, Philip arranged for 72 carefully selected Knights to give testimony before the Pope at Poitier. The Pope was sufficiently worried by their testimony to begin a two-part investigation: one in individual dioceses, to determine the guilt of the individual members of the order, and the other a papal investigation to determine the guilt of the Order as a whole. These proceeded at a rather slow pace, further aggravating Philip.

• In February 1310, thirty-two Templars led by Peter of Bologna, the procurator of the Order for the papacy, and Renaud of Provins, mounted an effective defence of the order. Philip IV then arranged for fifty-four Templars who had recanted their earlier admission of guilt to be handed over to secular authorities and burned as relapsed heretics in dioceses where the bishops largely owed their position to the patronage of the king. After this, Templars sent before the papal commission were carefully selected by French authorities to be those who had already confessed to heresy in the French proceedings (as evidenced by Templars from the Diocese of Cleremont.

• Despite the poor defense of the Order, when the papal commission ended its proceedings on June 5, 1311, it found no evidence that the Order itself held heretical doctrines, or used a "secret rule" apart from the Latin and French rules. On October 16, 1311, at the General Council of Vienne held in Dauphiné, the council voted for the maintanence of the Order. At this time, although not all diocesan processes had finished, aside from a few convictions in Italy and the convictions in France, virtually no Templars were convicted of heresy. In France, the initial confessions, though the process had been annulled, were considered to be established fact; and various sentences of imprisonment were handed out to those considered relapsed or impenitent. No further Knights were burned, other than Molay and one other upper official.

• On March 22, 1312, Clement V promulgated the bull Vox in excelsis in which he stated that although there was not sufficient reason to condemn the Order, for the common good, the hatred of the Order by Philip IV, the scandal brought about by their trial, and the likely dilapidation of the Order that was likely to result from the trial, the Order was to be suppressed by the pope’s authority over it. It is important to note it was not condemned by the Church.

• This was followed by the bull Ad Providum on May 2, 1312, which granted all of the Order's lands and wealth to the Hospitallers so that its original purpose could be met. Philip held onto some lands until 1318, and in England the crown and nobility held a great deal until 1338; in many areas of Europe (including England), the land was never given over to the Hospitaller Order, instead taken over by nobility and monarchs in an attempt to lessen the influence of the Church and its Orders. Of the knights who had not admitted to the charges, against those whom nothing had been found, or those who had admitted but reconciled to the Church, some joined the Hospitallers (even staying in the same Templar houses); others joined Augustinian or Cistercian houses; and still others returned to secular life with pension. In Portugal and Aragon, the Holy See granted the properties to two new Orders, the Order of Christ and the Order of Montessa respectively, made up largely of Templars in those kingdoms. In the same bull, he urged those who had pleaded guilty be treated “according to the rigours of justice, tempered by a generous mercy.”

• Molay and his first three dignitaries were found guilty as individuals by the papal commission. They were brought into public to recant of their crimes, after which they were to be imprisoned for life; Molay and Geoffrey of Charney instead denied the charges. Molay announced the innocence of the Order, and offered his life for his false testimony of heresy. Both were seized by French secular authorities as relapsed heretics and burned before the royal palace in 1314. Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the cardinals of the papal commission at one point in 1308 falsified his testimony, saying he plead guilty when he had in reality plead innocent in that appearance, to prevent him from being burned at by French authorities as a relapsed heretic (many in the Order and the Church heirarchy thought the Order would be found innocent, and resume its prior position when the papal commission ended).

There it is in a nutshell - yes, Clement bowed to secular authority and public pressure in France to have the trial take place, but he didn't exactly benefit from the proceedings; in fact, the Church lost influence in many areas due to secular nobility retaining Templar lands and the scandal caused by the trial. Clement also attempted to keep the lands out of Philip's hands, hardly indicating a willing co-operation; in fact, Clement had been undergoing a process of trying to remove clergy from secular influence, particularly in France, prior to the trial. His suspension of bishops and inquisitors' rights after the suspension of the initial French process confirms this fact. Most historians agree - although Clement was weak in his decisions, the motivation for the trial was entirely Philip's, in both his belief in the heresy of the Order, and his desire to obtain their wealth.

So - now that we have it down on paper, as it were - would you like to argue some specific points? DonaNobisPacem 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)