Jump to content

Talk:Knights Templar/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Chinon Document - absolved and pardoned - what the terms meant

http://templarfellowship.com/article/Our_Library/Templar_References/English_Translation_of_Chinon_Document/18176

This paragraph below concerns the first templar being interrogated at Chinon Castle (Raymbaud de Caron, preceptor the commandaries ofTemplar Knights in Outremer). De Caro publicly takes an oath on a bible and talking out loud, describes how during the ceremony when he was first initiated into the Order, everything was proper, but directly after the ceremony he was told to denounce the cross and, thinking it was a regular part of the initiation, did so. The next day after his initiation, he privately revealed this to his blood relative (a bishop) what happened during the Sacrament of Confession, was given a Penance and absolution.


In the year of our Lord 1308, the 6th indiction, on the 17th day of August, in the 3d year of the pontificate of the said Pope Clement V, brother Raymbaud de Caron, preceptor the commandaries ofTemplar Knights in Outremer, was brought in front of us, the aforementioned fathers, to the town of Chinon of the Tours diocese.With his hand on the Holy Gospel of the Lord he took an oath that he would speak pure and complete truth about himself as well individuals and brothers of the Order, and about the Order itself, concerningquestions of Catholic faith and the Rule of the said Order, and alsoabout five particular individuals and brothers of the Order. Diligently interrogated by us about the time and circumstances of his initiationin the order he said that it was been forty-thee years or thereabouts since he had been knighted and admitted into the Templar Order by brother Roncelin de Fos, at the time preceptor of Provence, in the town of Richarenchess, in the diocese of Carpentras or Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux, in the chapel of the local Templarcommandery. During the ceremony the patron said nothing to the novicethat was not proper, but after the admittance a servant-brother came upto him whose name he does not recall, for he has been dead for a longtime. He took him aside holding a small cross under his cloak, and whenall the brothers exited and they remained alone, that is thisbrother-servant and the speaker, this brother-servant showed this crossto the speaker who does not recall whether it bore the effigy of the crucifix or not, but believes however, that there was a crucifix eitherpainted or carved. And this brother-servant told the speaker: “You must denounce this one.” And the speaker, not believing himself to becommitting a sin, said: “And so, I denounce.” That brother-servant alsotold the speaker that he should preserve purity and chastity, but if hecould not do so, it was better to be done secretly than publicly. Thespeaker also said that his denunciation did not come from the heart,but from the mouth. Then he said that the next day he revealed this tothe bishop of Carpentras, his blood relative, who was present in the said place, and the bishop told him that he had acted wrongly and committed a sin. Then the interrogated confessed on this account to thesame bishop and was assigned penances with he completed, according to him.


He goes on to state (to the Cardinal who is at that moment “publically” interrogating him at Chinon that he never did any of the other things he was accused of (see the translation for specifics). Then Raymbaud de Caron is given the private Sacrament of Penance by this Cardinal at Chinon and “absolved” from Excommunication” thereby able to be forgiven by God and once again able to be a part of the Church (and receive the Sacraments). See below


After this oath, by the authority of lord Pope specifically granted to us for that purpose, we extended to this humbly asking brother Raymbaud, in a form accepted by the Church the mercy of absolution from the verdict of excommunication that had been incurred by the aforementioned deeds, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him for communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.


Then comes Geoffroi de Charney, (in paragraph 6 through 10) and basically the same thing happens. First a “public” confession, then a “private confession” (through the Sacrament of Penance as described above) then the “absolution” and Penance.


Also, on the same day, brother knightGeoffroy of Charny, preceptor of commanderies of the Templar Order inNormandy, appearing personally in the previously described manner andform, in our presence, and in the presence of notaries, as well aswitnesses, modestly swore with his hand on the Gospel of the Lord andwas questioned about the manner of his reception into the said Order.He testified that it has well been forty years or thereabouts since hewas accepted into the Order of Knights Templar by brother Amaury de laRoche, the preceptor of France in Étamps of the diocese of Sens, in thechapel of the local Templar commandery. Present at the ceremony werebrother Jean le Franceys, preceptor of Pédenac, and nine, ten or sobrothers of the said Order whom he all believed to be dead now. Andthen, once he had been accepted in the order and the cloak of the orderhad been placed on his shoulders, the brother who performed the ceremony took him aside within the same chapel and showed him a crucifix with an effigy of Christ, and told him that he should not believe in the Crucified, but should in fact denounce Him. Then the newly accepted brother at the demand of the said recipient denounced Him verbally, but not in his heart. Also, he said that at the time of his induction, the novice kissed the recipient on the mouth and in his chest through the garment as a sign of reverence. After this, we concluded to extend themercy of absolution for these acts to brother Geoffroy, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the describedand any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel,and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unitywith the Church and reinstating him for communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.


Then, the same happens with brotherGeoffroy de Gonneville. *see translation”

Then, the same happens with brother Hugo de Pérraud, preceptor of Templar. “See Translation”

Then, comes Jacques de Molay, grandmaster of the Orderof Knights Templar. See “translation”

Then in paragraph 32 of the document it is stated that a notary records the “public” confessions and witnesses also sign this document.

Robert de Condet, cleric ofthe diocese of Soissons, a notary by apostolic power, who was among ustogether with notaries and witnesses listed below, to record and makepublic as evidence these confessions

The Cardinal, invested by the Pope then “pardons” the Templars from Excommunication and restores them to the Sacraments.

http://www.inrebus.com/chinon.php

The “absolution” is with the “private” “Sacrament of Penance” and the Pardon is the pardon of the Pope of “Excommunication” as given by the Cardinals who did the “private” and “public” confessions.

The “absolution” only refers to the “private” “Sacrament of Penance”. The “pardon” has to do with the “public” removal of “Excommunication”. The word "absolution" only means one thing in the Roman Catholic Church - and rhis was well-understood in medieval times as it was one of the foundations on which it was formed - what Christ directed to his apostles, then carried down to every priest thereafter. http://www.knightstemplar.org/KTnews/ia.htm ALSO http://www.masonicnetwork.org/blog/2009/the-chinon-parchment-were-the-knights-templar-pardoned/ ALSO http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Knights_Templar ALSO; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1565252/Vatican-paper-set-to-clear-Knights-Templar.html

I know this may seem very confusing, especially to a non-Roman Catholic. Indeed, some websites misuse the terms. But this is what actually happened.

The Pope could not “absolve” the individual Templars because he did not hear their “private” confessions. The Cardinal, on behalf of the Pope, did hear their “private confessions” and did so. What the Pope did was to either “pardon” them afterwards or give the Cardinal at Chinon the power to do so, releasing them from “Excommunication” and, thus “savings their souls”.

The Cardinal could not reveal what was said in the "private Confessions" because of the Seal of the Confessional, well known in the Middle Ages as it is today. That is why there were "Public" Confessions as well as "Private" Confessions in each instance as referenced in the document. The word absolved is used incorrectly because in the Roman Catholic Liturgy absolution only refers to one thing and one thing only - that given by the individual priest (in this case a Cardinal, who is also a priest) after Confession. It always has.


MY NOTE: I was raised a Roman Catholic and have attended twelve years of Catholic school.

As we all know, this was all a great farce, a corrupt and greedy Pope, putting on a great performance to share in the lucrative spoils. The confessions were, of course, all forced, the men, already weak and dying, and the Pope trying to save face while all the time being aligned with the French King to find an excuse for the stealing of their money and vast land holdings, ironically, one of which was Chinon Castle, where they were when this particular episode happened.


The original Latin gives the words absolutionem and absolvimus - Example: "Et sic itaque praedictis omnibus examinatis, et petentibus absolutionem de commissi, eisdem abjurantibus omnem haeresim, sigillatim et singulariter absolvimus eosdem, et eos restituimus Sacramentis, et Ecclesiae unitati." (Translation: When all the aforementioned had been examined and had sought absolution from the Emissaries, and had foresworn all heresy, we gave each of them absolution individually and restored them to the Sacraments and to the unity of the Church.)Lung salad (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


It seems you have made my point with a lot less words. It was not the Pope, however, who had the authority to "absolve" them on the spot, but the Cardinal, who heard their Confessions. What the Pope did, I think, is to give the authority to the Cardinals to remove their "Excommunication". Thus, when the Pope is mentioned, the correct term is "Pardoned". When the Cardinals are mentioned the use of the term is the (private) "absolution". Mugginsx (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing new in the document discovered by Barbara Frale. In his revised edition of Trial of the Templars, Malcolm Barber only mentioned the Chinon document in passing, and in another part of his book only mentioned Frale's opinion relating to the guilt/innocence of the Order. If the original Latin uses the words "absolved"/"absolution" then those are the words that should be used Lung salad (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
When the Pope is mentioned, the correct term is "Pardoned". When the Cardinal at Chinon is mentioned the use of the term is the (private) "absolution" or the public sworn documents they signed confessing to their "crimes". Mugginsx (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's stick to the original words used in the original Latin source documents, as signed by the authors. Lung salad (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolution is the correct word to be used within the context of ecclesiastical matters, since it is to do with religion. The properly translated word from the Latin original document is being used, anyway. The word "Pardon" refers to secular civil or criminal law. Lung salad (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Chinon Parchement final comment

The good thing about Wikipedia is that if all editors work together for truth, a good article can be produced.

The bad thing about Wikipedia is that if some editors work only with themselves, an inaccurate article is produced. This is now an inaccurate article in that the Chinon parchment is inaccurately explained. You almost got it right in the Trial of the Knights Templar where you said you followed the Latin text, but not quite. Apparently you failed to look under the link for Absolution. The Pope cannot give absolution long distance. He also cannot give a general absolution because the second requirement could not be satisfied. You are reading but not understanding your own references. Mugginsx (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Extract: Papal Bull, Vox in excelso (28 March 1312). "We wished to know the truth of the whole matter and whether their confessions and depositions, which were said to have been made in the presence of the inquisitor of heresy in the kingdom of France and witnessed by certain public notaries and many other good men, and which were produced in public and shown to us and our brothers by the inquisitor, were true. We empowered and commanded our beloved sons Berengar, Cardinal, then with the title of Nereo and Achilleo, now Bishop of Frascati, and Stephen, Cardinal-priest with the title of Saint Cyriac in Thermis, and Landulf, Cardinal-deacon with the title of Saint Angelo, in whose prudence, experience and loyalty we have the fullest confidence, to make a careful investigation with the grand master, visitor and preceptors, concerning the truth of the accusations against them and individual persons of the Order and against the Order itself. If there was evidence, it was to be brought to us; the confessions and depositions were to be taken down in writing by a public notary and presented to us. The cardinals were to grant absolution from the sentence of excommunication, according to the form of the Church, to the master, visitor and preceptors - a sentence incurred if the accusations were true - provided the accused humbly and devoutly requested absolution, as they ought to." Malcolm Barber, Keith Bate, The Templars: selected sources translated and annotated, page 313 (Manchester University Press, 2002). ISBN 978-0-7190-5110-4

Lung salad (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I am surprised someones has not reminded you that "new sources" are better than "old sources". That usually what happens when one cites a medieval source. However, I am not one of them, because I do not personally subscribe to that concept, nor does Norman Cantor in his book: Inventing the Middle Ages. Well, it seems that we will have to agree to disagree on this subject until the Vatican release more documents. Good evening. Mugginsx (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This is my response on Mugginsx's talk page regarding his points for the "pardon/absolve" debate, however, I think that they make sense here, so I am including them for others to judge. He gave me four websites that he believed proved his point for using "pardoned". Two I dismissed out of hand as being unreliable and not meeting WP:RS. One was a news website from England that was a good source. This link however gives an english translation to the Chinon Parchment, and so I thought it especially valid here, and I copy and pasted that section:
http://www.masonicnetwork.org/blog/2009/the-chinon-parchment-were-the-knights-templar-pardoned/: This one I can accept and would use as a source, as it appears to be an English translation of the text, however, you seem not to have read it, as the word "absolution" is used 9 times. It clearly states absolution to several people, specifcally absolving: Geoffroy of Charny, Geoffroy de Goneville, Raymbaud de Caron, Hugo de Pérraud and de Molay himself. The translation does not use "pardon" or "pardoned" at all, those words appearing only in the title given the article by the website. Here I copy and paste yet again, bold mine:
(regarding Goneville) " After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Geoffroy de Goneville, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him for communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church."
(regarding Charny) "After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Geoffroy, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him for communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church."
(regarding Raymbaud) "After this oath, by the authority of lord Pope specifically granted to us for that purpose, we extended to this humbly asking brother Raymbaud, in a form accepted by the Church the mercy of absolution from the verdict of excommunication that had been incurred by the aforementioned deeds, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him for communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.
(regarding Hugo) "After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Hugo, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church."
(regarding de Molay) "After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Jaques de Molay, the grandmaster of the said order, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church."
Please understand, I do not mean to browbeat the subject, and am in no way saying anything about you personally. The arguments you put forth may very well be valid as concerns what the Pope should/should not have been able to do, and I bow to your thoughts on them as you are clearly more versed in Papal law than I am. However, the sources even YOU have given say absolve/absolution overwhelmingly, especially the translation of the document in question. We also both know that the Pope throughout history has OFTEN used powers, taken powers, or given himself powers that he should by no rights possess, and I do not find it hard to believe at all that a Pope as corrupt as Clement V would unilaterally grant absolution regardless of his legal ability to do so according to Church Law (as it specifically states in the Raymbaud absolution "by the authority of lord Pope specifically granted to us for that purpose....") Again, my argument comes mostly from a historians viewpoint of what the source actually SAYS, not what people think it means. I one hundred percent agree with you that this was a travesty of tremendous proportions that should never have been perpetrated. However, since it was, we owe it to history and I would say to the Templars themselves to stick to the facts that we have, and those facts are (according to the translation of the CP) that they were absolved. Vyselink (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Vyselink - as to the sentences that you have mentioned that state "absolution", they begin with "WE" meaning the Cardinal or Cardinals. They are not using the Royal "WE". the church does not do that. I am using your own examples to show that the Cardinals are - Repeating below your own examples:
"After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Jaques de Molay,
(regarding Goneville) " After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Geoffroy de Goneville, who in the form and manner
(regarding de Molay) "After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Jaques de Molay, the grandmaster of the said order, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described
(regarding Hugo) "After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Hugo, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described
and so on - the "We" refers to the Cardinals present -not the pope.
As to the references I supplied, I disagree that they do not meet WP:RS. The organizaton Knights Templar in Iowa is not some "popculture" site. It is a serious organization with Roman Catholics as members. As to my references, I believe that Elonka herself uses one of the references that I either used here or at the other Templar article. And there was another reference that I gave, a Catholic reference - you did not mention that one here as far as I can tell. Also, if you have solicited outside opinions, that is great. Had I been aware you were going to do that I would have advised you that I would need time to prepare myself since I am not able to be on Wikipedia all day.Mugginsx (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolution is the correct word to be used within the context of ecclesiastical matters, since it is to do with religion. The properly translated word from the Latin original document is being used, anyway. The word "Pardon" refers to secular civil or criminal law.Lung salad (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
NOT IN THE MIDDLE AGES. The Pope and the King could both Pardon. The laws of the Church and the laws of the Kingdon were often the same. If fact, at some times in History, the Pope had MORE power than a particular King. Virtually everybody was Catholic. There was not SEPARATE eccesiastical law the way there is today. You have still not even addressed my answer above. I do not know how to have a discussion with someone who ignores what he or she does not want to address, more specifically, the examples YOU provided above. You are lumping everything that happened at Chinon as ONE mater. It was not. It was PUBLIC interrogation, PRIVATE confession and absolution, and PUBLIC signed and notarized confessions. I show you websites, you diss them. I show you Wiki articles defining a process, you simply point to your documentation. I am going to go over that documentation of yours out of respect for what you have said. I wish you would do the same.
The French King could not absolve the Knights Templar, only the Pope could do that. And only the French King could pardon them. Yes, people use the words intechangeably, but both words mean one thing when it comes down to ecclesiastical matters: absolution Lung salad (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course not. The Pope and the King could Pardon with respect to certain laws. Some of them are distinct some of them are similar in meaning. The Pardon in the Chinon Document refers to the Pope only. Now you are no longer addressing the facts, but reinterpreting what I am saying. The discussion is no longer an honest one. You gave me examples, I addressed them, you dropped the matter. I had five sources, you state only one of them was good, a UK site and yet the site you used was not the same UK site source I cited two UK sources. I repeat the sources for other readers here and then I am retiring for the day. The last thing I will say is that you talk as if your decision is the only one that matters. There are other editors reading this. You seem to have forgotten that with the tone of your responses. These are my websites - not just the "two" you combined into one in your answer. The site that shows the parchment trnaslation you mentioned is different than the UK site you also mentioned. You combined them as one. http://www.knightstemplar.org/KTnews/ia.htm ALSO http://www.masonicnetwork.org/blog/2009/the-chinon-parchment-were-the-knights-templar-pardoned/ ALSO http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Knights_Templar ALSO; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1565252/Vatican-paper-set-to-clear-Knights-Templar.html
Just to be clear Mugginsx, Lungsalad is not the author of the above (admittedly LONG) post, that was me. Don't want him taking the blame. Vyselink (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Have corrected that. My apoligies to LungSalad. Good evening. Mugginsx (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that canon law was distinct from Roman/civil law and local customs by this point, so there definitely was a separate ecclesiastical law. Of course, sometimes laws overlapped, but still, canon law was a distinct thing. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, you gave me four sources, per your original post on my page, and I even gave a link to my FULL response on your page so that people could see the response to all four in detail if they chose(click on "talk" in the original post in the opening sentence), so please do not accuse me of attempting to mislead other readers. Here is your list of four sites you gave to me on my talk page:(copy and pasted): "I have laid out my reasoning to you in detail on the Knights Templar Talk Page. There are numerous websites that use the word "Pardon" I have not read Barbara Frale's book, and, personally, I do not have a high opinion of her. I think that she perhaps sensationalized the entire Chinon episode for fame and, in doing so, misrepresentated its meaning. Here are other websites that mention the Pope's "Pardon" http://www.knightstemplar.org/KTnews/ia.htm ALSO http://www.masonicnetwork.org/blog/2009/the-chinon-parchment-were-the-knights-templar-pardoned/ ALSO http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Knights_Templar ALSO; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1565252/Vatican-paper-set-to-clear-Knights-Templar.html"
As I said in my response: "Two I dismissed out of hand as being unreliable and not meeting WP:RS. One was a news website from England that was a good source. This link however gives an english translation to the Chinon Parchment, and so I thought it especially valid here, and I copy and pasted that section". That is four. I have also not "solicited outside opinions". I simply took the websites you gave me and analyzed them. There is no fifth "Catholic" one as you claimed above on my page. And again, as far as the "we" are concerned, as I stated above: "We also both know that the Pope throughout history has OFTEN used powers, taken powers, or given himself powers that he should by no rights possess, and I do not find it hard to believe at all that a Pope as corrupt as Clement V would unilaterally grant absolution regardless of his legal ability to do so according to Church Law (as it specifically states in the Raymbaud absolution "by the authority of lord Pope specifically granted to us for that purpose....")".
As for the two I dismissed (http://www.knightstemplar.org/KTnews/ia.htm and http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Knights_Templar) I will grant that the first one MAY be reliable, although I doubt it. The second one however is definitively NOT reliable. The third one that I mentioned briefly (the "news website from England") I admitted was a good source, but I did not bring it up because it seemed inconsequential given what else I wrote about it on your personal talk page. It was the fourth (and last) one (http://www.masonicnetwork.org/blog/2009/the-chinon-parchment-were-the-knights-templar-pardoned/) that I went deep into because it was by far the best source you gave, and is one that I would use without hesitation as a source.
As to your charge of "outside sources", I used nothing but your own sites to give you my differing opinion. I think you may have misread the "This link however gives an english translation to the Chinon Parchment, and so I thought it especially valid here" and its ensuing breakdown as an outside source, when in fact it wasn't, merely the source that you gave to me. I have given plenty of respect to your sites, otherwise I would not even have bothered to go in depth into the ones I thought valuable, as I did. And even on the Iowa one, I showed you where they quoted the CP, it said "absolve", NOT "pardon". The thelemapedia one I am tired of mentioning, because it is not valuable when it is literally using only Wikipedia as a referenced source, and WP from 2004 to boot. I did not post my entire response on your talk page here because the rest of it seemed inconsequential to what I wanted to point out here, which was the FACT that the word "absolution" is used 9 times in the Chinon Parchment, and the word "pardon" is not used once.
I am attempting to be respectful of you and your obvious knowledge of Vatican Law. If you want to say that the Pope actually pardoned them based on Vatican Law, ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that subject. However, as I have argued since the first moment I mentioned it, the Chinon Parchment itself, which is the BASIS for the entire section, does not use "pardon". It uses "absolution". Based on that, changing the word to "pardon" would be a MISREPRESENTATION of what the document says. Vyselink (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep going round in circles. The original document uses the word absolution and not pardon. The word absolution therefore has to be used. The Knights Templar were not pardoned by anyone. They were absolved by the Pope through his cardinals and condemned by the King of France. Nothing can be simpler. The word absolution has to be used in the article. Lung salad (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Vyselink you also seem very knowledgeable, especially on the Latin. I will defer to you. I am, however, going to study the sources you mentioned for my own edification. It is possible that this Pope took on powers that he did not have. Though I was raised Roman Catholic, I am not foolish enough to believe that every Pope was anointed by "God" to always do the right thing. Additionally, this site, using one of the latin words you gave, "absolutionem" seems to indicate a "general absolution" which just such a devious Pope could have tried. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19780120_assoluzione-generale_en.html The word "absolvimus" does not translate in 2 of today's Latin translators but that may be because we are dealing with "Middle Latin" I presume? Mugginsx (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed from one of your sources that the Cardinals were instructed only to absolve the particular templars if they "admitted" to their crimes. Quite a trap. Disgusting to think about as a Catholic. Mugginsx (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Lung Salad and Vyselink: Both of your information is interesting. I am looking at all of it. As a complete aside from the above controversy, I noticed that the Order from Clement V for the individual Cardinals to go to Chinon was, at least initially, verbal. (end of first paragraph at this translation) http://templarfellowship.com/article/Our_Library/Templar_References/English_Translation_of_Chinon_Document/18176
"...the very same lord Pope wishing and intending to know the pure, complete and uncompromised truth from the leaders of the said Order, namely brother Jacques de Molay, grandmaster of the Order of Knights Tempar, brother Raymbaud de Caron, preceptor the commandaries of Templar Knights in Outremer, brother Hugo dePérraud, preceptor of France, brother Geoffroy de Gonneville, preceptor of Aquitania and Poitou, and Geoffroy of Charny, preceptor of Normandy, ordered and commissioned us specifically and– by his verbally expressed will in order that we might with diligence examine the truth by questioning the grandmaster and the aforementioned preceptors
This leads me to think that your points, Vyselink and Lung salad, that the Pope may have used powers he really did not legally possess in Canon Law are correct. Good points and one I never thought of. Sometimes one can become too rigid in their view as to doctrine vs reality and it seems I have done so here. Following that philosphy, there seems to have been two kinds of absolution here a private and a public one. These were powers the pope did not legally possess but, nonetheless claimed. My apologizes. At any rate it will be interesting if and when the Vatican publishes their promised statements on this document and this episode. Mugginsx (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Just as a note, I went through and did some periodic cleanup on the article, making the spelling consistent with American spelling, and moving a few overly detailed sections out to the History of the Knights Templar article. The references could probably also do with some cleanup, to make sure they're consistent with the style that was approved when this article was promoted to FA status. --Elonka 17:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Templars declared innocent by the Vatican (2007)

I'm not a good wiki editor, so I leave this to someone who knows what they are doing. I think it is important to mention that the Templars have been declared innocent by the Vatican just a few years ago, on the 700th anniversary of their persecution.

source: http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2623

I think this is important information to include in the wiki regarding the history and legacy of the Knights Templar.

205.172.134.23 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The real Knights Templar and the Kingdom of Heaven Criticism

It's obvious how the knights templar were actually negotiators and helpers to other people to finding a simple journey or destination, as well with secrets, other than the film showing them as men of killing innocent blood. The real Templars, although, most of them were more like the Hospitallers in the film, helping Balian of Ibelin and keeping the kingdom and secrets of the world safe.--74.34.86.120 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


International Committee of the Red Cross

Not only the freemasons, but there is a bold connection between the Committee of the Red Cross (also known as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) and the Knights Templar, as well. The foundation of the committee was founded in Switzerland, where it was rumored some of the men fled to the highlands of Switzerland. It is here where they are maybe still helping and healing the meek and disabled so others may know they are still here and are continuously epic to help others for generations to come. --74.34.91.56 (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but this is fringe theory. Is common knowledge, that symbol of the Red Cross is reversed Swiss cross and there is 600 years gap. Please add reliable source about it, because self-published web pages are not reliable.--Yopie (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Ooh, as a Swiss person, this is one of the better laughs I've had today. I appreciate their being "continuously epic to help others" a lot. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you mean the German Book "Henri Dunant und die Templer".--GoShow (...............) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, people, this is the reason why some Wikipedia administrators cannot be trusted, due some users believing it is a fringe theory while the other theory is not, thus deleting the section, because of one source, although, there are very few book sources during the investigation, such as "Henri Dunant und die Templer" which leads to common sense to use theories such as the freemason, I do have the right to you use the source, otherwise it is not fringe, unless take the freemasonry section called Knights Templar (Freemasonry) out of the article, since it is a possible fringe theory.--GoShow (...............) 15:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

One Source Book out of various few:

Source Book | last = Quellmalz | first = Alfred | title = "Henri Dunant und die Templer" | publisher = Gebietsleitung d. Tempelgesellschaft, | year= 1964 | location = Stuttgart, Germany | pages = 62 | isbn = 978-3639064797

Henry Dunant and his fraternity with the freemasons connecting with the Templars is notable in many Swiss and German published books as well, if you had read the book is another possibility. If you want to discuss the further issue please report to the WP:RSN. --GoShow (...............)23:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici

The Latin name in the English language version of the article appears to be misspelled, imposing the English spelling of "Solomon" in "Solomonici", when proper Latin (as used in articles in other languages, including Latin) would be "Salomon" and "Salomonici".

Is this just a typo to be corrected? Or is there a proper reason behind this difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.151.225 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Invalid Reference of Great Schism

In section entitled "Arrests, Charges, and Dissolution", the article states the following

In 1305, the new Pope Clement V, based in Avignon, France during the period known as the Great Schism, sent letters to both the Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay and the Hospitaller Grand Master Fulk de Villaret to discuss the possibility of merging the two Orders.

The Great Schism (or more accurately the Western Schism) occurred from 1378 - 1418, more than 70 years AFTER the above mentioned date. Shouldn't this reference to the Great Schism be removed? Its confusing and seems to be factually incorrect unless the author was referring to something else. I'm not an experience Wiki editor so I wanted to bring it up here for discussion. Segdae22 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Though truly, you are welcome to make these changes yourself. See Wikipedia:Be bold.  :) --Elonka 16:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Knights Templar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion

Experts on the subject are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 31#Preceptory. Kelly hi! 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammar issues

The grammar issues in the "Freemasonry" section are so severe that it's unclear what the author was even trying to say. Could someone rewrite this section?

I gave it a shot, but it looks like the article has really been picked at by the vultures. I have half a mind to revert the whole thing a few years. PeRshGo (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

== templar knights ==Patl (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Knights Templar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Templar knights

The article went to great lengths to give examples to back there claims and the history of the order comes across as being spot on. In my opinion I would recommend this article to anyone wanting to learn about the knights Templar and believe that it is accurate based off the editors in the footnotes. it explains its points with historical evidence and goes into detail in describing things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.52.163 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Patl (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knights Templar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2017

Remove the "Entertainment" section at the beginning of the protected article, its an ad for a web site selling playing cards. 95.180.223.203 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It is also copyvio, copied directly from the site. Removed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Original 9 Knights Templar were archaelogists and discovered scrolls beneath the Temple Mount and the Jesus Family Tomb

This article is promoting the old propaganda of 9 knights protecting thousands of Christian pilgrims. That's a mathematical impossibility. The current understanding is that this was a front for them to excavate the Temple Mount and the Jesus Family Tomb upon the highest hill in East Talpiot. They discovered some very important concrete information that conflicted with Roman Catholic dogma. 2601:589:4700:2390:C129:9F7B:16E0:CDCC (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That stuff is mentioned in Knights Templar in popular culture. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hugues de Payens of Troyes not French...

It therein reads: "In 1119, the French knight Hugues de Payens approached King Baldwin II of Jerusalem"

Knowing how much of France (right up until 20th century) was not France, an citation is needed anent 'Hugues de Payens' said Frenchness. He at least seems not to of been born in France but in whatever the abodes (if truly born thereat) Troyes stood within. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.171.102 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well it was in the County of Champagne, although I suppose when Hugh was born, Troyes was actually still just its own separate County of Troyes. In any case, it's culturally and politically French, for the most part, so "France" is probably good enough. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

In the game Plague Inc. by Ndemic Creations, for the undead-based, Vampire-themed, Shadow Plague special plague type expansion, there is a fictional Private Military Multinational/International or Global Corporation and Company called "Templar Industries" or "Templar Enterprises", which is the primary dedicated hostile enemy or threat and countermeasure force to hunt down the vampire or vampires, the infected, and to help protect cure research, development, and deployment for the Shadow Plague itself.

[1] [2]

--Krextzin 22:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krextzin (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://plagueinc.fandom.com/wiki/Shadow_Plague
  2. ^ https://plagueinc.fandom.com/wiki/Templars

Addition to Freemasonary section.

Something should be added to reflect that a youth group for boys was created under the supervision of Freemasonary that uses the name of DeMolay. It was started in 1919 by Louis Lower and Frank S. Land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maquiscat (talk • contribs) 00:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is full of misinformation and disinformation

You'd be better off going to Quora and reading my answers. John Templar.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.80.115 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is misinformation and disinformation, you're free to find a historical source and edit the article. Oppositely, your Quora answser typically seem to use wikipedia (including, ironically, this page) as sources, and sometimes contain some very questionable content (such as offhandly remarking there'd be a link between the Vatican & the NWO - which is a conspircy theory) 109.135.18.200 (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

John Templar, I do not know you however I AM a templar. Knighted son of a templar, of a templar, of a templar that has a traced Templar lineage back to the 14th century. on top of that I have family stories going back much further. When I come here and read these kind of things it makes me chuckle because people have it so wrong. The people that are being quoted as the "historical sources" or "expert sources" themselves are wrong so it's garbage in, garbage out. It's the "populist" history of my family. Sometimes it makes me sad to read it and see just how wrong certain parts are but still, there is nothing that can be done because these people want to be told by people that they trust what the truth is regardless of whether those people are wrong or not. I was going to correct some things like the bit where they said that The "Templars did not perform knighting ceremonies, so any knight wishing to become a Knight Templar had to be a knight already." Dominic Selwood, the source that the are quoting, was correct up to 1312 but false after 1312 as we knighted from knight to knight during the escape. In the end I realized that there is no real point in correcting them. They don't agree or even want to know the truth of actual templars. Not really. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.141.196.126 (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia only uses trusted published sources. You are quite free, of course to write a full and accurate history of the Templars, and get it published by a reputable publishing house. Then Wikipedia editors will be able to quote you here. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

And this is why Wikipedia will never be correct on our history as we do not work like that. All Wikipedia will be able to do is quote people that have been published and do not know us in the slightest 110.141.196.126 (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

See previous answer. If you wish to put the record straight, write the book and let everyone know, not just wikipedia. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sir Gabriel Smith

opening synopsis

The wikipedia article on the Swiss Guard starts: "The Pontifical Swiss Guard (also Papal Swiss Guard or simply Swiss Guard; Latin: Pontificia Cohors Helvetica;[2] Italian: Guardia Svizzera Pontificia; German: Päpstliche Schweizergarde; French: Garde suisse pontificale; Romansh: Guardia svizra papala) is a minor armed forces and honour guards unit maintained by the Holy See that protects the Pope and the Apostolic Palace, serving as the de facto military of Vatican City."

That opener tells me concisely what the Swiss Guard is, what its purpose is/what it does, who it answers to. Below I have pasted this article's opener with some extraneous words, footnote markers, etc removed in order to focus in on my point - after reading the opener I don't have a clear sense of who/what the Knights Templar was. Was it just an army/military order? Was it a charity (for what?)? Was it a whole society (a la Freemasons)? Did they, like the Swiss Guard and the Freemasons, have a core ideology or mission/purpose?

The the Knights Templar was a Catholic military order founded in 1119, headquartered on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem through 1128 when they went to meet with Pope Honorius II. They were recognized in 1139 by the papal bull of Pope Innocent II. The order was active until 1312 when it was perpetually suppressed by Pope Clement V by the bull Vox. The Templars became a favored charity throughout Christendom, and grew rapidly in membership and power. They were prominent in Christian finance. Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles with a red cross, were amongst the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades. Non-combatant members of the order, who made up as much as 90% of their members, managed a large economic infrastructure throughout Christendom, developing innovative financial techniques that were an early form of banking, building its own network of nearly 1,000 commanderies and fortifications across Europe and the Holy Land, and arguably forming the world's first multinational corporation. Niccast (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

King Philip VI of France 1312

The name of the king of France is wrong. It was king Philip VI who sentenced them to death. 2804:1B3:A8C2:DF1F:DD1D:35A0:48DD:B7AC (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

First off, Philip VI of France was not king in 1312. Philip IV was king.
Also,
  • "On 13 October 1307, the regional officials of the French king, Philip IV, acting on royal orders, arrested the Templars throughout France." --The Templars: Selected Sources", edited by Rosemary Horrox, Malcolm Barber, Keith Bate, page 191.
Philip IV was king of France until 29 November 1314. --Bradbury, Jim (2007). The Capetians: Kings of France 987–1328, page 276. Kansas Bear (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knights_Templar/Archive_8&oldid=1235257609"