Templar 'heirs' sue pope
Now the Association of the Sovereign Order of the Temple of Christ, a Spanish group claiming to be 'heirs' of the Templars, are suing Pope Benedict XVI. You read that right. They're suing the pope, seeking more than $150 billion as recompense for the assets seized by Philip and Pope Clement back in the 1300s. They also want to restore the Templars' good name. Their chances of winning a financial settlement, as you might imagine, aren't very good, considering that there's no way to prove any real connection to an order that dissolved 700 years ago (especially not by blood, since the Templars were celibate). The Templars' good name, on the other hand, is already in the process of being restored, not just by scores of historical (and not so historical) authors, but by the recent release of documents by the Vatican revealing that Clement V had declared the Templars were not heretics, but had disbanded the order to preserve the peace with the powerful French king.
Find out more about the lawsuit in the article by Fiona Govan at the Telegraph, and check out the item at NPR, which includes an audio interview.
Comments
I think that the Templar Knights as an order should be reivindicated since apparently all the accusations used against them were false.
“Celibate”, Maybe. But that means “unmarried”, not “chaste” which meens free of hanky panky. I’ll wager there are a great many souls around now who are decendants of a Knights Templar.
While married men were permitted to join the order, the early rules of the Templar Knights included a prohibition against familiarity with women. From The Primitive Rule of the Templars, translated by Mrs. Judith Upton-Ward, made available at the ORB at http://the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/monastic/t_rule.html:
“We believe it to be a dangerous thing for any religious to look too much upon the face of woman. For this reason none of you may presume to kiss a woman, be it widow, young girl, mother, sister, aunt or any other; and henceforth the Knighthood of Jesus Christ should avoid at all costs the embraces of women, by which men have perished many times, so that they may remain eternally before the face of God with a pure conscience and sure life.”
There may indeed have been Templar Knights who broke this rule, and even if there were only one or two who had children (in or out of wedlock), there could be hundreds of descendants today. But for anyone to claim a right of inheritance by blood (which these folks are not doing) would be difficult.
Just an observation really!
The Knights Templar may have been declared dissolved and all observances void, after the arrest in France and the proclamation of a Papal Bull. However as Scotland was excommunicate from the Papacy – and therefore Christendom – at the time, the Bull was never declared there. Thus the Templars had an ally and friend in Robert (the) Bruce, who gave them sanctuary. I am aware that they still exist today in Scotland: I would also imagine in a relatively unbroken line of Knights Templar
… Though I’m not sure about the good name of the templars. In some books related to history of magic, man can found quite dreadfull stories related to the ocult praxis of the Templar Knight, for instance, they have made observance and experiments with pregnant women, they kept peculiar items related to ocult rituals, of which the most famous is the ‘Head’, which was believed to bring certain victory against any foe. Though some of theese things were ‘mounted’ to the Order by the Pope and the French Kong (who is involved in the death of the two predecesors to Clemens V, bonifatius VIII and the other one I can’t remember), the legend of the head origins from the order itself. It’s a fine piece of story suitable for a gothic novel; shortly: a Templar has fall in love in the noble Lady of Maracleia, but she died young, and the knight, drunken by passion, has consumed her dead. Then, a voice told him to return to her grave after nine months where he’ll find a dismantled nany sceleton. The head of the baby would bring victory against any foe (but obwiosly not against Philip IV, ‘The Handsome’).
Even if all of this is ‘mounted’ to the Templars by the Pope (which I don’t think so), it doesn’t make sence that the Pope declare the order as NON-HERETICAL, yet guilty of perverted occultism?
And, at the end, I thing that all this story of the ‘good name’ of the Templars, as well as the remain of the ‘Blue Helmets’ of the midlle ages (taht is: the rest of the Orders) has a bit political background: it took a milenium for the Europeans to figure out, their roots are actually not neither Hellenic, nor Roman, but actualy – medieval, yes from those bloodbath which predeceted to Charlemagne! So, the scolars of the west suddenly are prone to ‘beautify’ their new ancestors.
MK — this is exactly the kind of drivel that real historians work for years to counter. If you want the facts about the Templars, read a credible book about the Templars, not pseudohistory about magic and the occult. These rumors take on a life of their own until even semi-intelligent people think there may be some fact in it. There isn’t.
Erich – The magic played a considerable roll in the middle ages, as you probably know it. alchemy, hermeneutic (medieval theology and philosophy) are full of it. So, if you consider the history of magic for a pseudohistory, I suggest you find another epoch to explore. In the middle ages, the magic is fundamental. And the Templars were part of it, like it or not. Once more: Even if all of this is ‘mounted’ to the Templars by the Pope), it doesn’t make sence that the Pope declare the order as NON-HERETICAL, yet guilty of perverted OCCULTISM? For that the charge against the Templars, and it stand in any credible history book.
The church of rome stole enormous wealth and property from the poor soldiers of christ. they excommunicated the warrior knight’s and branded them heretic’s, this was due to the fact both the church of rome and the monarch of france had borrowed countless fortunes to finance their crusades and con the populace of europe into an holy war.