Arcadia Discussion Zone

Thanks Bill, this confirms you have nothing of any value to add.

Did Clement really absolve the order of heresy in 1308?

Piers Paul Read, in his book "The Templars" writes of the trials of the Knights on Cyprus which took place in 1308.
"with this one exception [Simon of Sarezariis], the noble witnesses all gave evidence in favour of the Templars, despite being partisans of King Henry II.
This result was considered unacceptable by Pope Clement V who ordered a new trial"....

[The new trial did not take place until 1310, and again according to Read], "it would seem that the Pope's political imperatives prevailed:....the Templar Marshal, Ayme of Oselier, and many of his fellow Templars died while incarcerated"....

it would seem that for sure in 1308 and possibly as late as 1310 Clement assumed the Templars guilty in spite of the alledged Chinon Parchment, at least on Cyprus.

Bingo Bill
Actions speak louder than Chinon parchments
these men were hunted down

the other countries didn't prosecute them right away
it was on the Vatican's insistence

not on France's ....Phillip could only go so far

Guilty of what though Wayward? Yes they were guilty of some things but not heresy. There were massive implications associated with that charge which is why Philip used it a lot.

Hasn't the Chinon Parchment been what was considered to have cleared the Templars of the Heresy charge Tingra?

yes the charge of Heresy was absolved

The word heresy comes from haeresis, a Latin transliteration of the Greek word originally meaning choosing, choice, course of action, or in an extended sense school of thought[3] then eventually came to denote waring factions and the party spirit by the first century. The word appears in the New Testament and was appropriated by the Church to mean a sect or division that threatened the unity of Christians. Heresy eventually became regarded as a departure from orthodoxy in Post-Apostolic times which the First Seven Ecumenical Councils attempted to establish for all of Christendom.

St. Irenaeus (c. 120 to 140–c. 200 to 203) defined heresy as deviation from the standard of sound doctrine.

Heresy is defined by Thomas Aquinas as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.
the early times excommunication was used
but then the Cathars came about ....the Inquisition took over with torture and burning at the stake

then the Templars got their taste of the Inquisition

the Chinon Parchment puts a shadow on what Tingra said

"What were the charges?"

from what I got out of the mumbo jumbo was their offense was they were Bad Catholics...they spat on the cross

It looks to me like Back peddlin of which the Church does considering the Pope is infallible

Yes, so I don’t understand what you are trying to say with your post?

how so?

Those whose names are listed on the document, yes.



You seem to have difficulty processing the meaning of "absolved" - it doesn't mean that the charges were found to be without merit and dropped, it means that they confessed and that their "sins" were forgiven on the condition of penance. The problem is when one recants that confession - it nullifies the absolution.

TCP

No. It "absolved" (see above) the specific Templars named in the document of heresy after their confessions, it did not "clear" the entire order in one fell swoop.

It's your overarching false assumptions that continually prove problemmatic for you, Bill - but then you always seem to lay the blame at the feet of others for your own ignorance.

TCP

Well, lets say that the "Chinon Parchment" does turn out to have been a hoax, and lets say the Templars were not absolved of the charges, and lets say it turns out the Templars were guilty of the heresy's named in the indictment.

Hi Tim,

Tim wrote:



and...



Ok. First off, I'm not trying to pick a fight... but didn't you argue the exact opposite to the above when debating these issues with me on the Priory of Sion forum a few years ago?

Regards,

Spartacus

I don't think so, but then my understanding of the implications may not have been what it is now. People do evolve, you know.

TCP

Edited to add: just checked the old thread (from 2008) and the sticking point we went round and round over was whether or not blasphemy was absolved with heresy (I said no, you said yes).

It is not a forgery Wayward, it has been authenticated by experts.
What are you trying to achieve with that line of enquiry? It doesn't make any sense!

You really are in denial, Bill.

TCP

Tingra
its about the purpose of the Chinon Parchment

why was it created ...its showing Clements absolving them
Absolve has two meanings
. Declare (someone) free from blame, guilt, or responsibility.
if Clement is declaring that they are free from guilt

or is Clement recognizing the sins but giving them absolution
2. Give absolution for (a sin).



it leaves the gray area of
What did Clement think

is Clement guilty of contributing to the death of innocents...since he knew they were innocent

or
has he absolved the sins of the sinners ....sending to die and go to heaven
lets say its a parting gift from the church

If it is the first one could say Clement was well aware they were innocent went he watched them burn at the stake
Its a very ugly interpretation
I know your point it was Philip's fault...I'm just thinking about Pope Clement's soul
this would be murder of innocents

the other would be Clements feeling sorry for the sinners and absolving them

two different views just from one word absolve

I just ask, who were the experts Tingra? "Etienne Baluz", was an expert witness on the authenticity of documents.

Yes, in the 17th century. The field of paleography has made enormous strides since then.

TCP

Sure, paleography has, but again, who are these particular experts?

Why don't you e-mail Barbara Frale and ask?

TCP

That's not how I remember it at all, at all, but, ok, perhaps I'm wrong. I'll check it if I get a chance, and get back to you. Watch this space...

Regards,

Spartacus

Now wait a minute Tim, I heard experts from you and Tingra, and I am asking who are the experts? Do they work for the same Vatican Barbara Frale does. You said experts, I'm just asking who they are.---Bill

Contact the Vatican, I have no qualms in believing they would publish anything from it's secret archives, or such a controversial document without having checked it's authenticity vigourously, knowing full well that the document would be scrutinized by scholars for years to come. Also, I imagine Frale would not risk her reputation without first validating her findings.....would you?

Yes, perhaps, but my understanding is that nobody outside the Vatican has seen this document. The document that has been shown is a copy.
Sort of like the shroud, do you think there will be another chance to C-14 it?
As for Barbara Frale, you would think so, but there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the writing she has found on the shroud.
IMHO, it just seems very convenient that the "C Parchment" surfaces at this time. I'm not saying I believe it is forged, only that I have questions.
you said it yourself Tingra! "or such a controversial document"

I have no idea what their names are, Bill. If you had any genuine interest you could do as I suggest and contact Barbara Frale yourself through the Vatican Secret Archives or even on her Facebook page. I suspect, however, that it wouldn't suit your purpose at all to have names, it is better for you to disparage nameless, faceless entities in order to indulge your conspiracy theories. If you had names you'd probably rule them out as co-conspirators if they happen to be Catholic.

TCP