Templar Heresy

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Hi,

Regarding Templar heresy, Tim wrote on another thread:

Quote:

the Christian Templars who I believe we both agree were falsely accused on this particular point.

Roger responded:

Quote:

Regrettably, on this forum anyway, we appear to be the only ones. So taking particular pains to reaffirm the truth about the historic Templars seems necessary.

What gets me is the certitude of that position...

I'd be interested to know whether I understand this loose chronology of Templar 'studies' correctly...

14-15th century - the 'masses' believe the Templars were guilty... but some of the 'somebodies' (Dante etc) believed they were innocent (Philip was after their money etc)...

16-17th century many educated people believe the Templars innocent... but some 'occultists' start to portray the Templars as adepts...

18-19th century the 'Templar Revival' portrays the Templars as THE secret initiatory society... while almost all scholars dismiss the charges against the Templars as entirely made up... however a handul of scholars argue that the Templars may have been guilty...

20th century the 'Templar Revival' continues portraying the Templars as THE secret initiatory society... while almost all scholars continue to dismiss the charges against the Templars (they were entirely made up)... however a handul of scholars still argue that the Templars may have been guilty...

21st century the Templars become the greatest goddess cult on the palnet... ACADEMIC OPINION IS SPLIT on whether the charges against the Templars were entirely made up, or were based on misinterpretation of genuine Templar activities...

For example, Roger wrote on another thread:

Quote:

That alleged "initiation ritual" has been amply disproved.
With the exquisite torture methods available, one could have had even Roscoe admitting and endorsing Jesus Christ as his personal saviour.

Disproved how? That there was no 'initiation ceremony' involving denial etc, or, ok, there actually was one but it wasn't heretical?
Doesn't Frale, for example, now accept that the charge that the Templars 'denied the cross' was accurate, but that it was simply a 'hazing ritual'?

And about 'the exquisite torture methods available' (perhaps 'disgusting' torture methods might be a better description) that could make the Templars admit to anything, is it not somewhat surprising then that the torturers were unable to make the Templars, to any significant degree, admit to homosexual activity, or were unable to make the Templars, to any major degree, admit to worship of an idol?

Regards,

Spartacus

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Hi Roger,

Roger wrote:

Quote:

Basically, you're not asking for much, are you? Just a graduate course in Medieval Studies, followed up by a Doctorate Programme on the modern evolution of cult or "secret societies"-driven myths.

Send me proof of a cash donation of the equivalent of at least $450,000.00 to the charity(ies) of my choice, as well as a commitment of 5 years of your time (24/7) and proof of financial capability to meet your travel and lodging expenses throughout Europe during those 5 years.

You will have proudly telescoped in time the expense and length of accumulating the knowledge you require.

Roger wrote:

Quote:

Alternatively, your little synopsis is largely correct, apart from your reluctance to accept its logical conclusions.

Regards,

Spartacus

tingra · **Posted:** 02 Jun 2011 3:00 pm

Spartacus Paraclete wrote:

Doesn't Frale, for example, now accept that the charge that the Templars 'denied the cross' was accurate, but that it was simply a 'hazing ritual'?

Spartacus

This is what B Frale actually says about it….

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Catharism had a widespread following in France and northern Italy, involving even a good number of clerks; in 1230 this situation led Pope Honorius III to bestow extraordinary powers on the Inquisitor in Tuscia, extending his reach even to the exempt orders (Templars, Hospitallers and Cistercians) whenever there was suspicion of heresy.,

Afterwards, the privilege was forgotten and the papacy never thought to revoke it; thus, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, it was still in force. The Templars were untouchable, except in this case, so it was to the issue of heresy that the royal lawyers had to direct their efforts.

They needed to gather information about the inner life of the order with the aim of selecting and extrapolating from their proper context the elements they could present as crimes against religion; then, they had to put them all together in order to create a picture of a heretic creed coherent enough to be believable. It was essential, however, that a great majority of the Templars imprisoned should admit that they were guilty, a matter which could quite easily be solved by torture; but the violence, alone, does not explain the large number of confessions made by the brothers.

The success of Philip the Fair was due to the fact that his lawyers had chosen elements plainly diffused within the order, something that really existed which the Templars could actually admit, even if they had been so heavily distorted that the true meaning was completely wrenched from its context., At the end of their work, allegations made by a renegade Templar, allowed the Inquisitor to request military help from the French king and order the arrest of all the brothers: Guillaume de Paris enjoyed the privilege of his predecessors and used it to justify his action, as Clement V himself later had to admit., Thanks to this, the proceedings could be presented as a legal action.

i can send you the whole thing if you want

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Hi Tina(!),

Tina(!) wrote:

Quote:

This is what B Frale actually says about it….

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Catharism had a widespread following in France and northern Italy, involving even a good number of clerks; in 1230 this situation led Pope Honorius III to bestow extraordinary powers on the Inquisitor in Tuscia, extending his reach even to the exempt orders (Templars, Hospitallers and Cistercians) whenever there was suspicion of heresy.,

Afterwards, the privilege was forgotten and the papacy never thought to revoke it; thus, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, it was still in force. The Templars were untouchable, except in this case, so it was to the issue of heresy that the royal lawyers had to direct their efforts.

They needed to gather information about the inner life of the order with the aim of selecting and extrapolating from their proper context the elements they could present as crimes against religion; then, they had to put them all together in order to create a picture of a heretic creed coherent enough to be believable. It was essential, however, that a great majority of the Templars imprisoned should admit that they were guilty, a matter which could quite easily be solved by torture; but the violence, alone, does not explain the large number of confessions made by the brothers.

The success of Philip the Fair was due to the fact that his lawyers had chosen elements plainly diffused within the order, something that really existed which the Templars could actually admit, even if they had been so heavily distorted that the true meaning was completely wrenched from its context., At the end of their work, allegations made by a renegade Templar, allowed the Inquisitor to request military help from the French king and order the arrest of all the brothers: Guillaume de Paris enjoyed the privilege of his predecessors and used it to justify his action, as Clement V himself later had to admit., Thanks to this, the proceedings could be presented as a legal action.

i can send you the whole thing if you want

I have Frale's books already, but thanks anyway...

I don't get the point of your post. Is it to confirm what I had just written?

Regards,

Spartacus

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Roger wrote:

Quote:

no, what she's saying is this:

In the earlier context of the Albigensian Crusade and the fight against similar heresies that had penetrated within the Church, laws had been promulgated allowing secular authorities to take action against religious figures and orders. Since they were still on the books, that's where Phillippe le Bel's men directed their attention.

They had to find something that, under torture or not, a relatively large number of knights would mention. Then, all that was left to do, is to distort this out of context into an apparent heresy.

So the so-called "denial of the cross" was trumped up as a major heretic undercurrent within the Order, when all it referred to was connected to a ritual regarding the protection of Christ's faithful (and symbolic animosity towards the instruments of Christ's death).

It never fooled the Church.

And this is what I wrote in my original post:

Quote:

ACADEMIC OPINION IS SPLIT on whether the charges against the Templars were entirely made up, or were based on misinterpretation of genuine Templar activities

As I'm sure you know, my point was something else entirely...fine attempt at obfuscation all the same

'Certitude'...that's what I was writing about...and how that 'certitude' has continued to change over the years...

The newest interpretation (perhaps soon to become a 'certitude') is interesting in that rather than moving the goal posts, the posts have stayed in the same place, and the playing field has moved... :!:

Regards,

Spartacus

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Roger wrote:

Quote:

No, absolutely no misinterpretation!

It's a willful distortion of the facts. That willful distortion of the facts was then seized upon by various imbeciles, masons, gurus, etc. It then poisoned the mainstream of popular culture and is still and always a falsehood albeit a prized component of about 200 odd myths necessary to the selling of any number of crapulous enterprises.

This is a CERTAINTY, not "an evolving interpretation" or a moving goalpost or field. The only variable here is the degree to which the historical truth is allowed to be heard in the mainstream.
People cling to these myths with a really pathetic desperation!

IF you manage to find a serious and respectable historian anywhere who endorses ANY of these accusations against the Templars, or who believe the Church acted against them due to some horrible secret, then you will have unmasked a MORON, who is neither serious or respectable or even an historian!

Whether the hypothetical misinterpretation was deliberate or not has no bearing on the point I made, as you well know. :roll:

However I find this very interesting - Roger wrote:

Quote:

IF you manage to find a serious and respectable historian anywhere who endorses ANY of these accusations against the Templars, or who believe the Church acted against them due to some horrible secret, then you will have unmasked a MORON, who is neither serious or respectable or even an historian

Watch this space...

Regards,

Spartacus

Serendipity · **Joined:** 20 May 2008 3:32 pm **Posts:** 2908

IF....the knights believed more in the demiurge

THEN....the heresy would be, that the god of the jews is really satan.

Can't have that gettin' out, can we? Especially if your catholic church is based off of the jewish story.

Serendipity · **Joined:** 20 May 2008 3:32 pm **Posts:** 2908

Roger wrote:

Quote:

Can't have that gettin' out, can we?

Umm... I guess you haven't been paying attention? This is pretty much the basis of the Cathar religion (it's way beyond a heresy, it's a completely different religion).

You also haven't been paying attention AT ALL, if you think the Knights subscribed to this belief. (Either that, or you just prefer to believe whatever comforts your theories, studiously ignoring facts)

uh Roger....you are going to have to help me out here, 'cause you aren't making any sense.

From Tina's quote:

Quote:

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Catharism had a widespread following in France and northern Italy, involving even a good number of clerks; in 1230 this situation led Pope Honorius III to bestow extraordinary powers on the Inquisitor in Tuscia, extending his reach even to the exempt orders (Templars, Hospitallers and Cistercians) whenever there was suspicion of heresy

Edit to add:
You must have missed the "IF....." part :shock:

TCP · **Posted:** 03 Jun 2011 7:14 pm

Serendipity wrote:

IF....the knights believed more in the demiurge

THEN....the heresy would be, that the god of the jews is really satan.

Can't have that gettin' out, can we? Especially if your catholic church is based off of the jewish story.

If the Templars had gone "Cathar" why would you think the church would have any qualms about labeling them as such? Or King Philippe, since he was throwing just about every other scurrilous charge at them?

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 03 Jun 2011 7:23 pm

Serendipity wrote:

From Tina's quote:

Quote:

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Catharism had a widespread following in France and northern Italy, involving even a good number of clerks; in 1230 this situation led Pope Honorius III to bestow extraordinary powers on the Inquisitor in Tuscia, extending his reach even to the exempt orders (Templars, Hospitallers and Cistercians) whenever there was suspicion of heresy

Yes, but did any suspicion of heresy in these orders ever result in an inquiry? Or a conviction? The point here is that the Inquisitor had broad powers of inquiry over even those organizations under the direct purview of the Pope himself. Is there any indication of these broad powers actually being used against the Templars, Hospitallers, Cistercians, or any other order (monastic or military)?

TCP

Edited to add: in 1230, I mean.

Caelum · **Posted:** 03 Jun 2011 7:47 pm

Serendipity wrote:

Roger wrote:

Quote:

Can't have that gettin' out, can we?

Umm... I guess you haven't been paying attention? This is pretty much the basis of the Cathar religion (it's way beyond a heresy, it's a completely different religion).

You also haven't been paying attention AT ALL, if you think the Knights subscribed to this belief. (Either that, or you just prefer to believe whatever comforts your theories, studiously ignoring facts)

uh Roger....you are going to have to help me out here, 'cause you aren't making any sense.

From Tina's quote:

Quote:

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Catharism had a widespread following in France and northern Italy, involving even a good number of clerks; in 1230 this situation led Pope Honorius III to bestow extraordinary powers on the Inquisitor in Tuscia, extending his reach even to the exempt orders (Templars, Hospitallers and Cistercians) whenever there was suspicion of heresy

Edit to add:
You must have missed the "IF....." part :shock:

Frale got either the pope, or the year wrong, because Honorius III died in 1227. It would have been Gregory IX. Also, note the term "orders." The Inquisitor was given new powers to investigate ALL the Catholic orders for INSTANCES of heretical belief. That doesn't mean entire orders WERE heretical.

TCP · **Posted:** 03 Jun 2011 9:57 pm

Caelum wrote:

Frale got either the pope, or the year wrong, because Honorius III died in 1227.

He did leave a marvelous grimoire to posterity though. If you're into that sort of thing... :twisted:

TCP

Caelum · **Posted:** 03 Jun 2011 10:54 pm

TCP wrote:

Caelum wrote:

Frale got either the pope, or the year wrong, because Honorius III died in 1227.

He did leave a marvelous grimoire to posterity though. If you're into that sort of thing... :twisted:

TCP

Yep - I actually posted a link to it over on one of the Girona threads at one point:

http://www.esotericarchives.com/juratus/juratus.htm

hotspur · **Joined:** 19 Feb 2011 12:02 pm **Posts:** 1451

How is it that the highest priest of the Roman Church was able to produce such a work?

hotspur · **Joined:** 19 Feb 2011 12:02 pm **Posts:** 1451

Answer? More like more questions.

hotspur · **Joined:** 19 Feb 2011 12:02 pm **Posts:** 1451

Really? You're kidding, right?

'fraid not.

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Roger wrote on another thread:

Quote:

That alleged "initiation ritual" has been amply disproved.
With the exquisite torture methods available, one could have had even Roscoe admitting and endorsing Jesus Christ as his personal saviour.

Amply disproved how? That there was no 'initiation ceremony' involving denial etc, or, ok, um, there actually was one, but it wasn't really heretical?

Doesn't Frale, for example, now accept that the charge that the Templars 'denied the cross' was accurate, but that it was simply a 'hazing ritual'?

And about 'the exquisite torture methods available' (perhaps 'disgusting' torture methods might be a better description) that could supposedly make the Templars admit to anything, is it not somewhat surprising then that the torturers were unable to make the Templars, to any significant degree, admit to homosexual activity, or were unable to make the Templars, to any major degree, admit to worship of an idol? Or agree on the appearance of the idol/s?

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Roger wrote:

Quote:

The things they were trying to pin on the Templars were cribbed directly from prior scandals and prosecutions.

And Frale is actually quite wrong about the rituals.

In your opinion of course...

That's what I thought.

Serendipity · **Joined:** 20 May 2008 3:32 pm **Posts:** 2908

So....the Templars did NOT believe as the Cathars.....

Maybe the Templars were like the Culdees and were followers of Pythagoras.

Serendipity · **Joined:** 20 May 2008 3:32 pm **Posts:** 2908

TCP wrote:

Serendipity wrote:

From Tina's quote:

Quote:

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, Catharism had a widespread following in France and northern Italy, involving even a good number of clerks; in 1230 this situation led Pope Honorius III to bestow extraordinary powers on the Inquisitor in Tuscia, extending his reach even to the exempt orders (Templars, Hospitallers and Cistercians) whenever there was suspicion of heresy

Yes, but did any suspicion of heresy in these orders ever result in an inquiry? Or a conviction? The point here is that the Inquisitor had broad powers of inquiry over even those organizations under the direct purview of the Pope himself. Is there any indication of these broad powers actually being used against the Templars, Hospitallers, Cistercians, or any other order (monastic or military)?

TCP

Edited to add: in 1230, I mean.

What if it wasn't directed at the order but at the family members of an order?

Serendipity · **Joined:** 20 May 2008 3:32 pm **Posts:** 2908

Or maybe we are missing the entire point.

Torture, in ancient Greece/Rome, was reserved for SLAVES....and maybe this is the entire point the church was making to these warriors.

The reason for getting to the torture really doesn't matter....so, make up anything/everything.

TCP · **Posted:** 06 Jun 2011 7:11 pm

Serendipity wrote:

So....the Templars did NOT believe as the Cathars.....

Maybe the Templars were like the Culdees and were followers of Pythagoras.

Or maybe they were just Catholics and their persecution was related to other matters entirely, like their wealth and influence.

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 06 Jun 2011 7:19 pm

Serendipity wrote:

What if it wasn't directed at the order but at the family members of an order?

Families didn't join orders. I know the phrase "Templar families" gets thrown around a lot in pseudohistories and genre books, but while there were important lords who donated land and property to the order, there was no particular inclusionary benefit to their relatives. I suppose one could label the relatives of individual Templar knights as "Templar families" the way that the relatives of popes are called "Papal families", but to do so assumes a degree of loyalty and approval that shouldn't be taken for granted. Landed families of that period weren't always what I'd call "closely knit"...

TCP

bergeredearcadie · **Joined:** 07 Nov 2006 11:57 pm **Posts:** 3856

like their wealth and influence

well - define their wealth and influence.

Who exactly had control of the wealth? All the Templars? Some of the Templars? A select few at the top?

TCP · **Posted:** 06 Jun 2011 10:02 pm

bergeredearcadie wrote:

like their wealth and influence

well - define their wealth and influence.

Who exactly had control of the wealth? All the Templars? Some of the Templars? A select few at the top?

They operated credit lines, Sandy. Powerful and important people were in debt to the Templars. Cash was constantly moving throughout their network.

TCP

Arcadia Discussion Zone

Templar Heresy

Who is online