It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Knights Templar asking vatican for apology...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Wow.. after all this time.

Worth noting is this: it's that it seems to be same group from hertforshire that anounced the tunnel system not so long ago (i had posted it here somewhere). Hmmm I wonder ...


news.independent.co.uk...





[edit on 1/12/2004 by Corinthas]




posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:45 AM
link   
thats a very intresting little article,im sure they will recieve their apology,well it would be right in coming even though its 700 years late,it reminded me of the japanese apologising recentley for their treatment of pow's during ww2.

Regards.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
Wow.. after all this time.


What gives them the authority to act as Templars? And why should the Vatican apologise for putting down a group that had effectively 'gone awol'?



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Nygdan...

what gives you the authority to doubt their authority unless.. you were a Templar. Oh nevermind...



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   
How can an organization that doesn't exist ask for an apology? They were dissovled a long time ago. I don't think any organization today can actually claim to be in lineage to the original Knights Templar.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
there are several who do. beyond that there is the families of those wronged
property stolen by both the church and Philip. it is concievable.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I am merely asking, why should anyone think that they are the Knights Templar? Obviously everyone can't be allowed to just claim this and other mantles for themselves, at least not get legal recognition for it.
If thats the case, I, personally, claim the legal rights accorded to Cathars and want langedoc back. In fact, I claim the position of the roman emperors, and demand that i be given a villa in tuscany and the provinces back, not to mention those vestal virgins. Heck, I claim the rights of catholics, and want all my church property back. What does it matter that there are people already cliaming it? They're wrong, the papacy belongs to me. But once I'm pope, I'm not going to recognize the claims of these templars. Just because I like a little irony now and then.

But seriously, why should they be taken to be Templars?

SW
beyond that there is the families of those wronged

The Knights Templar were supposed to be celibate warrior-monks. If they have offspring, they are illegitimate, and especially back then would'nt've had any claim, any actual legal claim, to any land possesed by Templars. Infact, any templar land would belong to the vatican.

Now, other non templars have a claim, but a very very weak one.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I am merely asking, why should anyone think that they are the Knights Templar?


I agree with you Nygdan. Who does have a right to say they are the descendants of the Knights Templars.

The church should apologize for the treatment of the original Knights Templars. However the original Knights Templars do not exist. And an apology should not be directed to these false Templars that want recognition, but should be directed to the original Knights Templars from hundreds of years ago.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
There are no Organisations that I'm aware of who can legitimately claim decendancy from the Knights Templar, as far as History is concerned they are just that ...... History.
I have no doubt the Original Order deserves to be pardoned, the way the suppression of the Templars occurred stinks to high Heaven, any accusation against any person or Organisation gained through torture is suspect and invalid IMO. The same goes for the Cathars as well, they were destroyed by a Pope and Church who were afraid of an alternate interpretation of the word of God and a threat to Papal power in Europe.
I have spoken to Mason on the board about the Knight Templar part of Masonry and they all seem to agree that there is no direct link between them and Masonry, and without proof to the contrary i have no reason to doubt them.


df1

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Vatican downsizes the Inquisition. See it wasn't all that bad...

.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Got to love that sweeping apology that didn't sound much like an apology.




"We cannot not recognize the betrayal of the Gospel committed by some of our brothers, especially in the second millennium," he said.



From df1's link

[edit on 1-12-2004 by Janus]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:16 AM
link   


The Knights Templar were supposed to be celibate warrior-monks. If they have offspring, they are illegitimate, and especially back then would'nt've had any claim, any actual legal claim, to any land possesed by Templars.

first, just because the Templars themselves took vows of celebacy does not
mean that their brothers,sisters, nieces ,nephews, aunts, and uncles did.

second, any surviving after the arrests and actions from 1307 - 1314 would no longer have necessarily been obligated to keep those vows. The church broke faith with them why would they keep faith to a faithless church that broke its
own laws?

third, there is an organization that claims an unbroken line of GMs based on the Larminius charter.

there is persistant stories that the order perpetuated itself in hiding in Scotland .
it is possible that they could have the documents to support their claims.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I still don't know a whole lot about these guys but I started a thread about the modern Templars here.

I never really could find any good solid info, but the websites and whatnot are in the thread...

Is it the SMOTJ that is doing this?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
first, just because the Templars themselves took vows of celebacy does not
mean that their brothers,sisters, nieces ,nephews, aunts, and uncles did.

Those people have no right to their land. As far as I understand it, land is divided up between sons, or given to the church, back then.


second, any surviving after the arrests and actions from 1307 - 1314 would no longer have necessarily been obligated to keep those vows. The church broke faith with them why would they keep faith to a faithless church that broke its
own laws?

The church and the law would recognize any children as bastards or worse who have no right to land. The church ordered that the order, which was a sub-group created by the church itself, be disbanded. They refused, and the church punished them. That does not mean that the church 'broke' its contract with them. Their vows, technically at least and 'legally' (for what thats worth for those times) still hold.


third, there is an organization that claims an unbroken line of GMs based on the Larminius charter.

If they can then thats great, i see no reason why its not possible. however the Templars are well neigh famous here and in other places, and their continued existence is very much in doubt.



it is possible that they could have the documents to support their claims.

Sure, it certainly is. Do these guys have documents to back it up tho?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The church ordered that the order, which was a sub-group created by the church itself, be disbanded. They refused, and the church punished them. That does not mean that the church 'broke' its contract with them.



Negative.

What happened is the king of France, Phillip (IV?) the Fair (not fair as in just, but fair as in pretty), coveted the templars wealth. He resented the fact that he was indebted to them, after all he was a king. Why should he pay what he owed when he could take all their wealth? He had the pope in his pocket and together they accused the Templars of heresy, homosexuality, and several other trumped up charges. They then proceeded to torture them (I read one story where the Templars were strapped to a table barefoot, then their feet were burned literally to the point that the flesh burned away and the bones from their feet ended up in a pile on the floor... Could you imagine?) until they "confessed" to these made up charges. I would imagine most people would say anything you wanted them to in order to get you to stop inflicting such pain upon them.

It was a travesty then and it remains a travesty in my mind to this day. To hear someone say that the church simply "punished" the order for "refusing to disband" makes my stomach turn.

In response to your "bastard" comment - The Templars were not born into the order. It is entirely possible and actually quite probable that many men who joined the order already had families or sons prior to taking the oaths of celibacy.

The thing with the Templars is that they also took vows of poverty. The individual Templar had no more to his name than two horses, his armor and weapons and his clothes. All their wealth was property of the Order as a whole, therefore could not be inherited by individual Templars' sons.

The best part is that the Templars succeded in getting away with most of their treasure, so Philip never did get his hands on it. I love it. There are several theories about what happened to the treasure and the last Templar fleet (who supposedly escaped in their ships with the treasure) but to me, it doesn't matter. It's still a great story and an inspring one.

Check out some of the links provided in my aforementioned thread... there's some good reading on the subject there.

[edit on 12/2/04 by The Axeman]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman
He had the pope in his pocket and together they accused the Templars of heresy, homosexuality, and several other trumped up charges.

i understand that there is controversy as to why the were punished and what not. However, the King and the Pope are literally the laws in these times. I do not question the context, merely the legality of any claims to property and ownership.


It was a travesty then and it remains a travesty in my mind to this day. To hear someone say that the church simply "punished" the order for "refusing to disband" makes my stomach turn.

I do not mean to denigrate what actually happened. I agree that they weren't 'merely' punished, and that they were violently and outrageously suppressed.


All their wealth was property of the Order as a whole, therefore could not be inherited by individual Templars' sons.

Well there ya go. Their property becomes church property. Therefore the church doesn't owe it to any 'descendants', whether they were bastards or not.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by chief_counsellor
How can an organization that doesn't exist ask for an apology? They were dissovled a long time ago. I don't think any organization today can actually claim to be in lineage to the original Knights Templar.


Y'know, that was the first question that crossed MY mind as I read the article. As far as I know, the organization isn't faithful to the original (which prohibited contact with ANYTHING female, including birds (no eggs!), horses, etc. Actually, women could do their household chores if men weren't available but with laundromats and dishwashers these days, there's no excuse for that.) Nor do I see them leading a very monkish life (unlike the real ones.)

Maybe the Pope should issue "I'm sorry that you're such a fake?"

Nah. That's just mean-spirited. Tempting, though.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by chief_counsellor
How can an organization that doesn't exist ask for an apology? They were dissovled a long time ago. I don't think any organization today can actually claim to be in lineage to the original Knights Templar.


Y'know, that was the first question that crossed MY mind as I read the article. As far as I know, the organization isn't faithful to the original (which prohibited contact with ANYTHING female, including birds (no eggs!), horses, etc. Actually, women could do their household chores if men weren't available but with laundromats and dishwashers these days, there's no excuse for that.) Nor do I see them leading a very monkish life (unlike the real ones.)

They also seem to be doing a piss poor job of protecting pilgrims in the holy land.


Maybe the Pope should issue "I'm sorry that you're such a fake?"

On a side note, i've noticed that the vatican has a clever stategy for dealing with undesirable groups (well, outside of the murder death torture horrors). When the jesuits were disbanded, it was supposed to be 'forever', but then it started a jesuit order up again. Even with teh KT, apparenlty there's that Sovereign Malta Knights catholic order. I guess the strategy is to say 'Knights Templar? You aren't one, their lodge is over there and they say toy aren't one. Heck, they're official-like'



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   
The Catholic Church isn't faithful to it's original form and charter (as the church of Sol Invictus) either, so your point suffers from insignificance. We have to hold all parties involved up to the same standards, yes?



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Gallileo is long since gone, too, but it didn't stop the Vatican for issuing ( a few hundred years late, as usual) an apology of sorts to him, or at least admitting they were wrong.

Also, Byrd, I take your point but things change with the times, you know? The RCC isn't exactly "faithful" to their practices of the 14th century either. Yet they are still the Roman Catholic Church. Why couldn't this be true for the Templars? By the time they were disbanded they were much more than celibant warrior monks or pilgrim protectors. Their status in the world as landowners and bankers was part of the reason King Philip had it in for them in the first place.

So why shouldn't the church apologize? I'll give you that the original order does not exist anymore (although there are those that claim to be just that), but the church can still come out and formally say they were wrong for what they did.

In addition Ngydan, the Knights of Malta have been around ever since the 12th century. They were originally known as the Hospitallers, and they fought right alongside the Templars in the crusades. The difference is that the church did not persecute them. Actually, it is said that a hefty number of Templars that escaped torture and death joined the Hospitallers.

I wonder why you are so quick to put down the idea that the Templars as an order may have survived by going underground. I see it as entirely possible and even probable. Anyway, from what I have read the SMOTJ keeps up (in a more modern way, of course) what the original Templars were about. Helping pilgrims travel to the Holy Land, and indeed keeping a Christian presence there, giving relief to disaster stricken people, etc. Very honorable as far as I can see. You ask who's to say these are the Knights Templar of old? I say who's to say they are NOT the original order? What if the documents and the unbroken line of Grand Masters is real? Would they bee any less Templars that their Brothers before them because they don't fight bloody wars with Muslims anymore?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join