The Holy War; Assasins against Freemasons

a reply to: Bybyots

Ordo Templi Orientis, you're right.
Much more templar then masons or S&B, probably.
I love this stuff, but I am aware the freemasons deny any ties to the templars.

a reply to: Peeple

I love this stuff, but I am aware the freemasons deny any ties to the templars

Me too, and if I think about it I'd deny it as well.

a reply to: Peeple
Well, there is no evidence to back any connection between the Freemasons and the medieval Knights Templar. The Masonic Knights Templar take the name in commemoration only.

We don't deny it out of fear. I wish we could find definitive proof that Freemasonry was tied to medieval Templar order.

a reply to: KSigMason

Really? They got accused of a few nasty things. But the freemasons also so it doesn't matter as much?

a reply to: KSigMason

So I'd like to admit to some ignorance.

But before I do I would like to thank you for your very clear writings and breakdowns of Freemasonic order and meaning here at ATS and elsewhere.

I'm a fan for several years.

I have to admit that I had always taken what I thought to be my "organizational correlates" between the Assassins and Templars, and so hence the Freemasons, very literally. Which is to say the whole "Grandmaster"-on-down hierarchy.

But after checking out charts of Freemasonic order available online I can see that I must be essentially off-track, at least when it comes to the Freemasons.

It seems clear to me now that the Templars are simply memorialized Freemasonic order.

Cheers!

a reply to: Peeple
An accusation isn't proof of wrongdoing. Phillip had the Templars charged with heresy and many other trumped-up charges, most of which were identical to the charges which had previously been leveled by Phillip's agents against Pope Boniface VIII. By making the charges religious in nature, he wouldn't be seen as a greedy tyrant, but as a servant of God.

The initial charges held against the Templars numbered in five:

- They renounced Christ and spit upon the cross during initiation into the Order.
- Men were stripped to be initiated and the thrice kissing of that man by the preceptor on the navel, posteriors and the mouth.
- The neophyte (novice) was told that unnatural lust was lawful and indulged in commonly.
- The neophyte wore a cord day and night was consecrated by wrapping it around an idol in the form of a human head with a great beard, and that this idol was adored in all chapters.
- Priests of the order did not consecrate the host in celebrating Mass.

These charges would later increase, somewhere between 86 and 127.

During his interrogation in late October 1307, De Molay confessed that the Templar intiatory rites included denying Christ and stepping on the cross. In December 1307, Pope Clement V sent two Cardinals to interview De Molay where he retracted his confessions. This did not please the French King and a power struggle occurred. Two commissions, via a Papal Bull (Faciens misericordiam), were established one ran by the Church and one by the French Crown.

The Pontiff wanted to conduct trials, but Phillip intervened and many Templars were burned at the stake as heretics (which did not require Papal approval to do). Eventually the Pope, on March 22nd, 1312, would disband the Knights Templar through the Papal Bull, "Vox in Excelso".

On the 18th of March, 1314, De Molay and some other Templar leaders were dragged before the public. It had been Seven (7) long years and finally they were to receive the sentence agreed upon by the Cardinals, which supposed to be a lifelong imprisonment. To the surprise and dismay of both the crowd and Cardinals, Jacques De Molay and Geoffrey De Charney, Preceptor of Normandy, stood up and stated they were only guilty of betraying their Order by giving into torture and confessing to these false charges.

While the Cardinals were meeting to deal with this, the incensed King Phillip pronounced that De Molay and De Charney were relapsed heretics to be burnt at the stake. A pyre was set up on a small island on the Seine near Notre Dame.

Contrary to the belief of the conventional "burning stake/pyre", it could not have been a stake with wood and accelerant at the base as the victim would die within minutes from asphyxiation. The fire and heat would rise and the flames would be swallowed, burning the lungs, and soon filling with fluid thereby causing asphyxiation. For De Molay to have lasted for a while and slowly burn, it would have required a pyre built by a stake in the center with a ring of fire, most likely hot coals, around it (think of the point within a circle as a diagram), which would cause an oven effect cooking him slowly and burning him from the feet up.

Eyewitness testimony said that De Molay showed no sign of fear and it said during the slow death of burning at the stake, he decried the Pope and King, saying that their deaths would be avenged and that those would join him in the Afterlife. Whether he really cursed them or not, both the Pope and French King died within a year.

In 2001, a Vatican paleographer named Barbara Frale found a copy of the Chinon Parchment which states that in 1308 the Pope secretly absolved the Jacques de Molay and the Templar Order. This could explain why so many Templars were later burned as heretics or just simply disappeared from the jails.

Freemasonry has been accused of all sorts of things, but look at the type of people accusing us. Here's a brief history of anti-Masonry (and their crimes): www.travelingtemplar.com...

a reply to: KSigMason

Thank you. And a very interesting link.
What do you think about the Robert the Bruce connection?
That's the basis of one of my favourite myths.

originally posted by: KSigMason
In 2001, a Vatican paleographer named Barbara Frale found a copy of the Chinon Parchment which states that in 1308 the Pope secretly absolved the Jacques de Molay and the Templar Order. This could explain why so many Templars were later burned as heretics or just simply disappeared from the jails.

The Chinon Parchment is very important in recognising the limits of the powers of the Papacy, other than that, the record makes clear that it had zero effect on this plain of existence. If Clement V realised that the charges were trumped up, and that as a consequence the Papacy was losing influence in out lying areas where it had relied on the Templars to preserve their financial interests, to temporal powers, the Pope who succeeded him was well under the thumb and would have, assuming he knew about it, rendered the Parchment void. Presumably. Even so, it had no actual impact, that is apparent, and clearly only referred to absolution in the next life if it ever had any validity. So...basically, the Templars could confess to whatever they had to confess to and be executed for those crimes that they confessed to, even though everyone knew that they didn't do it? Doesn't make a great deal of sense, to have a secret absolution, really, does it?

If Clement V was secretly "sympathetic", John XXII in his offer to absolve the King of England of every sin under the sun if he would allow the Templars in his jurisdiction to be handed over to Nogaret for "questioning" was very public about it. He wouldn't. Absolution from the Pope was of far less value to him than the Templars and their English holdings were.

I personally suspect that the Chinon Parchment was kept secret out of shame and was in actuality a dirty trick used as a lure to draw in the Templars so that they could be arrested, and their considerable power taken, by a single hand. The correspondence from the Pope to England frequently reaches begging level.

a reply to: Peeple

Whom do you suppose is behind these peoples plot to usurp or destroy Freemasonry.

a reply to: Anaana

Have you ever read about the Treaty of 1213?

Not a mason myself....but i love the masons ideals, and can say I respect just about every mason I know.

originally posted by: KylarDrake
a reply to: Anaana

Have you ever read about the Treaty of 1213?

Just given it a skim, all the sources I can find are biased and exaggerative...what in particular is it that you find interesting, and or relevant here? It's difficult to get a handle on what the sources I have found are trying to imply or demonstrate, in the over all scheme of things, so a little clarity would help. Thanks.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Not a mason myself....but i love the masons ideals, and can say I respect just about every mason I know.

I recently got invited to have a look around a local Masonic Temple. I was really impressed, floor to ceiling symbolism, most of it completely unique to Freemasonry. The vast majority of Freemasons, I have encountered, are reasonably nice chaps, I think a little bit of Am Dram must be good for disposition. I'm less impressed with the "ideals", in practice, fraternalism is so dated and those drawn to it seem to be cut from the cloth that desires a wife reflective of income and status, then whines about how much they cost them. Well...duh! I'm yet to see much in the way of "enlightenment" or anything even remotely "awake", but that would depend on the definition and the period in time that that definition was formed (more pertinently).

Nice chaps, just nothing special. Sadly. The power and potential to facilitate change is most definately still there, they're just hampered by an ideology unevolved since the 19th century.

a reply to: Anaana

Basically King John Lackland of England was bankrupt. In order to try and make money, he figured he could seize possession of land from his vassals after their death and resell it. Without this, the England would crumble from Bankruptcy. If a church establishment owned the land it could potentially never be taxed.

King John and Pope Innocent had been at ends with each other due to the papal interdict of 1208.

faculty.history.wisc.edu...

Essentially the Pope was mad that King John wouldn't let him control the Church of England and the clergy, so after King John, prevented the nobles and peasants from passing their lands anybody without his permission; the Pope excommunicated him.

In order to get back into the Church, and be seen as a Christian worthy of entering heaven, he made the treaty of 1213 which pledged all of his land and assets as well as those of his vassals and peasants to the Pope and RCC. He also agreed to allow the pope to appoint Stephen Langton as ArchBishop of Canterbury.

Upon hearing this, all of the barons and peasants and other nobles stormed the castle and forced King Johm at sword point, (which is thereby forcing him under duress to sign a contract, therefore nullifying it in the process), to give all of their land back. He then signed the Magna Carta.

conspiracy.wikia.com...

I'm trying to find the actual treaty though.

a reply to: KylarDrake

I think it is supposed to be a "secret" addendum to the Treaty of Verona, not sure. There definately was a capitulation by John to the Pope, Simon Schama describes it thusly...

"But when he (John) refused to accept Stephen Langton, the pope's nominee for Archbishop of Canterbury...he took the country down a disasterous road. An interdict was placed on England, which in effect meant a spiritual lock-out. No subject of the king could receive the sacrament of marriage or be buried in consecrated ground. John responded by seizing church property, which led to his excommunication and eventual capitulation, in 1213, when he surrendered England itself to be a fiefdom of the pope." p161 History of Britain 3000BC-1600AD, Simon Schama.

Prior to spitting his dummy out at the pope, John had isolated himself from the rest of the Angevin clan by murdering his nephew, Arthur and had fled to England. Once he had the pope back on side, and the "right" of Christendom behind him, he attempted to re-establish his hold in Brittany at the battle of Bouvines. He got trounced,and the English barons took advantage of this weakness to limit regent powers, and at the same time, push back the line of centralised European imperial powers, but mostly to limit the amount of taxes and other revenues that they were liable to pay to the crown, thereby preventing the king from seizing land or resources on a whim, or in order to pursue his own interests (rather than those of the country).

a reply to: Anaana

He got trounced,and the English barons took advantage of this weakness to limit regent powers, and at the same time, push back the line of centralised European imperial powers, but mostly to limit the amount of taxes and other revenues that they were liable to pay to the crown, thereby preventing the king from seizing land or resources on a whim, or in order to pursue his own interests (rather than those of the country).

So this was about taxes?