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.

 

Is masonary connected to the Knights Templer?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snake Plissken


I think that depends on how you define evidence.


Evidence: Something that furnishes proof. Circumstances are interesting and can lead to fascinating speculation, but do not demonstrate proof.



Degrees in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite such as the Knight of St Andrew, the Knight of Rose Croix, and the 32nd Degree in Consistory make reference to a Templar connection. John J. Robinson makes a case for the Templar-Masonic connection in his book "Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry."


I hold the 32° in the Scottish Rite, and am familiar with the Rite's Templar legends. I'm also a Knight Templar in the York Rite. Furthermore, I've read Robinson's book, and find his ideas interesting.

Nevertheless, it seems that all available historical evidence on Masonic Templary can be traced back to Ramsay. If you're not acquainted with the Ramsay story, here's a brief summary:

Chevalier Michael Andrew Ramsay was a French Mason in the early 18th century. Masonry became popular in France quickly but was populated by aristocrats. The French aristocracy did not particularly like the idea of belonging to a fraternity founded by common craftsmen. To remedy this, Ramsay gave a famous oration wherein he claimed that Masonry was descended from medieval chivalry (he didn't mention the Templars in particular). This appeased the French aristocratic Masons of the period, giving them a romantic, swashbuckling (although apparently completely fictional) history.

Soon afterward, new degrees of chivalry began popping up all over France, and they adopted Templary as their imaginary forebears (probably because the templars were persecuted by the Church in their time just as Masons were persecuted at the beginning of the Enlightenment). The French Rite of Perfection absorbed the Templar degrees, and this Rite eventually eveolved into the modern Scottish Rite.

But even Pike, himself sympathetic to the Templar legend, stated in Morals and Dogma, while speaking of Masonic Templary, that "We teach the truth of none of the legends we recite". We who are modern Masonic Knights Templar generally view the original Templars as our "spiritual forefathers" inasmuch as we attempt to live by their code of chivalry. We do not, however, claim to be their lineal successors.




posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I think that the circumstantial and symbolic evidence suggests a link, however tenuous. If the fleet escape under Roger Bellechance's command, flying the black skull and crossbones flag, to Scotland in 1307, is true, then the rest of the trail is pretty clear. The Battle of Bannockburn is a good start, Bruce's vastly outnumbered, outfunded, less armed, and less trained force routed Edwards stunned attackers using unknown tactics only recently adopted in the Crusades. How did the Scots get hold of the newest warfare tactics ahead of the English?
Ancient Scottish gravestones sport Templar symbols such as the skull and bones, suggesting some fugitive knights settled there. Scottish explorer Henry Sinclair sailed to America a century before Columbus, and his family name turns up in Templar records from nearly the time of their founding. The Oak Island Pit mystery and castle foundations in Nova Scotia lend another possible clue, both mysteries yet unsolved. The pit was ingeniously designed and the complex construction of it required a large skilled labour force.
The Templars were being hunted, and Freemasonry began as a strictly secret association.
The Newport Tower in Rhode Island is another puzzle that is unsolved and fits in with their style of work.
All this is pure speculation, of course, but then, what proof does one hope to find about a fiercely guarded secret?
Degrees in the craft are named after the order.
The sons of the lodge members organization is named for Jacques DeMolay, the Templars last leader.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I think that the circumstantial and symbolic evidence suggests a link, however tenuous. If the fleet escape under Roger Bellechance's command, flying the black skull and crossbones flag, to Scotland in 1307, is true, then the rest of the trail is pretty clear. The Battle of Bannockburn is a good start, Bruce's vastly outnumbered, outfunded, less armed, and less trained force routed Edwards stunned attackers using unknown tactics only recently adopted in the Crusades. How did the Scots get hold of the newest warfare tactics ahead of the English?


The obvious problem with this is that there is no evidence that any Templars participated at the Battle of Bannockburn. This often mentioned ancedote is legendary, without historical backing.


Ancient Scottish gravestones sport Templar symbols such as the skull and bones, suggesting some fugitive knights settled there.


What is your reference to a skull and bones being a Templar symbol?



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

The obvious problem with this is that there is no evidence that any Templars participated at the Battle of Bannockburn. This often mentioned ancedote is legendary, without historical backing.

What is your reference to a skull and bones being a Templar symbol?


It is agreed, as my post stated, that the links are not historically accepted as proven, and the actual solid documentation and evidence is scarce. As I said, for a secret society, that is to be expected, if they are serious about their secrecy. I have read dozens of Templar books, such as 'Dungeon, Fire, and Sword.' by Robinson, 'Robert the Bruce' by Ronald McNair Scott', 'Holy Blood Holy Grail, The Messianic Legacy, The Temple and the Lodge, and The Elixir and the Stone.' by Baigent, Lincoln, and Lee. 'The Head of God: Lost Treasure of the Templars.', and many others about the Crusades, the Masonic/Templar parallels, etc.
The number of anecdotal commonalities between the two groups, and the time period that they cover all support the theory. It is possible, plausible, and, in my humble opinion, probable that the Templar descendents were the original Masons, strictly secret for survival purposes, and only officially founded once the risk of their executions was acceptably lessened.
In the USA, it is notable that the intelligence, military, and judiciary have always contained many Masons in their ranks. From Franklin, the first Spymaster General, and Washington, the first President, onward, this has been so. The benefits a secret group offers those positions is valuable.
As for the fleet of Templar ships which left La Rochelle, France before Phillip IV arrested the order, Friday 13, Oct. 1307, was allegedly sailing under the command of Jolly Roger (Roger Bellechance), and the naval flag of the Templar fleet was a black flag with a skull above two crossed bones. The same as attributed to pirate ships. If the Templars were fugitives, then piracy could have been an option as a source of a living.
Of course, I wasn't there, and Bannockburn, though puzzling in its huge upset of an outcome, is not historically proven Templars helped Bruce win. The tactics, the fact Scotland did not follow Phillips advised persecution making it a safe haven for fugitive knights, and the later masonic/Templar ties, all suggest they might have been the ace in the hole Bruce played and won with.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I've followed most of the above theories and they all have unexplained "gaps" in their timelines, so they are most likely incorrect.
However I have read more than several Masonic works and pieced together the following:

Freemasonry originated in the later part of the 17th centaury (circa 1690) by the exiled Stuart royal family who sort to find a way to return to Scotland and break apart the Union of Great Britain for they believed that over time the Scottish culture would be lost as a result of governance from London.

While in exile they joined many of the secret societies that abounded in Europe at the time, such as The Rosicrucian’s and began to develop their own cult.
Public lodges didn’t appear until 1713 in Europe and 1717 in England.
It was very much a "work in progress" through the early years and wasn't completed until 1740 with Andrew "Chevalier" Ramsey' s "The Rite Of Perfection" utilising a great many references to The Knight's Templar.
Andrew Ramsey was particularly motivated by stories of this order and most fond of the legend that they aided Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn to “Free” Scotland from the English.

However due to the secret nature and the mixed objectives of all the major members of the cult and its failure to break the Union, it quickly broke apart and began to mutate into the various forms we have today, to a large extent even the most senior members of the cult are unaware of it’s exact origins because they want to believe it goes back “forever” thereby endorsing it as a workable method of “governance.”
The one thing that still unites Masonic bodies is this “Scottish Rite.”
All Masonic groups specify the use of the first 3 degrees of it in order to be recognized.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
As

Originally posted by MrNECROS
The one thing that still unites Masonic bodies is this “Scottish Rite.”
All Masonic groups specify the use of the first 3 degrees of it in order to be recognized.


Again you are displaying your lack of knowledge of freemasonry. How do you explain that relatively few freemasons join the A&A in the UK? And you are clearly not aware that the vast majority of regular masonic lodges use Craft ritual which is nothing to do with the 'Scottish Rite'.

This is just one example of your ongoing habit of posting innuendo and theory as if it were solid fact. Whilst you continue to spread disinformation and ignorance about masonry in the way that you do, you undermine your own credibility.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
As

Originally posted by MrNECROS
I've followed most of the above theories and they all have unexplained "gaps" in their timelines, so they are most likely incorrect.
The one thing that still unites Masonic bodies is this “Scottish Rite.”
All Masonic groups specify the use of the first 3 degrees of it in order to be recognized.




Again you are displaying your lack of knowledge of freemasonry. How do you explain that relatively few freemasons join the A&A in the UK? And you are clearly not aware that the vast majority of regular masonic lodges use Craft ritual which is nothing to do with the 'Scottish Rite'.

This is just one example of your ongoing habit of posting innuendo and theory as if it were solid fact. Whilst you continue to spread disinformation and ignorance about masonry in the way that you do, you undermine your own credibility.

Thanks for the clarification Trinityman. Mrnecros, I disagree that 'unexplained gaps in their timeline' makes their theory 'most likely incorrect.' Certainly, it could indicate flaws, or slight errors, but in my view it does not prove that they are completely wrong. It may be that the many commonalities shared by Masonary and the Templars are not due to them being connected. But, for me, that is currently the most sensible explanation for it.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
"Craft Masonry" is the bottom 3 degrees of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, all published literature of any merit says so.

Read Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike (or at least just look at the index...) and you will see what I'm saying is correct.
Likewise Charles T McClenechan's "Book" and ALL other monitor works.

The fact that a Master Mason is unaware of the higher mysteries does not mean that they do not exist.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The first three degrees of the SR are not the same as Craft masonry,despite the same names. Throughout the majority of the US (I believe there are some lodges in Louisiana practicing SR craft degrees) all Craft masonry is the traditional version. I believe the SR versions were written later but ML can give you more information.

Pure, antient freemasonry predates the SR/A&A and is the defining feature of regular Craft masonry. In some areas of the world the different ritual is distinguished by the epithets 'Blue' or 'Red' masonry/lodges. Many (irregular) lodges on the continent are 'red' lodges and do practice A&R craft masonry.

You really do lay too much store in 'Morals and Dogma'. As a commentary on the degrees of the Scottish Rite it is without parallel. As a reference point for freemasonry in general it's of no use to you. It's like trying to understand the whole of science with a handbook on Astronomy. You may feel you have the inside track on the 'higher ups' and those poor master masons are so deluded. You're welcome to your fantasies.

One of the other difficulties you are having in understanding freemasonry is that you are taking a 'Von Daniken' approach to the subject. You have your theory and are trying to make the facts fit it. 'Proper' researchers do the reverse - take the raw facts and from that build a hypothesis which they then test. I think you need to get back to basics.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Trinityman]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
ROFL!
The first 3 degrees of craft masonry are not the same as the first 3 degrees of the Scottish Rite?

Pike actually describes English "Craft Masonry" in Morals and Dogma and highlights the 3 or 4 minor differences between it and the 3 lowest American rituals.
Try reading a text before you write it off.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
local tradition says that many fleeing Templars fled to Scotland and joined Bobert Bruce. Perpetuating their order in Scotland.

Thats whats usually presented about that. But i really have to wonder at why they would't continue to call themselves Knights Templar, since they are still functioning as knights. And especially since, according to this idea, they continue to function as a secret society. Nor can I really see how they're going to go from crusading knights fighting with the bruce. into stoneworkers.



Understand that they HAD to stop calling themselves Knights Templars and become an obscure secret society in Scotland, in order to make the Church and the monarchy (especially Catholic monarchies) firmly believe that they were disbanded. It was the only way to avoid being indexed and persecuted once more by the kings and the Pope and keep their order alive... If you're going underground, the first basic rule is don't advertise your existence everywhere!

But they were so rooted into the medieval french society (they had HQs into most central bourgs in France!), and their network so well-developed in Europe that it merely seems retarded to believe the official theory that they have just vanished when Jacques De Molay was executed.

And what about the Rosslyn chapel? It is claimed by many historians, even by the modern Templars themselves as being built by the Knights Templars. Frankly, who else would have been able to built such a building which contains so much hermetic symbolism and relations to gnosticism?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
And concerning the continuity of the Order, there are some evidences that John Dee (Elizabeth the First's very own right harm... a prominent alchemist, gnostic and political counselor form Scotland) was one of the main members of the Templars secret society, and that the Rosy Cross was indeed the contituation -or perhaps a more spiritual branch- or this secret society. I just found some interesting infos on that:

John Dee's Confederacio Militae Evangelicae... the Evangelical Military Confederation:



Dee's core group held a meeting on July 17, 1586 in the town of Luneberg, Germany. Simon Studion was considered by the standards of his contemporaries to be somewhat of a bullish rebel philosophically by comparison with his peers, and in his Naometria of 1604, he boldly gave a first-hand account of the meeting. The Luneberg meeting included some evangelical Princes, some Church appointed Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, and representatives for Henry of Navarre, leader of the Protestant Huguenots (he later became Henry IV of France), also the King of Denmark, and Queen Elizabeth I of England.
Confederatio Militiae Evangelicae
The organization was called the Confederatio Militiae Evangelicae, but it was a spiritual and fraternal Order. The Militia Evangelica had existed previously by that name in the 12th Century, established in 1186 in the city of Cologne, Germany; it had also been known then as the Knights of the Temple of Solomon, Knights of St. John, and the Poor Knights of Christ. The Naometria chronicles evidence that the same Militiae historically was also the source of the later Rosicrucian movement that followed publication of the manifestos beginning in 1614. However, the Naometria, in a word that translates to "measurements of the temple," dealt at great length with the prophetic numerological information about the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem.


[edited quote by reducing size -nygdan]

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
If you're going underground, the first basic rule is don't advertise your existence everywhere!

But it seems like one of the main points that everyone is trying ot make is that the Church and Roi didn't destroy them because they didn't hold sway in places like scotland, germany, etc. So why are they going to go underground in those places? And fighting alongside the Bruce, a catholic for what its worth, doesn't seem like a good way of laying low.

And what about the Rosslyn chapel? It is claimed by many historians, even by the modern Templars themselves as being built by the Knights Templars.

Fine, but on what basis?

Frankly, who else would have been able to built such a building which contains so much hermetic symbolism and relations to gnosticism?

Before even looking for an answer to that, it'd 've to be shown that the Knights Templar were even aware of hermeticism and were gnostics, there seems to be nothing really saying that. And how is the stuff at rosslyn hermetic and gnostic as opposed to anything else??

As far as this site
www.geocities.com...

its interesting, however it makes some strange statements right off the bat, like that the cathars were gnostics and part of a pre-christian movement, when there is shaky evidence for the former and non for the latter. Also the opening paragraphs give the impression that all heretics in western europe at the time were cathars, but thats not true either. The page also cites a quotation as 'from jesus', but the source is the non-cannon gospel of Thomas, a gnostic gospel that I don't think anyone recognizes as being actually authentic.

It also states:

Regarding John Dee's great concern for the spiritual well-being of all humankind, finally, the time came when he and a core group of his friends and associates decided to have a meeting to determine what they might be able to do regarding the religious tension in the world

Seems like he wasn't meeting regularly as a Knight Templar, and that he and his friends had to arrange for a special event in order to have such a meeting. Also, if Dee is a Templar, then what happens to the idea that the templars became the masons? The mason's would've existed before this period even. If dee was part of a Templar legacy, then he'd be a Mason.

Of course, it wouldn't make sense for him to be a mason, since intellectuals and reformers and literati and philosophs weren't invited into the Masonic Order. The page also seems to be advocating that the Rosicurians were an actual order that published the early manifestos, and that, infact, this was all done by Dee and the members of this secret meeting he held.

But which is it then, masons, templar, rosicurians?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
If dee was part of a Templar legacy, then he'd be a Mason.


Why?

Speculative Freemasonry was far from widespread in the 17th century.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Freemasonry originated in the later part of the 17th centaury (circa 1690) by the exiled Stuart royal family

How does this explain the manuscipts and groups that existed long before this?

Apparently, according to Mackey, there is no Fellowcraft nor Master degree in masonry until after 1717, and James the III, the exiled king had made any attempt to re-invade england.

Mackey also notes, citing someone named "Rebold" in a word titled "Histoire de trois Grandes Loges", that there is an idea that masons in england, upset with the roundheads I supposed, made up the 2nd and 3rd degrees, giving the symbolism a political nature, in 1649, adn that they were the ones that helped restore Charles II to the throne in 1660.

He does note that James III issued a charter for a "Sovereign Primordial Chapter of Rose Croix", in Arras, France, and that there he notes that he is a"Knight of the Eagle and Pelican" and "Substitute Grande Master of the Chapter of H." presumably 'Heredon'. These orders are considered by Mackey to be the higher degrees in masonry that had been developed by Ramsey. Additionally Mackey attributes the Rite of Strict Observance to Ramsey. But he also notes that the other members of this court in exile met with masons throughout the continent and even back in scotland, and that masonry is already pretty widespread by this time, thus certainly not an invention of the Stuarts and Ramsey.


to find a way to return to Scotland and break apart the Union of Great Britain for they believed that over time the Scottish culture would be lost as a result of governance from London.

But the stuarts didn't seem to have any concern with this beforehand. Even after being restored to the throne, prior to the later exile, they did nothing of the sort.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Atlas-ish Architect: What I am saying is that if the templars morphed into masons during the time of robert the bruce to hide from the agents of the church, then by Dee's time, they'd be masons, not templars, and Dee can't be a Templar, at best he'd be a mason. To say he was a templar makes no sense.

edit to add:
Here is something that might prove interesting for everyone too.
Royal Order of Scotland.

Apparently it is a subdivision or something withint the York Rite. There the legend of the Templars are Bonockburn is repeated, though it is also mentioned that the aides to the Bruce might've been Freemasons.
It should also be mentioned that the masonic authority there notes that there is little evidence for the existence of the order prior to the time of the exile of James III in France, and that it existed largely in that region.

I'm a bit confused as to why its presented as part of the York Rite, but membership in the order is only open to people who've received the 32nd Degree of the Scottish Rite. Maybe one of the mason's on board can clear that confusion up.

An ATS perrenial favourite, Albert Pike, apparently was the first Provincial Grand Master for the order in the US.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

I'm a bit confused as to why its presented as part of the York Rite, but membership in the order is only open to people who've received the 32nd Degree of the Scottish Rite. Maybe one of the mason's on board can clear that confusion up.


The Royal Order of Scotland isn't really a part of either Rite. It is recommended that each Candidate in the USA be a 32° Scottish Rite Mason because the degrees will be more meaningful, but isn't absolutely necessary. However, each Candidate to the Royal Order of Scotland who is not already a member in the AASR will be highly encouraged to request the Scottish Rite degrees up to the 32°. If one is not already an AASR member, he must be a Knight Templar in the York Rite, as well as a Trinitarian Christian.



An ATS perrenial favourite, Albert Pike, apparently was the first Provincial Grand Master for the order in the US.


That is correct: Pike served as PGM until his death in 1891.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Huabamambo
According to Masonic History the Templars were the first ones to set sail for the New World when they were persecuted from Europe.

The evidence to support the voyages to Nova Scotia in the late 1390's by Prince Henry Sinclair of Scotland is pretty solid. It is far more convincing than John Cabot's account of his journey, and the coincidence that Sinclair is also the home of the Rosslyn chapel, and the surname of one of the earliest Templars, supports the recorded accounts. They don't need any more support, though, and stand on their own. Oak Island's money pit, and nearby unexplained ancient castle foundations only add to the list of things which are unexplained, yet can be explained by these journeys.
If the Templars and Freemasonary are not in any way linked, then it sure is odd that they share so many things which are very specific and are not shared by any other groups. Thats a big coincidence.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
There is a Knight's Templar lodge about 15 minutes from my house in Germany....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join