Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why Templar Secret Rituals Were Controversial


Claire.

Recommended Posts

Why the Templar Secret Rituals Were So Controversial

From spitting on the Christian cross to strange sexual acts, the Knights Templar's secret rituals were controversial. But were they using these ceremonies to praise a different religion entirely?

View video: Smithsonian

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks .... I was waiting for someone to watch it and comment .  

 

I have stopped watching posted vids without comment ..... soon,  responses to a posted vid will be just a posted vid too   :(  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/1/2017 at 9:25 PM, Khaemwaset said:

I'm a little surprised by the Smithsonian video.  Should we even mention that these admissions were made after King Philip IV of France had arrested, imprisoned and tortured the said knights?  If they recanted these admissions, they were horribly executed, often burned alive.  The reasons for going after the Templars are many, but mostly have to do with jealousy, greed and power.  Philip owed them a lot of money and he couldn't control them or tax them, due to the fact that they only owed fealty to the Roman Pontiff, directly.  Philip managed to get his own agent, the Frenchman Raymond de Got, installed as Pope Clement V, and proceeded with his plan for the Order knowing that they'd receive no more help from Rome. From Philip's point of view, they had to be eliminated. There's a lot of literature about this...and not much reason I think to take the details from the confessions as being bona fide, but rather, they were most likely scurrilous documents written by the knights' oppressors, and signed by desperate, tortured, traumatized knights in order to stay alive.  Even the Grand Master Jaques de Molay was tortured and confessed, but he then, famously, recanted in public, after which he was burned alive.  Interestingly, the fabled 'riches' of the order were never discovered, no doubt much to Philip's dismay.

Cannot remember the titles of the books. However pretty sure the Iron King was in fact at war with the Church and Pope Clements. The Iron King had for quite some time, slowly tried to reclaim the power from the Church in France. He wanted to be the ultimate ruler of France. As a counter attack, the Pope issued a papal bull, due the church slowly loosing its power, that there was no salvation outside the church. The Iron King saw this as a declaration of war. 

The Pope had for some years, tried to merge the Knight Templars with the Knight Hospitalters, and had finally been able to arrange for the two Grand Master to meet and discuss a merger. The negotiations were in France and the Iron King saw his chance. 

Many of the Iron King own officials were Knight Templars, which declared their loyalty to Pope Clements, not the Iron King.  This and his debts to Templars, were seen as a threat which had to be eliminated. 

So he sent out sealed orders which would be opened on Friday the 13th, declaring heresy charges on the Knights Templar in France. Only the templars which were in France were arrested, as he didn't have any jurisdiction outside his own kingdom. 

The Iron King tortured the templars to sign their own confessions. If they signed their confessions and they were not high ranking templars then they would be released and could keep their property in France. 

When he had all the signed confessions, he went to the Pope. The Pope was pressured by the Iron King to send out a papal bull outlawing the Templars in other European kingdoms. However the Pope didn't outlaw the Knights Templar which were located in the Middle East.

After the arrest and confessions, a month or two before the papal bull was sent out, the Knights Templar in the rest of Europe either joined the Knights Hospitalters or retired.

The Pope didn't send out a paper bull until 5 years later, after the arrests in France, dissolving the Knights Templar Order. 

Therefore can you please show some documentation which gives evidence that the Pope was in fact an agent of the French Crown?

This claim is new to me and I would quite like to know if I need to update myself on the subject. 

 

 

Edited by Sahir
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, no it's a BIG IF, there was some sort of introductory rite that was less than accepted practice in Christendom than it served to, basically, tie you to the order, no matter what.

In effect, if the last act of the rite of induction was to p*** on the cross, than if one member of the order goes down, they all do. So it's in your own best interests to stick with what the Templars order, it's i your own best interests to keep the orders secrets secret.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems there indeed were rumors back in the days, conspiring the Iron King and the soon to become Pope had made some kind of agreement/arrangement, before being elected the head of the church. 

However the source, Giovanni Villani - a banker and an official diplomat from the 13-14th century- and his chronicles, refered to the rumors as gossip. His chronicles have received quite a lot of criticism and is not seen as a reliable sourcebook for historical facts outside his lifetime.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/750453?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Anyway, this "gossip" would today be called a conspiracy theory. 

I think it's safe to say, the Pope most likely were not an agent of the French crown and this "agreement" between the Pope and the Iron King was simply a 14rh century conspiracy theory. 

 

Edited by Sahir
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Sahir.  Forgive me now for the following long-winded reply to your points, but I fear I’m a wordy beast.  I need to lay down the sequence, if you’ll humor me. 

With respect, I suggest it was the earlier Pope Boniface VIII (not Clement V) with whom Philip was so very hostile, and he who issued the 1296 bull ‘Clericis laicos’ against Philip, forbidding lay taxation of the clergy, which Philip had sought.  Philip was constantly in need of money to finance his martial activities, as well as paying off the debts of his father’s war with Aragon.  Boniface’s aggressive bull prompted Philip to react, issuing his ban on the exporting of money from France to Rome, and then decreeing laws prohibiting the export of gold, silver, precious stones or food to Rome.  Boniface issued another bull in 1301, protesting trials in royal courts of churchmen and Philip’s use of church funds for state purposes, but the bull was (supposedly) thrown into the fireplace by a courtier when delivered to Philip.  In any case, it must have survived if that story is true, because in 1302 the bull was publicly burnt.

Boniface sent a legate to France to reassert his authority over the French clergy and to call an ecclesiastical council.  Now Philip, to forestall the pope’s council, invoked an assembly of the three estates in Paris, the first ‘Etates Generaux’; all three estates wrote separately to the pope asserting the king’s authority over temporal matters.  Alarmed, Boniface now set his ecclesiastical council in Rome, and afterward issued the bull 'Unam Sanctam' declaring his ultimate supremacy over all things spiritual and temporal, and specifically that kings were subordinate to the Pontiff.  In April 1303, Boniface excommunicated anybody interfering with church prelates traveling to Rome – this excommunication included Philip by inference.  Philip then opened a new plan and sent William Nogaret to arrest the pope at Anagni, a coup which failed...the pope escaped, but wounded and traumatized, he died not long thereafter, in 1304. 

A year-long papal interregnum ensued, with the Italian faction holding out for one of their own, but eventually yielding to Philip’s pick: the French archbishop - not cardinal - Bertrand de Got, was then elected Pope Clement V, in 1305.  A chronicler of the time, one Giovanni Villani, refers to a whispered but uncorroborated pact made between Bertrand and Louis before the former’s election to the Papacy. However, it cannot be taken as contemporary evidence, since it is basically court gossip, as far as we know.

You could argue Clement was not a French agent per se, and he did try and delay some of Philip’s plans, but he seems to have always eventually yielded to the King.  Some of his first acts as Pontiff was the creation of nine French cardinals.  In 1306 he dismissed those articles in ‘Clericis laicos’ which applied to the King of France, and he revoked ‘Unam Sanctam’. On the day of Clement’s coronation in 1305, Philip began the formal condemnation of the Templars at the Papal court; a process that only grew until and after the signal night of October 13, 1307.  Under French pressure the papal court was removed from Rome to Poitiers in 1305, and then to Avignon in 1309, the ‘Babylonian captivity’ (1309 – 1377) which eventually led to the famous Great Schism, under which the papal court at Avignon was kept under the domination of, if not the agency of, the French king, while a rival, Italian pope held court in Rome.

I believe you are right to say that Clement V did put up some resistance to Philip over the condemnation and arrest of the Templars.  It took seven years to process and condemn the masters of the order; De Molay died in 1314.  But at first, Clement demurred: after all, the Templars were the bankers that accommodated Europe and the Middle East.  They had vast landholdings and coordinated local business all over Western Europe.  Jacques de Molay was well connected; I've read (I can’t remember where, so I have no citation) that he was in fact a close associate with Philip and was godfather to at least one of Philip's sons.  In fact, Philip had himself found sanctuary in a Temple fortress only a year prior to the suppression, after he had debased the currency due to his financial malfeasance.  However, Philip owed the Order a lot of money and, as I’ve noted, he was already in a long fight with the church over full sovereignty within his realm, especially with reference to finances.  He had exiled the Jews in 1306, to whom he also owed money, and seized their property…and collected on the loans they had made.  He treated the Lombards similarly.  The Templars were, in a way, the ultimate target for him.  So Philip acted swiftly and decisively on that Friday 13, 1307, without the Papal sanction which came later…but against the findings of the Council of Vienne, which had refused to condemn them.

Many Templars escaped into Aragon, and Tomar, Portugal, as well as joining the Hospitallers after the downfall.  The Aragonese Templars were renamed The Order of Montesa.  The meeting to which you refer between the two Grand Masters, in May 1307, meant to effect a merger between the Templars and Hospitallers, was opposed by both Grand Masters, but was agreed to under pressure from the Papacy and behind him Philip, who thought he could reach his goals by this path.  No agreement was reached, and in October, Philip acted unilaterally against the Templars.

None of these events themselves are obscure; you can read about them online via Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Brittanica and elsewhere by searching the names of the historical actors.  I’m afraid I don’t have any original source documentation to point you to; this field isn’t my focus of interest so my information is a little dusty; so sorry.  There are many books about the Templars specifically; I’ve read some in the past, but cannot distinguish those titles from the many available now.  Here in my home I can refer to the early chapters of both A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman and Simon de Gramaud and the Great Schism by Howard Kaminsky.  Both corroborate the accommodating posture of Clement to Philip.   I’ll search out some other sourcing this weekend when I have the extra time.

Regards.

 

Edited by Khaemwaset
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Khaem

We seem to be of the similar opinion of the history regarding the Templars. After reading your last post, I decided to look into the connection between the Iron King and Pope Clements. 

As we both agree, the Iron King was at war with the Church. The Iron King's councilor did kidnap and torture Pope Boniface, according to credible sources. Most sources claims the Pope, after being held prisoner and tortured for three days, was released due to growing support of the Pope by townsmen who also had a fight with Iron Kings councilor(Nogaret) and his allies. Some sources do claim he wasn't released but escaped during the aforementioned fight. Some sources further claim Pope Boniface was released after making an agreement with Nogaret (However let's call that a 13-14th century conspiracy theory, as the sources are not credible). Boniface died a month later, most likely from his wounds. The next head of the church, Pope Benedict was only in office for a year after the death of Pope Boniface. The Iron King sent Nogaret to visit Pope Benedict to seek absolution over the clashes with Pope Boniface. However Pope Benedict refused to meet Nogaret and refused to submit to the request by the Iron King. Pope Benedict was poisoned and died, some sources claim by Nogaret.

Now, I'm currently reading through some sources, which claims the Iron King gave financial support to Goth(Upcoming Pope Clement) during his election campaign. If, after being scrutinized, the sources are credible, then this could support the conspiracy that Pope Clements was indeed in the pocket of the Iron King. 

The Iron King must have had some kind of influence over Pope Clements. As we have credible sources showing us, the Iron King warned Pope Clements about the dangers of Rome and how the Pope could not be protected in Rome. When de Goth was elected Pope, he did basically follow the Iron Kings advice and moved the power of the church from Italy to France. 

Just to add to your previous post. The Iron King didn't only "throw out" the Jews. He also "threw out" the Lombard bankers. 

I think it safe to say, the Iron King had only two things on his mind. Money and power. 

P.S Nogaret was also the man who was "in charge" of the Templars confessions.

Edited by Sahir
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Sahir.  I've poked around a bit and found what appears to be an excellent online resource: a 2014 paper that comprehensively deals with the entire subject wrt Philip and both Popes.  It seems well researched with some very interesting angles, I recommend it: http://history.rutgers.edu/honors-papers-2014/1080-kennelly-honors-thesis-2014/file   Interestingly, the author takes a neutral stance as to the torture of the Templars, based on some details in the archival evidence, but the subordination of Pope Clement to Philip is referred to repeatedly, as well as much else.  So, here's an online source discussing the implications of the Chinon Parchment, http://www.academia.edu/8850655/The_Chinon_Parchment  It was found in the Vatican archives in 2002 and translated in 2007...the parchment is the archival trial documentation of the masters of the Templars, a document overseen by Clement and not Philip...and is surprising in some ways.  I think you'll enjoy it, though it may provoke some more questions.

Regards 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is the result that the video is worth watching, or not? 

Everything I've read says that the Templars were victims of false accusations that resulted from money, and power, issues with the French King.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So is the result that the video is worth watching, or not? 

Everything I've read says that the Templars were victims of false accusations that resulted from money, and power, issues with the French King.

The video is very short, under a couple of minutes. The members here have gone into considerably more depth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/1/2017 at 5:28 AM, Khaemwaset said:

Hello Sahir.  I've poked around a bit and found what appears to be an excellent online resource: a 2014 paper that comprehensively deals with the entire subject wrt Philip and both Popes.  It seems well researched with some very interesting angles, I recommend it: http://history.rutgers.edu/honors-papers-2014/1080-kennelly-honors-thesis-2014/file   Interestingly, the author takes a neutral stance as to the torture of the Templars, based on some details in the archival evidence, but the subordination of Pope Clement to Philip is referred to repeatedly, as well as much else.  So, here's an online source discussing the implications of the Chinon Parchment, http://www.academia.edu/8850655/The_Chinon_Parchment  It was found in the Vatican archives in 2002 and translated in 2007...the parchment is the archival trial documentation of the masters of the Templars, a document overseen by Clement and not Philip...and is surprising in some ways.  I think you'll enjoy it, though it may provoke some more questions.

Regards 

The sources which claim the Iron King gave financial support to Goth( Pope Clements) didn't pass the scrutiny. 

Thank you so much for the provided links, will read through them today. If they provoke more questions, then I'll be back :tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/1/2017 at 5:28 AM, Khaemwaset said:

http://www.academia.edu/8850655/The_Chinon_Parchment  It was found in the Vatican archives in 2002 and translated in 2007...the parchment is the archival trial documentation of the masters of the Templars, a document overseen by Clement and not Philip...and is surprising in some ways.  I think you'll enjoy it, though it may provoke some more questions.

Regards 

I would like to thank you for the provided link. Haven't researched this subject in depth since the 90's. I didn't even know this Chinon Parchment existed. It was found in 2001, by the way. ;)

I am shocked after reading some of the document. 

I need to spend more time digging deeper into this document, which were found in the Vatican's Secret Archive. This document, as you say, shows interrogations conducted of the highest ranking Templars. by Pope Clements men along with witnesses.

They were asked in these interrogations if their confessions to the Iron King were due to rewards, favors, fear, persuasion, requests, torture or any force, the Templars  said no.

The Grand master Molay even stated he wasn't tortured by the Iron King. 

3 confirmed they were asked by their receptors to denounce and spit on the cross during their initiation ritual. They however didn't do it but were still accepted into to the order. 

However some admitted they did denounce the Cross but only in words and not in spirit. 

They all denied practicing sodomy, but admitted to kissing. 

There is so much information which needs to be looked at in depth.  The Orders initiation rituals would have been VERY controversial at the time. 

So to answers DieCheckers question.

Yes it's worth watching.

This new document shows us the confessions most likely were genuine. Pope Clements and the Iron Kings interrogations yielded very similar conclusions. As previous sources cannot at any satisfactory level document Pope Clements was an agent of the French Crown, we should not speculate that this could be the reason for the similarities in the two conclusions. Hence it is most likely the confessions were in fact true. 

P.S according to the Chinon Parchment the Templars wished to seek absolution from the Pope and Church. They received their pardons by Pope Clement and the church. 

Edited by Sahir
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Sahir.  Yes, it is very interesting.  If you read the other link, the author of that paper takes the parchment into consideration in her in-depth analysis, and I urge you to read that through.  In short, she thinks it is likely (but not provable) that some if not many Templars, including the masters, were tortured in France (not elsewhere), but that Clement wanted to absolve them and not condemn them, and so conducted interviews separately from Nogaret (Philip's man)  and produced this document in the hopes of doing so.  However the document was never published and circulated as was intended by Clement; Philip pressured Clement to produce another bull that would meet with his goals, which is in fact what Clement did in the end.

Yes, I agree, the admissions about the initiation rituals, and the explanations for why they were done, would have been controversial, but Clement's people seem to have believed the masters' explanations for their purpose.  Since that is the OT of this thread, I'll post some of the admissions of the initiation practices when I get some time later.  :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2017 at 8:28 PM, Khaemwaset said:

Hello Sahir.  I've poked around a bit and found what appears to be an excellent online resource: a 2014 paper that comprehensively deals with the entire subject wrt Philip and both Popes.  It seems well researched with some very interesting angles, I recommend it: http://history.rutgers.edu/honors-papers-2014/1080-kennelly-honors-thesis-2014/file   Interestingly, the author takes a neutral stance as to the torture of the Templars, based on some details in the archival evidence, but the subordination of Pope Clement to Philip is referred to repeatedly, as well as much else.  So, here's an online source discussing the implications of the Chinon Parchment, http://www.academia.edu/8850655/The_Chinon_Parchment  It was found in the Vatican archives in 2002 and translated in 2007...the parchment is the archival trial documentation of the masters of the Templars, a document overseen by Clement and not Philip...and is surprising in some ways.  I think you'll enjoy it, though it may provoke some more questions.

Regards 

 

...you may wish to be a little more critical in your reading than in citing a undergraduate's honors thesis. Almost by definition, they're unlikely to present any new ideas or worthwhile new methodologies. At best, they're a reposting of the field's findings, filtered through an undergraduate (and hence very simplistic) understanding of the field.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

 

...you may wish to be a little more critical in your reading than in citing a undergraduate's honors thesis. Almost by definition, they're unlikely to present any new ideas or worthwhile new methodologies. At best, they're a reposting of the field's findings, filtered through an undergraduate (and hence very simplistic) understanding of the field.

--Jaylemurph

Some of us like simplistic understandings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Portugal the Templars had the king's protection, and so they just changed names, today tne head of that institutionis tne portuguese President of the Republic of Portugal, and its no secret as each year he presents people with medals of The Order of Christ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those wishing to read the 2007 translation of the Chinon Parchment by A.A. Grishin, you can download the ebook here for free:

http://vps102904.vps.ovh.ca/Merric-166/x560122941-the-knights-templar-absolution-the-chinon-parchment-and-the-history-of-the-poor-.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

 

...you may wish to be a little more critical in your reading than in citing a undergraduate's honors thesis. Almost by definition, they're unlikely to present any new ideas or worthwhile new methodologies. At best, they're a reposting of the field's findings, filtered through an undergraduate (and hence very simplistic) understanding of the field.

--Jaylemurph

No, I don't wish.  The citation was suitable for the purposes of this thread: a current posting (or reposting) of the field's findings, which this paper provided quite well.  Other, 'better' citations would be welcome to supercede this one, if provided.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT, but for those interested, here's a detailed, somewhat lengthy 2016 article by Andrew Latham analyzing the power struggle between Philip and Boniface: http://www.medievalists.net/2016/08/the-emergence-of-regnal-sovereignty-at-the-turn-of-the-fourteenth-century/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Khaemwaset said:

No, I don't wish.  The citation was suitable for the purposes of this thread: a current posting (or reposting) of the field's findings, which this paper provided quite well.  Other, 'better' citations would be welcome to supercede this one, if provided.

Clearly, after posting that self-published garbage, you're none too finicky about what you do link to. I assume, given the absence of any professional bios and lack of actual professional publication associated with A. A. Grishin, you /are/ A. A. Grishin, come here to peddle your wears.

No historian worth their salt would turn to a self-published book -- what amounts to a 'zine -- as any sort of comment on the state of the field.

--Jaylemurph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a lucid and finely wrought essay on Philip and the Trial, from 2013, packed with details, entitled: ' A Heresy of State: Philip the Fair, the Trial of the “Perfidious Templars,” and the Pontificalization of the French Monarchy'   Author: Julien Théry :

 https://www.academia.edu/4120353/_A_Heresy_of_State._Philip_the_Fair_the_Trial_of_the_Perfidious_Templars_and_the_Pontificalization_of_the_French_Monarchy_in_Journal_of_Medieval_Religious_Cultures_39_2_2013_p._117-148 

Jaylemurph, please.  Stop swinging your machete at me.   I only offered the link because that book contains the full original Latin text of the Chinon parchment along with a full translation, in case anybody would want to read that for themselves.  If there's another translation available to view online, I haven't found it. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If, no it's a BIG IF, there was some sort of introductory rite that was less than accepted practice in Christendom than it served to, basically, tie you to the order, no matter what.

In effect, if the last act of the rite of induction was to p*** on the cross, than if one member of the order goes down, they all do. So it's in your own best interests to stick with what the Templars order, it's i your own best interests to keep the orders secrets secret.

Sounds like The Machiavelli Covenant 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall the name of the book, but there is some thought about the Templars and their time in the Middle East. The one theory is that perhasp they  came across the followers of St.John the Baptist also called Johannites. there is some connection between them and the Mandeans  who still exist  and are an ancient religious group.  I don't think we  outside of the whole Pope and King Phillip thing  will really learn what their rituals were unless  there are books from the Templars themselves giving the rituals and their meanings.That's like much of the rituals  and writings of the Cathars  has disappeared but there are a few things that have survived. And  not only were they in Spain and Portugal, they also apparently were in Germany,but there is little about them in english.I assume they must have joined the Teutonic Knights during this whole debacle. The Teutonic Knights did go to Prussia and the Baltic States and fought a famous battle with Alexander Nevsky  which was part of a movie about his life made by the Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎17‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 8:25 PM, Khaemwaset said:

I'm a little surprised by the Smithsonian video.  Should we even mention that these admissions were made after King Philip IV of France had arrested, imprisoned and tortured the said knights?  If they recanted these admissions, they were horribly executed, often burned alive.  The reasons for going after the Templars are many, but mostly have to do with jealousy, greed and power.  Philip owed them a lot of money and he couldn't control them or tax them, due to the fact that they only owed fealty to the Roman Pontiff, directly.  Philip managed to get his own agent, the Frenchman Raymond de Got, installed as Pope Clement V, and proceeded with his plan for the Order knowing that they'd receive no more help from Rome. From Philip's point of view, they had to be eliminated. There's a lot of literature about this...and not much reason I think to take the details from the confessions as being bona fide, but rather, they were most likely scurrilous documents written by the knights' oppressors, and signed by desperate, tortured, traumatized knights in order to stay alive.  Even the Grand Master Jaques de Molay was tortured and confessed, but he then, famously, recanted in public, after which he was burned alive.  Interestingly, the fabled 'riches' of the order were never discovered, no doubt much to Philip's dismay.

Not true.

The Templars became a law unto themselves, refused to follow the church and got made illegal as a result. The rest is propaganda designed to make the Pope and the French out to be the bad guys.

An they were heretical from a Christian view point as they were using stuff from the Koran too and had created a God which was all prophets and all Gods merged into one figure. That combined God called baphomet is often mistaken as being the devil as it has horns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.