The Persecution of the Knights Templar was by secular Kings, not the Vatican, motivated by the Templar Magna Carta and Chivalry limiting the secular State power of imperialist domination, not any “heresy”, and was actually an attack against the Church through its Templar guardians.
Repeating mainstream narratives, many “history” books, and numerous articles and websites presenting the Persecution of the Templar Order, generally follow a standard approach. The popularized story focuses only on the tragedy and martyrdom of the Knights Templar, typically blaming the fate of the Order on the Vatican. This narrow view only “papers over” the most important body of historical facts, thereby ignoring the real inventors and perpetrators of such crimes against humanity.
‘Last Crusader’ by Karl Friedrich Lessing, 1835 AD
The true history is much more revealing than the propaganda narratives, exposing a dangerous hidden agenda which continues to threaten humanity to this day. Understanding the real motivations and causes of the French Persecution is thus important and necessary, for continuing the authentic traditions of Chivalry through the restored Templar Order in the modern era.
The Templars were persecuted, most of all, for the Templar Magna Carta enforcing the Rule of Law over arbitrary abuses of State power by secular Kings. The tradition of Chivalry itself was considered an obstacle to consolidating secular State power for imperial domination, such that the Templars were actually persecuted for Chivalry being a secular “heresy” against absolute Globalist power of the State.
The Inquisition was actually invented, and inherently controlled, by corrupt imperialist Kings imposing secular State power. The French Persecution of the Templar Order was driven by a larger war against the Vatican itself, to remove Religion as an obstacle to absolute tyrannical State power, and remove the Templars as the key obstacle to usurping and overthrowing the Vatican.
Here, in this work from the original and restored Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple, the true history of the French Persecution of the Templars can finally be revealed in full detail, exposing the real sources and villains of the many such violent persecutions throughout the Middle Ages.
Despite overwhelming evidence that the Templar Order possessed officially recognized sovereignty of independent statehood in its own right, these major authorities were never publicized or popularized during the Middle Ages.
This raises one most intuitive and pressing question: If the Templar Order had independent sovereignty, why was it not able to assert its diplomatic immunities to defend itself against the French Persecution?
The historical record reveals that the Templars never publicly highlighted their own sovereign diplomatic status, largely as a result of complacency, from their increasing reliance upon and growing confidence in the Vatican’s escalating generous support, which seemed like it would never end.
As a result, when the French King waged a war against the Vatican and forced that support to end, by the time the Templar Order needed to defend itself, it was already too late to invoke its status and immunities.
The Templar motto is “Non nobis Domine, sed nomini Tuo da gloriam”, meaning “Not to us, Lord, but to Thy name give the glory” (Psalm 115:1) [1]. This means that Templars do not conduct their humanitarian missions to be seen, but rather to uplift others and empower humanity, by manifesting the glory of God.
Jesus explained this principle: “Do not your alms [charity] before men, to be seen… do not sound a trumpet before thee… [to] have glory of men. … But… in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.” (Matthew 6:1-4) [2]
The medieval Templars thus strongly believed that they should not flaunt and promote their real sovereign powers and authorities publicly, but rather use that legal status only privately, when relevant and necessary.
Accordingly, despite their absolute independence, the Templars preferred to operate mostly under the Catholic Church in humility, showing respect and deference to the Vatican’s authorities, as part of giving “Glory to God”.
While this approach of monastic humility works very well in the Kingdom of God, history demonstrates that it does not work so well in the secular world of corrupt kingdoms of men. For this reason, Jesus said: “My Kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36) [3].
Official Vatican records consistently witnessed that the Templar Order did in fact exercise its sovereign status of independent statehood as a Principality, despite this being overshadowed by the context of the formidable political weight of the Church.
The Vatican specifically documented that the Templar Order exercised its sovereignty only quietly and privately, only in its direct relations with other sovereign historical institutions:
“The [Templar] Order [was]… Quite independent, except from the distant [political] authority of the Pope, and possessing power equal to that of the leading temporal sovereigns” [4].
“Moreover… the Templars founded by Hughes of Payens in 1128… formed regular powers, equally independent of Church and State. … the Pope [and] the King could not interfere in their temporal affairs, and [the Order] had its own army and exercised the right of concluding treaties… [Even] royal authority was restricted to rather narrow limits by these various powers” [5].
At the Council of Nablus in 1120 AD, King Baldwin II of Jerusalem elevated the founding Royal “Patronage” of the Templar Order to full Sovereign “Protection” [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].
Legal scholars confirm that “Sovereign Protection” is a legal term of customary law, meaning a grant of permanent independent sovereignty [11][12]. Nobiliary experts on chivalric law confirm that this “Sovereign Protection” is what makes an Order “an independent non-territorial power” [13] [14] [15]. University scholars confirm that “Letters of Protection” create “the Order’s independence” [16], such that the sovereign Order does not answer to any Kings [17].
As this status of the Templar Order was well known and officially recognized in all Royal and Pontifical circles throughout Europe, neither King Baldwin II nor the Knights Templar saw any need to publicize its sovereignty. As the Kingdom of Jerusalem was increasingly thriving, with the Templars enjoying a growing leadership role, the Knights preferred to work in the name of the Kingdom.
The Vatican ratified the Temple Rule of Saint Bernard as a Papal Decree in 1129 AD, which recognized that the Templar Order was already granted Sovereign Protection by the Kingdom of Jerusalem, “to serve in chivalry with the sovereign King” (Rule 1), with many other subtle references to its sovereignty throughout the rules [18].
As this Vatican recognition of Templar sovereignty was even more well known by all Royals and Archbishops who could “read between the lines”, and was much more public, neither King Baldwin II nor the Templars saw any need to further publicize its sovereignty. As the Templars enjoyed growing influence in the Church, the Knights were content to also work in the name of the Vatican.
Count Fulk V d’Anjou was a founding Nobility Patron of the Templar Order (since 1118 AD) [19], essentially serving as the 10th founding Knight (from 1120 AD) of its Grand Mastery [20], and helped it become the High Court for the Kingdom (during ca. 1120-1129 AD) [21] [22]. As King of Jerusalem (1131-1143 AD), Fulk served as Grand Regent of the Templar Order, directly supporting its first two Grand Masters, Hughes de Payens (1131-1136 AD) and Robert de Crayon (1136-1148 AD).
When Fulk became King of Jerusalem in 1131 AD, the Templar Order already held Sovereign Protection from the Kingdom by the Council of Nablus (1120 AD), with recognition of sovereignty and additional Patronage by the Vatican ratifying the Temple Rule as a Papal Decree (1129 AD). As the Templar Order enjoyed great stability and prosperity under King Fulk, it saw no need to assert and promote its own sovereignty, and the Knights remained content to work in the name of the Kingdom and the Vatican.
The Vatican granted the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum to the Templar Order in 1139 AD, giving additional Sovereign Protection from the Vatican [23].
This was issued by Pope Innocent II, who rose to the Papacy despite adversity, promoted and supported by the Templar Patron Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, evidencing that independent sovereignty had always been part of the original plan for the Order [24].
As this Vatican grant of additional Templar sovereignty was explicit, and extremely public, there appeared to be no need for the Templar Order to ever publicize its sovereign status, as the Vatican seemed to have already done that most publicly. As the Templars enjoyed this escalating success, the Knights continued to humbly work in the name of the Vatican.
Later, 23 years after the original Sovereign Protection from the Kingdom (1120 AD), 14 years after Vatican recognition of that status (1129 AD), and 4 years after the Vatican grant of additional Sovereign Protection (1139 AD), King Fulk of Jerusalem died in an equestrian accident while hunting in 1143 AD [25].
‘Death of King Fulk’ in 12th century manuscript
After this, the Kingdom and its Templar High Court were burdened by frequent political intrigues and changes of Royal Succession. This would have discouraged or prevented the Templars from publicly asserting their own independent sovereignty as originally established from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, if they later perceived the need to do so.
Unfortunately, the Vatican’s Omne Datum (1139 AD) granting independent sovereignty went largely unnoticed, and was increasingly ignored, never brought to the attention of the general public, always overshadowed by the political power and social-cultural influence of the Vatican.
In this context, the untimely death of the Templar King Fulk marked a proverbial “point of no return”, after which it became “too late” to later announce the sovereignty which the Order already held from many years before.
The Knights Templar had been content to use their own sovereign status only privately, as a “secret weapon” driving highly successful missions, humbly making historic achievements in the name of the Kingdom and the Church.
As a result, the Templars became “stuck” with that status remaining a “secret”. Although they never intended to keep it secret, years later they could not effectively assert and promote their legal sovereignty in the public opinion.
The Templar leader King Richard the Lionheart of England, the Angevin 1st great grandson of King Fulk of Jerusalem, who signed the first Peace Treaty with Salahadin in 1192 AD, later died from a crossbow wound in 1199 AD. King Richard was succeeded by his brother King John, whose abuses of power required the Knights Templar to force the enactment of Magna Carta in 1215 AD.
Whereas the death of King Fulk marked a “point of no return”, the death of King Richard caused European Royalty to take a “wrong turn” towards arbitrary abuses of power. Even at the height of its popularity promoted by the Templar Richard the Lionheart, the Templar Order was now compelled to act against its own interests in a conflict of interest, as required by Justice, to uphold and defend Civil Liberties and Human Rights.
To establish Magna Carta rights, making Kings subject to the Rule of Law, the Knights Templar fought the military “Barons’ War” of 1215-1217 AD, repeatedly reissued and enforced the Charter against Kings throughout 1216-1225 AD [26], and fought to defend it until the Angevin King Edward I of England enacted its “Confirmation” in 1297 AD and “Articles” of enforcement in 1300 AD [27].
‘King John Signing the Magna Carta Reluctantly’ by Arthur C. Michael (Detail)
This sacred obligation placed the Templars in opposition to many Kings of England and France, whose political support the Knights usually needed to rely on, in the two most strategic territories which the Order actually depended on, for their own survival. Throughout this 85 year period upholding rights under law, even while the Knights Templar gained enormous public support and popularity, they were also losing needed political support from Kings.
As a result, those same Kingdoms which the Templars were most famous and popular for defending and uplifting, gradually transformed into sources of treachery and danger against the Knights Templar.
Therefore, as of 1215 AD, it was conclusively “too late” to publicly assert the founding independent sovereign status of the Templar Order, even when needed most, to defend itself against a corrupt King of an aggressive Kingdom.
Only seven years after the final Templar Angevin enforcement of Magna Carta, the French Persecution against the Templars began in 1307 AD. Unfortunately, King Edward I of England died that same year in 1307 AD, succeeded by the Angevin King Edward II, the 4th great grandson of the Templar King Fulk of Jerusalem, and 1st great grandson of the Templar King Richard the Lionheart.
The new King Edward II of England was already under intense pressure from the French Persecution, and needed to downplay his Templar ancestry from King Fulk. In 1308 AD, he married the daughter of King Philip IV of France as part of peace-making efforts to avoid wars. Thus, he was unable to oppose or resist the French aggression, and could do very little to protect the Knights Templar even in England.
The French Persecution was essentially by “information warfare”, all driven by false propaganda of false defamation, in the proverbial “court of public opinion”. All legal status and rights were thus made irrelevant. As the sovereign status of the Templar Order was never promoted in the public awareness, it was rendered useless to defend against the public defamation.
As a result, during the French Persecution of 1307-1313 AD, the Templar Order found itself unable to effectively assert its independent sovereignty of statehood to invoke its own diplomatic immunities to defend itself, because this legal status had been kept mostly “secret”, as the Templars had chosen to give glory for their accomplishments to the supporting Catholic Church instead.
In the end, most ironically, while the Knights Templar did everything to establish and uphold legal rights to defend humanity, they could do nothing to assert and enforce their sovereign rights to defend themselves.
The British statesman Edmund Burke in 1790 AD said: “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors” [28]. The Spanish philosopher George Santayana most compellingly expressed this in 1905 as: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” [29]. Combining this with related quotes by Winston Churchill in 1935 and 1948, this became popularized as: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” [30]
The restored modern Templar Order has learned its lessons from history, and will not allow the history of its persecution to be repeated: By restoring the true history of its founding sovereignty, and reconnecting itself to that proven sovereign status by the rules of customary law, the Templar Order has fully restored its sovereignty under modern international law.
Therefore, the Templar Order will never again let it be ignored or forgotten, that this restored Order of Chivalry holds multiple sources of permanent and irrevocable Sovereign Protection, as a Non-Territorial (international) Principality of sovereign statehood with diplomatic status, possessing its own independent Crown authority among Kingdoms.
Modern “history” books typically repeat the same superficial summary of why the Knights Templar were persecuted by the secular King of France. That mainstream story is simply that “King Philip IV was deeply in debt to the Order, and sought to destroy the Templars to erase his debt” [31]. While this is certainly true, the real history provides many deeper facts, which are much more revealing, and are highly relevant to restoring and practicing Templar Chivalry as a way of life in the modern world.
There are several personal motivations for King Philip IV of France persecuting the Knights Templar, which are revealed by foundations for a rivalry with the Templar House of Anjou, from the founding Templar Grand Regent King Fulk of Jerusalem.
About 2 years after Count Fulk V d’Anjou was born (ca. 1090 AD), his mother Bertrade de Montfort deserted her husband Fulk IV, and unlawfully married King Philip I of France to become Queen Consort in 1092 AD, despite both Bertrade and Philip having living spouses. This scandalous offense against the House of Anjou caused Pope Urban II to excommunicate Philip I in 1095 AD, also excluding him from any participation in the First Crusade. [32]
Such excommunication of a King is a major threat and liability for a Royal House, because it is essentially the way to depose and dethrone a King, and can also be used to disqualify his dynastic successors.
(When Pope Zachary excommunicated King Childeric III of France in 752 AD, he was deposed and his entire Royal House was ended [33] [34]. When Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV of Germany in 1076 AD, he was temporarily dethroned for 3 days until he repented [35].)
Additionally, this would have laid the foundation for an inter-generational dynastic feud, or at least a rivalry, with descendants of Philip I fearing the potential threat of retribution from the House of Anjou.
The 20th century Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, a close colleague of Sigmund Freud, explained the phenomena of “Projection of Guilt” onto the victim of one’s own wrongdoing, which can also be inter-generational, and can be projected even up to the macro level of international politics, typically involving false accusations, often of a political nature [36].
Accordingly, the later King Philip IV of France evidently projected his own ancestor’s guilt onto the descendants of King Fulk, who were the House of Anjou backing the Knights Templar and helping to enforce Magna Carta.
Therefore, as a result of the treachery of King Philip I removing King Fulk’s mother Bertrade, his descendant Philip IV had good reason (projecting ancestral guilt) to fear three specific and realistic threats to his throne:
(1) Being deposed by the Vatican through the unprecedented influence of the Templar Order as Defenders of the Church; (2) Dynastic retribution from descendants of King Fulk, many of whom were influential leaders of the Templar Order; and (3) A suspected vendetta by the Knights Templar who were fiercely loyal to the Angevin descendants of their original co-founder King Fulk of Jerusalem.
In the context of these facts, the major financial debts which King Philip IV owed to the Templar Order, which otherwise would be a mere embarrassment, would have escalated to the level of a defensive vendetta against the Knights Templar, as perceived enemies of his Royal House. (Such are the destructive effects of psychology within the corrupt minds of the wicked.)
These were apparently the personal motivations, driving Philip IV to launch unprecedented aggression against the Vatican, to force it to tolerate the secular French Persecution of the Templars in 1307 AD, through the corrupt and hijacked “Inquisition” under Royal control. (Yet another example proving that Magna Carta rights must always be defended and heavily enforced, to impose the Rule of Law over all secular Kings.)
Other strategic motivations for King Philip IV of France persecuting the Knights Templar are revealed by certain facts about enforcement of the Magna Carta, which was promoted, established and maintained by the Knights Templar, affecting the French monarchy.
In 1297 AD, the Templar Angevin King Edward I of England enacted Confirmatio Cartarum (“Confirmation of Charters”) reaffirming Magna Carta. In 1300 AD, he enacted Articuli Super Cartas (“Articles Upon the Charters”) for stronger enforcement of Magna Carta. [37]
In 1305 AD, Pope Clement V was forced to declare annulment of Confirmatio Cartarum, under mounting pressure and continuous extreme threats from King Philip IV of France, who saw Magna Carta as a threat to his escalating ambitions of aggression and arbitrary abuse of power [38].
Within only two years after this backlash by King Philip IV, resisting enforcement of the Templar Magna Carta, the French Persecution against the Templars began with a full and violent onslaught, in 1307 AD.
By ca. 1300 AD, the reign of King Philip IV of France had escalated into full egomaniacal tyranny, with heightened Globalist ambitions to usurp Pontifical authority, for corrupt influence by abuse of power, to assert consolidated State power over all other kingdoms. The primary obstacle to that villainous agenda was the Templar Order, upholding principles of Chivalry, and the King thus needed to remove it.
The French Persecution of the Knights Templar was thus a Globalist attack against Chivalry, resembling some political form of Satanic “sacrifice” of Chivalry itself, to pave the way for the rise of secular States to impose corrupt control over the peoples of modern countries.
University historians established that the French “monarchy claimed for itself the mystic foundations of the Papal theocracy”, and needed to abolish and replace the Knights Templar as “the last step of a process of appropriating these foundations”. “What was at stake in the Templars’ trial was the establishment of a Royal theocracy.” [39]
Therefore, “the underlying logic governing the Templars’ trial… had nothing to do with the history of the Order. It had everything to do, by contrast, with the [French] monarchy.” [40]
As repeatedly demonstrated throughout history, the priority Satanic agenda of any Globalist secular State, first and foremost, is always to usurp the worship of God, and misdirect it into worship of the State.
University historians noted “imitation of Papal rhetoric – to the point of parody – in Royal letters”, as the chief Royal Ministers portrayed the French King “as the supreme guarantor of the Faith, above the Pope”, and used “legal-theological arguments… to claim… absolute sovereignty. These arguments were driven by the imperatives of the [claimed] fight against heresy.”
Royal letters even claimed that “what is committed against God, [or] against the Faith… the King considers committed against himself”. By an apparent Satanic inversion, this was “reversed to equate Royal jurisdiction to that of the Pope, by implicitly assimilating the [French] King’s majesty to Divine majesty.”
The Chief Minister Nogaret even escalated this to propaganda of flagrant blasphemy in Royal letters, calling Philip IV “anointed… an Angel of God, minister of [divine] power”. The King commanded all Clergy in the Kingdom to observe “ties of fidelity that bind you to God and to us [Royals], who are in charge of His [God’s] interest in this [Templar] affair”. [41]
Idolatry is canonically defined as “worship given to anyone or anything but the true God… [which] bestows on a creature the reverence due to God alone”, which the Apostles defined as having “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” (Romans I, 23-25). [42]
Idolatry is thus most concisely summarized as: “Worship of the created rather than the Creator.” The modern forms of “idolatry” are thus not statues of deities, but rather are the living “idols” of celebrities and politicians, and above all State power, especially as Big Government. The modern form of “worship” is thus not prayer, but rather “glorifying” leaders and the State.
The excessive glorification (essentially veneration) of State power is actually “double idolatry”, because the State is created by the People, who in turn are created by God, thus two steps removed from the Creator.
Precisely for this reason, the Code of Canon Law prohibits Clergy from “sharing in the exercise of civil power” (Canon 285, §3), or “an active role in political parties” (Canon 287, §2), especially when combined with “armed services” imposing State power by threats or use of force (Canon 289, §1).
Thus, by claiming usurpation of Pontifical authority by such secular State power, and also by heresy and idolatry (Canon 1364, §1), King Philip IV was subject to mandatory automatic excommunication (Canon 1314), including retroactively (Canon 1318), thus nullifying his coronation. [43]
Therefore, while the French King violently persecuted the Knights Templar for false accusations of “heresy”, in fact, Philip IV himself was flagrantly guilty of the “double heresy” of double idolatry.
For the agenda to consolidate State power, to elevate secular governments of modern countries over and above even the worship of God, Chivalry itself had to be vilified so completely, that the Church and the People would tolerate it being abolished, leaving them all defenseless at the mercy of a tyrannical State.
Accordingly, all of the false accusations against the Knights Templar were not really about ‘heresy’ against the Faith or the Church, but in fact, were actually punishment for Chivalry being a ‘heresy’ against the power of the State.
University Templar historians concluded: “In short, the crimes attributed to the Templars constituted a Heresy of State: these [alleged] crimes served to construct a Royal all-mightiness… an important moment for the rise of French Royal absolutism, which initially took the form of a Royal theocracy.” [44]
The 21st century Templar historian Alain Demurger, Maître de Conférences of the 12th century Sorbonne University de Paris, explains that the French Persecution of the Knights Templar was a major coup, to establish the supremacy of State power by secular governments:
“[It is] concluded, in short, that the [Templar] Order seems to have been a ‘scapegoat’ that ‘paid for all the international military Orders’, which ‘had no place in the modern State’. By the end of the 13th century, these Orders… had become ‘foreign bodies’ within Kingdoms and constituted ‘obstacles to the development of centralized monarchies’.” [45]
The above expert conclusion not only explains the historical events, but also explains the entirely one-sided mainstream ‘historical research’, which focused almost exclusively on the Confessions under torture, while remaining wholly ‘un-curious’ about the real motivations of the French Persecution of the Templar Order.
The 21st century Templar historian, Professor Julien Théry, of the 13th century Université de Montpellier and Université de Lyon in France, explains that the typical obsession of researchers analyzing the Templar Trials and Confessions is inherently corrupted by bias, driven by mainstream propaganda, justifying State power by secular governments:
“The naivety with which some historians approach inquisitorial procedures stems… from a kind of visceral tendency to legitimize the actions of State power in general. … [Thus], research centering on the trial transcripts results in a semi-scholarly fantasy in its desire to establish the truth of the crimes.”
“The obstinacy [stubbornness] with which historians have been pursuing traces of genuine canonical irregularities reveals how disturbing and even unbearable is the idea that the entire trial had absolutely no basis in fact.”
“Rather than recognize the absolutely arbitrary nature of State institutions during the Templar affair in all its violence, historians often rely on a mode of denial familiar to psychoanalysts: … [They] seek to preserve, in spite of everything, a reassuring image of State institutions as the ultimate guarantors of truth and justice.” [46]
On the basis of the above revealing facts of “lost” history (now “found“), we now have a healthy understanding of the real geopolitical context, personal motivations, and political strategies which caused the French Persecution of the Templar Order. With this clarity, we can now properly examine the relevant facts of the persecution of the Templars, which forced the Order to survive as an “underground” network for 700 years after.
King Philip IV reportedly demanded that Pope Boniface VIII excommunicate the Knights Templar in 1302 AD. When the Pope refused, in 1303 AD “the King had dared to arrange to have the Pope declared a heretic… with the aim of judging and deposing Boniface.” [47]
As punishment for this outrage against the Vatican, and equally in defense of the Knights Templar, Pope Boniface VIII excommunicated King Philip IV in 1303 AD [48] [49].
The King thus triggered the realization of his own worst fears, that the excommunication of his ancestor Philip I in 1095 AD was a remaining liability which could retroactively disqualify and dethrone Philip IV. However, instead he caused his mandatory excommunication by his own hand, by his own flagrant wrongdoing, essentially going to war against the Vatican.
In retaliation, King Philip IV had Pope Boniface VIII kidnapped in 1303 AD, and severely beaten for three days, until local villagers took up arms and freed the Pope, killing many of the French officers. One month later, the Pope died of severe trauma from the attack. [50]
Papal Coat of Arms of Pope Benedict XI, adopted in 1304 AD, with colours of the Templar flag
His successor, Pope Benedict XI, was Cardinal Boccasini, who had also been kidnapped and imprisoned together with Pope Boniface in 1303 AD [51].
Benedict XI adopted as his Papal Coat of Arms (heraldry), the black and white colours of the Knights Templar flag, declaring himself a Templar loyalist.
Although Pope Benedict XI was forced to release King Philip IV from excommunication, within 6 months in 1304 AD, he excommunicated the King’s Minister Nogaret and all other Royal officers involved in his kidnapping with Boniface. As evidenced by Vatican records, Pope Benedict was assassinated by command of King Philip only two months later:
“After a brief Pontificate of eight months, Benedict died suddenly [in 1304]… It was suspected, not altogether without reason, that his sudden death was caused by poisoning through the agency of [the King’s Minister] Nogaret.” [52]
Under illegal duress of overwhelming aggression from the French King, and under direct immediate threat of two Popes being very recently killed, the Vatican elected King Philip’s childhood friend, Archbishop Bertrand de Goth, to become Pope Clement V in 1305 AD.
Also under extreme duress, Pope Clement V never established his Papal Court in Rome, but rather stayed in France, in Poitiers from 1305 AD, and moving to Avignon in 1309 AD. This became the long “Avignon Papacy” of 1309-1377 AD, which Templar loyalists derisively called the “Babylonian Captivity” of the Papacy, being hijacked by the French monarchy. [53]
In his war against the Vatican to usurp the Papacy, for an agenda of consolidating State power for corrupt control over other kingdoms, King Philip IV focused Royal aggression on a war against the Templar Order, through the French Persecution of the Knights Templar.
During May of 1307 AD, Pope Clement V planned to counter the false rumours promoted by the French monarchy, and “at the request of the Knights Templar leadership itself, discussed initiating an ‘Inquiry of Truth’… necessary to dispel what the Curia considered to be a slanderous [false defamation].”
After August of 1307 AD, when Clement V notified Philip IV of that planned process, the King “reacted… with the launch of a Royal procedure as quickly as possible, so as to preempt the Papal inquiry – which… would have removed control over the affair from [Royal] hands.” [54]
‘Burning of Templars’ (ca. 1480 AD) by Giovanni Boccaccio, depicting King Philip IV (in British Library, Royal 14 E V F-492-V)
On the 14th of September 1307 AD, the day of the Holy Cross marking the crucifixion, Philip IV issued secret arrest warrants against the Templars, in preparation for surprise raids and arrests one month later [55].
On the 13th of October 1307 AD, all Templars throughout France were arrested during morning raids of all Templar properties, and subjected to Royal “investigation” under torture [56]. Historians note that “620 Templar personnel are known to have been arrested in France” during the raids [57].
The fact that the Knights Templar were arrested to be tortured on that day, which was “Friday the Thirteenth”, is believed to be the origin of the medieval Christian superstition of the dangers of “Friday the Thirteenth” as a day of evil, because the illegal abuses by the French King were clearly seen by the Vatican as motivated entirely by pure evil.
Vatican records witnessed that: “Carried on without the authorization of the Pope… this investigation was radically corrupt both as to its intent and as to its procedure.” [58]
Historians documented that “[Vatican] theologians at the University of Paris” issued a formal opinion that King Philip IV “was in violation of canonical law for ordering the arrest and examination of the Templars by the secular arm rather than by Holy Mother Church”, insisting that “judgment had to be rendered in ecclesiastical, not secular, Courts.” [59]
The historical record confirms that Pope Clement V made all possible efforts to protect the Templar Order, at his own great risk despite unprecedented threats, constantly refusing to accept the charges against the Templars. Clement V was outraged and deeply resented King Philip’s interference against the sovereign Templar Order under Vatican Protection, and repeatedly wrote in the strongest terms to the King demanding their release. [60]
The historical record proves that the French Persecution against the Templar Order was driven entirely by lies upon lies, based upon nothing but coercion upon corruption upon defamation, all by fabrications upon falsehoods upon deceptions, from beginning to end.
Under Canon law since the early 13th century, a trial could not be initiated without a victim as the accuser, unless a Judge decreed the existence of a “diffamatio” of “infamia” (Latin meaning a ‘dissemination’ of ‘infamy’, i.e. “reputation”), as circumstantial evidence that heretical practices existed [61] [62].
University historians proved that “Rumours of crimes committed by the Knights Templar had, however, mostly been spread by the King of France himself and by his entourage.” [63]
Under Canon law in the 14th century, the only way to penetrate the near-absolute diplomatic immunity of the Templar Order as a sovereign Principality, was to meet the narrow legal vulnerability of “heresy”. For this, the French King Philip IV ordered his Royal authorities to manufacture false charges of “heresy”, specifically tailored to trigger this exception. [64]
As the Vatican insisted on rejecting those fabrications, the French resorted to extracting “Confessions” under torture, strictly following the list of targeted false charges developed by the King. The accusations were based upon recruited false “witnesses”, who were mostly disgruntled former Templars whom the Order had expelled for their own wrongdoing. [65]
Such recruited and already discredited “witnesses”, including those with known and proven ulterior motives, were outrageously granted immunity from any punishment even if their accusations were proven false [66].
University historians have conclusively condemned all statements resulting from that corrupt process as patently false: “Templars of France confessed to the accusations to varying extents and in varying degrees of detail according to the harshness of the tortures inflicted (which actually killed several dozen of the accused).” [67]
The Papal Bull Chinon Parchment of 1308 AD concluded that the Templar trials were based on nothing but false inflammatory defamation, and emphasized that the trials were solely caused by “receiving word of mouth and also clamorous reports from the illustrious King of France… because of which [the Order] suffered public infamy” [68].
The Papal Bull Vox In Excelso of 1312 AD bitterly protested that the limited “suppression” of the Templar Order was solely the result of groundless but persistent false defamation from France, all under duress of the threat of such defamation being turned against the Vatican itself:
“We were unwilling to lend our ears to insinuation and accusation against the Templars…” (Part 3) “Then came the intervention of… [the] King of France.” (Part 4). “Indeed although legal process… does not permit its canonical condemnation as heretical by definitive sentence, the good name of the Order has been largely taken away by the heresies attributed to it.” (Part 10) “In this way scandal will be removed, perils avoided and property saved… The above have given rise to grave scandal against the Order, scandal impossible to allay as long as the Order continues to exist” within the Vatican (Part 12). [69]
The related Papal Bull Considerantes of 1312 AD also protested that “the widespread disgrace, the strong suspicion, and the clamorous charges… of the Kingdom of France also gave grave scandal which could hardly be allayed without suppression of the Order.” (Part 1) [70]
Commonly, the mainstream ‘history’ narratives emphasize the involvement of Vatican Inquisition officials in persecutions, especially in connection with famous martyrs. However, this disregards volumes of facts and evidence proving that the Inquisition was actually invented, and inherently controlled, by corrupt secular Kings imposing State power.
Such one-sided accounts are characteristic of the propaganda which is traditionally used, for the Satanist agenda of Globalist control by Socialist policies, which requires abolishing all Religion, to replace it with the glorified power of a monolithic secular State, in opposition to all human rights.
For centuries, campaigns of Satanist and Socialist propaganda sought to discredit and blame “Religion” as a whole, because: “So many violent persecutions throughout history were committed ‘in the name of’ Religion”.
This superficial slogan is deceptively loaded with the underlying false premise, never examined, that crimes done “in the name of” Religion are assumed to be done by religious people. That only distracts from the real question, of Who exactly did those crimes.
The answer, which completely destroys the mainstream propaganda, is that all those crimes were committed by corrupt secular Kings of imperial States, to falsely claim religious justifications to project secular State power, actually to hijack and overthrow all Religion.
The popularized narrative, blaming the Vatican for persecuting the Templars, is squarely contradicted, indeed disproven, by these established facts, proven by the historical record: (1) The French Royal war against the Templars was only made possible in the context of its larger war against the Vatican; (2) The French Persecution targeted the Templars specifically as the primary obstacle to the Royal agenda of asserting control over the Vatican.
Catholic Saints have always insisted that the Apostles of Jesus rejected the Old Testament punishments of heretics by death and stoning (Deuteronomy 13:6-10, 17:2-7), which were replaced by the New Testament which declares excommunication from the Church to be sufficient (I Timothy 1:20; Titus 3:10).
The Vatican confirmed that the original Apostolic doctrine is: “Natural law authorized man to follow only the voice of individual conscience in the practice of religion, since the acceptance of religion was a matter of free will, not of compulsion. … Religion being spiritual, its sanctions [penalties] take on the same character, and excommunication replaces the death of the body.” [71]
The Templar Patron Saint Bernard de Clairvaux ca. 1118 AD expressed this doctrine of the Church with several Latin axioms, which were adopted by and became famous within the Vatican:
People must be won over as “Faith by persuasion, not by imposition” (“Fides suadenda, non imponenda”); Those led astray should be “captured not by arms [weapons], but by arguments” (“capiantur non armis, sed argumentis”); The defiant should be excommunicated, and if necessary “either corrected so they not be lost, or confined so they not cause loss [destroy]” (“aut corrigendi sunt ne pereant, aut, ne perimant, coercendi”). [72]
Therefore, the medieval concept of an “Inquisition”, based on persecution and driven by violent force, is itself “Heretical”, promoting a destructive false teaching, against the sacred doctrines of Jesus and the Apostles.
The concept of persecution of “heretics”, inherently and necessarily, is based upon the exercise of Civil power which, by definition, is the exclusive authority of the secular State. Indeed, the original idea of an “Inquisition”, as the practice of judging and punishing heretics, was uniquely created by the Roman Empire, the same secular State which infamously persecuted Christians.
Vatican historians documented that from the early 4th century: “Imperial successors of Constantine soon began to see themselves [as] divinely appointed… masters of the temporal and material conditions of the Church… and in this way the Civil authority [State power] inclined [escalated]… to persecute the Orthodox Bishops”.
“Successors of Constantine… issued many penal edicts against heretics. … A law of 407 AD… asserts for the first time that these heretics ought to be [considered] transgressors against the sacred majesty of the Emperor”.
Vatican records confirm that all such persecutions were imposed by secular Kings, under their Royal authorities, which were enforced under “the legislation of the Christianized State.”
“Moreover, it is simply the exact opposite of historical truth to assert that the Imperial [Royal] edicts punishing heresy with death were due to ecclesiastical influence, since… influential ecclesiastical authorities declared that the death penalty was contrary to the spirit of the Gospel”. [73]
The death sentence for heresy began in the Roman Empire: “In 1051 AD and 1052 AD, several heretics were hanged because Emperor Henry III [King of Germany] wanted to prevent the further spread of ‘the heretical leprocy’.”
Burning at the stake began with a French King: “In 1122 AD King Robert [II of France]… had thirteen distinguished citizens… burnt alive at Orleans.” [74]
King Philip II Burning the Cathars, in Manuscript (ca. 1411 AD) in Pierpont Morgan Library (M-536)
The persecution and death sentence of an entire Order began with the French Count Raymond V of Toulouse ca. 1192 AD, against the Cathars, by enacting “a law which punished with death the followers of the [Cathar] sect and their favourers [supporters].”
The practice of an entire Order being burned at the stake began with the French King Philip II from 1200 AD, also against the Cathars, burning “priests, clerics [monks], laymen, and women belonging to the [Cathar] sect”. [75]
The attachment of State punishment to Church decisions began with the French King Louis VIII in 1226 AD, by a Royal Decree that “persons excommunicated by the [local Church] should receive ‘meet punishment’”, and the French King Louis IX of France in 1249 AD, with a Royal Decree which “ordered barons to deal with heretics according to the dictates of duty”, while “in France death at the state was already comprehended… since the burning of heretics had already come to be regarded as prescriptive [mandatory]” [76].
The use of torture to extract Confessions for Inquisitions also began with the French King Louis IX in 1249 AD. “Torture… was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts”, not authorized by the Church until 1252 AD. [77]
Therefore, the historical record proves that: Civil punishment by the State for heresy was invented by secular Kings of the Roman Empire in the 4th century; Mass persecution and death of an entire group for heresy was invented and developed by secular French Kings in 1122 AD, 1192 AD and 1200 AD; Imposing the death penalty by secular State power, as a consequence of mere excommunication by the Church, was invented by a French King in 1226 AD; Torture for Inquisitions was invented by a French King in 1249 AD.
The Vatican’s Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD established Papal oversight of heresy trials, “by the action of his Legates [diplomatic envoys]” dealing with secular Kings, providing a more balanced “regular canonical procedure” to limit the abuses of State power.
This oversight “did much to abrogate [limit] the arbitrariness, passion, and injustice of the Civil courts… In so far as, and so long as, [this] remained in force, no summary condemnations or executions en masse occurred, neither stake nor rack were set up… showing how much of the vigour [this] took away in practice from the existing [State] penal code.” [78]
Unfortunately, the Vatican’s attempt to balance State power with the Apostolic mercy of Canon law, only opened the door, provoking those States to project their power back to influence the Vatican, to overthrow that balance of power.
Only a short 16 years after establishing Papal oversight for balance, the imperial secular Kings succeeded in overcoming the Vatican by political pressure:
“The Imperial Rescripts [Royal Decrees] were adopted into ecclesiastical criminal law in 1231 AD, and were soon applied at Rome. It was then that the Inquisition of the Middle Ages came into being.”
“[It was] necessary for the Pope to establish a distinct and specifically ecclesiastical court. … the Church should strictly reserve [its] own sphere, while at the same time endeavouring to avoid giving offense to the Emperor. A purely spiritual or Papal religious tribunal would secure ecclesiastical liberty and authority… On the other hand, to meet the Emperors wishes as far as allowable, the penal code of the Empire could be taken over as it stood.” [79]
From its inception, the Inquisition was inherently made subject to secular Kings, operating under the Civil courts of the State, and thus dependent upon the mercy and favour of secular State power of the receiving host country:
“The Pope did not establish the Inquisition as a distinct and separate tribunal… but [as] permanent Judges… [acting] in the name of the Pope. Where they sat, there was the Inquisition.” [80]
The charges and evidence were often “cited before the Judges… by the secular authorities – and the trial began” in the otherwise secular State court [81].
“Officially it was not the Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death, more particularly to the stake. … [The Church] never inflicted a punishment more severe than excommunication. … [W]hereupon the State took over the duty of temporal [physical] punishment.” [82]
University historians confirm that the French Persecution of the Templars was exclusively under Royal authority, and “in this situation… the jurisdiction of the Church acted under the King’s direct control, in fact if not in law.” [83]
Jacques de Molay and Guillome Burned at the Stake – Vintage Images (Detail)
Additional facts prove that the Templar Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, was martyred directly at the hands of the French King, exclusively by secular State power, precluding any interference by the Vatican for Apostolic mercy.
In March 1314 AD, when Jacques de Molay, with other Templar leaders, were supposed to “receive the sentence… of perpetual [life] imprisonment”, the Templars publicly recanted their confessions, declaring that “[The Order] was pure and holy; the charges were fictitious and the confessions false.”
Then, as soon as “the Cardinals… retired to deliberate… [King] Philip he was furious [and] short consultation with his [Royal] Council only was required… a relapsed ‘heretic’ was to be burned without a hearing… and no formal judgment by the Papal commission need be waited for. That same day, by sunset, a stake was erected… There de Molay and [others] were slowly burned to death… martyrs among the people” [84].
Saint Joan of Arc was also martyred directly at the hands of a King, exclusively by secular State power, this time under a corrupt and treasonous French Civil court controlled by the invading forces of England, also precluding any interference by the Vatican.
Joan of Arc was a hereditary Countess of Anjou of the Templar King Fulk d’Anjou of Jerusalem, thus a hereditary Templar [85], who lived by the Templar motto “Non nobis Domine” (“Not to us, but to God give glory”) [86].
‘Joan of Arc’s Death at the Stake’ by Hermann Stilke (1843 AD) right panel of Triptych in Hermitage Museum
Saint Joan was captured in 1430 AD by the Burgundians, the treasonous French allies of the English invaders, under the Duke of Burgundy, Philip III of Bavaria [87], who married into the House of Valois of the brother of King Philip IV of France (who had persecuted the Templars) [88].
The Burgundians transferred Joan to the English forces, to be imprisoned and tried in the city of Rouen, the English headquarters in France. The tribunal was composed of only Clergy who were Burgundian and English loyalists, all overseen by English commanders [89], and the trial was directly financed by King Henry VI of England [90].
The Inquisitor of France objected to the trial of Joan of Arc, as it violated all rules of evidence and procedure which the Inquisition required. However, Vatican authorities were forced to allow the secular process solely under English commanders, who threatened the life of the Vice-Inquisitor and all other Vatican Clergy who attempted to resist [91].
Vatican records witnessed, documenting its bitter protests, that: “Blessed Joan of Arc could not have been sent to the stake as a heretic… if her judges had not been tools of English policy.” [92]
The medieval concept of the accusations of “heresy”, which the French Persecution used to falsely defame and suppress the Templar Order, is actually precluded by the Code of Canon Law, and thus violates Canon law.
Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome in 418 AD fully recognized the Ancient Priesthood, which the Templars later recovered from the Temple of Solomon and restored as the Templar Priesthood, as the original “true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christian” [93], and which “established anew the ancient Faith” within Christianity [94].
That recognition is given force of Canon law, as the “common and constant opinion of learned authors” (Canon 19). Ancient “immemorial customs” from the Egyptian Solomonic origins of Christianity, and related “centennial customs” of the Templar Order, are incorporated into canonical Catholicism (Canon 26), and cannot be revoked (Canon 28), as long as they are “reasonable” (Canon 24, §2).
Canon law also protects freedom of liturgy, as “the right to follow their own form of spiritual life” (Canon 214). [95]
All of the historical instruments of persecution which were used against the Knights Templar are prohibited by Canon law, including: Aggressive interference disregarding rights and justice (Canon 287, §1); Defamation to “unlawfully harm good reputation” by inflammatory accusations (Canon 220); Falsely or maliciously “denouncing” to “injure the good name of another” (Canon 1390, §2). [96]
Learn about the Foundations of the Order for its restoration.
Learn about the Templar Survival Lineage into the modern era.
Learn about Templar Legal Succession continuing sovereignty.
[1] Old Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Psalm 115:1.
[2] New Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Matthew 6:1-4.
[3] New Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), John 18:36.
[4] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 2, “Their Marvellous Growth”, pp.493-494.
[5] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Jerusalem”, p.363.
[6] Kingdom of Jerusalem, Council of Nablus: Concordat of Canons (1120 AD), established by Patriarch Warmund and Kind Baldwin II of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; Preserved in the Sidon Manuscript, Vatican Library, MS Vat. Lat. 1345: “Introduction to Canons”; Canon 20.
[7] Hans E. Mayer, The Concordat of Nablus, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge University Press, No. 33 (October 1982), pp.531-533, 541-542.
[8] Dominic Selwood, Quidem Autem Dubitaverunt: The Saint, the Sinner, the Temple; Published in: M. Balard (Editor), Autour de la Première Croisade, Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris (1996), pp.221-230.
[9] Dominic Selwood, Knights Templar III: Birth of the Order (2013), historian for Daily Telegraph of London, article.
[10] Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, Cambridge University Press (1978), p.5, p.8.
[11] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.36; “Sovereign Protection… In that case the Order involved… [can] dispose over the necessary Fons Honorum”.
[12] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.423; “a Sovereign is… providing his Protection to such Order… [which is] receiving Protection and is deriving the Fons Honorum from the Protection awarded”.
[13] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 4: “independent Orders of Knighthood… must always stem from or be… under [Sovereign] Protection”.
[14] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 6: A “Sovereign” Order having Protection thereby becomes “an independent non-territorial power”.
[15] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.292.
[16] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8; Confirming Sovereign Protection: “letters of protection” in the legal sense “laid the jurisdictional foundation of the Order’s independence”, by granting recognition of full sovereignty as “the most sweeping of their privileges”.
[17] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.5; Confirming Sovereign Protection: “the Templars were not directly responsible to any secular monarch”.
[18] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rule 1.
[19] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.5-6.
[20] M. Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1978), Volume 6, pp.308-311.
[21] M. Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1978), Volume 6, pp.308-311; In 1120 AD the High Court of Jerusalem included Count Fulk d’Anjou.
[22] High Court of Jerusalem, Decrees of the Council of Acre, Palmarea (24 June 1148); Attended by the Knights Templar, and Angevin Templar Nobility; Archbishop William II of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea (12th century), translated in: E.A. Babock & A.C. Crey, Columbia University Press (1943); In 1148 AD the High Court of Jerusalem included the 2nd Templar Grand Master Robert de Crayon, “many others” of the Knights Templar, and the Angevin King Louis VII of France.
[23] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum “Every Good Gift” (29 March 1139); Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.59-64.
[24] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8.
[25] Urban Tignor Holmes, Life Among the Europeans in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries; Published in: Kenneth Setton & Harry Hazard (Editors), A History of the Crusades: The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, University of Wisconsin Press (1977), Volume 4, p.19.
[26] Danny Danziger & John Gillingham, 1215: The Year of Magna Carta, Hodder & Stoughton (2003), p.271.
[27] William B. Robinson & Ronald H. Fritze, Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England: 1272-1485, Greenwood Press (2002), “Articuli Super Cartas” at pp.34-35.
[28] Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, “Letter” pamphlet, Paris (November 1790), 1st English Edition, James Dodsley in Pall-Mall, London.
[29] George Santayana, The Life of Reason or the Phases of Human Progress, 1st Edition (1905), Volume 1 “Reason in Common Sense”, Chapter 12 “Flux and Constancy in Human Nature”, 2nd Edition, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York (1924), p.284.
[30] Winston Churchill, Speech After the Stresa Conference (1935): “Unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking… are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”; Winston Churchill, Speech to the House of Commons (1948): Forgetting the past produces “the most thoughtless of ages – every day headlines and short views”; Daniel Walters, Condon Misattributes Quote to Churchill, “Inlander” Magazine (16 February 2016); Reporting information from the National Churchill Museum provided to a New York librarian in 2012.
[31] Helen Nicholson, The Knights Templar: A New History, 1st Edition, The History Press, Sutton Publishing, Glaucestershire (2001), pp. 164, 181, 226.
[32] Jean Blacker, Women Power and Violence in Orderic Vatalis’s ‘Historia Ecclesiastica’ (1998); Published in: Anna Roberts (Editor) and Anna Klosowska (Author), Violence Against Women in Medieval Texts, University Press of Florida (1998), p.46.
[33] Rendine & McCusker, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, New York (2002), p.145.
[34] Charles Knight, The English Cyclopaedia, Vol. IV, London (1867), p.733.
[35] BBC History, Canossa: A Medieval Clash Between Church and State, BBC History Magazine: “History Extra”, Immediate Media Co., London (October 2008).
[36] Carl Gustav Jung (Editor), Man and his Symbols, 1st Edition, Dell Publishing, New York (1968); 2nd Edition, Picador, London (1978), pp.181-182.
[37] William B. Robinson & Ronald H. Fritze, Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England: 1272-1485, Greenwood Press (2002), “Articuli Super Cartas” at pp.34-35.
[38] Sophia Menache, Clement V, Cambridge University Press (2002), p.253.
[39] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, “Abstract”, p.117.
[40] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, pp.118-119.
[41] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, pp.129-131.
[42] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 7, “Idolatry”.
[43] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Second Ecumenical Council (“Vatican II”), Enacted (1965), Amended and ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983).
[44] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, p.137.
[45] Alain Demurger, Les Templiers: Une Chevalerie Chrétienne au Moyen Age, Alternate title: “Vie et Mort de l’Ordre du Temple”, Editions du Seuil, Paris (2005), pp. 484-509; Summarized in English by: Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, p.128.
[46] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, p.126.
[47] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, p.119.
[48] Georges Digard (Editor), Les Registres de Boniface VIII, Paris (1907), No. 3545, No’s. 5386-5387.
[49] A. Tomassetti, Bullarum Diplomatum et Privilegiorum Sanctorum Romanorum Pontificum, Tomus IV, Augustae Taurinorum (1859).
[50] Giovanni Villani, Historia Universalis (14th century Chronicles), Westminster (1898), Book VIII, Chapter 65: R.E. Selfe & P.H. Wicksteed, “Selections from the First Nine Books of the Croniche Fiorentine of Giovanni Villani”, pp.346-350.
[51] Augustinus Theiner (Editor), Annales Ecclesiastici: Tomus Vigesimus Tertius 1286–1312, Barri-Ducis, Ludovicus Guerin (1871), “Year 1303”, §41, pp. 330-331; Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, p. 672.
[52] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 2, “Pope Benedict XI”.
[53] Stephen Howarth, The Knights Templar, Barnes and Noble, New York (1982), pp. 11-14, 261, 323.
[54] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, p.120.
[55] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, p.132.
[56] Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe, The Warriors and the Bankers, Lewis Masonic, Surrey, England (2006), p.31.
[57] Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe, The Warriors and the Bankers, Lewis Masonic, Surrey, England (2006), p. 30.
[58] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 3: “Their Tragic End”.
[59] Frank Sanello, The Knights Templars: God’s Warriors, the Devil’s Bankers, Taylor Trade Publishing, Oxford (2003), p.129.
[60] Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, 7th Edition, Britons Publishing Society (1955), p.53.
[61] Rosalius J. Castillo Lara (Editor), Studia in Honorem Eminentissimi Cardinalis Alphonsi M. Stickler, Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, Rome (1992): Richard M. Fraher, “IV Lateran’s Revolution in Criminal Procedure: The Birth of Inquisitio, the End of Ordeals, and Innocent III’s Vision of Ecclesiastical Politics”, pp. 97–111.
[62] Bruno Lemesle (Editor), La Preuve en Justice de l’Antiquité à Nos Jours, Presses Universitaires de Rennes (2003): Julien Théry, “Fama: l’Opinion Publique Comme Preuve Judiciaire: Aperçu sur la Révolution Médiévale de l’Inquisitoire (XIIe–XIVe siècles)”, pp. 119–47.
[63] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, p.119.
[64] Barbara Frale, “The Chinon Chart: Papal Absolution to the Last Templar Master Jacques de Molay”, The Journal of Medieval History, Volume 30, Issue 2 (2004), p.119.
[65] Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Volume 3, Harper & Bros, New York (1901), pp.257, 262.
[66] Edward Peters, Inquisition, University of California Press, Los Angeles (1989), p.52.
[67] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, p.124.
[68] Pope Clement V, Chinon Parchment (1308), Vatican Secret Archives, “Archivum Arcis Armarium” D 217-218; Replica Parchments, Processus Contra Templarios, Scrinium, Venice, Italy (2008).
[69] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso, “Voice From on High” (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952; translated in Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012), reprinted in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990).
[70] Pope Clement V, Considerantes, “For Consideration” (06 May 1312), Regestum 7952; translated in Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012), reprinted in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990).
[71] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part I: “First Twelve Christian Centuries”, Section 1.
[72] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part I: “First Twelve Christian Centuries”, Section 3.
[73] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part I: “First Twelve Christian Centuries”, Section 2.
[74] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part I: “First Twelve Christian Centuries”, Section 3.
[75] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part I: “First Twelve Christian Centuries”, Section 3.
[76] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part II: “Institution Known as the Inquisition”, “A. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages”, Section 1: “Origin”.
[77] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part II: “Institution Known as the Inquisition”, “A. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages”, Section 2: “The New Tribunal”, “(d) Punishments”.
[78] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part I: “First Twelve Christian Centuries”, Section 3.
[79] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part II: “Institution Known as the Inquisition”, “A. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages”, Section 1: “Origin”.
[80] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part II: “Institution Known as the Inquisition”, “A. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages”, Section 2: “The New Tribunal”, “(a) Its essential characteristic”.
[81] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part II: “Institution Known as the Inquisition”, “A. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages”, Section 2: “The New Tribunal”, “(b) Procedure”.
[82] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part II: “Institution Known as the Inquisition”, “A. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages”, Section 2: “The New Tribunal”, “(d) Punishments”.
[83] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, “Abstract”, p.121.
[84] Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Hamper & Bros, New York (1888), Volume 3, p.324; Citing “Raynouard, pp. 213-214, 233-235; Wilcke, II, pp. 236, 240; Anton, Versuch, p. 142”.
[85] Heinz Friederichs, Genealogisches Jahrbuch, academic journal of genealogy, Germany (ca.1971), pp.73-81.
[86] Ninth Private Examination of Joan of Arc, 17 March 1431, National Archives of France; See: W.P. Barrett, The Trial of Jeanne d’Arc: A complete translation of the text of the original documents, George Routledge & Sons, London (1931); “As to whether victory was my banner’s or mine, it was all our Lord’s.”
[87] Richard Vaughan, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power, Boydell Press (2005), pp. 2, 4, 6.
[88] Richard Vaughan, Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy, Boydell Press (2004), p.8.
[89] Régine Pernoud, Joan of Arc by Herself and Her Witnesses, Stein and Day (1966), Scarborough House (1990), pp.165-167.
[90] Edward Peters, Inquisition, 1st Edition, Free Press (1988), p.69.
[91] Régine Pernoud, The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence at the Trial for Her Rehabilitation, 1st Edition, Harcourt Brace (1955), Ignatius Press (2007), pp. 236, 241; Deposition of Nicholas de Houppeville during First Investigation on 8 May 1452 AD.
[92] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Inquisition”, Part II: “Institution Known as the Inquisition”, “A. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages”, Section 2: “The New Tribunal”, “(d) Punishments”.
[93] Saint Augustine, Retract I, XIII, 3 (ca. 418 AD); Eugene TeSelle, Augustine the Theologian (1970), reprinted London (2002), p.343.
[94] Saint Jerome, Epistola 195 (418 AD); Eugene TeSelle, Augustine the Theologian (1970), reprinted London (2002), p.343.
[95] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Second Ecumenical Council (“Vatican II”), Enacted (1965), Amended and ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983): “common and constant opinion of learned authors” (Canon 19); “immemorial customs”, “centennial customs” (Canon 26); irrevocable (Canon 28) as long as “reasonable” (Canon 24, §2); “right to follow their own form of spiritual life” (Canon 214).
[96] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Second Ecumenical Council (“Vatican II”), Enacted (1965), Amended and ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983): interference against rights and justice (Canon 287, §1); “unlawfully harm good reputation” (Canon 220); “denouncing” to “injure the good name of another” (Canon 1390, §2).
You cannot copy content of this page
