How the Templar Order survived legally, continuing its legal status through a lineage of Sovereign Succession, assisted by many Vatican Bishops and multiple Popes and Papal Bulls, into the modern era.
Overwhelming evidence proves that contrary to the standardized propaganda supported by secular States, the Templar Order was never “extinguished” after the French Persecution of 1307 AD, but was merely forced to survive as an “underground” network until it could be safely restored in the future. The original Templar Order survived not only physically as a living tradition of Templars through a lineage of initiatory succession, but also legally by preserving its institutional legal status through a lineage of Sovereign Succession under customary international law.
(See details of the Survival Lineage of the Templar Order)
A detailed examination of facts, revealed and confirmed by historical legal instruments, proves that the Templar Order survived legally, fully retaining its original legal status as the official sovereign institution for a living tradition of Templars.
Effectively implementing the strategies established by founding Templars, surviving generations of the Templar Order, with the supportive assistance of several Popes and many Vatican Bishops, successfully preserved and carried the institutional legal status of the Order into the present day.
Here, in this work from the original and restored Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple, the world can finally discover the true history of the survival of the legitimacy and sovereign legal status of the Templar Order into the modern era.
The details of Templar survival presented here focus on the facts most relevant to supporting the later modern Restoration of the Templar Order.
The Templar Patron Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, as part of his Templar missions, had set up a strategic “backup plan”, as the original “insurance policy”, to ensure the survival and enable the restoration of the Order in the future. Only six years after the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD granted additional Sovereign Protection to the Templar Order, this backup plan was established in 1145 AD.
Saint Bernard used the Vatican recognition of ecclesiastical sovereignty of the Templar Priesthood, in the Temple Rule of 1129 AD and Omne Datum of 1139 AD, as the legal precedent and basis for creating the 12th century Independent Church Movement.
Saint Bernard established a strategy of carrying lineages of Templar Sovereign Succession, through lines of Apostolic Succession. This created “Templar Lines” for continuing the legal status of the Order, all recognized by the Vatican, yet “hidden in plain sight”:
In 1145 AD, the Cistercian Saint Bernard de Clairvaux caused Pope Eugene III, the first Cistercian Pope, who was mentored by Bernard at the Monastery of Clairvaux, to create the “Independent Church Movement” ((Michael Horn, Studien zur Geschichte Papst Eugens III (1145-1153), Peter Lang Verlag (1992), pp.36-40, pp.42-45.)) ((Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, On Consideration, Letter to Pope Eugene III, Translated in: George Lewis, Saint Bernard: On Consideration, Oxford Library of Translations, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1908).)).
In 1212 AD, Saint Francis founded the “Sacred Order of Franciscan Missionaries” in England, which became an autonomous “Secular Franciscan Order” in 1221 AD, and was renamed “Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi” when he was canonized as a Saint in 1228 AD ((Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops; Article II “Representative Synod”, in Section “Franciscan Order”, p.4.)).
In 1215 AD, Saint Francis supported the Fourth Lateran Council ((Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Saint Francis of Assisi, 14th Edition, Image Books, New York (1924), p.126.)), which confirmed the Independent Church Movement as “independent” Churches (Canon 3) of “their [own] jurisdiction” (Canon 5) with autonomy (Canons 10-11), through Independent Bishops (Canon 23) ((The Vatican, The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Translation in: H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, B. Herder, Saint Louis (1937), pp.236-296.)).
In 1221 AD, the Franciscan Sacred Order in England took a leading role in the Independent Church Movement, establishing its “Synod of Independent Apostolic Clergy”. This Sacred Order was officially recognized by the Church of England as the Franciscan Anglican Mission, later granted Full Communion with the Anglican Church since 1931 AD. ((Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops; Article II “Representative Synod” (top of list), and Section “Franciscan Order”, p.4.))
The resulting “Templar Lines” established by Saint Bernard, and preserved by the Franciscan Sacred Order as the chosen Guardians of the Templar Order, carried legal succession of its institutional legal status and sovereign authorities, under specific doctrines of customary international law.
Saint Bernard, as a Doctor of the Church and architect of the Temple Rule as a constitutional Charter under Canon law, knew that legal succession for survival of an Order of Chivalry is not hereditary, as Grand Masters were always elected and never hereditary ((Grand Mastery, Temple Rule of 1129 AD, Order of the Temple of Solomon (Amended ca. 1150 AD); Judith M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge, The Boydell Press (1992); Grand Mastery continues through successive “Grand Commanders” serving “in place of the Grand Master” (Rule 204), until it is restored by “election of the Grand Master” by “the most prominent” Commanders (Rule 206).)) ((Grand Magistry, Constitutional Charter, Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), based on rules from ca. 1099 AD, Rome (Amended 1961); “The Grand Master is elected… from among the Professed Knights” (Article 13.1). During abeyance “the Order is governed by a Lieutenant ad interim in the person of the Grand Commander”, and the “Grand Magistry” continues through successive Lieutenants until restored by election (Article 17).)).
Under customary international law, the legal restoration of an Order of Chivalry to legitimacy generally requires (1) some form of lineage from the original Order, and (2) recognition by a sovereign institution that it is the original Order, based upon that lineage.
Legal experts define such lineage as an “uncorrupted historical and traditional link with the original Order… [as] historical roots or lineage” ((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), pp.40, 47, 416.)). Nobiliary experts confirm that “Orders of knighthood… continue to exist [through] membership… following the original set of rules… [as] historical continuity” ((François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part B-1, “Historical Continuity: Military-Monastic Orders”.)).
The Code of Canon Law mandates that an Order “survives”, as succession “of all the rights… devolves upon [any] member” continuing the authorized lineage in active service furthering its original missions (Canon 120, §2) ((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), Canon 120, §2.)).
Legal experts explain that based on such lineage, an Order can be legally Reestablished, by grant of any form of Sovereign Recognition from any Royal or Pontifical institution possessing “heraldic patrimony” of a proven historical connection with that Order ((Hyginus Eugene Cardinale, Orders of Knighthood Awards and the Holy See: A Historical, Juridical and Practical Compendium (1983), p.119.)) ((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), pp.291-292.)). Nobiliary experts confirm that an “Order of knighthood can be revived… [as] Monarchial [Sovereign] Orders” by such grant of Sovereign Recognition ((François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part C, “Conclusion”.)).
The Code of Canon Law mandates that “arrangements for… rights… devolve upon the next higher [institution]” (Canon 123), such that any sovereign institution which granted Sovereign Patronage to an Order in the past, has the legal capacity to Reestablish that same Order if needed in the future ((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), Canon 120, §2; Canon 123.)).
It would be extremely difficult, and very dangerous, for any Order which would be persecuted, suppressed and forced to survive as an “underground” network, to keep any records of a lineage of succession for its future restoration.
Such records, if kept secret, would be nearly impossible to verify and legalize publicly in the future. Also, any such “secret” records, if discovered during periods of persecution, would surely be used to subject surviving members to severe punishment.
Therefore, the strategy implemented by Saint Bernard was to use Vatican lineages of Apostolic Succession, to carry canonical lineages of Sovereign Succession for the Templar Order, all “hidden in plain sight”.
Apostolic practice requires the consecration of Bishops by “laying on of hands” (Acts 1:22, 1:25-26, 6:1-6, 9:17; 13:1-5; I Timothy 4:1, 4:14, 5:22; II Timothy 1:6), and by “anointing” with sacred oils as for the Pontifical consecration of King Solomon (I Kings 1:39) ((Old Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990): “Zadok the Priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And… all the people said, God save King Solomon.” (I Kings 1:39).)). As a result, all lines of Apostolic Succession must be diligently recorded in “Succession Books”, which meticulously detail every link in the chain of Episcopal consecrations.
Apostolic lineages are formally “characterized” by any unique heritage or tradition which the lines pass through, because of the canonical requirement of Doctrinal Succession (Acts 2:38-42; John 7:16-17; I Timothy 4:16; I Corinthians 11:2; I Timothy 1:3-4), and the resulting necessity to identify lineal succession of institutions with particular doctrines. As a result, Apostolic lines are actually named after the most distinctive tradition which characterizes each line.
Finally, the key to this strategy was the “Independent Church Movement” created by Saint Bernard with Pope Eugene III in 1145 AD, confirmed as “Independent Bishops” by the Lateran Council in 1215 AD:
By having Templar leaders consecrated by Independent Bishops of Independent Churches, this would establish and preserve “Templar Lines” of Apostolic Succession, such that the Vatican could not prevent nor control passing on those lines, but would still be required to register and recognize those lines.
In this way, the Templar lines would all be officially verified and recorded by the Vatican, but without signaling their intended purpose. Later, when needed for a future Reestablishment and restoration of the Templar Order, those Apostolic lines could be openly named “Templar Lines”.
Implementing the strategy of carrying lineages of Templar Sovereign Succession through lines of Apostolic Succession recognized by the Vatican, Saint Bernard effectively established the following primary traditions of Templar lineage:
“Melchizedek Line” – This rare Apostolic line, prized by the Vatican, passed from Melchizedek of the Biblical Magi, through King Solomon, through Jesus as High Priest of the Ancient Priesthood of Melchizedek, to Apostle Saint Peter in 38 AD, through Vatican Popes since 67 AD who were Templar loyalists, including Honorius II (ratified Temple Rule) in 1124 AD, Innocent II (promoted to Papacy by Saint Bernard, issued Omne Datum of Templar sovereignty) in 1130 AD, Celestine II (issued Milites Templi confirming Templar sovereignty) in 1143 AD, and Eugene III (issued Militia Dei confirming Templar sovereignty, created Independent Church Movement with Saint Bernard) in 1145 AD.
“Templar Lines” – These rare Apostolic lines passed from Jesus to Apostle Saint John ca. 38 AD, through other exotic Celtic lines, through Saint Bernard (Templar Patron) ca. 1120 AD, to be periodically passed on to various Grand Masters of the Templar Order.
Combining with the “Templar Lines”, the special “Melchizedek Line” was also passed on from Pope Eugene III to Saint Bernard in 1145 AD, and eventually through the Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay ca. 1276 AD. ((Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops: Archbishop Mar Frederick, Cardinal Bruce D. Campbell, Archbishop Benjamin B. Driggers, Archbishop David L. Rochelle, Cardinal Peter R. Edwards; Article VII “Templar Restoration”, p.12.))
These lines of Templar Succession were carefully preserved and continued by generations of Bishops of the Independent Church Movement since 1145 AD, which later became the Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, surviving and persisting into the modern era.
In addition to surviving physically as a living tradition of Templars, continuing by direct lineage as an “underground” network, the Templar Order also survived legally, continuing a lineage of Sovereign Succession of its independent legal status and authorities under customary international law.
When the French King forced the Vatican to withdraw all support for the Knights Templar, the Papal Bulls merely “suppressing” it very carefully used strategic phrases of Canon law, understood by the Cardinals but not noticeable to the Royals. Those key legal phrases purposely ensured that the decrees would be legally void for duress, and that the sovereign status of the Templar Order would legally survive.
‘Papa Clemens Quintus’ Pope Clement V portrait, ca. 1830 AD by Henri Auguste Cesar Serrur in Palais des Papes Avignon
Pope Clement V began his Papacy under extreme duress of unprecedented aggression against the Vatican itself:
Within only three short but brutal years, the French King had one Pope kidnapped and beaten causing his death soon after in 1303 AD ((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.)), had the next Pope assassinated by poison in 1304 AD ((The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 2, “Pope Benedict XI”.)), and placed the new Pope in “Babylonian Captivity” in Avignon under French control from 1305 AD ((Stephen Howarth, The Knights Templar, Barnes and Noble, New York (1982), pp. 11-14, 261, 323.)).
The Papacy was under constant threat of the same destructive false defamation used against the Templars being turned against the Vatican itself:
The French King already “arrange[d] to have the Pope declared a heretic” in 1302 AD, creating an imminent threat ((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; Julien Théry is a Professor of the 13th century Université de Montpellier and Université de Lyon in France.)). The French State wanted to claim for itself the “mystic foundations of the Papal theocracy”, thus removing the Knights Templar was “the last step of a process of appropriating these foundations”, for “establishment of a Royal theocracy”. This agenda placed the Vatican directly in harm’s way, as the constant underlying threat. ((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; Julien Théry is a Professor of the 13th century Université de Montpellier and Université de Lyon in France.))
Undeterred by this escalating aggression of a war against the Templars for a larger war against the Vatican, Pope Clement V did everything in his power both to protect the Templar Order to the extent possible, and to leave an open door for its legal succession and future restoration.
Meanwhile, Pope Clement V was very well aware that the Vatican already granted the Templar Order additional Sovereign Protection by the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD ((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.)), which is an irrevocable grant of permanent independent sovereignty ((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”.)) ((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”.)) ((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”.)) as a non-territorial Principality of statehood ((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”.)) ((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”.)) ((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.)).
Proving that this sovereignty is permanent and irrevocable, Omne Datum declares: “If anyone, with the knowledge of this our decree, rashly attempts to act against it… he shall lose the dignity of his power”, as a mandatory consequence of that “perpetrated injustice” ((Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.64.)).
The word “dignity” is a legal term meaning a “title or station” of office ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Dignity”, p.368.)), so to “lose the dignity of his power” means losing one’s “official capacity”. This legally makes null and void any claim to revoke or even deny the granted status, and would also trigger involuntary abdication of any Pope who might try.
Also, the Vatican had already specifically confirmed the inherent diplomatic privileges and immunities from this independent sovereign status, in the Papal Bulls Milites Templi of 1144 AD ((Pope Celestine II, Milites Templi, “Knights of the Temple” (5 January 1144), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8, pp.64-65; For “Knights of the Temple… we instruct… to maintain their persons and goods, and not permit any damage or injury to be imposed upon them”.)), and Militia Dei of 1145 AD ((Pope Eugenius III, Militia Dei, “Knighthood of God” (7 April 1145), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8, pp.65-66; For the “Knighthood of the Temple… [to] not impede them or permit them to be impeded”.)).
Accordingly, in all Papal Bulls about the Order, Pope Clement V respected the boundaries of Templar sovereignty, limited the decisions to within the Vatican’s own walls, and signaled a legal path forward for independent Templar survival and legal succession.
In this way, Pope Clement V was trusting in the Templars, as the legendary Defenders of the Church and Law-Givers of the Magna Carta, to ensure their own survival by defending their own lineage of succession and legal status. For this, he made sure to provide them with the legal means to do so. Moreover, the Pope was also trusting in God, to carry the Templars along the path to restoration, by guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Although it took a full 700 years for the Templar backup plans to come together to achieve restoration, both of those “Leaps of Faith” were proven fully justified. As the folk wisdom holds: “Better late than never”.
Therefore, as a result of the courageous efforts of Pope Clement V, despite the appearance of being “suppressed” by Papal Bulls, the Templar Order actually survived on the legal basis of those same Papal Bulls, retaining its full legal status for its future restoration.
‘Chinon Parchment’ Papal Bull of 1308 AD issued by Pope Clement V, exonerating the Templars
In 1308 AD, Pope Clement V issued the Chinon Parchment, a Papal Bull which unequivocally exonerated and vindicated the Knights Templar and their Grand Master Jacques de Molay of all charges.
The Chinon Parchment, completing an exhaustive review of the Templar trials, declared that in “matters concerning the Knights [Templar], adherence to the Catholic faith, and the Rule of the Order”, the Pope found “nothing… that was not proper” in Templar practices.
Moreover, this Vatican parchment declared its Papal decree, repeating five times:
“We… extended the mercy of pardon… restoring to unity with the Church and reinstating to the Communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.” ((Pope Clement V, Chinon Parchment (1308), Vatican Secret Archives, “Archivum Arcis Armarium” D 217-218; Replica Parchments, Processus Contra Templarios, Scrinium, Venice, Italy (2008).))
In Canon law as ecclesiastical law, the word “Communion” means “All the faithful [who] have permission to receive [sacraments]”, thus the opposite of excommunication, encouraging full participation in the Church ((Reverend P. Trudel, A Dictionary of Canon Law, 2nd Edition, B. Herder Book Co., London (1920), Section 102 “Communion”, p.45.)).
In Canon law as customary law, as applied to historical institutions, the Common law phrase “in Communion” (Latin “in communione”) actually means “in a partnership”, thus a relationship of cooperation with the Church ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), p.813; “Nemo debet in communione invitus teneri” (Latin doctrine of Common Law).)).
Accordingly, the Chinon Parchment restored the Templar Order to full participation in Communion with the Church, thereby also reinstating its special relationship of partnership in close cooperation with the Church.
Therefore, conclusively rejecting all of the Templar trials, this Papal Bull legally decreed the good standing of the Templar Order, and preserved its official status with the Vatican.
‘Council of Vienne in 1311 AD’ fresco (ca. 1570 AD) by Cesare Nebbia, in Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Iberfoto-Everett Collection No. 325654
In 1311 AD, the Council of Vienne during its First Session reconfirmed the Chinon Parchment, ratifying that exoneration restoring the Templars in Communion with the Church, reinstating its full participation and partnership with the Church, as decreed by Pope Clement V.
Vatican records confirm that the Council of Vienne “voted to this effect”, and declared that:
“[The] Order of Knights Templar should be granted the right to defend itself, and that no proof collected up to then was sufficient to condemn the Order… without straining the law.” ((The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 15, “Council of Vienne”.))
That decision, confirming the Chinon Parchment at the First Session in 1311 AD, is often disregarded and scarcely mentioned, either confusing or replacing it with the Second Session in 1312 AD.
The Second Session took place about two weeks after the French King forced the Vatican to issue the first Papal Bull “suppressing” the Templar Order, and that session was held under the threatening presence of King Philip IV and his Royal entourage and guards.
Typically only the “Council of Vienne” as a whole is cited, without reference to which session, claiming only that it “decided” to suppress the Order, disregarding the fact that the First Session in 1311 AD did in fact confirm the Chinon Parchment vindicating the Knights Templar.
Pope Clement V Papal Bull ‘Ad Providam’of 1313 AD AD confirming ‘Vox in Excelso’ of 1312 in Archives Nationales de France J-417-34
In 1312 AD, Pope Clement V issued the Papal Bull Vox in Excelso (“Voice From on High”), for final resolution of the status of the Templar Order.
This is the major Papal Bull which is so frequently merely mentioned, and only superficially described, as supposedly “dissolving” the Order.
However, Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD actually declared very much the opposite of that mistaken and dismissive claim. In fact, it did the most to legally pave the way to ensure the independent Sovereign Succession of legal status and rights of the Templar Order.
In furtherance of that true purpose of protecting the Templar Order as much as possible, which is revealed and confirmed by a detailed examination of its text, this Pontifical Act begins as follows:
“The [Templar] Order… won the approval of the Apostolic See. The [Temple] Rule… had the deserved sanction of this Holy See. … We were unwilling to lend our ears to the insinuation and accusation against the Templars… Then came the intervention of… Philip… King of France.” ((Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraphs 3-4, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).))
The Pope thus prominently declared that the Vatican was “unwilling” to act against the Templar Order, but was forced by illegal secular “intervention”. This directly invoked the automatic legal nullification of this Act, in the text of the Act itself, by explicitly protesting that it was made under duress.
In the Code of Canon Law as customary law, “If the freedom of [a decision] has in any way been in fact impeded, the [Act] is invalid by virtue of the law itself” (Canon 170); “For [an Act] to be valid, it must be free… therefore invalid if [obtained] through grave fear or deceit” (Canon 172, §1) ((The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983), Canon 172, §1.)).
The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 AD confirmed this doctrine of Canon law from 1150 AD, specifically that any decision and Act caused by “the abusive intervention of secular authorities… we declare to be ipso jure [by force of law] invalid” (Lateran Canon 25) ((The Vatican, The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD), Translation in: H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, B. Herder, Saint Louis (1937); Based upon the principles of the original Body of Canon Law of 1150 AD.; 4th Lateran, Canon 25.)).
This Canon law doctrine is precisely the rule of “Duress” in Common law as customary international law: Duress means “to coerce the will of another… inducing him to do an act contrary to his free will” ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Duress”, p.404.)), which from ancient Roman law is an “exception or plea” making the related Act legally null and void ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Exceptio. In Roman law: Exceptio metus”, p.456.)), such that “any contract or act extorted under the pressure… is voidable on that ground” ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Force: In Scotch law”, p.509.)), and any coerced Act “may be annulled” ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Recognitione Adnullanda Per Vim Et Duritiem Facta”, p.509.)).
The Papal Bull Vox in Excelso, having already rendered itself legally null and void from the beginning, then continued to declare as follows:
“Indeed, although legal process against the [Templar] Order at this time 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.” ((Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraph 10, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).))
This makes it clear that any form of judgment or “definitive” action “against the Order” itself would be without legal basis, and thus illegal, because it is in fact a sovereign non-territorial Principality with diplomatic status and immunities.
This also defines the limited purpose of the Act, only because “the good name of the Order [was] taken away”, thus forcing the Vatican to resort to a purely political action.
Next, Vox in Excelso, having clarified this context, and thus having specified its limited scope as purely political, proceeds to define the real substance of what was actually enacted:
“[We] suppress the [Templar] Order by way of ordinance and provision… assigning the property to the use for which it was intended.” ((Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraph 13, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).))
This declares that the Templar Order was only “suppressed”, meaning not “dissolved” nor “disbanded” nor “suspended”, nor otherwise “extinguished”, and that no status nor rights were “revoked”.
It further declares precisely in what way it was suppressed, specifically by redistributing its “property”, which by definition can only mean Templar property which was under management and control of the Vatican.
Vox in Excelso purposely used the legal word “Suppressed”, which actually means an artificial false denial of facts, covering up a legal status and rights which continue to survive:
In customary law of historical institutions, the word “suppression” is defined as a “falsification or fraudulent alteration… of a thing by… writings or by acts” ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Faux: In French law”, p.485; Defined as synonymous by “or” as the key word: “falsification or fraudulent alteration or suppression”.)), and as “fraudulent concealment… hiding… a material fact” ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Fraudulent concealment”, p.522; Defined as synonymous by “or” as the key word: “hiding or suppression of a material fact”.)).
“Suppression” is thus legally defined as denying a Truth, which necessarily means that the suppressed Truth continues to be true. Therefore, declaring to “suppress” the Templar Order legally means that it continues to exist, and retains its legal rights, despite those legal facts being falsely denied.
Scholars of Common Law confirm that a suppressed institution in fact legally continues to exist, also retaining its legal rights, citing a precedent: “In 1381 AD, [a] statute was passed against [an Order] for their suppression… However… their representatives survive to the present day [as of 1910 AD]” ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Lollards”, p.737, citing the statute “De Hoeretico Comburendo (2 Hen. IV c. 15)” enacted 1381 AD, against the “Lollards”, for “disseminating evangelical truth”.)).
Likewise, “Martial Law” legally “suppresses all existing civil laws”, and yet no one could reasonably dispute that those laws still continue to exist, and the People still retain rights under those suppressed laws, despite being disregarded ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Martial Law”, p.764.)). The moment the justifying situation passes, the country thus immediately reverts back to those underlying civil laws, which remained valid.
Vox in Excelso purposely used the legal word “Ordinance”, which actually means an Act by a Sovereign Head of State, strictly limited to one’s own jurisdiction of administration within that State:
Vatican records clarify the concept of the phrase “by way of ordinance”, explaining that it means “by virtue of his sovereign power” ((The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 4, “Clement V, Pope: Clement V and the Templars”, pp.21-22; “The Pope said that… he suppressed it by virtue of his sovereign power, and not by any definitive sentence.”)).
This is confirmed and clarified by customary international law, in which an “Ordinance” is defined as exercising “immediate jurisdiction in causes ecclesiastical… with powers [of]… administration, guardianship, etc.” ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Ordinary”, p.859; Defining Ordinance indirectly by the official powers of an “Ordinary”, the person who exercises jurisdiction of an Ordinance, and is therefore called an “Ordinary”.))
The key legal phrase “by way of ordinance” thus directly invokes, and carefully signals, the legal fact that the Vatican had no jurisdiction over the Templar Order, which it had already repeatedly recognized as an independent sovereign non-territorial Principality with diplomatic status and immunities.
As a result, the text of the Papal Bull is very clear, that this Act is strictly limited to enacting an internal political policy, only within the walls of the Vatican, with no legal basis for any external effect, other than redistributing property which was under legal title and direct management of the Vatican.
From ancient Roman law, “Ordinance” is defined as a “law, enacted by the emperor [sovereign]… differing… from a decree, in not being given in judgment” ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Edictum”, p.412; Defined as synonymous by “or” as the key word: “An edict, a mandate, or ordinance”, “An ordinance or law enacted”.)). This is consistent with the Pope’s declaration that the Act is “not by definitive sentence”, further confirming that this was not a disposition of the legal status of the Templar Order as an institution.
In customary international law, an “Ordinance” is defined as: “Strictly, a bill [Act] or law which might stand with the old law, and did not alter any statute in force at the time” ((Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Ordinance”, p.859.)). This proves that the Act was only a political declaration, limited to internal administration within the Vatican, which in fact did not “revoke” any legal status or rights of the Templar Order.
Next, Vox in Excelso, having clarified that this Act was only a limited internal suppression, more specifically declares the policy which was enacted only within the Vatican:
“Therefore, with a sad heart, not by definitive sentence, but by apostolic provision and ordinance, we suppress… the Order of Templars, and its Rule, habit and name… and we entirely forbid that anyone from now on enter the Order… or presume to behave as a Templar.” ((Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraph 13, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).))
To “suppress… its Rule, habit and name”, and “forbid… [to] enter the Order”, thus meant that Catholic Clergy and Faithful, those under direct ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Vatican, would not join the Order under its Temple Rule, nor wear its Templar uniforms or regalia, nor use its Templar titles, only within the Vatican itself.
Accordingly, this could not lawfully apply to surviving and continuing Templars in the sovereign Order itself, nor in the Independent Church Movement, nor to any others outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
Therefore, by this Act, the Vatican did nothing more than simply withdraw its own active support and direct cooperation with the Templar Order. Moreover, it purposely did nothing purporting to change the inherent legal status of sovereign and chivalric legitimacy of the Order itself in its own right.
Finally, Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD concluded with very specific legal phrases which explicitly reconfirmed and reasserted, and thus preserved, all previous Papal Bulls and Vatican decrees recognizing the independent sovereignty and diplomatic status of the Templar Order:
“Through this decree, however, we do not wish to derogate from any processes made… in conformity with what we have ordained at other times.” ((Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraph 13, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).))
This reaffirming of Templar legal status was again repeated by Pope Clement V, in the related Papal Bull Considerantes of 1312 AD:
“We had no intention of derogating from the processes made… as we have ordained elsewhere. … Thus those who have been legally acquitted… shall be supplied with the goods of the former Order whereby they can live as becomes their status.” ((Pope Clement V, Considerantes (06 May 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraphs 1-2, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils; Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).))
Specifically, what the Vatican had “ordained at other times” and “ordained elsewhere” for the Templar Order, is the Papal Bulls Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD recognizing its permanent sovereignty, Milites Templi of 1144 AD and Militia Dei of 1145 AD recognizing its diplomatic status, and the Chinon Parchment of 1308 AD exonerating the Templars and confirming the Order in good standing in Communion with the Church.
All of those Papal Bulls were thus declared to be preserved and continued in full legal effect, by Vox in Excelso and Considerantes of 1312 AD.
The decree in Considerantes, that Templars “can live as becomes their status”, confirms that the Order fully retains its legal “status”, which it can continue to exercise by its own sovereign authority independent from the Vatican.
Saint Bernard in illuminated manuscript 13th century
Building upon the original “backup plan” established by the Templar Patron Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, after the French Persecution of 1307 AD and Vatican “Suppression” of 1312 AD, surviving Templars and supporting Templar loyalists worked throughout the next 700 years, to bring the Templar lineages for Sovereign Succession into the modern era.
As a result, the Templar “Independent Church Movement” from 1145 AD became the larger “Old Catholic Movement” of 1870 AD, unifying and supporting half of the “Catholic world” outside of the Vatican, and finally obtaining the most complete and conclusive recognition from the Vatican in the year 2000.
These ongoing advancements, accomplished by generations of surviving Templars and supporters, paved the way forward for the Templar Restoration, returning the Templar Order to full legitimacy in international law, possessing all of its original sovereign authorities.
‘Portrait of Pope Leo X with Cardinals’ (ca. 1518 AD) by Raphael in Uffizi Gallery (Detail)
Expanding Independence – In 1520 AD, Pope Leo X issued the Papal Bull Debitum Pastoralis (“Pastoral Duty”), confirming the rights of Independent Bishops to perform Episcopal consecrations without Vatican approval, and granting immunity from Vatican jurisdiction. This was issued to the Bishop of Utrecht, who was a Teutonic Knight promoting surviving Templarism. ((Louis Sicking, Zeemacht en Onmacht: Maritieme Politiek in de Nederlanden 1488-1558, De Bataafse Leeuw, Amsterdam (1998).))
Preserving Templar Lines – Led by the Franciscan Sacred Order in England, by its Synod of Independent Apostolic Clergy since 1221 AD, the Independent Churches continued the “Templar Lines” of succession, notably aided by many supporting Popes. This led to the successful consolidation and confirmation of those lines with the Vatican by 1740 AD.
“Melchizedek Line” – This exotic Apostolic line from the Ancient Magi and Solomon of the Templar Priesthood, passed from Pope Eugene III (created Independent Church Movement with Saint Bernard) in 1145 AD, through Vatican Popes who were Templar loyalists and revivalists, including Urban IV (issued Pantaleon confirming Templar origins in the Biblical Temple of Solomon) in 1261 AD, Clement V (issued Chinon Parchment vindicating Templars) in 1305 AD, John XXII (created Spanish “Order of Montessa” to absorb surviving Templars, and changed name of Portuguese Templars to “Knights of Christ”) in 1316 AD, and Leo X (issued Debitum Pastoralis expanding the Independent Church Movement) in 1513 AD.
“Templar Lines” – These unique Apostolic lines passed from Saint Bernard in 1120 AD, through the Grand Master Jacques de Molay ca. 1276 AD, through surviving Templars (renamed “Order of Christ” in Portugal) who founded the Rosicrucian Order ca. 1407 AD, through “Mystic” Templar Rosicrucians ca. 1530 AD ((Antonio de Macedo, Instruções Iniciáticas – Ensaios Espirituais, 2nd Edition, Hughin Editores, Lisbon (2000), p.55.)) ((J. Manuel Gandra, Portugal Misterioso: Os Templários, Lisbon (2000), pp.348-349.)), until these “secret” lines were reinstated in the Vatican, continued through Pope Benedict XIV during 1726-1740 AD. ((Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops: Archbishop Mar Frederick, Cardinal Bruce D. Campbell, Archbishop Benjamin B. Driggers, Archbishop David L. Rochelle, Cardinal Peter R. Edwards; Article VII “Templar Restoration”, p.12.))
‘Portrait of Pope Benedict XIV’ c 1750 AD by Agostino Masucci in Royal Castle of Warsaw
Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758 AD) had an affinity for the Templars as law-givers of the Magna Carta civil rights ((The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 2, “Benedict XIV”, p.432: Describes how Pope Benedict XIV was passionately dedicated to civil law and principles of enforcement of the rule of law.)), and for the Templar mission of preserving sacred knowledge ((The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 2, “Benedict XIV: Liturgical Reforms”, p.434: Describes how Pope Benedict XIV founded the Vatican Museum Christianum, and established the Vatican Library Catalogue of 3,300 rare manuscripts; He “exercised the closest supervision” with all such heritage restoration projects.)).
He supported Templar survival as the renamed “Order of Christ” in Portugal, by granting it the former headquarters monastery of the Templar Order in 1740 AD. He also established the first Vatican “Academy of Antiquities” in 1740 AD, to continue the Templar mission of exploring ancient origins of Christianity ((The Vatican, Pontifical Roman Academy of Archaeology, Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome, Online: Theologia.va (July 2012).)).
His personal Quest to revitalize the medieval Orders of Chivalry is also confirmed by his mediation supporting the Knights of Malta with the King of Naples in 1756 AD. ((The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 2, “Benedict XIV: Public Policy”, p.433.))
The primary “Mystic Templar Rosicrucian” lines from ca. 1530 AD were collected and vested in Benedict XIV in 1726, and he consolidated and “reinstated” all related “Templar Lines” with the Vatican when he became Pope in 1740 AD ((Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops; Article VII “Templar Restoration”, p.12.)).
In 1870 AD, the Independent Church Movement became the “Old Catholic Movement”, when an estimated 50% of all practicing Catholics worldwide, led by the Independent Bishops supporting Templarism, split from the Vatican:
When the First Vatican Council declared new dogmas in 1870 AD ((The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 15, “Vatican Council: Acceptance of the Decrees”, p.307.)), the dissenting minority was 20% of all Vatican Bishops, but those with strategic influence in key countries, thus actually representing 50% of practicing Catholics ((The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 15, “Vatican Council”, p.305: Part II, “Proceedings of the Council”, Section 2, “The Parties”: “the minority, comprising about one-fifth [20%]… feared the worst… many wavering Catholics, an increased estrangement of those separated from the Church”; the list of dissenting countries indicates that this “minority” represented an average of 50% of all practicing Roman Catholics.)). Half of those Bishops directly led and founded the Old Catholic Movement as the new vehicle for all dissenting Catholics, such that 10% of Vatican Bishops took with them 50% of the Catholic Clergy and Faithful worldwide ((Richard P. McBrien, The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Harper Collins (1995), p.1297.)).
‘Rome 8 Decembre 1869’ First Vatican Council (1870 AD) in Musée de l’Image Epinal
In 1871 AD, the Old Catholic Congress declared “Adherence to the Ancient Catholic faith… of the Ancient Church”, with “rejection of new dogmas”, as “preparation of the way for the reunion of the Christian confessions [denominations].” ((The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 11, “Old Catholics”, p.235.))
In 1889 AD, the Declaration of Utrecht by the Independent Bishops reestablished the “historical primacy… of the Ancient Church” (Article 2) and “Ancient Catholic doctrine” (Article 6) ((Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches, The Declaration of Utrecht (24 September 1889), Translated in: Paul Halsall, Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University, New York (1999): Continuing 1st century Christianity as “the undivided Church of the first thousand years” (Article 1), “the doctrine of the primitive Church” (Articles 4, 5), “maintaining the Faith of the undivided Church” (Article 7) as “the doctrine of Jesus Christ” (Article 8); Recognizing the “historical primacy… of the Ancient Church” (Article 2) and “Ancient Catholic doctrine” (Article 6).)). It was thus named the “Old Catholic Movement”, for accepting only the “Old” Catholic doctrines and classical traditions before “Vatican I” of 1870 AD.
By 1958, Vatican experts widely recognized that “Old Catholic Orders are valid… likewise Old Catholic Bishops… The Old Catholics, like the Orthodox, possess a valid priesthood.” ((William J. Whalen, Separated Brethren: A Survey of Non-Catholic Christian Denominations, 1st Edition (1958), The Bruce Publishing Company, 4th Revised Edition (1963), pp.204, 248.))
By 1974, Catholic scholars documented that “The Roman Church recognizes the validity of Old Catholic Orders and other sacraments.” ((Felician A. Foy, Catholic Almanac, 1st Edition, Our Sunday Visitor Press (1974), p.368.))
In 1983, the Vatican ratified the updated Code of Canon Law, which confirms that Independent Bishops, by “consecration” with valid Apostolic lines (Canon 1009), are thereby “incardinated” in the Independent Churches (Canon 266), and thus not subject to Vatican Pontifical authority, thereby becoming an independent “competent ecclesiastical authority” in their own right (Canons 114, 116, 118) ((The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983): Valid Apostolic lines “conferred by the imposition of hands and the prayer of consecration” (Canon 1009); “By the reception of [consecration] a person… is incardinated in the particular Church… for whose service he is ordained.” (Canon 266); Independent “competent ecclesiastical authority” (Canons 114, 116, 118).)).
Also in 1983, Vatican experts in Canon law confirmed that “When a [Roman] Catholic minister is unavailable… Catholics may receive [sacraments from]… Priests of the Old Catholic [Churches].” ((Thomas P. Doyle, Rights and Responsibilities: A Catholic’s Guide to the New Code of Canon Law, Pueblo Press (1983), p.44.))
In 2000, the Vatican issued the Papal Bull Dominus Iesus, which fully and conclusively recognized the canonical validity of all Sacraments and Apostolic Succession of the Old Catholic Movement ((Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church, published by Pope John Paul II (16 June 2000), republished by Pope Benedict XVI (August 2000), Article IV, Section 17.)).
In the end result, generations of Templars not only survived by the plan of Saint Bernard, but also successfully continued and reestablished that plan in the modern era. This resulted in the medieval tradition of Independent Bishops becoming stronger than ever, with the Old Catholic Movement achieving overwhelming recognition by the Vatican.
This effectively positioned the Sacred Order of Saint Francis to use the unprecedented authority of the Old Catholic Movement, operating throughout half of the “Catholic world” outside the Vatican, but with significant support from the Vatican, while still maintaining independence.
This empowered the Franciscan Sacred Order to preserve and continue the lineages of Templar Sovereign Succession, carrying the institutional legal status and sovereign authorities of the Templar Order, as needed for its official Reestablishment in international law.
By these accomplishments over many centuries, the Franciscan Sacred Order would be able to perfect and complete the Templar Restoration, precisely as planned by Saint Bernard in the 12th century, for the return of the Templar Order to full legal legitimacy in the 21st century.
Learn about the Foundations of the Order for its restoration.
Learn about the French Persecution suppressing the Order.
Learn about the Templar Survival Lineage into the modern era.
You cannot copy content of this page
