Rediscover the restored Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple from 1118 AD, the direct lineal continuation of the original historical institution of the founding Knights Templar, established 10+ years before any Vatican involvement, thus fully independent with the full depth and substance of its own ancient and medieval heritage.
The “Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple”, as the continuation and modern restoration of the original Templar Order and its ancient and medieval founding heritage, legally and canonically retains its historical status of full and permanent independence from the Vatican.
This report provides a short summary of the ancient heritage of the Order for context, followed by a full legal proof of its independence as its medieval heritage, and a proof of the ‘Ancient’ designation in its authentic proper name.
Grand Mastery Seal of the Knights Templar (1118 AD) “Temple Mount” Seal
Ancient Sacred Knowledge – The founding Knights Templar established the Templar Order in 1118 AD, by archaeological excavation of the Temple of Solomon, which was a Pharaonic Egyptian Temple.
From the Temple, they recovered the Ancient Priesthood as the origins of Christianity, and the Library of Solomon containing the Ancient Royal Secret Archives, consisting of thousands of years of Golden Age sacred knowledge.
Permanent Independence – The original Templar Order always retained its own independence from the Vatican, with its own jurisdiction for its unique ancient and medieval heritage:
The Templar Order, established by the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1118 AD, fully possessed its own independent heritage, and its own institutional independence, at least 10 years before Vatican involvement in 1129 AD;
It ultimately achieved complete and permanent independence, as the legal successor to its founding authority from the Kingdom in 1291 AD, becoming a non-territorial (international) Principality in its own right, a full 21 years before it was suppressed only within the Vatican in 1312 AD.
As a result, the Vatican has no jurisdiction over its founding heritage and original existence, no jurisdiction over its survival and continued existence, and no jurisdiction over its modern restoration.
Name of the Original Order – The full official name of the modern restored Templar Order is the “Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple”. By customary law, it holds the prenominal designation “Ancient”, as a continuation and restoration from the original Order with its founding heritage. Thus, its proper Latin name is “Ordo Antiquus Milicie Templi”.
Potential for Cooperation – The restored Templar Order continues to serve in its original role as Defenders of the Faith and Defenders of the Church, and thus continues to offer cooperation with the Vatican, to support the authentic traditional heritage and spirituality of classical Christianity.
Common references to the founding Knights Templar as the “Order of the Temple of Solomon”, as it was widely known during the Middle Ages, is an informal description, emphasizing the ancient heritage which the original Order was founded upon.
The 19th century Barrister and historian Charles Addison documented that in 1118 AD, nine founding Knights first established the Templar Order inside the Temple of Solomon, and thus King Baldwin II of Jerusalem granted them residence in the Palace on Temple Mount to continue their archaeological excavation of the ancient site [1] [2].
The Old Testament documents multiple details evidencing that the Temple of Solomon was in fact a Pharaonic Temple of the Ancient Priesthood of Egypt:
“Solomon made affinity [alliance] with Pharaoh King of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter” for his first wife (I Kings 3:1-3), before starting to build the Temple completed ca. 960 BC (I Kings 6:1,38). Later Solomon had “many strange [foreign] wives”, and built “an high place [Temple]” for each of their “other gods” (I Kings 11:1-8).
As Solomon’s first wife was the Pharaoh’s daughter, certainly the first Temple built to God was a Temple of the Pharaoh’s Ancient Priesthood of the same God.
In ca. 930 BC “Shishak King of Egypt” (the Pharaoh Sheshonq I) “took away all… which Solomon had made” from the Temple (I Kings 14:25-26), to rescue the Egyptian sacred artifacts from Babylonian sacrilege of the new Priests (II Chronicles 12:2-4,9). In ca. 605 BC again “Pharaoh’s army was come forth out of Egypt” (the Pharaoh Nekau II) to protect the Temple and its artifacts against a Babylonian invasion (Jeremiah 6:22-23, 37:5).
This confirms that the Temple of Solomon was in fact Pharaonic Egyptian, thus twice requiring a military campaign to protect its artifacts from sacrilege.
When God showed the Prophet Ezekiel the Holy of Holies within the Temple of Solomon, he “saw… beasts [animal figures], and all the idols [statues] of the house… portrayed upon the wall[s] round about” (Ezekiel 8:10-12).
University Bible scholars confirm that Ezekiel saw “mythological scenes… of Egyptian provenance [origins]”, and thus described Egyptian Angels and Saints with animal heads, and hieroglyphs which are primarily animal figures [3].
The 1st century historian Flavius Josephus, who personally witnessed the Temple before its destruction in 70 AD, also established that it featured “the heavens [and] signs, representing living creatures” from the Ancient Priesthood of Pharaonic Egypt [4] [5].
The Ancient Priesthood of Pharaonic Egypt is not one of supposed polytheistic ‘gods’ and ‘goddesses’, but rather is the original foundations of Christianity, dedicated to venerating the Angels of God and Saints of God, invoking the Kingdom of God on earth to uplift humanity:
The Egyptian religion was actually monotheistic, and worshipped one universal creator God called the “Aten” [6], giving it a hieroglyphic symbol as early as 2,687 BC [7], which meant the “throne” of the supreme One God [8].
The hieroglyph “Neter” (a flag), superficially mistranslated as co-called “Deities”, actually means “Holy”, as either “Angelic” or “Saintly”. The root word “ter” is from the word “Tery” meaning “Holiness”. The plural form “Neterwoo” means “Holies” or “of Holiness”, as the suffix “woo” means “from” or “of”. Thus, Angels are “Holies from God”, and Saints are “Holies of God”. [9]
Archaeology established that Holy people were ceremonially “assimilated” with an Angel, meaning they were canonized as Saints dedicated to representing that Angel, essentially in the same way as for Catholic Saints [10].
Throughout the sacred sites of ancient Egypt, the paintings and carvings illustrate the Kings and Queens walking with the Angels, being led by the hand by Angels, guiding humanity in the ways of God.
For these reasons, both Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome, in letters to each other in 418 AD, fully recognized the Ancient Priesthood of Egypt as the original “true religion, which… began to be called Christian” [11], and which “established anew the Ancient Faith” within Christianity [12].
University historians established that the first founding Templar Knights worked nine years (1118-1127 AD) conducting archaeological excavation of the Egyptian Temple of Solomon [13], the information and contents of which became the founding heritage and substance of their chivalric Order. [14] [15]
British historians confirm that the legendary “Treasure of the Templars” was what the Knights “did find during their excavations of the Temple of Jerusalem” [16]. Archaeology has established that this Temple contained a library of sacred scrolls, which was the Library of King Solomon [17].
An early 19th century lawyer historian documented that the Temple of Solomon featured a library of the Ancient Royal Secret Archives from Egypt, and “was built by Solomon more to protect these Archives than anything else.” [18]
Therefore, the original Templar Order was founded upon recovering and restoring both the Ancient Priesthood and the Ancient Royal Secret Archives from the Temple of Solomon. These resources consisted of many thousands of years of sacred knowledge from the last Golden Age of humanity. That knowledge empowered the Knights Templar to lead humanity from the Dark Ages into the prosperity and creativity of the Renaissance.
(Learn about the Foundations of the Order for its heritage.)
In addition to its unique ancient heritage from its foundations, the original Templar Order also had its own independent medieval heritage, all decades before it was politically perceived as supposedly dependent upon Vatican status. The Order also achieved permanent official independence, retaining exclusive authority for its own foundational heritage, decades before it was politically suppressed only within the Vatican.
The original Templar Order was established by Royal Patronage with independence at least a full 10 years before Vatican involvement, and achieved permanent Royal Protection with independence 19 years before the Vatican additionally granted the same status:
In 1118 AD when the Templar Order was founded, King Baldwin II granted it Sovereign Patronage from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, giving it residence in his Palace [19] [20]. (This was 11 years before the Vatican granted additional Sovereign Patronage in 1129 AD.)
In 1119 AD the Temple Rule, as the founding charter of the Order, was established by Saint Bernard de Clairvaux and the first Grand Master Hughes de Payens under the Kingdom of Jerusalem [21]. (This was 10 years before the Vatican granted additional Patronage by endorsing the Temple Rule in 1129 AD.)
In 1119 AD King Baldwin II confirmed permanent Patronage of the Templar Order [22], and ordered its independence from the Vatican’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre, making its status exclusively under the Kingdom of Jerusalem, independent from the Vatican [23]. (This was 10 years before the Vatican granted additional Patronage in 1129 AD.)
In 1120 AD, at the Council of Nablus, King Baldwin II elevated the Templar Order to full Sovereign Protection exclusively under the Kingdom of Jerusalem [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. (This was 9 years before the Vatican granted Patronage by ratifying the Temple Rule in 1129 AD, and 19 years before the Vatican granted additional Sovereign Protection by Omne Datum Optimum in 1139 AD.)
In 1129 AD, the Kingdom of Jerusalem granted the Templar Order co-regency for governing the Templar Principalities of Edessa, Tripoli and Antioch, making the Grand Master and governing Grand Knights a “Prince” [30]. Under customary international law, this made the Order itself a Principality as an institution, becoming an “Independent Non-Territorial Power [Principality]” regardless of holding territory [31]. (This was 10 years before the Vatican granted additional Sovereign Protection in 1139 AD.)
In 1291 AD, the Kingdom of Jerusalem ended with the Siege of Acre by the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt (successors of the Sultanate of Salahadin). By established rules of customary international law, all of the rights and authorities granted by the Kingdom to the Templars then became permanently vested in the Order independently, carrying those authorities in its own right:
The Code of Canon Law is based upon ancient rules of customary international law (including Saxon and Celtic law), preserved in 1st century Apostolic Canons, first fully codified in 1150 AD [32] [33]. Canon law evidences and recognizes an important legal doctrine for the survival and succession of official authorities of historical institutions, called “Devolution”:
“Even if a single member of [the institution] survives… all of the rights of the aggregate devolves upon that member.” (Canon 120, §2) [34]
As a result, the Templar Order as the only prominent “surviving member” of the Kingdom – first as its official Order of Chivalry, and then as its Principality – became the canonical legal successor of “all of the rights” of Patronage and Protection which the Kingdom had granted to it, thereafter carrying those authorities independently.
“On the extinction of [an institution]… its patrimonial goods and rights [founding rights] … devolve upon the next higher juridical person [entity]” (Canon 123) [35]
The Templar Patron King Fulk of Jerusalem, beginning in 1120 AD and completed in 1148 AD, established the Templar Order itself as the “High Court” and “Royal Council” (Parliament) of the Kingdom [36] [37] [38], carrying Crown Regency authority to determine Royal Succession [39] [40].
As a result, the Templar Order as the “next higher” surviving institution of the Kingdom of Jerusalem – as its High Court and Parliament – even more strongly became the canonical legal successor of all “rights” which the Kingdom had granted to it, retaining those authorities independently.
The Temple Rule of 1129 AD declares that the Order operates “according to Canonical law” (Rule 9) and is a “Canonical institution” (Rule 274) [41], giving it the full direct benefit of the Canon law rule of survival by “Devolution”. (Even without this, Canon law rules would still apply as customary international law.)
Therefore, when the Kingdom of Jerusalem ended in 1291 AD, all of the rights and authorities of the Templar Order from the Kingdom became permanently vested in the Order independently. (This was 21 years before it was suppressed only within the Vatican by Vox in Excelso in 1312 AD.)
Under customary international law, the Templar Order continued to permanently carry its own official status as an “Independent Non-Territorial Power [Principality]” from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, regardless of losing the Kingdom and its former territories [42].
All of the above evidence of facts and law proves that the Templar Order, as the original historical institution of the founding Knights Templar, always retained its own legal and canonical independence from the Vatican, fully possessing its own jurisdiction for its unique ancient and medieval heritage:
As the Order existed with independence at least 10 years before Vatican involvement, the Vatican has no jurisdiction over its founding heritage nor its original existence;
As the Order achieved complete and permanent official independence a full 21 years before Vatican suppression, the Vatican also has no jurisdiction over its continued existence nor its restoration.
Therefore, the modern restoration of the original Templar Order and its founding heritage, legally and canonically, continues to possess full and permanent independence from the Vatican.
(Learn about how the Vatican is Separate from the Templar Order.)
Note that the word “Templar” is only an informal descriptive adjective meaning ‘of the Temple’, “Solomon” was simply an historical reference, and the phrase “of Jerusalem” was merely a political reference only used by the Vatican. None of these were ever part of the name of the original historical institution of the founding Templars as an official Order of Chivalry:
In the Temple Rule of 1129 AD, the original constitutional Charter of the Order, the Templars are called the “Order of Knighthood” (Rules 2, 3, 12), and also “Knights of the Temple” (Rules 8, 12), and therefore the institution is fully and officially named the “Order of Knights of the Temple” (Rule 68) [43].
A contemporary Bishop documented in 1145 AD that the original Templars “call themselves the Knights of the Temple” [44], and the 12th century Cathars thus called it “the Order of the Temple” [45] [46], both confirming the proper name “Order of Knights of the Temple”.
In the Temple Rule, the original institution was also referred to in descriptive terms as the “Order of God and of the Temple of Solomon” (Rules 51, 65, 66) [47]. The 19th century Barrister and historian Charles G. Addison confirmed that the founding Templars also “came to be known” in their own time as the “Knighthood of the Temple of Solomon” [48].
However, the word “Solomon” was not actually part of the official name of the Order. Rather, this was an informal description for historical accuracy, simply identifying the Temple as that of the Biblical King Solomon. This was apparently promoted culturally by the Knights Templar, as a coded reference to the Egyptian Temple as the source of the ancient heritage carried by the Order.
The Templar Order has no interest in any practices nor traditions from King Solomon himself, because he was actually punished by God since he “turned away his heart after other gods”, and for that reason his kingdom ended shortly after his death (I Kings 11:4, 11:11).
The Vatican, 21 years after the original Templar Order was established (in 1118 AD), and 10 years after granting it additional Patronage (in 1129 AD), developed its own political perception and resulting description of the Knights Templar (during 1139-1144 AD):
The Vatican Papal Bulls Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD (recognizing its independence) [49], Milites Templi of 1144 AD (confirming its independence) [50], and Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD (suppressing it only within the Vatican) [51], used only political descriptive names related to the “Temple of Jerusalem”.
However, the word “Jerusalem” was not actually part of the official name of the Order. Rather, this was a political description, connecting the Order to the Vatican’s own geopolitical interests in all Christian religious sites in Jerusalem. This was apparently promoted officially by the Vatican, to influence public perception of the Order, obscuring the fact of its independence.
The Templar Order has no interest in Jerusalem, because it already recovered the ancient sacred knowledge from the Egyptian Temple of Solomon, and later successors and descendants of the Templars already preserved those ancient documents strategically placed in archives, to be reassembled and used by the modern restored Order.
The official name of an Order of Chivalry can include a preceding “style” designation (analogous to prenominal “styles of address” for nobiliary titles), determined by rules of customary international law, which can be used to indicate the particular legal status of an Order:
The designation “Ancient” is exclusively for an Order which is a branch or restoration continuing the original form of its ancient historical institution [52], and accurately preserving its original founding principles and authentic traditions [53], reestablished or recognized by legitimate successors or initiatory descendants from its ancient origins [54].
The historical Templar Order possesses its own unique and independent sacred knowledge and traditions, as both ancient and medieval heritage, from its original foundations before any Vatican involvement.
The modern Order was meticulously restored to legitimacy by the historical legal doctrines of “Juridical Continuity” (living by the same founding Charter), “Historical Continuity” (preserving authentic heritage), “Doctrinal Succession” (teaching the same principles), and “Magistral Succession” (lineage from the founding Grand Mastery) [55] [56] [57].
(These are only a few elements, among many other bases of legal legitimacy for the restored original Order, strictly in accordance with established rules of customary international law.)
As a result, the restored Order is the direct continuation of the full depth and substance of all its ancient and medieval heritage, from the original historical institution of the founding Knights Templar.
Therefore, the modern restored Order can rightfully use the designation “Ancient” with its full official name as a legitimate historical institution.
(Learn about the Templar Survival Lineage into the modern era.)
As proven by all of the above evidence, the full and official name of the modern restored continuation of the original Order of the founding Knights Templar is: “Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple”. Accordingly, the proper Latin name of the Order is: “Ordo Antiquus Milicie Templi”.
Learn about how the Vatican is Separate from the Templar Order.
Learn about the Foundations of the Order for its heritage.
[1] Charles G. Addison, The History of the Knights Templar (1842), pp.4-5, citing a Vatican document by the 13th century Pope Urban IV (Jacques Pantaleon, 1195-1264), the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, as “Pantaleon, Lib. iii. p. 82.”
[2] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale (1985), 1985 Edition, Macmillan Library Reference (1990), “Knights Templars”.
[3] Prof. Arthur Samuel Peake (Editor), A Commentary on the Bible, T.C. & E.C. Jack, Ltd., London (1920), Ezekiel 8:10-11; Dr. Peake was Professor of Biblical Exegesis at University of Manchester, a Master of Arts and Doctor of Divinity.
[4] Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish War, Rome (78 AD); Translation by William Whiston (1736), Loeb Classical Library (1926), Volume II; See pp.212, 217; The Temple contained decorations of “mystical interpretation… a kind of image of the universe… all that was mystical in the heavens… [and] signs, representing living creatures.” (Book 5, Chapter 5, Part 4) Other symbols “signified the circle of the Zodiack” (Book 5, Chapter 5, Part 5); This is connected with the “Zodiak” of Dendera Temple, original preserved in the Louvre museum, replaced by a replica at the Dendera site in Egypt.
[5] Titus Flavius Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, Rome (ca. 96 AD); Translation by William Whiston (1736), Loeb Classical Library (1926), Volume I; See p.65; The Temple replica rebuilt by King Herod also “had the figures of living creatures in it” (Part 12).
[6] Donald B. Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, The American University in Cairo Press (2001), Vol.1, “Aten”, p.157.
[7] Sir Alan G. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar: The Study of Hieroglyphs, Ashmolean Museum of Oxford University, Griffith Institute, Oxford (1927), “Aten”, N8.
[8] Donald B. Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, The American University in Cairo Press (2001), Vol.1, “Aten”, p.156.
[9] Sir Alan G. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar: The Study of Hieroglyphs (1927), 3rd Edition, Ashmolean Museum of Oxford University, Griffith Institute, Oxford (1957), “Neterwoo” (“Gods” = “Angels” and “Saints”), List of Hieroglyphic Signs (pp.438 et seq.): “NTRW” (Holies, such as Angels or Saints, mistranslated as “Gods”), R8-R8-R8, (Prophets speaking Holiness) R8-N35-M6-M6-M6; “HM NTR” (“Prophet” as a Saint), R8-U36; “NTR” (Holiness as Saintly: flag), R8, (Astral as Angelic: flag-star), R8-N14; “TRY” (Holiness or Divinity, as “high priest”), D1-Q3-Z4, T8, D1-Q3; “NIWTYW” (People, “citizens”, as “of” or “from” the Temple complex) O49-X1-G4-A1-Z2; “DWT NTR” (“Netherworld”: circled star), N15.
[10] Patrick Boylan, Thoth or the Hermes of Egypt: A Study of Some Aspects of Theological Thought in Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press (1922), pp.166-168.
[11] Saint Augustine, Retract I, XIII, 3 (ca. 418 AD); Eugene TeSelle, Augustine the Theologian (1970), reprinted London (2002), p.343.
[12] Saint Jerome, Epistola 195 (418 AD); Eugene TeSelle, Augustine the Theologian (1970), reprinted London (2002), p.343.
[13] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.2.
[14] Keith Laidler, The Head of God: The Lost Treasure of the Templars, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1998), p.177.
[15] Piers Paul Read, The Templars: The Dramatic History of the Knights Templar, the Most Powerful Military Order of the Crusades, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1999), Phoenix Press, London (2001), Orion Publishing Group, London (2012), p.305.
[16] Alan Butler & Stephen Dafoe, The Warriors and Bankers, Lewis Masonic, Surrey, England (2006), p.20.
[17] Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, Hirbet Qumran and the Problem of the Library of the Dead Sea Caves, German edition (1960), Translated by J.R. Wilkie, Leiden Press, Brill (1963).
[18] Hiram Ralph Burton, The Origin History and Object of the Alfalfa Club, Washington DC (1917), p.7; Burton was a lawyer from Georgetown University Law School, and Special Investigator for multiple US Senate committees.
[19] Charles G. Addison, The History of the Knights Templar (1842), pp.4-5, citing a Vatican document by the 13th century Pope Urban IV (Jacques Pantaleon, 1195-1264), the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, as “Pantaleon, Lib. iii. p. 82.”
[20] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale (1985), 1985 Edition, Macmillan Library Reference (1990), “Knights Templars”.
[21] Judith M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge, The Boydell Press (1992), p.11; Dissertation for Master of Philosophy at Reading University; The Temple Rule must have been established in 1119 AD, as it must have been in use before the Council of Nablus of the Kingdom of Jerusalem recognizing Templar sovereignty in 1120 AD.
[22] William of Tyre, Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum (ca. 1172 AD), XII, 7, Patrologia Latina, 201, 526-27, Translated by James Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary History, Marquette University Press, Milwaukee (1962), pp.70-73.
[23] Ernoul & Bernard, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Tresorier (ca. 1188), Ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Paris (1871), Chapter 2, pp.7-8.
[24] 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.
[25] Hans E. Mayer, The Concordat of Nablus, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge University Press, No. 33 (October 1982), pp.531-533, 541-542.
[26] 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.
[27] Dominic Selwood, Knights Templar III: Birth of the Order (2013), historian for Daily Telegraph of London, article.
[28] Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, Cambridge University Press (1978), p.5, p.8
[29] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.5.
[30] Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Volume 2: “The Kingdom of Jerusalem”, Cambridge University Press (1952), pp.212-213, 222-224.
[31] 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 2, Principle 3, Principle 6.
[32] Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Harvard University Press (1983), p.240.
[33] Fernando della Rocca, Manual of Canon Law, Translated by Rev. Anselm Thatcher, O.S.B., The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee (1959), p.13.
[34] 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.
[35] 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 123.
[36] M. Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1978), Volume 6, pp.308-311; The High Court included the co-founding Templar Patron Count Fulk d’Anjou.
[37] 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); The High Court in 1148 AD included the 2nd Templar Grand Master Robert de Craon, “many others” of the Knights Templar, and the Angevin King Louis VII of France.
[38] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.5; “All masters” of the Templar Grand Mastery “were leading political and military figures in the Kingdom of Jerusalem”.
[39] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 2, “Their Marvellous Growth”, pp.493-494; The Templar Order exercised “the right to direct the… government of the Kingdom of Jerusalem”.
[40] Herbert Broom & Edward Hadley, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Parsons Law Book Publisher, Albany New York (1875), Volume 1, Book 1: “The Rights of Persons”, Chapter 3: “The Sovereign”, Point 3, p.156: “It is unquestionably in the [authority of]… parliament, to defeat [a] hereditary right… and vest the [crown] in any one else.”
[41] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard; Described as the “Order of God and of the Temple of Solomon” (Rules 9, 274).
[42] 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 2, Principle 3, Principle 6.
[43] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard: “Order of Knighthood” (Rules 2, 3, 12); “Knights of the Temple” (Rules 8, 12), thus fully and officially “Order of Knights of the Temple” (Rule 68).
[44] Anselm, Bishop of Havelburg, Dialogi (1145), “Dialogus” to Pope Eugenius III, in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Ed. J.P. Migne, Paris (1834-64), 188, col.1156.
[45] Keith Laidler, The Head of God: The Lost Treasure of the Templars, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1998), p.199.
[46] Piers Paul Read, The Templars: The Dramatic History of the Knights Templar, the Most Powerful Military Order of the Crusades, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1999), Phoenix Press, London (2001), Orion Publishing Group, London (2012), p.306.
[47] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard; Described as the “Order of God and of the Temple of Solomon” (Rules 51, 65, 66).
[48] Charles G. Addison, The History of the Knights Templar (1842), p.5, citing a Vatican document by Pope Urban IV (Jacques Pantaleon), the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, as “Pantaleon, Lib. iii. p. 82.”
[49] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum, “Every Good Gift” (29 March 1139); Translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.8, 59-64.; Formally called “Order of the Temple in Jerusalem”.
[50] 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), pp.8, 64-65; Formally called “Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem”.
[51] 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); Formally called “Order of Knights Templar of Jerusalem”.
[52] Gustav Adolph Ackermann, Ordensbuch Samtlicher in Europa Bluhender und Erloschener Orden, Rudolph & Dieterici, Annaberg (1855), Section 220: The “Ancient Order of Saint George” was based on restoring and continuing the traditions of the royal chivalric “Order of the Ancient Nobility” created in 1308 AD by King Henry VII of Germany, thus founded as a new nobiliary chivalric order in 1768 AD by the German Count of Limburg.
[53] I.R. Clarke, The Formation of the Grand Lodge of the Antients, Journal: “Ars Quatuor Coronatorum”, Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, Volume 79 (1966), pp.270-273: The “Most Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons”, established in 1751 AD, was declared by its “first Book of Constitutions” as a continuation from “Old Masons… from whom the present Grand Lodge of Antient Masons received the Old System free from innovation.”
[54] H. Spencer Lewis, Ph.D., Rosicrucian Manual, Rosicrucian Library, Volume No.8, Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC, San Jose California, 1st Edition (1918), 5th Edition (1978), Part 1 “The AMORC and its Organization”, pp.5-6; In 1934, the “Ancient” Rosicrucian Order was established by “fourteen… arcane [ancient] movements… Each traces its origin authentically for centuries into the past.”
[55] 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).
[56] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part B-1, “Historical Continuity: Military-Monastic Orders”.
[57] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part B-1, “Historical Continuity: Time Gaps”.
You cannot copy content of this page
