Restoration of the original Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple, with the full depth and substance of its own ancient and medieval foundations, is outside of any Vatican jurisdiction or authority. A theory of potential restoration of a revival Vatican Templar Order, despite historical law and Papal Bulls making that impossible, would be limited to only remnants of the Vatican’s own past relations with the Templars.
One of the most common “frequently asked questions” about the modern restored Templar Order, is whether it needs or has any form of “permission” or “recognition” from the Vatican, or whether such is possible in the future.
The shortest answer, is that the original Templar Order always retained full independence from the Vatican, with its own jurisdiction for its unique founding heritage, and ultimately achieved complete and permanent independence, under both customary international law and also Canon law. Therefore, the restored Order does not need any permission nor recognition.
The more interesting answer, is that historical law and Papal Bulls prevent the Vatican from ever recognizing or reestablishing any Templar Order, because of Templar independence, and also because the Vatican permanently renounced and prohibited its own involvement. Therefore, it is futile to request any permission nor recognition, which the Vatican no longer has authority to give.
Ancient Order Independent – 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.
(Learn about the Ancient and Independent status of the Order.)
Limited Vatican Possibility – Some insiders reportedly believe that the Vatican could reserve the right to reestablish the Templars as a “Vatican Order”. Disregarding historical law and Papal Bulls making that impossible, such would have to be named as an “Order of the Temple of Jerusalem”, and would be limited to the Vatican’s own remnants of its past involvement with the Templars.
The restored independent “Ancient Order” is separate and different from what the Vatican could theoretically restore as an “Order of Jerusalem”, such that neither would interfere with the other, and there would be no conflict.
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.
In the same way, the independent “Ancient Order” restored from the founding Templars could also provide cooperation with a separate “Order of Jerusalem” if such is ever restored by the Vatican in the future.
All of the relevant evidence of facts and law proves that the Templar Order, as the original historical institution of the founding Knights Templar, always retained its own independence from the Vatican, fully possessing its own jurisdiction for its unique ancient and medieval heritage. The following is a very short summary of only a select few of the key facts:
In 1118 AD the Templar Order was founded by Sovereign Patronage from the Kingdom of Jerusalem [1] [2]. (This was 11 years before the Vatican granted additional Patronage in 1129 AD.)
In 1129 AD the Templar Order itself became an independent Principality as an institution, by governing the Principalities of Edessa, Tripoli and Antioch by grant from the Kingdom of Jerusalem [3]. (This was 10 years before the Vatican granted additional Sovereign Protection in 1139 AD.)
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.
In 1291 AD when the Kingdom of Jerusalem ended, by the Code of Canon Law doctrine of succession by “Devolution” (Canon 120, §2; Canon 123), all authorities granted by the Kingdom to the Templars became permanently vested in the Order independently [4]. (This was 21 years before it was suppressed only within the Vatican in 1312 AD.)
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.
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 [5].
(Learn about the Ancient and Independent status of the Order.)
The limited theory of a potential claim to reestablish a separate “Vatican Order” of Templars, has political origins in historical misunderstandings, which the Vatican unintentionally promoted among Clergy, becoming common misperceptions. One part of this is a Vatican political description which developed into an alternate concept of the Templars as an “Order of Jerusalem”. Another part is misinterpretation of a key phrase in the suppression decree out of context.
The proper name of the original Templar Order, as founded under the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1118 AD, as confirmed in the Temple Rule later endorsed by the Vatican in 1129 AD, is “Order of Knights of the Temple” (Rule 68), described as from the ancient Egyptian “Temple of Solomon” (Rules 51, 65, 66) [6].
Moving away from this authentic name and description, 21 years after the original Templar Order was established (in 1118 AD), the Vatican developed its own political perception and resulting description of the Knights Templar (during 1139-1144 AD):
The Vatican Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD (recognizing its independence) began to call it “Order of the Temple in Jerusalem” [7], then Milites Templi of 1144 AD (confirming its independence) called it “Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem” [8], and Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD (suppressing it only within the Vatican) called it “Order of Knights Templar of Jerusalem” [9].
This was a political description, connecting the Order to the Vatican’s own geopolitical interests in all Christian religious sites in Jerusalem, to influence public perception of the Order, obscuring the fact of its independence.
This created a new political concept of the Templar Order, using an alternate name as an “Order of Jerusalem”, to become commonly perceived as supposedly only a “Vatican Order”.
That artificial concept created the political perception which led to the Vatican presuming to suppress the Order. That belief also apparently led to the modern limited theory of a potential claim to restore it only under the Vatican.
The Papal Bull Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD, which suppressed the Templar Order within the Vatican, contains the phrase “not by definitive sentence”. Some may misinterpret that isolated phrase out of context, as implying that the decree itself was supposedly “not definitive”, and thus could be reversed.
That mistaken interpretation apparently led to the modern limited theory of a potential claim to reestablish the Templar Order only under the Vatican.
The full phrase is: “not by definitive sentence, but by Apostolic provision or ordinance, we suppress… the Order of Templars”.
The decree explains the meaning of this, specifically that the Order “could not be condemned” (Part 13), because “legal process… does not permit its canonical condemnation as heretical by definitive sentence” (Part 10) [10].
Both instances of the phrase clarify and confirm that it only had a limited meaning, that the decree was not a judicial sentence condemning the Order, but rather only an internal ordinance suppressing it.
The related Papal Bull Considerantes of 1312 AD, implementing the suppression within the Vatican, again confirms that the decree was “not by definitive sentence since we could not legally do this… but by… ordinance” (Part 1) [11]
Note that the key words of the sentence structure are actually “not… but…”, logically meaning “not [this], but rather [that]”. This proves that the phrase was only meant to indicate the legal basis for the decree, and not whether the result of the decree is permanent.
This proves that “not by definitive sentence” only meant “not as a condemnation”, and does not mean that the suppression could ever be reversed. Indeed, the declarations in both decrees, conclusively and permanently, prohibit the Vatican from ever reestablishing the Templar Order (details proven below).
Apparently as a result of the Vatican promoting its own political perception of the Templar Order as a “Vatican Order”, inside sources reportedly believe that the Holy See could theoretically have a potential claim, to reserve the exclusive right to reestablish the Order only by its own Papal authority.
However, that theory seems to be impossible under historical law and Papal Bulls. That aside, any such restoration would be limited, restricted to the Vatican’s own remnants of its past relations with the Templars, perhaps supported by cultural manuscripts from its Apostolic ‘Secret’ Archives.
As a result, a theoretical Vatican Order could only be the same as any other Order of Chivalry under the Holy See, essentially pursuing charitable missions with official honourary status, only characterized by the appellation “Templars”.
In any case, the Vatican can never have any claim to the restored independent “Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple”, as the continuation from the original institution of its founders before Vatican involvement, with the full depth and substance of its own founding heritage and restoration work.
Close examination of the Papal Bull Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD reveals that the Vatican did not abolish the existence of the Templar Order, nor its activities internationally, but only “suppressed” it within the Vatican internally.
This legal fact evidences that the Vatican had no jurisdiction to determine its existence, and thus could only “suppress” its own participation in the Order.
The decree specifies that it “suppressed” the Order, only “by way of provision and ordinance” (Part 12), explains it was “by way of ordinance and provision of the Apostolic See, assigning the property [assets]” to other institutions, and concludes that “by Apostolic provision or ordinance, we suppress” the Templar Order (Part 13) [12].
The related Papal Bull Considerantes of 1312 AD, implementing the suppression, confirms that the Order was “suppressed” only “by Apostolic provision and ordinance” (Part 1) [13].
The key words in these two Papal Bulls have very specific legal meanings in customary international law, proving their limited legal effects:
The word “provision” means reassignment and distribution of property assets of the Order, thus only those within the possession of the Vatican itself, to other institutions [14]. This means that in practice, it was only suppressed by the Vatican withdrawing its own financial sponsorship and seizing funds and assets.
The word “ordinance” means a mere administrative rule, internally within a limited jurisdiction, thus only within the Vatican itself, having no external legal effect [15]. This means that legally, the decree actually only suppressed the Vatican’s own participation and sponsorship, and not the Order itself.
The word “Apostolic” means that the decree was issued only under the limited religious authority of the Pope as a Church, and not under the sovereign authority of the Vatican as a State in customary international law [16]. This means that legally, the decree only suppressed the participation and support by the Clergy and Faithful under the Church, and did not apply to any official status of the Order itself as an institution.
The Papal Bull Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD decreed, for an institution named “Order of Knights Templar of Jerusalem”, that “we suppress… the Order of the Templars… by an inviolable and perpetual decree, and we entirely forbid that anyone from now on enter the Order… or presume to behave as a Templar” [17].
(Fortunately for modern Catholics, that Papal Bull only suppressed the concept of a Vatican institution named “Order of Knights Templar of Jerusalem”, and not the real original Templar Order. Thus, Catholics can join and be members of the restored original “Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple”.)
The related Papal Bull Considerantes of 1312 AD further decreed that the Vatican “abolished the Order of the Temple… and we forbade its restoration” [18].
Both decrees together, conclusively and permanently, prohibit the Vatican from ever reestablishing or restoring the Templar Order as a Vatican Order.
Disregarding that perpetual prohibition, if the Vatican still wanted to do so, it would have to reestablish the Order in the same name as was last used to suppress it. Thus, it would have to be named the “Order of Knights Templar of Jerusalem”, or some variation using the Vatican’s essential word “Jerusalem”.
Established doctrines of customary international law would prohibit reestablishing a Templar “Vatican Order” with the full ancient and medieval founding heritage of the original Templar Order.
The Code of Canon Law, the historical Constitution of the Vatican as a Sovereign religious State, declares inherent limitations on its jurisdiction, which would prevent it from fully restoring a Templar Order:
“This Church” of the Vatican is defined as having limited jurisdiction, only over the “Catholic” denomination, with the Pope having authority only as “the successor of Peter” and “the Apostles” of Jesus (Canons 204, 330, 331) [19].
The “authentic magisterium [teaching authority]” of the Vatican is also defined as having limited jurisdiction of subject matter, only to “declare upon a matter of faith or morals” for “Christ’s faithful” (Canon 752) [20].
Accordingly, the Vatican has no jurisdiction for representing nor teaching the substance and heritage of any traditions before Jesus as Christ.
Therefore, the Vatican cannot represent nor restore the denomination of Ancient Christianity, nor the Ancient Priesthood and Ancient Royal Secret Archives, as the proven essential foundational heritage of the original Templar Order.
Logically, a Sovereign (State) cannot be the “source of authority” to “reestablish” any historical institution, if it does not have the authority to represent nor teach the essential founding heritage of that institution.
Vatican law scholars documented the “Heraldic Patrimony” Rule of customary law, that a Sovereign or its successor can only “reestablish” an historical institution which was “originally established” by that same Sovereign as its “founding authority”:
“Orders of Knighthood… belong to the Heraldic Patrimony [founding authority] of a dynasty [Sovereign], often held by ancient right. … [They] are the exclusive property of a Sovereign, and they remain such even if he goes into exile, and are transmissible to his legitimate successor”. [21]
The term “Heraldic Patrimony” means the “founding authorities” together with the “founding heritage” of the institution: The Code of Canon Law defines the “patrimony of an institute” as “comprised of the intentions of the founders… and of its sound traditions” (Canon 578) [22].
Nobiliary law experts confirmed this rule: “[It is possible] for a religious or secular [sovereign] organization to claim that it can ‘restore’ [reestablish] ancient titles of nobility [chivalry]… However, [it]… cannot ‘restore’ a title over which it had no original control [founding authority].” [23]
Therefore, the Vatican cannot “reestablish” the original Templar Order, which was established by the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1118 AD as its founding authority, 11 years before Vatican involvement.
If a Sovereign did not create the institution under its founding authority, there is another rule by which it could alternately “recognize” the restoration of the institution to help “reestablish” it. However, this cannot be done if the Sovereign has ever “renounced jurisdiction” (abdicated its authority) over that institution.
Nobiliary law experts, confirmed by university law scholars, documented the “Heraldic Jurisdiction” Rule of customary law, that a Sovereign can only “recognize” an historical institution which was originally established or historically recognized by that same Sovereign, and only if it has not “renounced heraldic jurisdiction” over that institution:
“The recognition of Orders by States… cannot be accepted as constituting validation by sovereignties, since [after] these particular sovereignties have renounced the exercise of heraldic jurisdiction. The international ‘status’ of an Order of Knighthood rests, in fact, on the rights of ‘Fons Honorum’ [Source of Authority] which… must belong to the Authority [State] by which this particular Order is granted, protected or recognized.” [24] [25]
Therefore, the Vatican cannot be the “source of authority” to “recognize” the original Templar Order to “reestablish” it, because it infamously “renounced its jurisdiction” over it in its Papal Bulls Vox in Excelso and Considerantes of 1312 AD, thereby abdicating its authority for the Templar Order.
%20Knights%20Templar%20Illuminated%20Letters%20www.knightstemplarorder.org.png)
Since the 1950’s, the Vatican has increasingly promoted the political ideology of Globalism, with its agenda of undermining the sovereignty of nation states. After these past decades, this policy is reflected in the Vatican overtly interfering in the established ‘sovereignty’ of Vatican Orders. This dramatically illustrates, and indeed highlights, the importance and necessity of an Order of Chivalry achieving full independence.
In 2017, the Pope pressured the Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) to “resign under pressure”, despite that position being constitutionally elected for life. The Pope appointed a “Pontifical Delegate” to govern the Order pending its Council electing a new Grand Master. (In 1983 Pope John Paul II had done the same thing to the quasi-chivalric Jesuit Order.) [26]
In 2022, Pope Francis I issued a Decree for the Order of Malta, revoking the High Offices under the Acting Grand Master (previously appointed by the Pope), dissolving the Council, appointing a provisional Council, and enacting a new Constitutional Charter of the Order.
That Decree, quoting Pope Pius XII (from 1953), explained as justification for the Pope interfering with a ‘sovereign’ Vatican Order, that it was established as a religious Order by the Vatican in 1113 AD as its original founding authority:
“[The] ‘prerogatives inherent to the Order [of Malta]… proper to sovereignty… do not constitute… [those of] sovereign entities in the full sense of the word. … [It is] a religious Order, approved [established] by the Holy See’… Therefore, being a religious Order, it depends… on the Holy See.” [27]
Accordingly, the Vatican separates the “secular sovereignty” of statehood of an independent Order, for its practical official and diplomatic functions in furtherance of its chivalric missions, from the “religious sovereignty” of ecclesiastical authority which normally is dependent upon the Holy See.
To prevent Vatican interference justified by its religious authority (explained in the section above), the original Templar Order always asserted and ensured recognition of its stronger and higher level of religious independence:
Immediately after founding the Templar Order, King Baldwin II of Jerusalem in 1119 AD declared and secured its independence from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, confirming its religious status as independent from the Vatican [28].
The Temple Rule of 1129 AD, endorsed by the Vatican granting additional Patronage, officially recognized the Templar Order has having its own Pontifical authority from the Ancient Priesthood, for its own classical denomination of Ancient Christianity:
It describes the Templars under the Grand Master as “Disciples” confirming its own religious tradition (Rule 7), and uses a rare Latin phrase for mentioning the “Pontificate of the Temple of Solomon” indicating its own Pontifical authority (Rule 8) [29].
It describes full ecclesiastical sovereignty of the Templar Priesthood as “Divine service… dressed with the Crown” (Rule 9), declares the Grand Mastery to be exercising its own ecclesiastical authority (Rule 62), and describes “servants of the Church” as under command of the Grand Master (Rule 64) [30].
The Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD (recognizing independence), confirms further recognition of the full and permanent religious independence of the Templar Priesthood from the Temple of Solomon [31]:
It identifies the Order by “the house or Temple” of Solomon, declares that “perpetually… the religious life established in your house [Temple]… shall be inviolably observed”, and confirms that “the house [Temple] itself [domus ipsa] is worthy as the source and origin [fons et origo] of your Holy institution and Order… held in perpetuity”.
It further declares: “The customs for observance of your [Templar] religion… shall not be [nulli sit licitum] infringed nor diminished by any ecclesiastical nor secular person”, and is “subject to no person outside your Order”. This specifically confirms that the Vatican cannot assert any religious authority over the original Templar Order.
In addition to its religious independence as an institution, the historical record evidences that the Order also had its own “Templar Clergy”, who were recognized as independent from the Vatican:
The Temple Rule of 1129 AD (as amended ca. 1150 AD) commands: “The Templar Chaplains should hear the Confessions of the Templars; No Templar should make Confession to anyone else but them, because one may see the Templar Chaplain without permission [from the Church]. For they have greater power to absolve them on behalf of the Church than an Archbishop.” (Rule 269) [32]
Vatican historians confirmed that Templar Chaplains “alone were vested with” exclusive authority to administer “sacerdotal orders [sacraments], to minister to the spiritual needs of the Order”, especially for hearing Confessions and giving absolution for sins [33].
The Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD declared: “We command… that Ordinations of your [Templar] Clergy… be received [accepted] by a Catholic Bishop” [34]. This confirms that the Templar Grand Chaplain provides independent Ordinations of Templar Clergy, who are required to be accepted by Vatican Bishops.
All of the above historical and legal facts prove that the original Templar Order had its own fully independent religious authority, as its own sovereign ecclesiastical authority from the Ancient Priesthood, even rising to the level of its own Pontificate of its own denomination of Ancient Christianity, complete with independent Templar Clergy.
As a result, the Vatican cannot assert its religious authority to justify claiming jurisdiction to interfere with the “Ancient Order of Knights of the Temple”.
Learn about the Ancient and Independent status of the Order.
Learn about Templar Legal Succession continuing the Order.
[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] Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Volume 2: “The Kingdom of Jerusalem”, Cambridge University Press (1952), pp.212-213, 222-224.
[4] 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): “Even if a single member… survives… all of the rights… devolves upon that member” (Canon 120, §2); “On the extinction of [an institution]… its patrimonial goods and rights… devolve upon the next higher [entity]” (Canon 123).
[5] 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.
[6] 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).
[7] 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”.
[8] 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”.
[9] 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”.
[10] 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); “not by definitive sentence”, proclamation in Part 13, explanation in Part 10.
[11] 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); Part 1.
[12] 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); Part 12, Part 13.
[13] 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); Part 1.
[14] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Co., Saint Paul Minnesota (1910), “Provision”, pp.961-962: “Funds… or property… appropriated to [a] purpose. … In ecclesiastical law… any right of patronage exerted [exercised] by the Pope.”
[15] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Co., Saint Paul Minnesota (1910), “Ordinance”, pp.858-859: “A rule established by authority… rule of action… In a more limited sense… enactments… of a municipal [local] corporation.”; “Ordinandi Lex”: “Latin. The law of procedure, as distinguished from the substantial part of the law.”
[16] London Encyclopaedia, Thomas Tegg Press, London (1829), Volume 2, “Apostolic”, p.506: “Apostolical… relates to the Apostles, or descends from them. … [T]he title Apostolical was restricted to the Pope and his Church alone.”
[17] 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).
[18] 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).
[19] 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), Canons 204, 330, 331.
[20] 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 752; “Glossary” (end): defines “magisterium” as “teaching authority of the Church”.
[21] Archbishop Hyginus Eugene Cardinale, Orders of Knighthood Awards and the Holy See: A Historical, Juridical and Practical Compendium (1983), 3rd Edition, Van Duren Press, Buckinghamshire (1985), p.119; Archbishop Cardinale (1916-1983) was an Apostolic Nuncio (diplomat) for the Holy See.
[22] 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 578.
[23] Salvatore Ferdinande Antonio Caputo, Creation of Order of Chivalry, The International Commission and Association on Nobility “TICAN”, London (2018), “Religious Organizations”, p.10; Caputo is a hereditary Count of the Royal House of the Two Sicilies, and Knight Grand Cross of Justice of the Royal Order of the Crown of Georgia; TICAN operated from 2008-2014 under Royal Patronage of Crown Prince Nugzar of Georgia and King Kigeli V of Rwanda.
[24] 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 5.
[25] 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.416.
[26] Philip Pullella, Pope Intervenes in Knights of Malta After Head Resigns Under Pressure, News Agency: “Reuters” (25 January 2017); Reporting the Pope forcing the Grand Master to resign during a meeting on 24 January 2017.
[27] Pope Francis I, Decree for the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Holy See Press Office (03 September 2022).
[28] Ernoul & Bernard, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Tresorier (ca. 1188), Ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Paris (1871), Chapter 2, pp.7-8.
[29] Temple Rule of 1129 AD, Rule 8, Latin “Patriarchae Ierosolimitarum”: ‘Patriarchae’ means “Pontificate” of a denomination; Normal Latin for Jerusalem in this same Rule and throughout the Temple Rule is ‘Ierusalem’; ‘Iero-’ is from Greek ‘Hieros’ meaning “Priesthood” and ‘Hieron’ meaning “Temple”, ‘Sol-’ or ‘Solimi-’ indicates “Solomon”, ‘-imitarum’ means “representing” or “from”; Therefore, “Iero-sol-imitarum” means “Priesthood from the Temple of Solomon”, thus identifying it as a separate “Pontificate”.
[30] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 7, 8, 9, 62, 64.
[31] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum, “Every Good Gift” (29 March 1139); Translation: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.8, 59-64.
[32] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard: Rule 269.
[33] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, p.493, Part 1.
[34] 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.
You cannot copy content of this page
