RE: For Glen Cook, demise of the Templars???

[bruce carlyon <Bruce_Carlyon@syncsoft.com.au>]

My thought as to why they should have attempted, if not succeeding to
continue.
A matter of speculation based on I see.

Clearly the Order could not continue in a form with Papal Rule.
But was there ever truley a 'Papal Rule' other than in name and title?

My view is that the order was created and existed without Papal endoresement
from 1118AD until the Council at Troyes.
At Troyes, Bernard's rules were intrduced with Papal governance.  Which
actions were of great gain to the Templars themselves.
And the Papal endorsement was a boon to have.  But it was not what
originally formed the order, and neither did the Popes have any close
control over them.  As the resulting order to disband indicates. 
If centuries later the Pope revokes his endorsement of the Templars,
Then would they 'the Templars' revert to their former structures, without
Papal favour.
Given the vehemence with which the Pope and the French King felt for them,
they would be necessity have to become less obtrusive.

So I wonder if the Templars could continue in one or more capacities; with
continuing endorsement from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, King of Jerusalem,
and knowledge that they were formed voluntarily originally, and could
continue in that capacity as those who formed them had.  Not alleged to
anyone but each other.
Imagine if a distant, uninvolved, pope, who persecuted his own order;
knowing that the order had for years existed before Papal endoresement,
would it not continue in the minds of those men after the terrible sanction.
The Templars were attached to the Pope, but ruled by the Grand Master. 

Only the Grand Master could, I suggest dissolve the order.
The Pope may think what he likes, they do tend to have a high opinion of
themselves and their authority.

Regards
Bruce