[Up] [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Dear Joe,

The original documents speak for themselves.  The interpretation of those
documents are the problem.  The 1908 Catholic Encyclopaedia is another
matter, it is
biased and blind to abuses. It is a view through rose coloured glasses is
what we are presented with I do not think that apologising for past actions
is in the case of as venerable institution as the Church is appropriate.

What is most interesting, to me is that The Portuguese Order being discussed
has also been credited with building the Newport Tower. "The Portuguese
theory begins in Tomar, a city in central Portugal. It is not a legend nor a
saga. It is there today, gallant and beautiful, as the main rotunda or
charola of the Castle of Tomar. It was erected in 1160 by the Portuguese
Order of Templars, which later in 1320 was named Order of Christ. This Order
furnished the financial resources, the manpower, and religious training for
the navigators and missionaries of the Portuguese discoveries. The
Portuguese Templars, inspired by the round and octagonal churches they saw
in the Near East, especially the Holy Sepulchre, built five castles
(Almoural, Idanha, Monsanto, Pombal, Tomar and Zezere) , in the same style."

Da Silva, Manuel Luciano. "Portuguese Tower of Newport."

You must consider the time in which the Templars are suppressed. The Pope
lived in France.  The French King controlled the pope. The morals of Avignon
during the papal residence were notorious throughout Europe. The papal
household had all the appearance of a worldly court, torn by envies and
troubled by schemes of all sorts. Some of the Avignon popes left a good
name, but the general impression was bad-weak if not vicious. The curia was
notorious for its extravagance, venality, and sensuality. Nepotism, bribery,
and simony were unblushingly practised. The financial operations of the
papal family became oppressive to an extent unknown before. Indulgences,
applied to all sorts of cases, were made a source of increasing revenue.

The so-called Babylonian captivity, or Avignon exile, of the papacy, which
lasted more than seventy years and included seven popes, all Frenchmen,
Clement V., 1305-1314; John XXII., 1316-1334; Benedict XII., 1334-1342;
Clement VI., 1342-1352; Innocent VI., 1352-1362; Urban V., 1362-1370;
Gregory XI., 1370-1378.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia is however excellent on the explanation of what a
Papal Bull is and in other areas as well.

In 1571 An Act Prohibiting Papal Bulls from Rome. was passed in the reign of
Elizabeth I.  This English law stopped investigation that was thought to
weaken the Crown.  No one should prohibit investigation.  A mind is a
terrible thing to waste

The Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1913 gives an account of Bishop Josip
Strossmayer (1815-1905) at the Vatican I Council of 1870, from which we
quote: "At the Vatican Council he was one of the most notable opponents of
papal infallibility, and distinguished himself as a speaker. The pope
praised Strossmayer's 'remarkably good Latin'  Later editions of the
Encyclopaedia deny him speaking.  He raised among other things "But it is
said on all sides, Was not St. Peter at Rome? Was he not crucified with his
head down? Are not the pulpits in which he taught, the altars at which he
said the mass, in this eternal city? St. Peter having been at Rome, my
venerable brethren, rests only on tradition; but, if he had been Bishop of
Rome, how can you from that episcopate prove his supremacy? Scaliger, one of
the most learned of men, has not hesitated to say that St. Peter's
episcopate and residence at Rome ought to be classed with ridiculous
legends. [Repeated cries, 'Shut his mouth, shut his mouth; make him come
down from the pulpit.']

"Venerable brethren, I am ready to be silent; but is it not better, in an
assembly like ours, to prove all things, as the apostle commands, and to
hold fast what is good? We have a dictator, before whom we - even his
holiness Pius IX. himself - must prostrate ourselves, and be silent and bow
our heads. That dictator is history. This is not like a legend, which can be
made as the potter makes his clay, but is like a diamond which cuts on the
glass what cannot be cancelled."

Later editions exclude this; they dismiss it, as it had never happened. We
can recognise the poor scholarship of Hay and Pohl.  What stops us from
being dismissive of revisionists?