>Tim Wallace-Murphy, also an intellectual scholar with much research under
>his belt, states that the original Templars ceased to exist, and "One order
>arose which was truly and unarguably neo-Templar in that it took over the
>Templar knights, changed its allegaince from the pope
>to the king of Portugal and fairly rapidly developed new rules of entry and
>membership and completely new objectives - namely the Knights of Christ.
>They can be described as neo- Templar, but not as a Templar continuation.
Interesting that it's non-arguable, given that the Catholic Encyclopedia
argues exactly that:
``King Diniz, who then ruled Portugal, regretted the loss of these useful
auxiliaries all the more because, in the trial to which the order
had been submitted everywhere throughout Christendom, the Templars
of Portugal had been declared innocent by the ecclesiastical court of
the Bishop of Lisbon. To fill their place, the king instituted a new
order, under the name of Christi Militia (1317). He then obtained for
this order the approbation of Pope John XXII, who, by a Bull (1319),
gave these knights the rule of the Knights of Calatrava (see Calatrava,
Military Order of) and put them under the control of the Cistercian Abbot
of Alcobaca. Further, by another Bull (1323), the same pope authorized
King Diniz to turn over to the new Order of Christ the Portuguese
estates of the suppressed Templars, and, as many of the latter hastened
to become Knights of Christ, it may fairly be said that the foundation
of Dom Diniz was both in its personnel and in its territorial position
a continuation in Portugal of the Order of the Temple.''
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03698b.htm
And again:
``Military Order of Montesa
``This order was established in the Kingdom of Aragon to take the place
of the Order of the Temple, of which it was in a certain sense the
continuation...''
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10534a.htm
>The eternal question is was there a true and unending continuation of the
>original order?
If the only question of interest is as black and white as that,
the answer is almost certainly no. The Templars as they are best
known to history were chartered by the pope. Once the pope suppressed
them, that order no longer existed as such.
However, it's worth remembering that the original Templar order was
founded in Jerusalem *before* it was chartered by the pope. So
having such a charter is actually not essential to a Templar continuation.
And for that matter, both the Knights of Christ of Portugal
and the Military Order of Montesa were chartered by a pope.
Not the same pope as suppressed the Templars, it is true,
but then he wasn't the same pope that originally chartered
them, either.
And the merger of Templar property and personnel with the Hospitallers
was also a continuation of the Templars in the same sense as a company
that undergoes a hostile takeover continues in the merged company.
It may not be a very happy sense, but it's one with which the
modern business world is all too familiar.
So another question is: what sense are you interested in?
In the sense that the Knights of Christ of Portugal were
a continuation of the Templars, the Templars still exist
in some tenuous sense, because the King of Portugal is
still the head of that order, such as it is. Did the
Knights of Christ have effects on history? For sure;
Prince Henry the Navigator was its head, and the effects
of the voyages he commissioned on world history are real.
Does that order have any appreciable effects now? Who can say.
Are any of the organizations that claim to be Templars by the
name Templars actually continuations of the original order?
It's possible, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence.
Also consider what might have happened if the Templars had
*not* been oppressed by Philippe le Bel of France and
suppressed by the pope. Does anyone think they would have
continued to this day in the same form as they had then?
Neither the Hospitallers nor the papacy are the same;
why would we expect the Templars to be the same?
How true can a continuation be over 700 years?
It might be true to its original principles and some of its traditions,
but it will probably change somewhat in form.
>Stan
John S. Quarterman <jsq@quarterman.org>