Dear John,
With all due respect, quoting modern official catholic sources which are an
apologia and a whitewash for the horrendous injustices and errors of the
past proves nothing except thatthe church is a past-master at obfuscation
over its own earlier actions.
Questions that I have raised earlier have not been answered,namely:
How can any organisation claim continuity with a suppressed medieval order
when;
a) its rulership has dramatically altered?
b) its conditions of entry are completely changed and restricted from
international nature in te ifrst insstance to exclusively single national in
the second?
c) the aims and objectives of the second order are substantially different
from those of the supposed parent?
d) How can an order answerable through its Grandmaster to he pope and the
pope alone be deemed to survive when the pope disolves it/
e) How can any organisation claim to be a direct continuation of the
medieval Knights Templar, when that orer is supressed and its property
distributed among other organisations?
I accept that many people want to believe that the Templars survived as a
coherent and corporate entity. Facts will never convince them, and I accept
that too. However, not one shred of convincing eveidence has been produced
from the public record that indicates even the remote possibility of
survival of the order as a going concern. The only allegations made in
support of the case for continuity come from 'contaminated' sources i.e.
from people and organisatations with a distinct financial, emotional and
organisational vested interest in claims to continuity - and that group
covers modern Templars, certain authors and the Church trying to cover its
own past mis-deeds.
I would love to be in the position to review my own position on this. As an
aging Irish romantic the idea that the Templars might have survived is
appealing to say the least. However, as stated previously, in all my
reserach,discussions and debates over many years, I have been forced to
admit my earlier errors and admoit that the order was brutally and
unjustly - but effectively - terminated in the early years of the fourteenth
century.
Please I beg of you and others - show me that I am wrong? Show me viable,
independant historical evidence to support your case?
This whole deabate arose from my request to use agreed and acceptable terms
to discuss the issue realistically. Terms which are based upon a proven
historical reality yet which were flexible enough to for change according to
the emergence of new evidence. No such evidence has as yet been produced
Yet, the terms and definitions I suggested, for whatever reason, seem
unacceptable. To me they are perfectly reasonable and viable whichever side
of this debate we take.
Truth will eventually prevail.
Best wishes
Tim