Templars place in the church and history

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We can have bad popes and bad priests and the Holy Spirit still guides? Exactly how ?
The Holy Spirit protects the teaching of the Church. The Spirit does not prevent Her ministers from sinning.

We are all sinners. Every priest, Bishop, and Pope are sinners. Every Saint of the Church was a sinner. Among us “ordinary” humans, only our Blessed Mother was sinless. EVERYBODY else is a sinner.

Some people have been more sinful than others. You mention Pope Alexander-6, a truly despicable man. When someone wants to talk about bad Popes, I always point to Alexander-6, whom I consider the worst of the worst. He didn’t even try to hide his sinful behavior. He was a scoundrel, and he didn’t care who knew it.

But, of all the evil acts that Alexander-6 committed, do you know the one thing he did NOT do? He never attempted to enshrine his bad conduct in Catholic doctrine. He never taught that it is OK to be a sinner.

Alexander-6 basically said, “do as I say, not as I do.” He was a hypocrite. EVERY Pope is a hypocrite, because EVERY Pope is a sinner - but no Pope promotes his sinful conduct as Catholic doctrine. EVERY Pope says, “do as I say, not as I do.”

So, what does Jesus teach about leaders who are hypocrites?
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. [Matt 23:3]
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

reemasonry
Main article: Knights Templar (Freemasonry)

Since at least the 18th century, Freemasonry has incorporated Templar symbols and rituals in a number of Masonic bodies,[5] most notably, the “Order of the Temple” the final order joined in “The United Religious, Military and Masonic Orders of the Temple and of St John of Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes and Malta” commonly known as the Knights Templar. One theory of the origins of Freemasonry claims direct descent from the historical Knights Templar through its final fourteenth-century members who took refuge in Scotland whose King, Robert the Bruce was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church at the time, or in Portugal where the order changed its name to Knights of Christ, other members having joined Knights of St. John. There have even been claims that some of the Templars who made it to Scotland contributed to the Scots’ victory at Bannockburn. This theory is usually deprecated on grounds of lack of evidence, by both Masonic authorities[88] and historians.[89]

The Roman Catholic Church has historically opposed Freemasonry since it began to emerge, under the belief that the group is a “Secret Society” and has a deeply hidden agenda that opposes the church and its beliefs. Members of the Church found to be Freemasons were commonly excommunicated. This has often led to the misguided belief that the Church somehow also opposed the Knights Templar, however the Church makes distinction between the Templars, a public monastic order, and “Secret Societies”.

The penalty of excommunication for joining the Masonic Lodge was explicit in the 1917 code of canon law (canon 2335), and it is implicit in the 1983 code (canon 1374). Because the revised code of canon law is not explicit on this point, some drew the mistaken conclusion that the Church’s prohibition of Freemasonry had been dropped. As a result of this confusion, shortly before the 1983 code was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement indicating that the penalty was still in force. This statement was dated November 26, 1983 and may be found in Origins 13/27 (Nov. 15, 1983), 450.[90]

Modern popular culture
Main article: Knights Templar in popular culture

Based on Freemasonic speculation and popular literature since the 19th century, the Templars and associated “legends” or “mysteries” have become a common trope in modern pop culture.

Beginning in the 1960s, there have been speculative popular publications surrounding the Order’s early occupation of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and speculation about what relics the Templars may have found there, such as the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant,[91] or the historical accusation of idol worship (Baphomet) transformed into a context of “witchcraft”.[92]

The association of the Holy Grail with the Templars has precedents even in 12th century fiction; Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival calls the knights guarding the Grail Kingdom templeisen, apparently a conscious fictionalization of the templarii.[93]

Modern fictionalization of the Templars begins with Ivanhoe, the 1820 novel by Sir Walter Scott, where the villain Sir Brian de Bois-Gilbert is a “Templar Knight.” The popular treatment of the Templars as a topic of esotericist “legend” and “mystery” begins in the later 20th century. Les Rois Maudits or The Accursed Kings (1973 et seq) by Maurice Druon depicts the death of the last Grand Master of the Order, and plays with the legend of the curse he laid on the pope, Philip the Fair, and Guillaume de Nogaret. Esotericist treatments become common in the 1980s. Among them, the 1982 The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail would prove most influential. The 1988 novel by Umberto Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum, a 1988, satirizes the presentation of the Templars in esotericist or pseudohistorical conspiracy theories. A revival of the 1980s themes took place in the 2000s due to the commercial success of The Da Vinci Code, the 2003 novel by Dan Brown (adapted into a film version in 2006).
The Roman Catholic Church has historically opposed Freemasonry since it began to emerge, under the belief that the group is a “Secret Society” and has a deeply hidden agenda that opposes the church and its beliefs. Members of the Church found to be Freemasons were commonly excommunicated. This has often led to the misguided belief that the Church somehow also opposed the Knights Templar, however the Church makes distinction between the Templars, a public monastic order, and “Secret Societies”.
How do you condemn something that is secret? So a few kids get together in a tree house and have a secret group. The Church is going to go bananas? At one time the KofC and the Masons had get togethers. Danny Thomas was Catholic an a mason I believe in some manner. Are the Shriners satanists?

See how these silly things get started. Something is “secret” So it’s teaching evil. How does the Church know they are teaching things contrary to the church? Are they members? What about me? I am a Knights of Columbus insurance member. We have “secrets” too. This is a teaching of fear IMO. I don’t respond to that I consider myself a man of faith to an extent I can be. Someone write a pentagram on the wall and they are a satanist. This is superstition.

Bill
 
How do you condemn something that is secret?
The problem is that the “secrets” are not revealed until AFTER a person joins (and has already sworn oaths of loyalty and allegiance). People thus swear oaths without knowing what they are committing themselves to.

That’s a dumb idea to begin with. It would be like signing a contract that you were not allowed to read until after you sign. Would you sign such a contract?

It’s OK for an organization to have secrets, but nobody should commit to accept and uphold those secrets without knowledge of what they’re doing. It must not be SO secret that people are expected to join without knowing what they are joining. It would be OK even if the secret was revealed the day before a person swears an oath, but it is not OK to only reveal the secret after a person has committed to it.

The Catholic Church doesn’t have secrets, but people do take various vows and promises, and the Church exercises diligence in offering instruction (CCD, RCIA, First Holy Communion class, etc) so that people understand what they are committing to.
 
The problem is that the “secrets” are not revealed until AFTER a person joins (and has already sworn oaths of loyalty and allegiance). People thus swear oaths without knowing what they are committing themselves to.

That’s a dumb idea to begin with. It would be like signing a contract that you were not allowed to read until after you sign. Would you sign such a contract?

It’s OK for an organization to have secrets, but nobody should commit to accept and uphold those secrets without knowledge of what they’re doing. It must not be SO secret that people are expected to join without knowing what they are joining. It would be OK even if the secret was revealed the day before a person swears an oath, but it is not OK to only reveal the secret after a person has committed to it.

The Catholic Church doesn’t have secrets, but people do take various vows and promises, and the Church exercises diligence in offering instruction (CCD, RCIA, First Holy Communion class, etc) so that people understand what they are committing to.
I’m not sure how you could commit to secrecy of something you don’t know anything about. How can something like that be binding? Do they say they will hunt you down and kill you if you reveal something? That would be a problem. As for the Catholic Church having secrets. If they do they’re doing a good job keeping it a secret. Because I don’t know anything about it 😛
 
A few years back I read a book that actually vindicated them and turned around much of the popular myths about them. If I recall correctly, King Louis benefitted financially immensely from the disbanding of their order due to the wealth they had acquired in monasteries throughout Europe.

The charges during their trial were so immensely preposterous (satan worship, sodomy) that it all seems tragically absurd in hindsight. Much of the book was primary source but also secondary, as source documents from that period are of course hard to come by. I’ll have to dig it up.
 
I’m not sure how you could commit to secrecy of something you don’t know anything about. How can something like that be binding? Do they say they will hunt you down and kill you if you reveal something?
That’s what the Freemasons say. Actually, the oath ASKS for this punishment - stuff like “may my hands and head be cut off if I do such-and-such.” I don’t know if any such punishment has been administered.
That would be a problem.
No, that’s not the problem. Well, it is, but it really doesn’t matter what the nature of the secret is, or what punishments you face if you are disloyal. The problem is signing a contract that you are not allowed to read until after you sign it. You have NO IDEA what you are committing to. That’s the problem.

If I showed you a box and asked you to promise to eat whatever was inside, would you promise? I won’t show you what’s in the box until you promise to eat it. Any takers?

The Church takes promises and oaths very seriously. You are honor-bound to uphold your oaths, regardless of the consequences of breaking them. Even if there are no consequences, you are bound to uphold your oaths, and failure to do so is sinful (so there are always spiritual consequences). If the box contains dead spiders, you are expected to eat the dead spiders, because you promised that you would.

If the spiders are poisonous and will kill you, you are still expected to eat the spiders. This puts you in the position of either breaking your promise (a sin) or committing suicide (a sin). By promising an unknown, you have put yourself in a no-win situation; you will sin no matter what you do. You should never allow yourself to be put into a situation where you cannot avoid sin.

That’s why you need to know exactly what you are promising whenever you make a promise. It’s why the Church does not allow Catholics to take a lifelong oath to uphold the values of any organization if we don’t know what those values are.
 
That’s what the Freemasons say. Actually, the oath ASKS for this punishment - stuff like “may my hands and head be cut off if I do such-and-such.” I don’t know if any such punishment has been administered.

No, that’s not the problem. Well, it is, but it really doesn’t matter what the nature of the secret is, or what punishments you face if you are disloyal. The problem is signing a contract that you are not allowed to read until after you sign it. You have NO IDEA what you are committing to. That’s the problem.

If I showed you a box and asked you to promise to eat whatever was inside, would you promise? I won’t show you what’s in the box until you promise to eat it. Any takers?

The Church takes promises and oaths very seriously. You are honor-bound to uphold your oaths, regardless of the consequences of breaking them. Even if there are no consequences, you are bound to uphold your oaths, and failure to do so is sinful (so there are always spiritual consequences). If the box contains dead spiders, you are expected to eat the dead spiders, because you promised that you would.

If the spiders are poisonous and will kill you, you are still expected to eat the spiders. This puts you in the position of either breaking your promise (a sin) or committing suicide (a sin). By promising an unknown, you have put yourself in a no-win situation; you will sin no matter what you do. You should never allow yourself to be put into a situation where you cannot avoid sin.

That’s why you need to know exactly what you are promising whenever you make a promise. It’s why the Church does not allow Catholics to take a lifelong oath to uphold the values of any organization if we don’t know what those values are.
Humm. Would God hold you to a promise to do/not do something concerning a “secret” you know nothing about? Sounds like a stupid game to me. I can think of situations where breaking a promise might not be a mortal sin. Suicide is certainly questionable as a mortal sin. How can someone that does that be in “their right mind.” Hence not full knowledge and understanding of their actions.

Bill
 
Humm. Would God hold you to a promise to do/not do something concerning a “secret” you know nothing about?
He would hold you accountable for putting your honor in such a situation that you cannot insure to uphold it. Making a promise without knowing what you’re promising is itself a reckless and negligent act, and thus could be sinful. We should not gamble with our honor.

The act of making such a promise is immoral, regardless of what the “secret” is. We should not promise to uphold something that we know nothing about. That’s bad, even if the “secret” is not. If the “secret” is not bad then we do not sin by upholding it, but when we made the promise, we didn’t know if it was good or bad - we should not have made such a promise in the first place. The immorality of the promise doesn’t go away if the secret turns out to be good. It’s morally wrong to pledge your honor to something that could be good or bad.
Sounds like a stupid game to me. I can think of situations where breaking a promise might not be a mortal sin. Suicide is certainly questionable as a mortal sin.
Did I say mortal? I don’t think so. Any sin can be mortal, and any sin can be venial. We want to avoid BOTH types.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top