Teutonic Order

Sovereign, Chivalric,

'Order of Solomon Knights of Christ'

Founded - 8th of October 1806 AD by the Fornbacher Family in Villingen, Germany.

The Teutonic Order

The complete name of the Teutonic order was "Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. Mary of the German House of Jerusalem," and its purpose when it was created in 1190 was to give medical care to the crusaders in the Holy Land. But only eight years later was it transformed into a military order, which 1211 1225 was active in Transylvania and from 1224 in Prussia, where it created a state of its own. The residence of the Order's grand master was, however, Acre in the Holy Land until 1291, thereafter Venice, and in 1309 it was transferred to Prussia. 1466 Prussia became a Polish vassal state, and it was transformed into a secular duchy in 1525, which united with Brandenburg in 1618. Despite the loss of Prussia in 1525, the Teutonic Order continued to function and still exists today, although it does not have any military function anymore.

Officially House of the Hospitallers of Saint Mary of the Teutons, a Religious order important in eastern Europe in the late Middle Ages. Founded in 1189–90 to nurse the sick in Palestine during the Third Crusade, it was militarized in 1198 and given land in Jerusalem and Germany. It transferred its base of operations to eastern Europe in the 13th century, gaining control of Prussia by 1283 and making Marienburg the Centre of a military principality (1309–1525). The order extended its influence until it was defeated at the Battle of Tannenberg (1410). Another Polish victory in 1466 forced the knights to cede lands to Poland and become vassals of the Polish king. In 1525, the grand master in Prussia converted to Protestantism, dissolved the order in Prussia, and became a duke under Polish suzerainty. In other parts of Europe, especially Austria, the order survived the Reformation. Napoleon dissolved the order in 1809 and redistributed most of its remaining lands. In 1834, the Austrian emperor refounded it as a charitable religious order, and it is now headquartered in Vienna. However, the Order of Solomon Knights of Christ broke away from the main order in 1806 AD and was founded by the Fornbacher Family, when it was under Austrian control, it was dying, and those that broke away moved to Villingen, Germany, and founded the new Teutonic Order of Knights as the 'Order of Solomon Knights of Christ'.

Grand masters of the Teutonic Order

 

1198-1200 Heinrich I Walpot
1200-1209 Otto von Kerpen
1209-1210 Heinrich II von Tunna
1210-1239 Hermann von Salza
1239-1240 Konrad I von Thüringen
1241-1244 Gerhard von Malberg
1244-1249 Heinrich III von Hohenlohe
1250-1252 Günther von Wüllersleben
1253-1256 Poppo von Osterna
1256-1273 Anno von Sangershausen
1273-1283 Hartmann von Heldrungen

1283-1290 Burchard von Schwanden

1291-1296 Konrad II von Feuchtwangen
1297-1303 Gottfried von Hohenloe
1303-1311 Siegfried von Feuchtwangen
1311-1324 Karl Bessart from Trier
1324-1330 Werner von Orseln
1331-1335 Luther von Braunschweig-Lüneburg
1335-1341 Dietrich von Altenburg
1342-1345 Ludolf von Waitzau
1345-1351 Heinrich IV Dusemer von Arsberg
1352-1382 Winrich von Kniprode
1382-1390 Konrad III Zöllner von Rotenstein
1391-1393 Konrad IV von Wallenrode
1393-1407 Konrad V von Jungingen
1407-1410 Ulrich von Jungingen
1410-1413 Heinrich V Reuss von Plauen
1414-1422 Michael Küchmeister
1422-1441 Paul Bellinzer von Rusdorf
1441-1449 Konrad VI von Erlichshausen
1450-1467 Ludwig von Erlichshausen
1467-1470 Heinrich VI Reuss von Plauen
1470-1477 Heinrich VII Reffle von Richtenberg
1477-1489 Martin Truchsess von Wetzhausen
1489-1497 Johann von Tiefen
1498-1510 Friedrich von Sachsen-Meissen
1511-1525 Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach 

The possessions of the Teutonic Order in Prussia are
secularized and transformed into a duchy in 1525.

Duchy of Prussia

1525-1568 Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach
1568-1618 Albrecht Friedrich

Prussia united with Brandenburg in 1618

Hoch- und Deutschmeister, 1527–1929
Walter von Cronberg 1527–1543
Wolfgang Schutzbar 1543–1566
Georg Hund von Wenkheim 1566–1572
Heinrich von Bobenhausen 1572–1590

Austrian Empire

Hochmeister
Maximilian III, Archduke of Austria 1590–1618
Charles of Austria, Bishop of Wroclaw 1619–1624
Johann Eustach von Westernach 1625–1627
Johann Kaspar von Stadion 1627–1641
Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria 1641–1662
Archduke Charles Joseph of Austria 1662–1664
Johann Caspar von Ampringen 1664–1684
Ludwig Anton von Pfalz-Neuburg 1685–1694
Francis Louis of Palatinate-Neuburg 1694–1732 
Prince Clemens August of Bavaria 1732–1761
Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine 1761–1780
Archduke Maximilian Francis of Austria 1780–1801
Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen 1801–1804
Archduke Anton Victor of Austria, 1804–1835 Office became hereditary to the Imperial House of Austria

Archduke and Prince Matheaus Förnbacher de Austria 

Counts and Dukes von Fornbach

1799 - 1866

The Hierarchy:

        Positions

Hochmeister - Archduke, Hertzog, Furst Carl Bradley

Deputy Hochmeister - Prince Dieter Leemans

Imperial Secretary - Prince 

Magisterium – Magisterial Leadership 

Masterium and representation 

Treasurer 

Marshall 

Bishop / Chaplain 

Bailiff 

Armorer 

Herald 

Historian 

Architect 

Ambassador 

Warden 

Sword-bearer 

Standard-bearer 

Provost  

Guardian  

Guard

Hochmeister's Page

Hochmeister's Squire

Hochmeister's First Knight

Deputy Hochmeister Page

Deputy Hochmeister Squire

Imperial Praefector 

Concilium – Councils of Commission 

Concilium of Dukes 

Concilium of Administration 

Concilium of Treasury  

Concilium of Faith 

Concilium of Justice  

Concilium of Charity 

Concilium of Communication 

Ranks, Degrees, and Nominals 

Article 8 – the degrees 

From 6 to 12 years – Page

From 12 to 17 years – Esquire 

From 17 years – Observant to Initiate 

From 18 years – Initiate to Squire to Sergeant 

From 21 years – Sergeant to Knight 

Sergeant explained 

Sergeant (Obergefreite) 

Watch Sergeant (Oberg. Der Wache)  

Staff Sergeant (Stabsobergefreite)  

First Sergeant (Unteroffizier) 

The Ranks:

5th Rank - Knight (Ritter) 

4th Rank - Knight Commander (Ritter Kommandant) 

3d Rank - Knight Grand Officer (Ritter Grossoffizier) 

2d Rank - Knight Grand Cross (Ritter Grosskreuz) 

1st Rank - Knight Grand Collar (Ritter Grossketten) – Freiherr/Baron

Teutonic Knights

A medieval Teutonic Knight was a member of the Catholic military Deutscher Orden or Teutonic Order, officially founded in March 1198 CE. The first mission of the Teutonic knights was to help retake Jerusalem from the Arabs in the Third Crusade (1187-1192 CE), and during this failed attempt, they set up a hospital outside Acre during the siege of that city. The hospital was granted the status of an independent military order by the Pope, and the knights never looked back. The Middle East proved to be too difficult to hold onto, but the ambitious order merely switched its focus to converting Christians and grabbing land in central and eastern Europe instead. With their famous black cross on a white tunic, the austere Teutonic knights became master traders and diplomats, carving out vast swathes of territory from their base in Prussia and building castles across Europe from Sicily to Lithuania.​

Foundation: The Third Crusade

The Third Crusade was called by Pope Gregory VIII following the capture of Jerusalem in 1187 CE by Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt and Syria (r. 1174-1193 CE). Although led by the cream of Europe's nobility, the project was beset with problems, none bigger than the accidental death en route of Frederick I Barbarossa (King of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor, r. 1152-1190 CE). Barbarossa's untimely drowning resulted in most of his army trudging back home in grief, but some German knights pressed on and assisted in the siege of Acre, which terminated in July 1191 CE. Despite other successes, the Crusaders only managed to get within sight of Jerusalem, and no attempt was made to attack the holy city. Instead, control of a small strip of land around Acre was negotiated, and the future safe treatment of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. 

At Acre, c. 1190 CE, a body of German knights had founded a field hospital (as their fellow nationals had done in Jerusalem in the 12th century CE) dedicated to Saint Mary. In March 1198 CE, Pope Innocent III (r. 1198-1216 CE) granted its members the status of an independent military order under the name Fratres Domus hospitalis sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum (Brethren of the German Hospital of Saint Mary). Thus, the organization was born, which would later become much better known as the Teutonic Order and its members as Teutonic knights. Like other military orders of the medieval period (e.g., the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller), it was a combination of two ways of life: knighthood and the monastery.

The order acquired land in parts of the Crusader-controlled Middle East and established a handful of castles, especially around Acre. Essentially, the order was meant to defend Crusader acquisitions. In addition, the order had land in Cilicia thanks to their close relationship with the Armenians there, who saw them as a counterbalance to the Templar Knights. The headquarters of the order was established at the Montfort fortress (Qal'at Qurain) in the hills of Galilee, north-east of Acre, with the Teutonic knights renaming the castle Starkenberg. The order had two important fortresses in eastern Cilicia and would steadily acquire more lands, including territories in Greece, Italy, and central Europe. 

Organization & Recruitment.

The order was led by a Grand Master (Hochmeister) who was chosen by an electoral college and who was expected to consult his senior officers and commanders. In the 15th century CE, there was a second master in Livonia who became increasingly independent from the order based at its then headquarters in Prussia. It did sometimes happen that a master was ousted by his officers, indeed, there was one case of murder of a particularly unpopular master. The order controlled many lands across Europe and the Middle East, the territories split into administrative provinces or bailiwicks, each governed by a Landmeister.

Leaving the Holy Land

The Holy Land fell to Muslim control, so the Teutonic Knights were called by King Andrew II of Hungary. Their base of operations was placed in the Kingdom of Hungary, tasked with defending the kingdom from the encroaching Cumans. Their demands grew too much for the Kingdom of Hungary, so they were expelled and gained the Pope’s approval for sovereignty and became independent in 1225, basing their headquarters in Venice.​​

Extent of the Teutonic Order c. 1300 CE

Most recruits to the many castle-convents spread across Teutonic territory were Germanic, coming from Franconia and Thuringia, the Rhine, and other German territories. The knights (ritter) or brothers, typically aristocrats although usually members of their lower echelons, were spread around many commanderies containing anywhere from 10 to 80 members. As in other military orders, recruits took monastic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Motivation to join included the rewards in the next life promised to those who crusaded in the name of God, the chance for adventure and promotion, and even simply regular meals and a place to sleep. 

German settlers could enter the order but usually only as priests or serving half-brethren (halb-brüder). Each castle-convent would also have had a contingent of local crossbowmen and non-combatants such as servants and craftsmen. Finally, foreign knights were not unknown as the order was officially international, although most recruits came from German lands. The total membership of the brotherhood fluctuated depending on battles and territories won or lost. In Prussia, for example, there were 700 members in 1379 CE, 400 in 1450 CE, 160 in 1513 CE, and 55 in 1525 CE. The total number of knights across the order likely never exceeded around 1,300.​

The order gained income from booty taken in warfare and from captured territories, but there was also a significant and regular stream of funds from trade and land rents, as well as donations which might be in the form of cash, goods, or land. Some knights-brethren were expected to pay a fee on entry, and taxes on local populations were introduced into Teutonic territories in the 15th century CE. This became necessary as the order required more knights than it could actively recruit, and so it was forced to pay mercenaries to achieve its objectives. Commanderies offered training, residences, and a place of retirement for members of the order, as well as help to local communities through their hospices, hospitals, schools, and cemeteries. The order also built churches, maintaining them and supporting artists to decorate them.

Uniform & Rules

The order was, above all, famous for its well-trained and well-armed knights, as well as their stout stone fortresses. Teutonic knights wore black crosses on a white background or with a white border. These crosses could appear on shields, white surcoats (from 1244 CE), helmets, and pennants. Half-brethren wore grey instead of the full white reserved for knights. 

The Teutonic knights had to follow a good many strict rules, more than in other military orders. Beards were permitted, but not long hair, and any ostentatious clothing or equipment was frowned upon. Knights were not allowed money or personal property, even their limited clothing could not be kept in a locked chest. Unlike other orders, before the 15th century CE, the Teutonic knights did not go in for personal seals and burial monuments. Personal coats of arms were forbidden. Another no-no was any excessive entertainment (one might argue any sort at all, excessive or otherwise). Knights could not joust in medieval tournaments, not mix socially with other types of knights, and they could not engage in most types of hunting. Tedium could be kept at bay by the one hobby that was allowed: woodcarving.

European Crusades: Prussia & Livonia

Disaster struck the order in 1244 CE when the Kingdom of Jerusalem fell to the Ayyubid sultan of Egypt. At the battle of La Forbie near Gaza, a devastating 437 of 440 Teutonic knights were killed. In 1271 CE, the Mamluks of Egypt and Syria captured the Montfort fortress, effectively removing Teutonic influence in the Middle East, although they clung onto a new headquarters at Acre until the city's fall in 1291 CE, again to the Mamluks. Under a new Grand Master, Conrad von Feuchtwangen, the order relocated to Venice. Then, in 1309 CE, under the new master Siegfried von Feuchtwangen, the headquarters were moved again, this time to a fortified convent at Marienburg in Prussia. This was a more practical location for the order's abandonment of Middle East affairs and its focus on northern and central Europe, where the knights had already been on campaign (Hungary in the first decade of the 13th century CE and Prussia from 1228 CE).

Throughout the 13th and 14th centuries CE, the Catholic Teutonic knights crusaded in Prussia and the Baltic area mainly against pagan Lithuanians and Orthodox Russians, but as the order was bent on expansion for its own sake, many other nationalities were fought besides those. The long-disputed territory between Prussia and Livonia was a particularly happy hunting ground, and the Teutonic knights eventually came to govern the whole of Prussia. There were several revolts by Prussians under Teutonic rule, notably in 1260 CE, and the ongoing wars were savage. There were serious military setbacks, too, notably to the Russians at Lake Peipus in 1242 CE. The order was not without controversy either, receiving accusations of less-than-Christian policies towards fellow believers. Teutonic knights were accused of slaughtering Christians in Livonia, trashing secular churches, impeding conversions, and trading with heathens. Indeed, it has been said that many pagans in central Europe resisted Christianization only because they did not want to live under the menacing yoke of the Teutonic knights. In 1310 CE, the pope launched an investigation, but nothing came of it, and the order withstood the damage to its reputation. There was also some recognition that the rumors were being spread by the order's rivals and enemies.

The Teutonic order was successful in gaining new territory, notably Danzig and eastern Pomerania in 1308 CE and northern Estonia in 1346 CE. There was a major victory against the Lithuanians, and the prestige of the order's campaigns in Prussia and Livonia attracted nobles from across Europe, including the future Henry IV of England (r. 1399-1413 CE). However, when the Lithuanians formally converted to Christianity in 1389 CE, the ideal of crusading lost its purpose. Thereafter, it became clear that the Teutonic Knights were mostly interested in politics and booty rather than conversion as the wars continued. When the Lithuanians and Poles joined forces with the Russians and Mongols, along with several other smaller allied states, the Teutonic Order was threatened with extinction. At the battle of Tannenburg, 15 July 1410 CE, an army of Teutonic Knights was wiped out, and in 1457 CE, the headquarters of a now much-reduced and largely secular order had to be relocated to Konigsberg. The Teutonic order continued at its Livonian branch into the 16th century CE, which now primarily focused on battling, without much success, schismatic Russians and Ottoman Turks. The secularized order (from 1525 CE in Prussia and 1562 CE in Livonia) continued to exist as a minor military unit, fighting in the German and Austrian Habsburg armies into the 18th century CE, and it still exists today as a non-military organization supporting communities with healthcare, welfare projects, and the sponsorship of artists. The order's archives, now in Vienna, are an invaluable historical source on the medieval period and the functioning of military orders in general.

The Origins of this Order were with the Teutonic Order of Austria and Germany

Since the 1466 Second Peace of Toruń, the Grand Masters of the Teutonic Order were vassals of the Kingdom of Poland, and every Grand Master of the Teutonic Order was obliged to swear an oath of allegiance to the reigning Polish king within six months of taking office. The Grand Masters were also princes and counselors of the Polish kings and the Kingdom of Poland. The State of the Teutonic Order was a part of Poland as a fief. The last Hochmeister, Albert of Brandenburg-Ansbach, converted to Lutheranism and, with the consent of his overlord and uncle, King Sigismund I of Poland, turned the State of the Teutonic Order into the secular Duchy of Prussia per the Treaty of Kraków, which was sealed by the Prussian Homage in Kraków in 1525. The commanderies in the autonomous Livonian Terra Mariana were likewise lost by 1561, as that region also became Protestant. However, the Order retained its bailiwicks in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany and Italy), which had been administered by the Deutschmeister since 1219. As the Order was now limited to its possessions in the German kingdom, incumbent Deutschmeister Walter von Cronberg was also appointed Hochmeister by Emperor Charles V in 1527. The administrative seat was moved to Mergentheim Castle in Franconia. The Hoch und Deutschmeister was ranked as one of the ecclesiastical Princes of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, when Mergentheim fell to the newly established Kingdom of Württemberg; their residence was relocated to the Deutschordenshaus in Vienna. The dual title lasted until 1923, when the last secular Grand Master, Archduke Eugen of Austria, resigned from office. 1894–1923 Archduke Eugen of Austria (end of hereditary status); This is where the split in the family occurred, at the end of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Fornbacher's de Austria became an unmentioned and unnamed part of the family. They broke away from the Habsburgs as the House Fornbacher-de Austria and also took up the colors as the Princely Teutonic Order of Solomon - Knights of Christ. As well as the Holy Roman Empire since 1806, and carried the torch into the 21st century. Now as the House of Fornbacher are extinct and the last of the line was Christine Rosemary Fornbacher - Bradley had passed away, that torch was passed to her oldest and only son, Archduke and Prince Carl Bradley.

The other part of the Order continued as the Habsburgs' Teutonic Order and now falls under the Pope and the Catholic Church. However, this part of the Order that was salvaged from the split has continued on and is an Independent Order of true Teutonic Knights. And as such, the Order was also moved back under Poland's Royals and those royals of this house. As Prince Regent of Poland lasting only from 1917-1918 and the outbreak of WWI, the Order was last under Prince Lubomirski, who is also part of the Kowalczyk and Fornbacher family group. Then it was sent to his relatives in the USA, the House of Fornbacher de Austria proper. It has been a princely hereditary military order since then, passing from family member to family member.

Hochmeister Archduke, Herzog, Fürst Mathew Andrew Förnbacher until his death on 1 Aug 1921. -his son -

Hochmeister Archduke, Herzog, Fürst Ernest Gottlieb Fornbacher until his death on 4 Feb 1954. -his son -

Hochmeister Archduke, Herzog, Fürst Ernest Andrew Matthew Fornbacher, until his death on 14 June 2008. -his sister -

Hochmeister Archduchess, Herzogin, Fürstin Christine Rosemary Fornbacher, until she stepped down due to health issues in 2020.

Deceased as of the 15th of March 2024., - her son:

Hochmeister Archduke, Herzog, Fürst, Carl Bradley.

Ladies Auxiliary Corps:

Women are openly accepted and encouraged to participate fully in all chivalric and knightly activities, quests, and missions of the Order of the Temple of Solomon. In the restored Teutonic Order, women also have equal opportunity to serve in high-level governmental positions as Crown Officers. This is a powerful way to exemplify female leadership in the spirit of Saint Joan of Arc, in the historic tradition of Saint Mary Magdalene. 

Although the Chivalry of the Middle Ages and Renaissance generally excluded women from most chivalric Orders, the historical record proves that women were actually very much included within the Order of the Temple of Solomon. Medieval Teutonic rules, which appear to restrict the participation of women, were merely to provide a reasonable degree of separation, to ensure modesty and respect. 

The Temple Rule of 1129 AD evidence an original pre-existing “practice” (during the first 10 years of the Order), that women were in fact “received as Sisters in the Order”, not as a “custom” but as a traditional exception, providing only a reasonable degree of separation for modesty (Rule 70). 

 Proving that women were in fact admitted to the Order, it requires all Templars to “refuse to be godfathers or godmothers”, specifically using the additional work referring to women in active Templar service (Rule 72).  The fact of women as “Sisters” in full and equal membership is confirmed by the later rule which commands to “pray… for our brothers and for our sisters” (Rule 541, ca. 1150 AD). 

 The active support of women in the Order is further confirmed by the later rule allowing a Knight to receive “services of a woman” for assistance, “by permission” for any appropriate purpose (Rule 679, ca. 1290 AD).

Teutonic Order of Knights.

Legal Succession of Teutonic Order Legal Status into the Modern Era:

How the Teutonic Order survived legally, continuing its legal status through a lineage of Sovereign Succession, assisted by many Vatican Bishops and multiple Popes and Papal Bulls, into the modern era.

Overwhelming evidence proves that contrary to the standardized propaganda supported by secular States, the Templar Order was never “extinguished” after the French Persecution of 1307 AD but was merely forced to survive as an “underground” network until it could be safely restored in the future.  The original Teutonic Order survived not only physically as a living tradition of Teutonic knights through a lineage of initiatory succession but also legally by preserving its institutional legal status through a lineage of Sovereign Succession under customary international law.

(See details of the Survival Lineage of the Teutonic Order and Templar Order)

A detailed examination of facts, revealed and confirmed by historical legal instruments, proves that the Teutonic Order survived legally, fully retaining its original legal status as the official sovereign institution for a living tradition of Teutonic knights.

Effectively implementing the strategies established by founding Teutonic knights, surviving generations of the Teutonic Order, with the supportive assistance of several Popes and many Vatican Bishops, successfully preserved and carried the institutional legal status of the Order into the year of 1806ad.

Here, in this work from the original and restored Order of the Temple of Solomon, the world can finally discover the true history of the survival of the legitimacy and sovereign legal status of the Teutonic Order into the modern era.

The details of the Teutonic knights' survival presented here focus on the facts most relevant to supporting the later modern Restoration of the Teutonic Order.

Succession Lines Established by Saint Bernard.

The Templar Patron Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, as part of his Templar missions, had set up a strategic “backup plan”, as the original “insurance policy”, to ensure the survival and enable the restoration of the Order in the future.  Only six years after the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD granted additional Sovereign Protection to the Templar Order, this backup plan was established in 1145 AD.

Saint Bernard used the Vatican recognition of ecclesiastical sovereignty of the Templar Priesthood, in the Temple Rule of 1129 AD and Omne Datum of 1139 AD, as the legal precedent and basis for creating the 12th-century Independent Church Movement.

Independent Church Movement – Saint Bernard established a strategy of carrying lineages of Templar and Teutonic Sovereign Succession through lines of Apostolic Succession.  This created “Templar Lines” for continuing the legal status of the Order, all recognized by the Vatican, yet “hidden in plain sight”:

In 1145 AD, the Cistercian Saint Bernard de Clairvaux caused Pope Eugene III, the first Cistercian Pope, who was mentored by Bernard at the Monastery of Clairvaux, to create the “Independent Church Movement” [1] [2].

In 1212 AD, Saint Francis founded the “Sacred Order of Franciscan Missionaries” in England, which became an autonomous “Secular Franciscan Order” in 1221 AD, and was renamed “Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi” when he was canonized as a Saint in 1228 AD [3].

In 1215 AD, Saint Francis supported the Fourth Lateran Council [4], which confirmed the Independent Church Movement as “independent” Churches (Canon 3) of “their [own] jurisdiction” (Canon 5) with autonomy (Canons 10-11), through Independent Bishops (Canon 23) [5].

In 1221 AD, the Franciscan Sacred Order in England took a leading role in the Independent Church Movement, establishing its “Synod of Independent Apostolic Clergy”.  This Sacred Order was officially recognized by the Church of England as the Franciscan Anglican Mission, later granted Full Communion with the Anglican Church in 1931 AD. [6]

The resulting “Templar Lines” established by Saint Bernard and preserved by the Franciscan Sacred Order as the chosen Guardians of the Templar Order, carried legal succession of its institutional legal status and sovereign authorities, under specific doctrines of customary international law.

Legal Strategy for Succession – Saint Bernard, as a Doctor of the Church and architect of the Temple Rule as a constitutional Charter under Canon law, knew that legal succession for survival of an Order of Chivalry is not hereditary, as Grand Masters were always elected and never hereditary [7] [8].

Under customary international law, the legal restoration of an Order of Chivalry to legitimacy generally requires (1) some form of lineage from the original Order, and (2) recognition by a sovereign institution that it is the original Order, based upon that lineage.

Legal experts define such lineage as an “uncorrupted historical and traditional link with the original Order… [as] historical roots or lineage” [9].  Nobiliary experts confirm that “Orders of knighthood… continue to exist [through] membership… following the original set of rules… [as] historical continuity” [10].

The Code of Canon Law mandates that an Order “survives”, as succession “of all the rights… devolves upon [any] member” continuing the authorized lineage in active service, furthering its original missions (Canon 120, §2) [11].

Legal experts explain that based on such lineage, an Order can be legally reestablished by a grant of any form of Sovereign Recognition from any Royal or Pontifical institution possessing “heraldic patrimony” of a proven historical connection with that Order [12] [13].  Nobiliary experts confirm that an “Order of knighthood can be revived… [as] Monarchial [Sovereign] Orders” by such a grant of Sovereign Recognition [14].

The Code of Canon Law mandates that “arrangements for… rights… devolve upon the next higher [institution]” (Canon 123), such that any sovereign institution which granted Sovereign Patronage to an Order in the past, has the legal capacity to Reestablish that same Order if needed in the future [15].

Lineage of Templar Succession – It would be extremely difficult, and very dangerous, for any Order which would be persecuted, suppressed, and forced to survive as an “underground” network, to keep any records of a lineage of succession for its future restoration.

Such records, if kept “secret”, would be nearly impossible to verify and legalize publicly in the future.  Also, any such “secret” records, if discovered during periods of persecution, would surely be used to subject surviving members to severe punishment.

Therefore, the strategy implemented by Saint Bernard was to use Vatican lineages of Apostolic Succession, to carry canonical lineages of Sovereign Succession for the Templar Order, all “hidden in plain sight”.

Apostolic practice requires the consecration of Bishops by “laying on of hands” (Acts 1:22, 1:25-26, 6:1-6, 9:17; 13:1-5; I Timothy 4:1, 4:14, 5:22; II Timothy 1:6), and by “anointing” with sacred oils as for the Pontifical consecration of King Solomon (I Kings 1:39) [16].  As a result, all lines of Apostolic Succession must be diligently recorded in “Succession Books”, which meticulously detail every link in the chain of Episcopal consecrations.

Apostolic lineages are formally “characterized” by any unique heritage or tradition which the lines pass through, because of the canonical requirement of Doctrinal Succession (Acts 2:38-42; John 7:16-17; I Timothy 4:16; I Corinthians 11:2; I Timothy 1:3-4), and the resulting necessity to identify lineal succession of institutions with particular doctrines.  As a result, Apostolic lines are actually named after the most distinctive tradition that characterizes each line.

Finally, the key to this strategy was the “Independent Church Movement” created by Saint Bernard with Pope Eugene III in 1145 AD, confirmed as “Independent Bishops” by the Lateran Council in 1215 AD:

By having Templar leaders consecrated by Independent Bishops of Independent Churches, this would establish and preserve “Templar Lines” of Apostolic Succession, such that the Vatican could not prevent or control passing on those lines, but would still be required to register and recognize those lines.

In this way, the Templar lines would all be officially verified and recorded by the Vatican, but without signaling their intended purpose.  Later, when needed for a future Reestablishment and restoration of the Templar Order, those Apostolic lines could be openly named “Templar Lines”.

Establishing the Templar Lines – Implementing the strategy of carrying lineages of Templar Sovereign Succession through lines of Apostolic Succession recognized by the Vatican, Saint Bernard effectively established the following primary traditions of Templar lineage:

“Melchizedek Line” – This rare Apostolic line, prized by the Vatican, passed from Melchizedek of the Biblical Magi, through King Solomon, through Jesus as High Priest of the Ancient Priesthood of Melchizedek, to Apostle Saint Peter in 38 AD, through Vatican Popes since 67 AD who were Templar loyalists, including Honorius II (ratified Temple Rule) in 1124 AD, Innocent II (promoted to Papacy by Saint Bernard, issued Omne Datum of Templar sovereignty) in 1130 AD, Celestine II (issued Milites Templi confirming Templar sovereignty) in 1143 AD, and Eugene III (issued Militia Dei confirming Templar sovereignty, created Independent Church Movement with Saint Bernard) in 1145 AD.

“Templar Lines” – These rare Apostolic lines passed from Jesus to Apostle Saint John ca. 38 AD, through other exotic Celtic lines, through Saint Bernard (Templar Patron) ca. 1120 AD, to be periodically passed on to various Grand Masters of the Templar Order.

Combining with the “Templar Lines”, the special “Melchizedek Line” was also passed on from Pope Eugene III to Saint Bernard in 1145 AD, and eventually through the Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay, ca. 1276 AD. [17]

These lines of Templar Succession were carefully preserved and continued by generations of Bishops of the Independent Church Movement since 1145 AD, which later became the Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, surviving and persisting into the modern era.

Papal Bulls Ensuring Teutonic and Templar Legal Succession.

In addition to surviving physically as a living tradition of Templars, continuing by direct lineage as an “underground” network, the Templar Order also survived legally, continuing a lineage of Sovereign Succession of its independent legal status and authorities under customary international law.

When the French King forced the Vatican to withdraw all support for the Knights Templar, the Papal Bulls merely “suppressing” it very carefully used strategic phrases of Canon law, understood by the Cardinals but not noticeable to the Royals.  Those key legal phrases purposely ensured that the decrees would be legally void for duress, and that the sovereign status of the Templar Order would legally survive.

‘Papa Clemens Quintus’ Pope Clement V portrait, ca. 1830 AD by Henri Auguste Cesar Serrur in Palais des Papes Avignon

Pope Clement V began his Papacy under the extreme duress of unprecedented aggression against the Vatican itself:

Within only three short but brutal years, the French King had one Pope kidnapped and beaten causing his death soon after in 1303 AD [18], had the next Pope assassinated by poison in 1304 AD [19], and placed the new Pope in “Babylonian Captivity” in Avignon under French control from 1305 AD [20].

The Papacy was under constant threat of the same destructive false defamation used against the Templars being turned against the Vatican itself:

The French King already “arranged to have the Pope declared a heretic” in 1302 AD, creating an imminent threat [21].  The French State wanted to claim for itself the “mystic foundations of the Papal theocracy”, thus removing the Knights Templar was “the last step of a process of appropriating these foundations”, for the “establishment of a Royal theocracy”. This agenda placed the Vatican directly in harm’s way, as the constant underlying threat. [22]

Undeterred by this escalating aggression of a war against the Templars for a larger war against the Vatican, Pope Clement V did everything in his power both to protect the Templar Order to the extent possible, and to leave an open door for its legal succession and future restoration.

Permanent Sovereignty Known – Meanwhile, Pope Clement V was very well aware that the Vatican already granted the Templar Order additional Sovereign Protection by the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD [23], which is an irrevocable grant of permanent independent sovereignty [24] [25] [26] as a non-territorial Principality of statehood [27] [28] [29].

Proving that this sovereignty is permanent and irrevocable, Omne Datum declares:  “If anyone, with the knowledge of this our decree, rashly attempts to act against it… he shall lose the dignity of his power”, as a mandatory consequence of that “perpetrated injustice” [30].

The word “dignity” is a legal term meaning a “title or station” of office [31], so to “lose the dignity of his power” means losing one’s “official capacity”.  This legally makes null and void any claim to revoke or even deny the granted status and would also trigger involuntary abdication of any Pope who might try.

Also, the Vatican had already specifically confirmed the inherent diplomatic privileges and immunities from this independent sovereign status, in the Papal Bulls Milites Templi of 1144 AD [32], and Militia Dei of 1145 AD [33].

Cleared Path for Succession – Accordingly, in all Papal Bulls about the Order, Pope Clement V respected the boundaries of Templar sovereignty, limited the decisions to within the Vatican’s own walls, and signaled a legal path forward for independent Templar survival and legal succession.

In this way, Pope Clement V was trusting in the Templars, as the legendary Defenders of the Church and Lawgivers of the Magna Carta, to ensure their own survival by defending their own lineage of succession and legal status.  For this, he made sure to provide them with the legal means to do so.  Moreover, the Pope was also trusting in God to carry the Templars along the path to restoration, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Although it took a full 700 years for the Templar backup plans to come together to achieve restoration, both of those “Leaps of Faith” were proven fully justified.  As the folk wisdom holds, “Better late than never”.

Therefore, as a result of the courageous efforts of Pope Clement V, despite the appearance of being “suppressed” by Papal Bulls, the Templar Order actually survived on the legal basis of those same Papal Bulls, retaining its full legal status for its future restoration.

“Chinon Parchment” Preserved Teutonic and Templar Communion".

‘Chinon Parchment’ Papal Bull of 1308 AD issued by Pope Clement V, exonerating the Templars

In 1308 AD, Pope Clement V issued the Chinon Parchment, a Papal Bull which unequivocally exonerated and vindicated the Knights Templar and their Grand Master Jacques de Molay of all charges.

The Chinon Parchment, completing an exhaustive review of the Templar trials, declared that in “matters concerning the Knights [Templar], adherence to the Catholic faith, and the Rule of the Order”, the Pope found “nothing… that was not proper” in Templar practices.

Moreover, this Vatican parchment declared its Papal decree, repeating five times:

“We… extended the mercy of pardon… restoring to unity with the Church and reinstating to the Communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.” [34]

In Canon law as ecclesiastical law, the word “Communion” means “All the faithful [who] have permission to receive [sacraments]”, thus the opposite of excommunication, encouraging full participation in the Church [35].

In Canon law, as customary law, as applied to historical institutions, the Common law phrase “in Communion” actually means “in a partnership”, thus a relationship of cooperation with the Church [36].

Accordingly, the Chinon Parchment restored the Templar Order to full participation in Communion with the Church, thereby also reinstating its special relationship of partnership in close cooperation with the Church.

Therefore, conclusively rejecting all of the Templar trials, this Papal Bull legally decreed the good standing of the Templar Order and preserved its official status with the Vatican.

“Council of Vienne” Confirmed “Chinon Parchment”

‘Council of Vienne in 1311 AD’ fresco (ca. 1570 AD) by Cesare Nebbia, in Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Iberfoto-Everett Collection No. 325654

In 1311 AD, the Council of Vienne during its First Session reconfirmed the Chinon Parchment, ratifying that exoneration restoring the Templars in Communion with the Church, reinstating its full participation and partnership with the Church, as decreed by Pope Clement V.

Vatican records confirm that the Council of Vienna “voted to this effect”, and declared that:

“[The] Order of Knights Templar should be granted the right to defend itself, and that no proof collected up to then was sufficient to condemn the Order… without straining the law.” [37]

That decision, confirming the Chinon Parchment at the First Session in 1311 AD, is often disregarded and scarcely mentioned, either confusing or replacing it with the Second Session in 1312 AD.

The Second Session took place about two weeks after the French King forced the Vatican to issue the first Papal Bull “Suppressing” the Templar Order, and that session was held under the threatening presence of King Philip IV and his Royal entourage and guards.

Typically, only the “Council of Vienne” as a whole is cited, without reference to which session, claiming only that it “decided” to suppress the Order, disregarding the fact that the First Session in 1311 AD did in fact confirm the Chinon Parchment vindicating the Knights Templar.

“Vox in Excelso” Preserved Teutonic and Templar Sovereignty.

Pope Clement V Papal Bull ‘Ad Providam’ of 1313 AD confirming ‘Vox in Excelso’ of 1312 in Archives Nationales de France J-417-34

In 1312 AD, Pope Clement V issued the Papal Bull Vox in Excelso (“Voice from on High”), for final resolution of the status of the Templar Order.

This is the major Papal Bull which is so frequently merely mentioned, and only superficially described, as supposedly “dissolving” the Order.

However, Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD actually declared very much the opposite of that mistaken and dismissive claim.  In fact, it did the most to legally pave the way to ensure the independent Sovereign Succession of legal status and rights of the Templar Order.

In furtherance of that true purpose of protecting the Templar Order as much as possible, which is revealed and confirmed by a detailed examination of its text, this Pontifical Act begins as follows:

“The [Templar] Order… won the approval of the Apostolic See.  The [Temple] Rule… had the deserved sanction of this Holy See. …  We were unwilling to lend our ears to the insinuation and accusation against the Templars… Then came the intervention of… Philip… King of France.” [38]

The Pope thus prominently declared that the Vatican was “unwilling” to act against the Templar Order, but was forced by illegal secular “intervention”.  This directly invoked the automatic legal nullification of this Act, in the text of the Act itself, by explicitly protesting that it was made under duress.

In the Code of Canon Law as customary law, “If the freedom of [a decision] has in any way been in fact impeded, the [Act] is invalid by virtue of the law itself” (Canon 170); “For [an Act] to be valid, it must be free… therefore invalid if [obtained] through grave fear or deceit” (Canon 172, §1) [39].

The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 AD confirmed this doctrine of Canon law from 1150 AD, specifically that any decision and Act caused by “the abusive intervention of secular authorities… we declare to be ipso jure [by force of law] invalid” (Lateran Canon 25) [40].

This Canon law doctrine is precisely the rule of “Duress” in Common law as customary international law:  Duress means “to coerce the will of another… inducing him to do an act contrary to his free will” [41], which from ancient Roman law is an “exception or plea” making the related Act legally null and void [42], such that “any contract or act extorted under the pressure… is voidable on that ground” [43], and any coerced Act “may be annulled” [44].

The Papal Bull Vox in Excelso, having already rendered itself legally null and void from the beginning, then continued to declare as follows:

“Indeed, although legal process against the [Templar] Order at this time does not permit its canonical condemnation as heretical by definitive sentence, the good name of the Order has been largely taken away by the heresies attributed to it.” [45]

This makes it clear that any form of judgment or definitive action against the Order itself would be without legal basis, and thus illegal, because it is in fact a sovereign non-territorial Principality with diplomatic status and immunities.

This also defines the limited purpose of the Act, only because “the good name of the Order [was] taken away”, thus forcing the Vatican to resort to a purely political action.

Next, Vox in Excelso, having clarified this context, and thus having specified its limited scope as purely political, proceeds to define the real substance of what was actually enacted:

“[We] suppress the [Templar] Order by way of ordinance and provision… assigning the property to the use for which it was intended.” [46]

This declares that the Templar Order was only “Suppressed”, meaning not “dissolved” nor “disbanded” nor “suspended” nor otherwise "extinguished”, and that no status nor rights were “revoked”.

It further declares precisely in what way it was suppressed, specifically by redistributing its “property”, which by definition can only mean Templar property, which was under the management and control of the Vatican.

Legal Meaning of “Suppressed” – Vox in Excelso purposely used the legal word “Suppressed”, which actually means an artificial false denial of facts, covering up a legal status and rights which continue to survive:

In customary law of historical institutions, the word “suppression” is defined as a “falsification or fraudulent alteration… of a thing by… writings or by acts” [47], and as “fraudulent concealment… hiding… a material fact” [48].

“Suppression” is thus legally defined as denying a Truth, which necessarily means that the suppressed Truth continues to be true.  Therefore, declaring to “Suppress” the Templar Order legally means that it continues to exist and retains its legal rights, despite those legal facts being falsely denied.

Scholars of Common Law confirm that a suppressed institution in fact legally continues to exist, also retaining its legal rights, citing a precedent:  “In 1381 AD, a statute was passed against [an Order for their suppression… However… their representatives survive to the present day [as of 1910 AD]” [49].

Likewise, “Martial Law” legally “suppresses all existing civil laws”, and yet no one could reasonably dispute that those laws still continue to exist, and the People still retain rights under those suppressed laws, despite being disregarded [50].  The moment the justifying situation passes, the country thus immediately reverts back to those underlying civil laws, which remained valid.

Canon Law Term “Ordinance” – Vox in Excelso purposely used the legal word “Ordinance”, which actually means an Act by a Sovereign Head of State, strictly limited to one’s own jurisdiction of administration within that State:

Vatican records clarify the concept of the phrase “by way of ordinance”, explaining that it means “by virtue of his sovereign power” [51].

This is confirmed and clarified by customary international law, in which an “Ordinance” is defined as exercising “immediate jurisdiction in causes ecclesiastical… with powers [of]… administration, guardianship, etc.” [52]

The key legal phrase “by way of ordinance” thus directly invokes, and carefully signals, the legal fact that the Vatican had no jurisdiction over the Templar Order, which it had already repeatedly recognized as an independent sovereign non-territorial Principality with diplomatic status and immunities.

As a result, the text of the Papal Bull is very clear, that this Act is strictly limited to enacting an internal political policy, only within the walls of the Vatican, with no legal basis for any external effect, other than redistributing property which was under legal title and direct management of the Vatican.

From ancient Roman law, “Ordinance” is defined as a “law, enacted by the emperor [sovereign]… differing… from a decree, in not being given in judgment” [53].  This is consistent with the Pope’s declaration that the Act is “not by definitive sentence”, further confirming that this was not a disposition of the legal status of the Templar Order as an institution.

In customary international law, an “Ordinance” is defined as:  “Strictly, a bill [Act] or law which might stand with the old law, and did not alter any statute in force at the time” [54].  This proves that the Act was only a political declaration, limited to internal administration within the Vatican, which in fact did not “revoke” any legal status or rights of the Templar Order.

Limited Internal Effect – Next, Vox in Excelso, having clarified that this Act was only a limited internal suppression, more specifically declares the policy which was enacted only within the Vatican:

“Therefore, with a sad heart, not by definitive sentence, but by apostolic provision and ordinance, we suppress… the Order of Templars, and its Rule, habit and name… and we entirely forbid that anyone from now on enter the Order… or presume to behave as a Templar.” [55]

To “suppress… its Rule, habit and name”, and “forbid… [to] enter the Order”, thus meant that Catholic Clergy and Faithful, those under direct ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Vatican, would not join the Order under its Temple Rule, nor wear its Templar uniforms or regalia, nor use its Templar titles, only within the Vatican itself.

Accordingly, this could not lawfully apply to surviving and continuing Templars in the sovereign Order itself, nor in the Independent Church Movement, nor to any others outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

Therefore, by this Act, the Vatican did nothing more than simply withdraw its own active support and direct cooperation with the Templar Order.  Moreover, it purposely did nothing purporting to change the inherent legal status of sovereign and chivalric legitimacy of the Order itself in its own right.

Preserving Legal Status – Finally, Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD concluded with very specific legal phrases which explicitly reconfirmed and reasserted, and thus preserved, all previous Papal Bulls and Vatican decrees recognizing the independent sovereignty and diplomatic status of the Templar Order:

“Through this decree, however, we do not wish to derogate from any processes made… in conformity with what we have ordained at other times.” [56]

This reaffirmation of Teutonic legal status was again repeated by Pope Clement V, in the related Papal Bull Consideration of 1312 AD:

“We had no intention of derogating from the processes made… as we have ordained elsewhere. …  Thus those who have been legally acquitted… shall be supplied with the goods of the former Order whereby they can live as becomes their status.” [57]

Specifically, what the Vatican had “ordained at other times” and “ordained elsewhere” for the Templar Order, is the Papal Bulls Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD recognizing its permanent sovereignty, Milites Templi of 1144 AD and Militia Dei of 1145 AD recognizing its diplomatic status, and the Chinon Parchment of 1308 AD exonerating the Templars and confirming the Order in good standing in Communion with the Church.

All of those Papal Bulls were thus declared to be preserved and continued in full legal effect, by Vox in Excelso and Consideration of 1312 AD.

The decree in Consideration, that Teutonic Knights “can live as becomes their status”, confirms that the Teutonic order fully retains its legal “status”, which it can continue to exercise by its own sovereign authority independent from the Vatican.

Completing the Succession Plan of Saint Bernard.

Saint Bernard in illuminated manuscript 13th century

Building upon the original “backup plan” established by the Teutonic order and Templar Patron Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, after the French Persecution of 1307 AD and Vatican “Suppression” of 1312 AD, surviving Templars and supporting Templar loyalists worked throughout the next 700 years, to bring the Templar lineages for Sovereign Succession into the modern era.

As a result, the Templar “Independent Church Movement” from 1145 AD became the larger “Old Catholic Movement” of 1870 AD, unifying and supporting half of the “Catholic world” outside of the Vatican, and finally obtaining the most complete and conclusive recognition from the Vatican in the year 2000.

These ongoing advancements, accomplished by generations of surviving Teutonic Knights and supporters, paved the way forward for the Teutonic Order and Templar Restoration, returning the Teutonic Order to full legitimacy in international law, possessing all of its original sovereign authorities.

‘Portrait of Pope Leo X with Cardinals’ (ca. 1518 AD) by Raphael in the Uffizi Gallery (Detail)

Expanding Independence – In 1520 AD, Pope Leo X issued the Papal Bull Debitum Pastoralis (“Pastoral Duty”), confirming the rights of Independent Bishops to perform Episcopal consecrations without Vatican approval, and granting immunity from Vatican jurisdiction.  This was issued to the Bishop of Utrecht, who was a Teutonic Knight promoting surviving Templarism. [58]

Preserving Templar Lines – Led by the Franciscan Sacred Order in England, by its Synod of Independent Apostolic Clergy since 1221 AD, the Independent Churches continued the “Templar Lines” of succession, notably aided by many supporting Popes.  This led to the successful consolidation and confirmation of those lines with the Vatican by 1740 AD.

“Melchizedek Line” – This exotic Apostolic line from the Ancient Magi and Solomon of the Templar Priesthood, passed from Pope Eugene III (created Independent Church Movement with Saint Bernard) in 1145 AD, through Vatican Popes who were Templar loyalists and revivalists, including Urban IV (issued Pantaleon confirming Templar origins in the Biblical Temple of Solomon) in 1261 AD, Clement V (issued Chinon Parchment vindicating Templars) in 1305 AD, John XXII (created Spanish “Order of Montessa” to absorb surviving Templars, and changed name of Portuguese Templars to “Knights of Christ”) in 1316 AD, and Leo X (issued Debitum Pastoralis expanding the Independent Church Movement) in 1513 AD.

“Templar Lines” – These unique Apostolic lines passed from Saint Bernard in 1120 AD, through the Grand Master Jacques de Molay ca. 1276 AD, through surviving Teutonic knights and Templars (renamed “Order of Christ” in Portugal) who founded the Rosicrucian Order ca. 1407 AD, through “Mystic” Templar Rosicrucian's ca. 1530 AD [59] [60], until these “secret” lines were reinstated in the Vatican, continued through Pope Benedict XIV during 1726-1740 AD. [61]

‘Portrait of Pope Benedict XIV’ c 1750 AD by Agostino Masucci in the Royal Castle of Warsaw

Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758 AD) had an affinity for the Templars as lawgivers of the Magna Carta civil rights [62], and for the Teutonic order mission of preserving sacred knowledge [63].

He supported the Teutonic knights' survival as the renamed “Order of Christ” in Portugal, by granting it the former headquarters monastery of the Templar Order in 1740 AD.  He also established the first Vatican “Academy of Antiquities” in 1740 AD, to continue the Teutonic knights and Templar mission of exploring the ancient origins of Christianity [64].

His personal Quest to revitalize the medieval Orders of Chivalry is also confirmed by his mediation supporting the Knights of Malta with the King of Naples in 1756 AD. [65]

The primary “Mystic Templar Rosicrucian” lines from ca. 1530 AD were collected and vested in Benedict XIV in 1726, and he consolidated and “reinstated” all related “Templar Lines” with the Vatican when he became Pope in 1740 AD [66].

The Old Catholic Movement – In 1870 AD, the Independent Church Movement became the “Old Catholic Movement”, when an estimated 50% of all practicing Catholics worldwide, led by the Independent Bishops supporting Templarism, Teutonicism, split from the Vatican:

When the First Vatican Council declared new dogmas in 1870 AD [67], the dissenting minority was 20% of all Vatican Bishops, but those with strategic influence in key countries, thus actually representing 50% of practicing Catholics [68].  Half of those Bishops directly led and founded the Old Catholic Movement as the new vehicle for all dissenting Catholics, such that 10% of Vatican Bishops took with them 50% of the Catholic Clergy and Faithful worldwide [69].

‘Rome 8 Decembre 1869’ First Vatican Council (1870 AD) in Musée de l’Image Epinal.

In 1871 AD, the Old Catholic Congress declared “Adherence to the Ancient Catholic faith… of the Ancient Church”, with “rejection of new dogmas”, as “preparation of the way for the reunion of the Christian confessions [denominations].” [70]

In 1889 AD, the Declaration of Utrecht by the Independent Bishops reestablished the “historical primacy… of the Ancient Church” (Article 2) and “Ancient Catholic doctrine” (Article 6) [71].  It was thus named the “Old Catholic Movement”, for accepting only the “Old” Catholic doctrines and classical traditions before “Vatican I” of 1870 AD.

By 1958, Vatican experts widely recognized that “Old Catholic Orders are valid… likewise Old Catholic Bishops… The Old Catholics, like the Orthodox, possess a valid priesthood.” [72]

By 1974, Catholic scholars documented that “The Roman Church recognizes the validity of Old Catholic Orders and other sacraments.” [73]

In 1983, the Vatican ratified the updated Code of Canon Law, which confirms that Independent Bishops, by “consecration” with valid Apostolic lines (Canon 1009), are thereby “incardinated” in the Independent Churches (Canon 266), and thus not subject to Vatican Pontifical authority, thereby becoming an independent “competent ecclesiastical authority” in their own right (Canons 114, 116, 118) [74].

Also in 1983, Vatican experts in Canon law confirmed that “When a [Roman] Catholic minister is unavailable… Catholics may receive [sacraments from] … Priests of the Old Catholic [Churches].” [75]

In 2000, the Vatican issued the Papal Bull Dominus Iesus, which fully and conclusively recognized the canonical validity of all Sacraments and Apostolic Succession of the Old Catholic Movement [76].

Results for Legal Succession – In the end, generations of Templars not only survived by the plan of Saint Bernard, but also successfully continued and reestablished that plan in the modern era.  This resulted in the medieval tradition of Independent Bishops becoming stronger than ever, with the Old Catholic Movement achieving overwhelming recognition by the Vatican.

This effectively positioned the Sacred Order of Saint Francis to use the unprecedented authority of the Old Catholic Movement, operating throughout half of the “Catholic world” outside the Vatican, but with significant support from the Vatican, while still maintaining independence.

This empowered the Franciscan Sacred Order to preserve and continue the lineages of Templar Sovereign Succession, carrying the institutional legal status and sovereign authorities of the Templar Order, as needed for its official Reestablishment in international law.

By these accomplishments over many centuries, the Franciscan Sacred Order would be able to perfect and complete the Templar Restoration, precisely as planned by Saint Bernard in the 12th century, for the return of the Templar Order to full legal legitimacy in the 21st century.

Suggested Related Topics

-Learn about the Foundations of the Teutonic Order.

-Learn about the Persecution suppressing the Teutonic Order.

-Learn about the Teutonic Orders' Survival and Lineage into the modern era.

Academic Source References

[1] Michael Horn, Studien zur Geschichte Papst Eugens III (1145-1153), Peter Lang Verlag (1992), pp.36-40, pp.42-45.

[2] Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, On Consideration, Letter to Pope Eugene III, Translated in: George Lewis, Saint Bernard: On Consideration, Oxford Library of Translations, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1908).

[3] Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops; Article II “Representative Synod”, in Section “Franciscan Order”, p.4.

[4] Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Saint Francis of Assisi, 14th Edition, Image Books, New York (1924), p.126.

[5] The Vatican, The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Translation in:  H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, B. Herder, Saint Louis (1937), pp.236-296.

[6] Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops; Article II “Representative Synod” (top of list), and Section “Franciscan Order”, p.4.

[7] Grand Mastery, Temple Rule of 1129 AD, Order of the Temple of Solomon (Amended ca. 1150 AD); Judith M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge, The Boydell Press (1992); Grand Mastery continues through successive “Grand Commanders” serving “in place of the Grand Master” (Rule 204), until it is restored by “election of the Grand Master” by “the most prominent” Commanders (Rule 206).

[8] Grand Magistry, Constitutional Charter, Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), based on rules from ca. 1099 AD, Rome (Amended 1961); “The Grand Master is elected… from among the Professed Knights” (Article 13.1).  During abeyance, “the Order is governed by a Lieutenant ad interim in the person of the Grand Commander”, and the “Grand Magistry” continues through successive Lieutenants until restored by election (Article 17).

[9] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.40, 47, 416.

[10] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part B-1, “Historical Continuity: Military-Monastic Orders”.

[11] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Second Ecumenical Council (“Vatican II”), Enacted (1965), Amended and ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983), Canon 120, §2.

[12] Hyginus Eugene Cardinale, Orders of Knighthood Awards and the Holy See: A Historical, Juridical and Practical Compendium (1983), p.119.

[13] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.291-292.

[14] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part C, “Conclusion”.

[15] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Second Ecumenical Council (“Vatican II”), Enacted (1965), Amended and ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983), Canon 120, §2; Canon 123.

[16] Old Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990): “Zadok the Priest took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon.  And… all the people said, God save King Solomon.” (I Kings 1:39).

[17] Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops: Archbishop Mar Frederick, Cardinal Bruce D. Campbell, Archbishop Benjamin B. Driggers, Archbishop David L. Rochelle, Cardinal Peter R. Edwards; Article VII “Templar Restoration”, p.12.

[18] Giovanni Villani, Historia Universalis (14th century Chronicles), Westminster (1898), Book VIII, Chapter 65: R.E. Selfe & P.H. Wicksteed, “Selections from the First Nine Books of the Croniche Fiorentine of Giovanni Villani”, pp.346-350.

[19] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 2, “Pope Benedict XI”.

[20] Stephen Howarth, The Knights Templar, Barnes and Noble, New York (1982), pp. 11-14, 261, 323.

[21] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, p.119; Julien Théry is a professor of the 13th century at Université de Montpellier and Université de Lyon in France.

[22] Julien Théry, A Heresy of State: Pontificalization of the French Monarchy, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, Penn State University Press (2013), Volume 39, Issue 2, “Abstract”, p.117; Julien Théry is a professor of the 13th century Université de Montpellier and Université de Lyon in France.

[23] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum “Every Good Gift” (29 March 1139); Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.59-64.

[24] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.36; “Sovereign Protection… In that case the Order involved… [can] dispose over the necessary Fons Honorum”.

[25] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.423; “a Sovereign is… providing his Protection to such Order… [which is] receiving Protection and is deriving the Fons Honorum from the Protection awarded”.

[26] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.5; Confirming Sovereign Protection: “the Templars were not directly responsible to any secular monarch”.

[27] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 4: “independent Orders of Knighthood… must always stem from or be… under [Sovereign] Protection”.

[28] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 6: A “Sovereign” Order having Protection thereby becomes “an independent non-territorial power”.

[29] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.292.

[30] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.64.

[31] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Dignity”, p.368.

[32] Pope Celestine II, Milites Templi, “Knights of the Temple” (5 January 1144), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8, pp.64-65; For “Knights of the Temple… we instruct… to maintain their persons and goods, and not permit any damage or injury to be imposed upon them”.

[33] Pope Eugenius III, Militia Dei, “Knighthood of God” (7 April 1145), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8, pp.65-66; For the “Knighthood of the Temple… [to] not impede them or permit them to be impeded”.

[34] Pope Clement V, Chinon Parchment (1308), Vatican Secret Archives, “Archivum Arcis Armarium” D 217-218; Replica Parchments, Processus Contra Templarios, Scrinium, Venice, Italy (2008).

[35] Reverend P. Trudel, A Dictionary of Canon Law, 2nd Edition, B. Herder Book Co., London (1920), Section 102 “Communion”, p.45.

[36] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), p.813; “Nemo debet in communione invitus teneri” (Latin doctrine of Common Law).

[37] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 15, “Council of Vienne”.

[38] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraphs 3-4, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).

[39] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983), Canon 172, §1.

[40] The Vatican, The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD), Translation in:  H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, B. Herder, Saint Louis (1937); Based upon the principles of the original Body of Canon Law of 1150 AD.; 4th Lateran, Canon 25.

[41] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Duress”, p.404.

[42] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Exceptio. In Roman law: Exceptio metus”, p.456.

[43] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Force: In Scotch law”, p.509.

[44] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Recognitione Adnullanda Per Vim Et Duritiem Facta”, p.509.

[45] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraph 10, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).

[46] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraph 13, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).

[47] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Faux: In French law”, p.485; Defined as synonymous by “or” as the key word: “falsification or fraudulent alteration or suppression”.

[48] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Fraudulent concealment”, p.522; Defined as synonymous by “or” as the key word: “hiding or suppression of a material fact”.

[49] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Lollards”, p.737, citing the statute “De Hoeretico Comburendo (2 Hen. IV c. 15)” enacted 1381 AD, against the “Lollards”, for “disseminating evangelical truth”.

[50] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Martial Law”, p.764.

[51] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 4, “Clement V, Pope: Clement V and the Templars”, pp.21-22; “The Pope said that… he suppressed it by his sovereign power, and not by any definitive sentence.”

[52] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Ordinary”, p.859; Defining Ordinance indirectly by the official powers of an “Ordinary”, the person who exercises jurisdiction of an Ordinance, and is therefore called an “Ordinary”.

[53] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Edictum”, p.412; Defined as synonymous by “or” as the key word: “An edict, a mandate, or ordinance”, “An ordinance or law enacted”.

[54] Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, West Publishing Company (1910), “Ordinance”, p.859.

[55] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraph 13, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).

[56] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraph 13, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).

[57] Pope Clement V, Considerantes (06 May 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraphs 1-2, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils; Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).

[58] Louis Sicking, Zeemacht en Onmacht: Maritieme Politiek in de Nederlanden 1488-1558, De Bataafse Leeuw, Amsterdam (1998).

[59] Antonio de Macedo, Instruções Iniciáticas – Ensaios Espirituais, 2nd Edition, Hughin Editores, Lisbon (2000), p.55.

[60] J. Manuel Gandra, Portugal Misterioso: Os Templários, Lisbon (2000), pp.348-349.

[61] Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops: Archbishop Mar Frederick, Cardinal Bruce D. Campbell, Archbishop Benjamin B. Driggers, Archbishop David L. Rochelle, Cardinal Peter R. Edwards; Article VII “Templar Restoration”, p.12.

[62] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 2, “Benedict XIV”, p.432:  Describes how Pope Benedict XIV was passionately dedicated to civil law and principles of enforcement of the rule of law.

[63] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 2, “Benedict XIV: Liturgical Reforms”, p.434:  Describes how Pope Benedict XIV founded the Vatican Museum Christianum, and established the Vatican Library Catalogue of 3,300 rare manuscripts; He “exercised the closest supervision” with all such heritage restoration projects.

[64] The Vatican, Pontifical Roman Academy of Archaeology, Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome, online: Theologia.va (July 2012).

[65] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 2, “Benedict XIV: Public Policy”, p.433.

[66] Ancient Pontificate, Charter of Reestablishment and Reunification, Synod of Churches of Independent Church Movement of 1145 AD and Old Catholic Movement of 1870 AD, Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi from 1212 AD (Enacted 13 March 2013); Issued by five Franciscan Vatican Bishops; Article VII “Templar Restoration”, p.12.

[67] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 15, “Vatican Council: Acceptance of the Decrees”, p.307.

[68] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 15, “Vatican Council”, p.305: Part II, “Proceedings of the Council”, Section 2, “The Parties”: “the minority, comprising about one-fifth [20%]… feared the worst… many wavering Catholics, an increased estrangement of those separated from the Church”; the list of dissenting countries indicates that this “minority” represented an average of 50% of all practicing Roman Catholics.

[69] Richard P. McBrien, The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Harper Collins (1995), p.1297.

[70] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 11, “Old Catholics”, p.235.

[71] Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches, The Declaration of Utrecht (24 September 1889), Translated in: Paul Halsall, Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University, New York (1999):  Continuing 1st century Christianity as “the undivided Church of the first thousand years” (Article 1), “the doctrine of the primitive Church” (Articles 4, 5), “maintaining the Faith of the undivided Church” (Article 7) as “the doctrine of Jesus Christ” (Article 8); Recognizing the “historical primacy… of the Ancient Church” (Article 2) and “Ancient Catholic doctrine” (Article 6).

[72] William J. Whalen, Separated Brethren: A Survey of Non-Catholic Christian Denominations, 1st Edition (1958), The Bruce Publishing Company, 4th Revised Edition (1963), pp.204, 248.

[73] Felician A. Foy, Catholic Almanac, 1st Edition, Our Sunday Visitor Press (1974), p.368.

[74] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983):  Valid Apostolic lines “conferred by the imposition of hands and the prayer of consecration” (Canon 1009); “By the reception of [consecration] a person… is incardinated in the particular Church… for whose service he is ordained.” (Canon 266); Independent “competent ecclesiastical authority” (Canons 114, 116, 118).

[75] Thomas P. Doyle, Rights and Responsibilities: A Catholic’s Guide to the New Code of Canon Law, Pueblo Press (1983), p.44.

[76] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus lesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church, published by Pope John Paul II (16 June 2000), republished by Pope Benedict XVI (August 2000), Article IV, Section 17.

© Copyright Held 1806 to 2025 - All Rights Reserved. Protected by the United States of America, European Union, and International Copyright Laws.

Modern Missions of the Teutonic Order of Knights.

Continuing the Authentic Teutonic Knights' Missions in the Modern Era

Discover the authentic historical missions of the Order, all restored, adapted, and applied in the modern era as the real Templar way of life of Chivalry, as Guardians of Justice and Champions of the Oppressed.

Authentic to its true history, the restored Teutonic Order continues the original missions of its founding ancestors, as Defenders of All Faith, Guardians of Justice, Champions of the Oppressed, and Keepers of the Sacred Knowledge as the shared heritage of humanity, restoring and upholding the pillars of civilization, to once again lead the world into a new Renaissance period.

Guardian Angel ‘Heilige Schutzengel’, painting by Hans Zabateri (Hans Zatzka), Austria (ca. 1918 AD), published by Lindberg Heilige Schutzengel

During the 700 years of abeyance of the Grand Mastery of the Order, surviving as an underground network until the Teutonic Restoration (2007-2016), its genuine missions became obscured by popularized misconceptions from private fraternities and the modern entertainment industry.

The authentic historical missions of the Order have been revived by diligent restoration of the ancient Code of Chivalry of 1066 AD, the founding Temple Rule of 1129 AD, and the medieval Teutonic Code of 1150 AD, as the real Templar way of life.

As a result, the true missions have been redefined and reasserted in the modern era, from the words of the founding Knights Templar themselves.

Although the Teutonic Knights came to be known as the “Army of God” when enforcing the Magna Carta of civil rights over Kings [1], the modern Teutonic Order is not an “army” by military force but rather is a metaphorical “army of skilled professionals” leading humanitarian missions.

Missions Far Beyond “Protection of Pilgrims”

Mainstream modern history books on the Knights Templar have popularized a superficial narrative of the missions of the Order, supposedly mostly limited to “protecting pilgrims” travelling to Holy sites. However, the true role of the Templar Order as Defenders and Guardians is much greater, and the authentic scope of its historical missions is much wider, as it upholds the pillars of civilization for the benefit of humanity.

‘Knight of the Temple’ by Fredrik Alfredsson (2004)

The historical record proves that “protecting pilgrims” was mostly symbolic, as a preliminary and sideline activity, which most medieval Templars never engaged in:

The service of protecting pilgrims was mostly the means to obtain from King Baldwin II access to the Temple of Solomon, and Royal Patronage to establish the Teutonic Order. Historians emphasize that “The offer was irresistible to the King and the Patriarch” of Jerusalem [2]. The medieval chronicler Michael the Syrian reported that the Templars had planned to be mostly monastic, but King Baldwin “persuaded” them to “police his kingdom”, and provided them with living quarters and financial income during their excavation of the Temple of Solomon. [3]

The Temple Rule, in a later amendment (ca. 1150 AD) evidences that a small force of only 10 Templars were assigned to protecting pilgrims: “The Commander of the City of Jerusalem should have ten knight brothers under his command to lead and guard the pilgrims who come” (Rule 121) [4].

The Vatican recognized a much greater role of the Order, as non-military Defenders, upholding civilization through professional skills:

“Their original aim was to protect pilgrims… as they traveled… to visit Holy Places… However, the religious [professional] vocation maintained its superior status over the call to arms. Saint Bernard states that it is permissible for these Milites Christi to ‘strike with the sword… provided that they have not embraced a higher calling’”. [5] [6]

Scholars note that the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD established “formal recognition of the Order’s much wider role as Defenders of Christendom than the restricted [limited] function which [it] originally undertook”, although “they did not cease to act as the protectors of pilgrims” [7].

Under the Code of Chivalry of 1066 AD, for its mandate “Thou shalt defend the Church”, the 11th century Pontifical knighting ceremony commanded: “Go, and remember that the Saints did not conquer kingdoms by the sword but by Faith.” (Commandment II) [8]

This confirms that for the primary Templar role as Defenders of the Faith, even the Church itself defined this not as military fighting, but rather to oppose evil by representing the principle of Faith in God in international affairs.

Historians confirm that the primary role of the Templars, as non-military Defenders and Guardians, was exercising Diplomatic status of the Order for strategic geopolitics: “Their sphere of operation expanded during the next century… they became high-level diplomats serving kings and nobles” [9].

Vatican records witnessed that the Templar Order exercised its inherent statehood as a non-territorial Principality, “possessing power equal to that of the leading temporal sovereigns” [10], with full Diplomatic status including “the right of concluding treaties” [11].

These facts prove that the temporary mission of “protecting pilgrims” was a part-time “day job” for the Knights Templar, as the service most in demand to attract the support of Kings and Church, to earn income for the Order to conduct its real underlying missions of recovering the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon and restoring the pillars of civilization.

Indeed, there are many ways to provide security, far beyond the limited aspect of physical security. As one notable example, the Templars invented branch banking, such that pilgrims and travelers were “able to deposit money at a Templar monastery bank in a European city, then redeem these medieval travelers’ checks upon arrival in the Holy Land” [12].

There are many other modern types of strategic security, including Legal Security, Economic Security, Operational Security (“Op-Sec”), and Information Security (“Info-Sec”), which the Templar Order may provide to governments and the private sector. Many lawyers, security professionals, national security officials, and military veterans join the Templar Order and support such projects.

Military Function Replaced by Geopolitical Chessboard.

The medieval Knights Templar only provided a military function by invitation and authorization of the King of a host country or the Prince of a principality. In the modern era, the use of organized armed force remains the exclusive lawful domain of territorial states. The independent deployment of any armed military or law enforcement service by an Order of Chivalry would seriously violate international law by violating the sovereignty of any host country. Raising any armed force in that way could only be at best “mercenaries”, and at worst “terrorists”.

Satirical Map (ca. 1913) Illustrating Geopolitics

For that compelling reason, the Templar Ministry of Security Act of 2014 mandates that: “The Order shall not raise any standing armies, nor maintain a body of armed personnel for any tactical operations nor engagement in any conventional warfare.” (Article 3.1) However, the Act establishes other functions of support and cooperation with national military and law enforcement agencies, which justify the Order having a Ministry of Security with uniformed ranking officers (Article 3.5).

Continuing its primary original function of exercising Diplomatic status for geopolitical missions, the modern Templar Order has been fully and legally restored as a non-territorial Principality and “sovereign subject of international law” with statehood [13] [14], thereby inherently possessing full Diplomatic status for official international relations [15] [16].

Conducting official Diplomatic relations does not mean merely being “diplomatic”, in the superficial sense of supposed politeness and compromise. The widespread understanding of this reality is confirmed by the anonymous gem of folk wisdom, which became popularized as the satirical definition of a Diplomat: “A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell, in such a way that you look forward to the trip.” [17]

The term “Diplomacy”, first used in 1796 AD, is defined as “managing international relations” through “representatives abroad” [18]. Thus, real Diplomatic work means actively representing, asserting, and defending the rights and interests of a State in international affairs. Authentically, the primary interests of the State should be to protect the rights of its people, especially universal human rights and constitutional civil rights.

The exercise of Diplomatic status is the active practice of Geopolitics. The term “Geopolitics”, first used in 1904, is defined as the strategic combination of politics with geography, as applied to the foreign policy of States affecting international relations in world affairs [19]. Thus, Diplomacy necessarily involves dealing with military strategies and military alliances affecting the balance of powers among States, in defense of lawful rights and humanitarian interests.

Accordingly, the Templar Order has not abdicated its role in military defense projects for upholding the Rule of Law and human rights in world affairs. Indeed, by conducting Diplomatic relations, the Order can assert a significant role in influencing military strategies and resulting world events, through alliances with other States and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs).

The principles and missions of the Templar Order are very publicly declared and transparently proven.  However, current details of its Diplomatic relations and alliances with other States and IGO institutions are generally classified under the Templar State Secrets Act of 2011 (Article 2), and typically also classified by the cooperating governments. (This is only temporary confidentiality for operational security, and the Order may reveal its accomplishments at a later time, after certain strategic events are completed.)

Apart from conventional warfare, there are many other types of modern warfare, especially Information Warfare (“Info-War”) of fighting by Truth, and Legal Warfare (“Law-fare”) of fighting by international law, which the Templar Order may provide to governments and the private sector. These are mostly applied to the larger sphere of geopolitical International Security, through diplomatic alliances. Many scholars, lawyers, career diplomats, national security and military veterans join the Templar Order and support such projects.

Authentic Missions of the Modern Teutonic Order of Knights.

The Teutonic Rule of 1129 AD requires that “in this Order… no brother [or Sister] shall fight nor rest… but according to the commands of the [Order]” (Rule 41) [20]. Thus, when there are no specific ‘action orders’ from the Grand Mastery, the commandments of the Temple Rule itself establish the core Templar missions as permanent ‘standing orders’ from the founding ancestors.

Modesty as a Teutonic Strategy

This is not only a spiritual doctrine of modesty and humility, but also a practical Templar strategy for successful missions: Templars do not conduct missions to be seen, in the modern promotional style of “Hey, look at us, we are doing this great thing!” Rather, Templars do missions for results, and to uplift others and empower humanity, by manifesting the glory of God.

This principle was taught by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount: “Do not your alms [charity] before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father [God] which is in heaven. Therefore, when thou doest thine alms [charity], do not sound a trumpet before thee… [to] have glory of men. … But… that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.” (Matthew 6:1-4) [22]

This was also taught by the Apostles, who best summarized: “Charity vaunteth [boasts] not itself, is not puffed up.” (I Corinthians 13:4)

Accordingly, while the motivating purposes and intended results of Teutonic missions are transparently declared publicly, Teutonic members work quietly, and particular missions are usually not announced, except to the extent necessary to call attention to a humanitarian cause. This also ensures a degree of reasonable confidentiality, for operational security against a counter-culture of evil-doers who typically seek to undermine and sabotage humanitarian projects.

Core Missions of the Teutonic Order

The following are summaries of the essential and continual historical missions of the Teutonic Order, which serve as the permanent “standing orders” guiding all general activities and special projects. These missions are implemented through the non-profit inter-governmental organization (IGO), the “Order of Solomon Knights of Christ Foundation”, and through external cooperating non-profit IGO institutions supported by the Teutonic Order.

Diplomatic Support and International Relations

“Ritorno Degli Ambasciatori” (“Return of the English Ambassadors”) by Vittore Carpaccio (ca. 1495 AD), Detail

The Teutonic Rule dedicates the Order “to serve in chivalry with the sovereign Archduke, prince”, as an alliance together “with” (not “under”) a kingdom, meaning the Order can serve multiple kingdoms (Rule 1). It confirms that Teutonic Knights are “servants of the sovereign”, which also applies to supporting the national governments of modern countries (Rule 9) [23].

Therefore, the modern Order provides strategic diplomatic support to a Royal Alliance of surviving historical kingdoms, which provide Royal Protection to the Teutonic Order. Teutonic Officers thus serve as official Diplomats, Special Envoys, and Advisors to Kings and Queens, which requires appropriate professional qualifications. The Order may also provide such support to presidential administrations of countries, either directly or through cooperating intergovernmental organization (IGO) institutions.

Teutonic Knights were traditionally “sent through diverse parts of the world”, and are instructed to live by Teutonic principles and values to have “good reports from outsiders”, and to “set an example of good works and wisdom” (Rule 37). [24]

Accordingly, even for those not qualified to be official Diplomats, all Teutonic Brothers and Sisters serve as “Goodwill Ambassadors”, engaged in cultural diplomacy among the peoples of nations of the world.

Justice by Support for the Independent Judiciary

“Court of Common Pleas” (ca. 1460 AD) illuminated manuscript, in Inner Temple Library, London.

The Temple Rule dedicates the Templar, Teutonic, and Hospitaler Orders to “the love of Justice which constitutes its duties” (Rule 2), including enforcement as all wrongdoing must be punished “for the love of Justice” to protect the innocent (Rule 47), and to uphold and enforce rights “Justly… [and] only as specifically established” by law (Rule 57). It further commands “for the love of Truth… to Judge the matter” by serving as Judges over disputes whenever requested (Rule 59) [25].

The Knights Templar were the lawgivers of the Magna Carta of 1215 AD, the first human rights and civil rights charter, which developed the Common Law system. The charter was written by the Templar dynastic House of Anjou [26], promoted by the “Baron’s War” of Templar nobility [27], signed in the Templar headquarters of Temple Church in London [28], and further enforced over Kings by the Templars [29] [30] [31] [32] [33].

The Templar Order established the traditional world center of the Independent Legal Profession at Chancery Lane in London, ca. 1185 AD [34] [35], which took over the legal profession as the exclusive legal education center for the Common Law system in 1234 AD, developing the famous Inns of Court [36].

The modern Order provides strategic infrastructure support to the Independent Judiciary Profession for restoring the Independent Legal Profession internationally. Many Templars thus work with Judges and Barristers at the highest level of the legal profession, which requires appropriate professional qualifications in law. The Order may provide such support either directly or through cooperating inter-governmental organization (IGO) institutions and Courts of Justice.

Even for those not qualified as lawyers, Templars with other relevant skills can serve in various roles, assisting Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs for Barristers, and supporting the enforcement capabilities of international Justice Courts, as Administrators, Experts, or even Court Officers for investigations or enforcement.

Humanitarian Relief and Strategic Intervention

“Portrait of Sir Francis Ford’s Children Giving Coin to Beggar” (ca. 1793 AD) by Sir William Beechey

The Temple Rule dedicates the Order “to defend the poor” (Rule 2), and instructs to give old clothes to the poor (Rule 19), and to distribute excess food to the poor (Rule 29). The Order “must sustain the weaknesses… of others” (Rule 47), and “mandate[s] that if anyone… requests anything of you, for the weak… we command you” to provide assistance and problem solving, “perpetually in all matters which will be bound to you.” (Rule 59). [37]

This essential mission of humanitarian intervention was taught by Jesus: “The King [God] shall answer… since ye have done unto one of the least of these… ye have done unto me.” (Matthew 25:34-45) [38]

Arguably, none are more poor, or more in need, than genuine Refugees forced to flee wars, genocide, and major disasters, separated from their homes, disconnected from their resources, and deprived of community support.

However, dominant globalist countries, and most non-profit “charities” following their propaganda, only help mere economic migrants seeking a “better life” (making them political pawns controlled by government benefits, while impoverishing receiving countries), while genuine Refugees are almost completely ignored. Usually, Refugees only receive occasional temporary “aid”, such as handouts of tents, food, and water, while the war rages on.

As best said by the American novelist Christie Craig as “C.C. Hunter” (ca. 2007): “That’s not going to fix anything. It’s like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.” There is no point in giving people superficial “aid” today if globalist armies and their state-sponsored terrorists are just going to bomb them again tomorrow. The only real solution is to enforce Human Rights Law against the violating countries, to stop the causes of suffering.

The power of Human Rights Law is much greater than mainstream media propaganda leads us to believe. Beyond the more obvious cases, such as war crimes, Human Rights also include civil rights, constitutional rights, and even economic rights. Arguably, all charitable causes and humanitarian needs are ultimately symptoms of underlying Human Rights violations.

Fortunately, there always seem to be many private non-profit charities capable of rapid response, providing superficial temporary humanitarian “aid”. However, the Order has the unique capabilities and official status – and thus a special responsibility – to enforce Human Rights Law at the inter-governmental level, to stop the real causes of suffering.

The modern Order provides true Humanitarian Relief and Strategic Intervention for genuine Refugees (and other causes) by leveraging international law to change the geopolitical balance of powers to restore Human Rights. This mission requires Diplomatic muscle, backed by judicial power, such that it is a combination of the first two primary Templar missions of Diplomatic Support and Judiciary Support.

Defense of the Church as Guardians of All Faiths

“Kingdom of Heaven” by Sergei ‘SS Wanderer’ Russia (2015)

The Temple Rule declares that “God has chosen” the Order for “defense of the Holy Church” (Rule 1), “to defend… churches” (Rule 2), as “divine service” of God (Rule 9). It commands to always uphold “the purposes of religion”, meaning the shared values underlying all religions, inspiring others through “setting an example” (Rule 37). [39]

The essence of “Faith” is much more than mere “belief” in any particular religion. Faith itself is truly the emotional and intellectual awareness of the underlying life force and mechanics of the universe.  While these forces are mostly not tangibly detectable by us, they are still perceivable through our experiences.  In the Code of Canon Law study of these energy forces is called the “sacred sciences” (Canons 218, 229, 248, 279, 815).

The key element of Faith is a conscious appreciation for a higher purpose and a greater source of cause and effect, which is beyond the limitations of human planning. Only Faith helps us experience the fullness of life and relationships, and carries us through hardships by a guiding sense of spiritual purpose.

By restoring Faith internationally, we can thereby restore the collective human heritage of kindness, goodness, wisdom, and knowledge, bringing essential humanitarian values back into their rightful place in modern civilization.

The modern Order continues this historical mission of serving as Defenders of the Church and Guardians of All Faith. Much of this work relies on the first two primary Order missions of Diplomatic Support and Judiciary Support for restoring and protecting ecclesiastical sovereignty and religious rights and freedoms under international law.

Many projects of the Order are for restoring and promoting Faith itself, including by reconciliation of science and religion, archaeology and theology, and more. This work is mostly a combination of the other two Order missions of Academic Research and Historical Preservation.

Animal Rights and Care as a Spiritual Duty to God

“The Faithful Servant” (ca. 1880 AD) by John Sargeant Noble

The Order Rule requires diligent care and respect for service animals, including proper and sanitary feeding (Rule 54), and commands to “zealously take care of… horses”, and not to run one “if it is not rested” (Rule 315). It mandates human concern for the comfort and well-being of animals. (Rule 379). It mostly prohibits hunting for the kindness to animals (Rule 55), allowing “wild animals” to be “taken” for food only by humane and peaceful means (Rule 151). [40]

In the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon, as recovered and preserved by the founding Knights Templar, “animals [were] part of… the divine nature”, and “the animal itself [was] thought of as conveying the divinity [of God]” [41].

King Solomon himself said: “He [God] has made every [animal] beautiful… He has put eternity in their hearts. … Surely… man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11, 3:19-20) [42]. Solomon also wrote: “You save humans and animals alike, O Lord” (Psalm 36:6), and Jesus confirmed that “all flesh [creatures] shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6) [43].

The Bible teaches a compelling story of how animals are closer to God and can see the Angels: A man was riding a donkey, which turned and stopped three times, each time struck by the man forcing her to continue forward. Then God “opened the mouth” of the animal who spoke to rebuke him, and “opened the eyes” of the man, who then “saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand.” The Angel declared that the donkey had saved his life, because “unless she had turned from me, surely… I had slain thee, and saved her alive.” (Numbers 22:23-33) [44]

The modern Order continues this sacred mission of Animal Rights and kindness to animals as an essential part of chivalric service to God. Many Templars thus promote and support animal rescue, animal shelters, and various programs for animal care and placement in loving homes.

Academic Research Advancing Truth and Education

“Abelard and his Pupil Heloise” (1882 AD), Edmund Blair Leighton (Detail)

The Order Rule presents “studious purification” by learning as one of the essential Order missions (Rule 1), and describes Knights as “lovers of Truth” advancing scholarship by refined and studious hearts” (Rule 6). It specifically commands all Knights “during periods, [to] study universally” by scholarly studies (Rule 9), and “to apply all one’s study and understanding” (Rule 279). [45]

By those principles, despite the prevailing illiteracy of the Middle Ages, the historical Order of the Temple of Solomon was also dedicated to serving as a major center of education, providing many functions of a “university”, promoting scholarly studies by advancing academic research. Indeed, the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD specifically recognized the Order as a “university institution” (Latin: ‘uniersitetem exortamur’) [46].

“If you are not permitted to wield the lance [weapon], at least direct your pen against the tyrannical foe, as this moral support is of no small help” [47].

The modern Order continues this essential mission of Academic Research, recovering and preserving Truth, for the restoration and reconstruction of diverse areas of “lost history” and “lost knowledge”, as keys to reestablishing the pillars of civilization. This work is applied to develop university textbooks supporting Education for the general public, returning many “secrets” to the people as the collective heritage of humanity.

All research is required to be of institutional scholarly quality and solid academic caliber, with much emphasis on source references of evidence disproving propaganda and proving the Truth of factual knowledge. Qualified textbooks will be published by cooperating university institutions, with open public distribution.

Historical Preservation of Sacred World Heritage

Saint Theodosius and Saint Anthony with a sacred book, unknown artist

The Order Rule mandates that the ancient sacred knowledge and wisdom, and historical knowledge of the pillars of civilization, must be preserved by the Order as an institution: Such history of world heritage must be “guarded purely and durably” (Rule 2), “must not be forgotten, and… must be guarded firmly” (Rule 8) [48].

In Praise of the New Knighthood (ca. 1136 AD), emphasized the importance of restoring and preserving cultural heritage as an essential part of God’s plan for humanity: “Once [the evildoers] have been cast out, he shall return to his heritage and to his house, which aroused his [righteous] anger… ‘I have left my house, I have forsaken my heritage,’ and he will fulfill that other prophecy: ‘The Lord has ransomed his people and delivered them.  They shall come… and rejoice in the good things of the Lord.”  (Chapter 3) [49]

The 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey de Vinsauf, attributed with documenting many details of history, explained the profound importance of historical preservation, especially through academic writings and fine arts:

“It sometimes happens that exploits, however well known and splendidly achieved, come, by length of time, to be less known to fame, or even forgotten among posterity. In this manner, the renown of many kings has faded… much celebrated in their times, when… unanimous applause set them up as models before the people.”

“The ancient Greeks, aware of this, were wise enough to use the pen as a remedy against oblivion, and zealously stimulated their writers, whom they termed historiographers, to compile histories of noble deeds. Thus, the silence of the living voice was supplied by the voice of writing, so that the virtues of men might not die with them.”

“The Romans, emulating the Greeks, with the view of perpetuating merit, not only employed the service of the pen, but also added sculpture: and thus by exhibiting the ancients they excited their descendants, and impressed the love of virtue the more strongly on the minds of its imitators”. [50]

The modern Order continues this essential mission of Historical Preservation. Recovering and restoring areas of “lost history” is not about studying things from the past for mere interest – It is about preserving and applying the time-tested solutions to the problems of the modern world in the present.

The real essence of the legendary “Treasure” is historical documents of the Ancient Priesthood, which the founding Knights discovered “during their excavations of the Temple” of Solomon [51]. The true “Treasure” was, in fact, centuries-old knowledge of ancient sacred wisdom, from the most prosperous civilization-building times in human history [52].

Carrying this Knight tradition forward, the modern Order continually develops in partnership with cooperating universities. This work involves collecting rare, out-of-print, and often antique books, selected as the best of historical, spiritual, and religious resources available. Together with its newly restored or translated historical works, these are organized into digitized text-searchable editions for use in research and education.

Archaeology Site Surveys & Analysis – The Order itself was originally founded as a mission of the Cistercian Order, specifically to recover ancient scriptures “buried beneath” the Temple of Solomon, which were already considered to be “hidden treasure” [53]. The Order was established by the resulting “covert project beneath the Temple of Solomon” [54] [55], where the founding Knights conducted archaeological excavation of the site for a full nine years [56].

Since Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt in 1798 AD, over 200 years of archaeology have already discovered a multitude of revealing sites and artifacts, extensively documented in scientific journals and well preserved in national museums. However, the vast majority of discoveries could not be properly processed and analyzed collectively in context.

Therefore, modern archaeology is not about making new “discoveries” of sites and artifacts through excavations. Rather, what is of great necessity is actually “Site Surveys”, revisiting already public sites, and “next level” scholarly research and analysis (taking past research to new levels), in the context of other sites and museum artifacts.

Continuing this tradition, the modern Order conducts Archaeology missions of site surveys and analysis, for a comprehensive reconstruction of the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon and the Truth of the pillars of civilization. This continues to unveil many new “discoveries” of practical knowledge, which strengthen the foundations and depth of substance of the Teutonic Order and many restored historical institutions that it supports.

Non-Profit Fundraising for Humanitarian Missions

“St. Peter Preaching in the Presence of St. Mark” (ca. 1433 AD) by Fra Angelico, from the Linaioli Tabernacle.

The famous historical wealth and assets of the Templar Order before the French persecution of 1307 AD were seized and redistributed to other Orders of Chivalry by the Vatican Papal Bull Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD [57]. Any remaining assets surviving through dynastic Templar families were systematically seized by modern governments through inheritance taxes. The modern Order was thus restored in the same financial position as the original founding Knights in 1118 AD.

It is thus entirely authentic and traditional for the modern Order to also be engaged in non-profit fundraising, after its already costly Teutonic Restoration and first public reemergence in over 700 years.

The Temple Rule encourages Knights to “receive things for charity” (Rule 13), allows working equipment to “be given to [them] in charity” (Rule 52), permits donations to be disbursed “in charity” for costs of work on missions (Rule 58), and commands knights to actively facilitate “all offerings and all forms of alms” to the Order as much as possible (Rule 64) [59].

Therefore, this original historical mission of Non-Profit Fundraising remains a necessary priority for the modern Order to support all other Templar humanitarian missions. All Knights are thus required to continually and actively promote and facilitate non-profit fundraising.

In many cases, the Order does not raise funds for itself but rather arranges donations and grants to independent third-party non-profit institutions, for humanitarian projects which it supports.

Suggested Related Topics

-Learn about the Real Enemies of the Order that which Knights oppose.

-Learn about Sacred Activism as Teutonic Knights' Faith in Action.

Academic Source References

[1] Hugh Chisholm, “Fitzwalter, Robert” in Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), 11th Edition, Cambridge University Press, p.449.

[2] Frank Sanello, The Knights Templars: God’s Warriors, the Devil’s Bankers, Taylor Trade Publishing, Oxford (2005), pp.5-6, 7.

[3] Piers Paul Read, The Templars (1999), Phoenix Press, London (2001), pp.91-92.

[4] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rule 121.

[5] Judith M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge, The Boydell Press (1992); Dissertation for Master of Philosophy at Reading University; Including Hierarchical Rules, pp.1-2.

[6] Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, Liber ad Milites Templi de Laude Novae Militiae, Documented in: J. Leclercq (Editor), Sancti Bernardi Opera, Rome (1963), Volume 3, Section 5, pp.217-218; English translation in: C. Greenia, Cistercian Fathers Series, Michigan (1977), No.19.

[7] Judith M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge, The Boydell Press (1992); Dissertation for Master of Philosophy at Reading University; Including Hierarchical Rules, p.6.

[8] Emile Leon Gautier, La Chevalerie (1883); Translated in: Henry Frith, Chivalry, George Routledge & Sons, London (1891), Chapter II, Commandment II.

[9] Frank Sanello, The Knights Templars: God’s Warriors, the Devil’s Bankers, Taylor Trade Publishing, Oxford (2005), p.38.

[10] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 2, “Their Marvellous Growth”, pp.493-494.

[11] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Jerusalem”, p.363.

[12] Frank Sanello, The Knights Templars: God’s Warriors, the Devil’s Bankers, Taylor Trade Publishing, Oxford (2003), p.79.

[13] Rebecca Wallace, International Law: A Student Introduction, 2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (1986).

[14] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 3.

[15] Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), Preamble; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), Preamble; New York Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States (2004), Preamble: ¶5:  All recognizing the “status of diplomatic agents” from all forms of nation states “since ancient times”, including historical sovereign entities of “differing constitutional and social systems”.

[16] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Articles 3, 38:  Status as a sovereign “subject of international law” is binding upon all countries regardless of recognition; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), Article 47.1; New York Charter of Economic Rights of States (1974), Preamble: ¶3, ¶7, Article 4: Countries “shall not discriminate” against a historical form of nation state.

[17] Anonymous, Quote: “Definition of a Diplomat…”, First known reference: Saint Louis Star-Times, Missouri (27 November 1937), p.10, Column 1; Later popularized by: Caskie Stinnett, Out of the Red, Random House, New York (1960), p.43; Confirmed by: Bergen Evans (Editor), Dictionary of Quotations, Delacorte Press, New York (1968), “Diplomacy”, p.171.

[18] Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press (2018), “Diplomacy”.

[19] Merriam Webster Dictionary, Springfield, Massachusetts (2018), “Geopolitics”.

[20] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rule 41.

[21] Old Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Psalm 115:1.

[22] New Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Matthew 6:1-4.

[23] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 1, 9.

[24] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rule 37.

[25] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 2, 47, 57, 59.

[26] Paul Brand, Henry II and the Creation of the English Common Law, in Christopher Harper-Bill & Nicholas Vincent, Henry II: New Interpretations, Woodbridge UK, Boydell Press (2007), p.216.

[27] Hugh Chisholm, “Fitzwalter, Robert” in Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), 11th Edition, Cambridge University Press, p.449.

[28] Lord Judge Master of the Temple, The Greatest Knight, in The Inner Temple Yearbook: 2013-2014, Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, pp.14-15.

[29] T.F. Tout, “Fitzwalter, Robert” in Leslie Stephen, Dictionary of National Biography (1889), London, Smith Elder & Co., p.226.

[30] Gabriel Ronay, The Tartar Khan’s Englishman, London, Cassell (1978), pp.38-40.

[31] T.F. Tout, “Fitzwalter, Robert” in Leslie Stephen, Dictionary of National Biography (1889), London, Smith Elder & Co., p.226.

[32] Danny Danziger & John Gillingham, 1215: The Year of Magna Carta, Hodder & Stoughton (2003), p.271.

[33] Lord Judge Master of the Temple, The Greatest Knight, in The Inner Temple Yearbook: 2013-2014, Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, pp.12-15.

[34] John Baker, Inner Temple History, Inner Temple (2009), Introduction, Part 1.

[35] James Campbell, The Map of Early Modern London: Chancery Lane, University of Victoria (2009).

[36] Watt, Dunbar & Benham, The Story of the Inns of Court, Boston, Houghton Mifflin (1928), p.133.

[37] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 2, 19, 29, 47, 59.

[38] New Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Matthew 25:34-45.

[39] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 1, 2, 9, 37.

[40] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 54, 315, 379, 55, 151.

[41] Oxford University, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, The American University in Cairo Press, Cairo (2001), “Animal Cults”, p.345.

[42] Old Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Ecclesiastes 3:11, 3:19-20.

[43] The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Psalm 36:6, Luke 3:6.

[44] Old Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Numbers 22:23-33.

[45] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 1, 6, 9, 279.

[46] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum “Every Good Gift” (29 March 1139); Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.59-64.

[47] Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, Liber ad Milites Templi: De Laude Novae Militae, “Speech on Knights of the Temple: In Praise of the New Knighthood” (ca. 1136 AD); Translated in: Conrad Greenia, Bernard of Clairvaux: Treatises Three, Cistercian Fathers Series, No. 13, Cistercian Publications (1977), pp.127-145, “Prologue”.

[48] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 2, 8.

[49] Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, Liber ad Milites Templi: De Laude Novae Militae, “Speech on Knights of the Temple: In Praise of the New Knighthood” (ca. 1136 AD); Translated in:  Conrad Greenia, Bernard of Clairvaux: Treatises Three, Cistercian Fathers Series, No. 13, Cistercian Publications (1977), pp.127-145, “Chapter 3”.

[50] Geoffrey de Vinsauf, Itinerary of Richard I and Others to the Holy Land (ca. 1191 AD); Published in: Lord John de Joinville (Editor), Chronicles of the Crusades: Contemporary Narratives of the Crusade of Richard Coeur de Lion, Henry G. Bohn, London (1848), Part 2, “Prologue”, p.67.

[51] Alan Butler & Stephen Dafoe, The Warriors and Bankers, Lewis Masonic, Surrey, England (2006), p.20.

[52] French author (unidentified), De la Maçonnerie Parmi Les Chretiens (“On Masonry Among Christians”), Germany (ca. 1750 AD), quoting the 12th century Italian Abbot Joachim of Flora (Calabria), a friend of Richard the Lionheart, in: Frank Sanello, The Knights Templars: God’s Warriors, the Devil’s Bankers, Taylor Trade Publishing, Oxford (2003), p.223.

[53] Michael Lamy, Les Templiers: Ces Grand Seigneurs aux Blancs Manteaux, Auberon (1994), Bordeaux (1997), p.28.

[54] Keith Laidler, The Head of God: The Lost Treasure of the Templars, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1998), p.177.

[55] Piers Paul Read, The Templars: The Dramatic History of the Knights Templar, the Most Powerful Military Order of the Crusades, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1999), Phoenix Press, London (2001), Orion Publishing Group, London (2012), p.305.

[56] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.2.

[57] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).

[58] Charles G. Addison, The History of the Knights Templar (1842), pp.4-5, citing a Vatican document by the 13th century Pope Urban IV (Jacques Pantaleon, 1195-1264), the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, as “Pantaleon, lib. iii. p. 82.”

[59] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 13, 52, 58, 64.

[60] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum, “Every Good Gift” (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.8, 59-64.

[61] Pope Celestine II, Milites Templi, “Knights of the Temple” (5 January 1144), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.8, 64-65.

© Copyright Held 1806 to 2025 - All Rights Reserved. Protected by the United States of America, European Union, and International Copyright Laws.