Accuracy of a Knights Templar Summary

[Philip G.]

If you listen from minute 9 to minute 15, the video discusses the knights templar and how they compare to modern day banking and modern warfare/military industrial complex.  I am not a supporter of the knights templar, so this is not hard for me to digest.  But, one still needs to be careful separating truth from fiction.  So, I ask you to listen to this, and if you are familiar with the history of this, comment as to how accurate you find the summary from minute 9 though 15. 

It is useful to listen to the first nine minutes, but it has some lofty claims that I do not admit to ascribe to.  It discusses church history in a way catholics may not find so tasteful.  That doesn't mean it is not true.  I really cannot say.  But, I can say that it is not for the thin skinned.

[Optatus]

Since I'm not all that certain about the Templars outside of Iberia, my response is going to be focused on the activities of the Order within the peninsula's borders.

First I will say immediately that, in Iberia, the wealth of the Templars had less to do with banking and usury and more to do with the patronage extended to them by monarchs and nobility, as well as wealthy confratres of the Order.

For instance, the first property given to the Templars was Castle Soure (Coimbra, Portugal) by Teresa, Countess of Portugal, in 1128. It is worth mentioning that Teresa's son, Afonso Henreiques (the first king of Portugal) was, a confrater of the Order. More about these later.

Donation of landed properties by monarchs and nobility was not abnormal. The second documented property that the Templars obtained was Castle Granyera in the County of Barcelona, which was given to them by Count Berenguer Ramon III. In 1135, Garcia Ramirez, King of Navarre, granted the Order joint ownership (with the Hospitallers) of the castle and nearby village of Novillas, over which the Templars subsequently gained sole ownership by granting the Hospitallers the village of Mallen in Aragon. To create an exhaustive list of the properties granted to the Templars would be a monumental task and the list would probably run into the thousands.

But I will mention probably the most outrageous of these donations. When Alfonso the Battler, king of Aragon and Pamplona died, he did so without heir and left quite literally both kingdoms entire to the Templars, Hospitallers, and Order of the Holy Sepulchre. They never obtained the property granted to them because the Aragonese and Navarrese nobility intervened, in strict violation of Alfonso's will, but it's still worth mentioning if only to illustrate just how enormous the royal favour towards the miltary orders often was and just how ludicrously wealthy they could become as a result of it.

I also want to come back to the aforementioned confratres because they are also an important factor in the wealth of the Templars. Confratres of the Order across Iberia were numerous. We know because we have surviving contracts of confraternity and lists of them in the hundreds if not thousands. We also have documents in which the confrater or some other patron bequeaths property to the Order. Sometimes these are horses, arms, money and even things like dresses and jewellery from woman patrons, but the overwhelming majority are grants of land (admittedly far more modest than the entirety of Aragon and Navarre).

So the question one asks is why did the Order, who didn't have a particularly strong presence in Iberia in the early to mid-12th century, gain so much favour from wealthy patrons? One explanation is, quite simply, the piety of the patrons. Another, and here there are hints from the locations of the landed properties donated to the Order, is that the patrons were trying to populate the frontier with the Moors and with other Christian kingdoms with fortifications garrisoned by the Order, thus absolving themselves and their heirs of the costly responsibility of doing so. My view is that both explanations are probably true.

Either way, what is certain is that through this patronage the Templars became enormously wealthy (and not just the Templars, by the way, but many of the military orders). It is a far cry from the rather cynical image that the author of your video paints, but this is not to suggest that there weren't abuses from which the Templars profited. I also don't buy into the now-famous accusations of occult practices, personally.

[Philip G.]

Optatus - one of the claims from the video was that the existence and aid of the templars opened up wider trade to much more profitability as a result of the bank notes and military might facilitating it.  Today with globalism and nearly all world leaders seeming hell bent in favor of such(global trade) to the severe detriment of even their own countrymen, I would not find it hard to believe that the kings of the middle ages/renaissance would favor the same ideological development, which certainly doesn't stem from the peasantry.

I do believe that there have been many good christian kings, and that a king is called to be such.  But, I have never been a supporter of the concept of a holy roman emperor.  So, regarding charlemagne(first nine minutes), this video does not offend me.  The video talks about basically how there was a regal/noble conspiracy(rex deus)(blood family ties to St. Bernard and his cousins who founded the templars)(lofty claim) birthed by charlemagne(holy roman emperor) to bring in sum, globalism about in christendom.  And, I can say globalism as an end because the means are arguably the same(surplus fiat currency employed in usurious loans married to military expansion/might in the name of "judeo-christian" civilization). 

You said "Sometimes these are horses, arms, money and even things like dresses and jewelry from woman patrons, but the overwhelming majority are grants of land (admittedly far more modest than the entirety of Aragon and Navarre)."  Is it possible that in return for these donations, these so called templar "bank notes" presented in the video came into play, and were given in return to these patrons, for their future use in their NWO?  Meaning, there was an incentive for all of these donations.

As far as St. Bernard's involvement goes, I am not favorable to the centralization that occurred in monasticism in general in that age.  And, it was no different for Cluny either.  They just made use of different sides of the same coin.  One was subject to one monastery.  The other was subject to a council of abbots.  Neither are my cup of tea.  So, I do not find it difficult to believe that St. Bernard is not without fault, despite his glowing reputation.

[Optatus]

You said "Sometimes these are horses, arms, money and even things like dresses and jewelry from woman patrons, but the overwhelming majority are grants of land (admittedly far more modest than the entirety of Aragon and Navarre)."  Is it possible that in return for these donations, these so called templar "bank notes" presented in the video came into play, and were given in return to these patrons, for their future use in their NWO?  Meaning, there was an incentive for all of these donations.

I would say that it is possible but that there's not much in the way of actual evidence for it.

In Iberia, Templar houses were basically used as places of deposit, and this wasn't a service exclusive to their patrons but was used seemingly by just about everyone: humble laymen, knights, clerics, monarchs - you name it. We know, moreover, that coin wasn't the only thing that could be deposited, but goods, animals, and even prisoners could be left there for safekeeping on a temporary basis. In this respect, Templar houses were less like banks and more like temporary treasuries.

There also is evidence that coin deposited in one Templar house could be withdrawn at another, obviating the need and danger of actually transporting coin. Here is where bank notes or vouchers might come in to play, as obviously a person who had deposited money at one Templar house would need some kind of proof of deposit in order to withdraw the money at another. This, I would say, is not a negative development but a positive one that assisted in eliminating things like banditry.

It is also true that the Templars did loan money. The single-biggest clients in the Christian kingdoms of Iberia were invariably the monarchs. The debt incurred by the loan was usually paid by assigning a measure of the revenues from the debtor's landholdings to the Order for a set period of time, and in the case of loans to the monarch, the revenues that the king taxed from the Order's land itself were basically redirected to the Templars in order to pay the debt.

There is also the issue of interest. The flat rate commonly charged by the Order in Iberia was 10% per annum, but there is surprisingly little documented evidence (usually from charters) that this was a normal practice. It seems to have happened, based on the historical record, only when the Order was acting as an intermediary between some other creditor and the monarch, usually to recoup the Order's own losses from the interest paid on sums borrowed by the monarch.

I couldn't help but notice that you mention the NWO. I may be misunderstanding you, but I would suggest being very skeptical of claims that the Templars laid the foundation for the NWO, the Illuminati, Masonry, etc. Certain people, like the Masons, have a vested interest in making their ridiculous fraternity seem far more ancient and illustrious than it actually is. There is a lot of pop history nonsense out there about the Templars that has served to muddy the waters of any historical analysis of them.

[mikemac]

I kind of doubt that St. Bernard was a crypto Jew, but it is interesting what the Jewish encyclopedia says about him.

"In this letter he laid down the general lines of policy with regard to the Jews by which the Roman Catholic Church has since been guided; and his arguments are those generally given, though without his name, in more recent pronouncements."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3113-bernard-of-clairvaux

The page also claims that St. Bernard "vigorously opposed ... the introduction of the dogma of the immaculate conception."

Interesting topic.

[Philip G.]

Optatus - I am willing to say the word NWO because when focused, in my opinion, two of four leading characteristics of the NWO are Corporate rule(aka expanded trade) and the introduction and imposition of non state fiat money(aka templar bank notes/usury).  Both are leading contributors to the breakdown of the sovereign nation and rise of NWO.  On the other side you have two factors that I would regard more as the freemasonic characteristsics.  And, those are national leader(aka the gods in slave/god societies/rex deus?) who are not in place to serve the citizens interests, but to serve the interests of the eye atop the temple(antichrist).  I will leave the eye atop the temple veiled so as to leave some mystery.  But, those latter two are more recognizable as freemasonic.  The former may be better categorized as the judeo element in "judeo-freemasonic conspiracy.  And, it is the former that we are discussing in regards to what is identified here with the templars.  And, the means are the same.  If the means are the same, so can be the ends.  That is how objective christianity works.

I am aware how muddy the waters are regarding this subject.  And, that is why I only recommend minutes 9-15.  Because, it is in those that we at least discuss more objective matters.  I am not interested in contemplating whether St. Bernard was a blood-ties ancient jewish style infiltrator with a mind to set in motion all of this machinery.  I can object to objective matters regarding him, such as the concept of having warrior monks, or of centralizing world monasticism.  That is open season.  But, it is not open season for me to question his motives.   And, yes, masons want to lay an apron over everyone.  We do have to be careful when listening to secular historians.

The montes pietatis came about I think in the 13-14th century, which was the first sanctioned example of banking/licit usury if we may call it that in Christendom, while the templars preceded that for a couple hundred years.  However, those couple hundred years were very bad years for the papacy, romans, and therefore moral oversight(of templars).  These were times where scandalous roman famalies did in deed dominate the papacy.  You had the pornocracy of marovia and thodora, which I do not think too many dispute.  You had the illicit son of a pope become pope at the age of 20 years old.  If these these could happen to the papacy in Rome at this time, I do not find it unbelievable that monk-warriors could have been free to roam the empire imposing fiat usury by a sword/cross.  These were ugly times in many respects.  I am willing to extend that to the templars.  I really do not have a positive opinion of them.  As for the templars practicing the dark arts/the occult.  I do not really care to place emphasis on that.  It may likely not be true at all, and that doesn't do damage to why I think they can be criticized. 

[Philip G.]

Mikemac - I always found it interesting that it was the leading marian characters(whether saint or not) who happened to be the ones who opposed the dogma of the immaculate conception.  The dominicans, who were thoroughly marian, held out until the bitter end against it; and here you have St. Bernard, who (in)famously is portrayed as having breast milk from the Virgin shooting into his mouth decorating the walls of church(es) against it.  In case you are wondering, I am not a fan of nudity in catholic art.

[Philip G.]

This is an interesting take from the jewish encyclopedia mikemac linked.

"At the same time St. Bernard approves of the papal policy which declares that all usury on debts due by Crusaders shall lapse during their absence in the Holy Land."

What exactly does this mean?  Who would the crusaders be in debt to at this time?

[Optatus]

I am willing to extend that to the templars.  I really do not have a positive opinion of them.  As for the templars practicing the dark arts/the occult.  I do not really care to place emphasis on that.  It may likely not be true at all, and that doesn't do damage to why I think they can be criticized.

I'm willing to bet that there were abuses but I really have to object to the sort of nefarious reputation that the Templars have been given.

One of the things I always suggest to people is that they look at what actually happened to the Order after it was seemingly exterminated by Philippe IV. King Dinis of Portugal made his kingdom a safe haven for the Templars. The surviving members then, in large numbers, arrived in Portugal where the Templars were reconstituted as the Order of Christ in 1319.

Now, surely if the claims about Templar blasphemies, sodomy, Baphomet-worship, rapacious usury,  etc., were accurate, then we would necessarily find some hint of it in the Order of Christ. But the things is: we don't. No such allegations are to be found against the Order of Christ as they were against its predecessor.

I will grant you that the Order of Christ was important to the formation of the Portuguese Empire (Infante Henrique, or Henry the Navigator, was grandmaster of the Order, after all). But is imperialism a synonym for globalism? I don't know. Perhaps that is for you to say. If it is, then it seems that globalism is not an idea produced in the past century but goes back to antiquity. Were the Romans globalists? The Hellenes? The Punics? Where does one draw the line?

[Philip G.]

Optatus - We make full circle.  I said in an earlier post that I do not believe in the concept of holy roman emperor.  IMO state imperialism is not a church/state win win.  At best, it is a win lose(or vise versa).  At worst, it is a lose lose, which we now know well. 

Imperialism is the fixation of giants, who for our sake are not destroyed in a second deluge.  Scripture talks about how the giants came about, and it is relevant.  So, for the church to regard and pursue it as having win win potential is problematic.  That is my opinion.  As far as it relates to globalism, how else do we find ourselves surprised by current church/state affairs?  State imperialism is synonymous with globalism when Christians embrace the idea.  And, the idea is holy roman empire.  When that is established and distinguished, one can draw a line, objectively that is.  And, objectively because Christianity is a religion of faith and works. 

This doesn't take away from the fact that we are dealing with matters nearly a thousand years go hardly confirm-able.  According to the freemasons(my guess), there is no line one can draw.  They say it is rex deus established by charlemagne.  But, it doesn't end there.  They then say that they are further traced to family descendants of Judaism from the time of Christ.  All of this is impossible to confirm.  The relevant details that I think we can establish to a certain extent, is that St. Bernard was tied to very wealthy families who joined him in the construction of the templars.  I also believe that we can reasonably believe in the fiat bank notes, the interest usury lending from trade holdings, the trade expansion, and the wars that inevitably foment confusion and chaos.  Regarding these, nothing has changed.  These are identical to the means used today.  For these reasons, this is a worthy discussion in my opinion.   
 

[Optatus]

Optatus - We make full circle.  I said in an earlier post that I do not believe in the concept of holy roman emperor.  IMO state imperialism is not a church/state win win.  At best, it is a win lose(or vise versa).  At worst, it is a lose lose, which we now know well.

I think it can be, but it seems to be a thing that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I'm not especially knowledgeable about the HRE, but I think in the case of the Portuguese Empire the monarchy did a fairly good job at respecting and protecting the prerogatives of the Church. I think a good argument could be made for the same with Hapsburg Spain as well.

But I do think you're right insofar as imperialism of this sort belongs to a bygone era. The imperialism of today is a massive trap for the Church and seemingly leads invariably to the Church capitulating to secular whims. Jesuits in the US and their Americanism are fairly notorious for this from what I've read.

I'm not sure that I would agree with your equation of what we might call Catholic imperialism properly realised with globalism as we understand it today. One of the self-evident positives of the imperialism of Spain, Portugal, France, etc. is that these empires became vehicles for the spread of the Gospel, allowing the Church to fulfill Her mission. Is it globalist that the Church brought these far-flung former heathens under Her jurisdiction? Maybe. But if it is, can we then say that "globalism" is something multifaceted and not invariably terrible and wicked?

Don't get me wrong, I share, generally, your seeming revulsion towards globalism today. But this is a secularist, materialist, predatory variety that I'm not sure can equated to the imperialism of a previous age. Wars existed, sure, but they were largely fought against heathens and heretics like Calvinists, Mamluks, Anglicans, Almohads, Safavids, etc. Trade was surely expanded, but is there anything inherently wrong with opening up new markets?

[Philip G.]

Optatus - I apologize for not using the quote function to focus my replies and our conversation.  I just don't know how to do it successfully.

I think that I can best comment on trade expansion like this.  Why is it that local trade is the first victim of global trade?  It has gotten to the point where western civilization cannot fathom an economical existence void of money.  This statement is even more true when it comes to fiat currency.  There is a reason our society keeps plant seeds in a thing they like to call a bank.  Barter is the first victim of expansion, and barter trade is long gone.   

The templar system is far ahead of its time it seems.  While at the same time, it is plausible that only such would be potent enough to get such a mechanism in motion(globalism).  Because, at that time in Christendom, usury was still off limits, and fiat currency would be regarded as fantasy.  What does that leave us?  That leaves us conversion by the sword(war) and the enticement of trade(expansion).  Given a few hundred years of Charelemagne/HRE influence in Christendom, those are reliable vehicles for fiat currency and usury(meaning, Christians have embraced them sufficiently).  Similar to the montes pietatis, where "overhead" was the loophole to establish the right of "interest"; so "HRE expansion via pilgrimage protection" and "trade" provided the loophole to establish the right of other actions formerly off limits(the other two - fiat and usury). 

This is how I attempt to connect the dots, and indict as I do. 

As far as ecclesial benefits.  I happen to be one of those trads who traces our problems back further than the french revolution.  I go back about 700 years.  And, as can be seen, I try to entertain our problems all the way back to the institution of the office of holy roman emperor, all of which is quite difficult to do.  Similar to the parable of the wheat and the tares, the church only with difficulty can distinguish between the two before they are fully grown.  I think this parable is needed if contemplating such means and ends(imperialism vs church jurisdiction and Christendom vs globalism). 

A lesson can be learned though.  We can either rotate our crops, or we can fail our crops.  Weeds harbor pests.