Posted on 10/12/2007 5:00:39 PM PDT by Rennes Templar
You're joking, right? We're talking about the freaking CROSS here. It didn't originate with the Templars or the Swiss. It began at Calvary. And it became an emblem for medicine in an era when most nurses were nuns.
Congress should issue a condemnation to the Vatican for the Templar genocide committed in 1314.
For starters, they contributed many advances in engineering,architecture, banking and shipping.
I’m no expert, but I am fascinated by their mysterious history. “The History of the Knights Templars” by Charles Addison is a good primer.
“the bare bones truths are far more beautiful and believable”
Amen. The trick is finding them.
“They were a danger to Rome because they knew the truth - and revered the truth, not what was concocted hundreds of years after the Crucifixion”.
Bingo. This fact repudiates those who would exonerate the church.
What is your source?
I find no mention of any such documents, except on the ameteur web pages of counter-catholic apologists. I also find a book published in the 19th century by John McClintock. Even that book cites the Council only as a regional, and permits the use of the breviary (which McClintock probably didn’t realize includes the entire NT and Psalmistry), and even then for the purpose of suppressing the Albigensian heresy. The modern websites use the same lanugage as this book, as does yours, so I presume it is their source. Yet the words they put into the mouth of the Church are plainly those of McClintock, who uses such words as “Romish” in describing other canons of this council.
It seems there certainly were several such councils. The ones of 1109 and 1219 are, at the very least, far more famous. In 1229, the Dominican Inquisition was formed, which makes subsequent councils seem unlikely.
Some of the same sources cite a Council of Tarragona, shortly thereafter. There was a 6th century synod of Tarragona, but that is plainly not what you are referring to. I googled “COuncil of Tarragona” and “Romance language” and got only eight results, omitting duplicates.
The prime source for that seems to be Ellen Gould White. She claimed that the pope’s tiara was inscribed with “666.” I’ve seen the tiara. She also claimed that the pope’s title was Vicarius Filii Dei, and that added up to 666. The Pope has probably been referenced by 100 titles in official documents. That appears in no official documents. (The Pope is vicar of Christ in his human nature, Son of Man, not in his divine nature.)
I was especially referring to issues of faith.
“The idea that the laity shouldn’t have bibles is crap.”
It is, and this is an excellent example of the church’s need for control.The church was extremely theologically, and ergo secularly, threatened by the Templars.
No, I am referring specifically to the Swiss cross, which is an eight-way symmetrical cross, with arms equal to its height, comprising the five non-corner ninths of a 3 by 3 square, and is red set on a white background. Although presumably a highly stylized image of the crucifixion, it is abstracted to a degree that it has lost all elements of something apon which one could be crucified, including dimension, thickness and form.
The Red Cross society (now the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) chose its symbol in honor of Swiss founder Henry Durant, and became a symbol used for medicine in the Geneva Convention. It had been the Swiss symbol since 1289.
I think if you do some honest research, you'll find the cross was used long before Calvary
As an instrument of torture and death, not a symbol of mercy. No one would look to the cross for comfort before Jesus was crucified. It would be like taking solace in a noose or an electric chair.
“You’re joking, right? We’re talking about the freaking CROSS here. It didn’t originate with the Templars or the Swiss. It began at Calvary. And it became an emblem for medicine in an era when most nurses were nuns”
True, the concept began at Calvary, but I believe the Templars were the first order to use the red cross.
The esoteric meaning of the cross concept on Calvary is the Ruby Cross, the four points of which correspond to the attributes of sacrifice, selflessness, service and surrender, which the Knights exemplified.
The concept of the Calvary cross also indicates the nexus where spirit meets matter, the vertical bar being spirit and the horizontal representing matter. The center point is the point of divinity in man.
IMHO, the concept of the crucifix is an idea that runs counter to Christ’s teaching. Jesus was on the cross for 3 hours; the church has had him there 2000 years. His victory over death, not his death, was what I believe he wanted us to focus on.
These are concepts I believe the Templars knew and were a threat to the church.
I’m not one. What do they say re the Templars?
You’re especially an idiot then. Have a nice life.
Wow. You make a lot of presumption.
>> IMHO, the concept of the crucifix is an idea that runs counter to Christ’s teaching. Jesus was on the cross for 3 hours; the church has had him there 2000 years. His victory over death, not his death, was what I believe he wanted us to focus on. These are concepts I believe the Templars knew and were a threat to the church. <<
Then why were the Knights Templar conducting the tours to go visit Golgotha? Why did they adopt the cross as their emblem? Why did all the churches they helped establish have huge crosses hanging in them?
Consider that the pope regarded them as innocent of the crimes he had jurisdiction over, heresy, but noted that they were probably guilty of crimes he didn’t: spitting on the cross as a matter of ritual, sexual misconduct, etc. If the pope were slandering them by accusing them of misconduct, wouldn’t he have made public his slander, and downplayed is vindication? Wouldn’t he have slandered them about things in his purview? Instead, what we have is the pope fighting with Philip that the Knights were innocent of the crimes in his purview, even though he believed the Knights to be guilty of other severe crimes. The disbanding of the Knights was only sensible (and hardly a grave punishment!), since they no longer served their purpose, and, fairly or not, had become quite infamous.
Philip was a nasty man, including having committed horrid atrocities against the Knights Templar. But he hardly represented the Catholic Church, even having been ex-communicated. The action of the Catholic Church was to stand up to Philip and declare the innocence of the Knights. For this the Church is hated?
True, the Church “seized” the Knights’ money. But was this evil? Was not the money collected from pilgrims for the purpose of protecting the Holy Land? Were not the Knights sworn to poverty? If the Knights kept any money for any purpose other than for the Church, it’d be misappropriation of funds.
(And let’s not forget that the ex-communicated Philip had just finished having a pope murdered.)
Amen - and to follow what HE taught, what HE spent those years teaching - over and above what so many others, whose teaching are followed more, taught and were often in conflict with The Way. Jesus' teachings stand on their own. Beautiful. Simple. Profound and a direct connection...
Then why were the Knights Templar conducting the tours to go visit Golgotha? Why did they adopt the cross as their emblem?
Pope Eugenius, upon the Knights pettion for recognition, actually mandated the red cross so the Knights would be easily recognized as protectors of the pilgrims. Both that Pope and the original nine Knights understood the inner meaning of the cross.
“Why did all the churches they helped establish have huge crosses hanging in them.”
They couldn’t throw out he baby with the bathwater. The Cathedral at Chartres (one of their most famous) has many esoteric architectural creations that reflect their understanding of sacred geometry and the alchemy of the soul. Dunping the cross would not have been PC.
“If the pope were slandering them by accusing them of misconduct, wouldn’t he have made public his slander...”
The Knights were popular with he laity. Public slander not good politically.
Pope Clement was not an innocent bystander. He gladly complied with Philip.
“Was not the money collected from pilgrims for the purpose of protecting the Holy Land?”
The Knights wealth was derived from nobles donating land and castles to the order, much of which was used to build magnificent cathedrals whose creations were intended to elevate the masses out of the sack cloth consciousness of the Via Dolorosa, another concocted teaching of the church. They did not owe a dime to the church.
If they had made english the official language back then we wouldn’t be having this problem today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.