The Templars captured Jerusalem during the Crusades and were known as “keepers of the Holy Grail”, said to be the cup used at the Last Supper or as the receptacle used by Joseph of Arimathea to catch Christ’s blood as he bled on the Cross, or both.
No. The Crusaders captured Jerusalem as part of the Crusades and established the Latin Kingdoms, with several European kings dividing up the holy land. During the reign of the third ruler of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Baldwin II, in 1118...
Hugues de Payens, a knight of Champagne, and eight companions bound themselves by a perpetual vow, taken in the presence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to defend the Christian kingdom. Baldwin accepted their services and assigned them a portion of his palace, adjoining the temple of the city; hence their title "pauvres chevaliers du temple" (Poor Knights of the Temple). Poor indeed they were, being reduced to living on alms, and, so long as they were only nine, they were hardly prepared to render important services, unless it were as escorts to the pilgrims on their way from Jerusalem to the banks of the Jordan, then frequented as a place of devotion. (New Advent The Knights Templars).
So much for the Templars having "captured Jerusalem."
As to being "keepers of the Holy Grail," this stems from the legends surrounding the Templars and their rapid rise in power over their nearly 300 year history. They did set up their headquarters in the lee of Solomon's Temple (today's Temple Mount) in what were identified as King Solomon's stables. Their quarters extended deep into the Temple Mount and could easily have led them to discover buried relics, including such items as the Grail, the Arc of The Covenant, the Breastplate of Aaron, the True Cross or the burial shroud of Jesus. All of these have been identified as part of the Templar treasures. All of the legends could be true, if you believe that these relics were buried beneath the remains of Solomon's Temple.
I am particularly partial to the implied history of the burial shroud of Jesus and its possible link to the Templars. Assuming it is real, it would have likely first surfaced as a miraculous cloth within two or three years of the Crucifixion, which was known as the Mandillion (all pre-Templar). If it had lain in hiding beneath Solomon's Temple and the Templars discovered it and secreted it as one of their holy relics it would have then logically reemerged shortly after the suppression of the Templars, which it did. It was, in fact, passed on from a "former Templar's" family, to the Cathedral in Turin around 1357. One of the more interesting tidbits is that, if you take the shroud, fold along the creases that are there, it is "folded in eight,".or a tetradiplon. This is a possible reference to the Shroud long before it was "discoverd," and folding along those creases leaves only the face visible, the characteristic of the Mandillion (also the Edessa Cloth).
Of course, it is more likely that, if the Templars held the Shroud (real or not) it came to them as part of the sack of Byzantium (Constantinople) in 1205 and not from digging under Solomon's Temple. Digging under the Temple Mount is obviously where they found the Ark, the Grail and the Breastplate of Aaron (with the Jewels of Power, the Umin and the Thurmin, yes, I'm serious, that's what they were called). Some also say the found the Seal, the Staff and the Crown of Solomon, himself. Now those would be powerful artifacts.
Of course, without any need for faith or any belief in these relics (which I have), there is also the little tidbit that the Templars were incredibly wealthy and powerful, even beyond most governments, because they had invented banking and the idea of the bank draft. Made them the equivalent of trillions for their treasury! Mundane, but sufficient for a wretch like Philip,
A further bit of historical complication:
“The Papacy and the Kingdom of France conspired to destroy the Order for reasons which modern historians judge to be primarily political. Their methods and motives are now universally regarded as brutal, unfair and unjustified.
Another way of looking at it is that the King of France, Philip le Bel, and his chancellor, Guillaume de Nogart, siezed the Papacy by engineering the imprisonment and murder of Pope Boniface VIII, in 1303, replacing him with a more "compliant" French Pope, Clement V (Bertrand de Got), and moving the Papacy to Avignon, France in 1305.
The suppression of the Templars is not the fault of the Catholic Church, per se, but is the fault of France! (typical)
Of course, the Catholic Church would be guilty of a massive cover up for nearly seven centuries, to this very day. All in the name of "real politik." Nasty.
And of course, if the last bit about "conservative cardinals" preassuring the Pope to “stop saying sorry” for the errors of the past," to groups like the Muslim invaders of Christian lands, "the Inquisition," (mostly ferreting out Muslims, just after throwing them out of Spain after several hundred years of brutal suppression) and "Christian anti-Semitism and the persecution of scientists and 'heretics' such as Galileo" wouldn't it be ironic if the Church apologized to everybody but the one Holy Order that remained true to Christ and their vows, to the end, even when the Pope did not?
Damn the French, anyway.
"when the Pope did not?"
well, eventually St. Catherine of Sienna (doctor of the Church) set things to straight and convinced the papacy to return to Rome, and be more independent of the French.
"They did set up their headquarters in the lee of Solomon's Temple,"
This has been confusing me since the discussion of the Templars surfaced again recently. Wasn't Solomon's Temple destroyed in 70 AD? Was the Dome of the Rock built by the time of crusades, does anyone know when it was built? Thanks.