The best book available in my opinion on the disgracefully everlasting stain that was the unjust trial of the glorious and Holy Knights of Christ, The Knights Templar.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/trial-of-the-templars/3CEF95FD22DD129F4B4BFE3A6D5074D8

A highly recommended read on the topic for anyone interested.

In the first year of the pontificate of Clement V the French king began to demand from the pope the suppression of this ecclesiastical order and to set afoot a campaign of violence and calumny such as had so far succeeded in the case of Boniface VIII. If the pope, as was naturally to be feared, refused finally to yield in the matter of the process against his predecessor's memory, he would surely be glad to buy relief with the sacrifice of the Templars. Owing to the weakness and irresolution of Pope Clement, the royal plan succeeded. After an unsuccessful attempt of the pope (in August, 1307) to unite the Templars and the Hospitallers, he yielded to the demands of King Philip and ordered an investigation of the order, against which the king brought charges of heresy (renunciation of Christ, immorality, idolatry, contempt of the Mass, denial of the sacraments, etc.). Philip, however, did not wait for the ordinary operation of the Inquisition, but, with the aid of his confessor, Guillaume de Paris (the inquisitor of France), and his clever, unscrupulous jurists (Nogaret, de Plaisians, Enguerrand de Marigny) struck suddenly at the whole order, 12 October, 1307, by the αrrєѕт at Paris of Jacques de Molay, the Grand Commander, and one hundred and forty knights, followed by the inquisitor's mandate to αrrєѕт all other members throughout France, and by royal sequestration of the property of the order. Public opinion was cunningly and successfully forestalled by the aforesaid jurists. It was also falsely made to appear that the pope approved, or was consentingly aware, of the royal action, while the co-operation of French inquisitors and bishops put the seal of ecclesiastical approval on an act that was certainly so far one of gross injustice.[/color][/size]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]While Philip invited the other princes of Europe to follow his example, Clement V protested (27 October) against the royal usurpation of the papalauthority, demanded the transfer to his own custody of the prisoners and their property, and suspended the inquisitional authority of the king's ecclesiastic and the French bishops. Philip made an apparent submission, but in the meantime Clement had issued another Bull (22 November) commanding an investigation of the anti-Templar charges in all European countries. (It may be said at once that the results were generally favourable to the order; nowhere, given the lack of torture, were confessions obtrained like those secured in France.) The feeble efforts of Clement to obtain for the order strict canonical justice (he was himself an excellent canonist) were counteracted by the new Bull that dignified and seemed to confirm the charges of the French king, neither then nor later supported by any material evidence or docuмents outside of his own suborned witnesses and the confessions of the prisoners, obtained by torture or by other dubious methods of their jailers, none of whom dared resist the well-known will of Philip. The alleged secret Rule of the Templars, authorizing the aforesaid charges, was never produced. In the meantime William Nogaret had been busy defaming Pope Clement, threatening him with charges not unlike those pending against Boniface VIII, and working up successfully an anti-Templar public opinion against the next meeting (May, 1308) of the States-General. In July of that year it was agreed between the pope and the king that the guilt or innocence of the order itself should be separated from that of its individual (French) members. The former was reserved to a general council, soon to be convoked at Vienne in Southern France, and to prepare evidence for which, apart from the examinations now going on through Europe, and a hearing before the pope of seventy-two members of the order brought from the prisons of Philip (all of whom confessed themselves guilty of heresy and prayed for absolution), there were appointed various special commissions, the most important of which began its sessions at Paris in August, 1309. Its members, acting in the name and with the authority of the pope, were opposed to the use of torture, hence before them hundreds of knights maintained freely the innocence of the order, while many of those who had formerly yielded to the diocesan inquisitors now retracted their avowals as contrary to truth. When Nogaretand de Plaisians saw the probable outcome of the hearings before the papal commissions, they precipitated matters, caused the Archbishop of Sens (brother of Enguerrand de Marigny) to call a provincial council (Sens was then metropolitan of Paris and seat of the local inquisition tribunal), at which were condemned, as relapsed heretics, fifty-four knights who had recently withdrawn before the papal commissioners their former confessions on the plea that they had been given under torture and were quite false. That same day (12 May, 1310), all these knights were publicly burned at Paris outside the Porte St. Antoine. To the end all protested their innocence.[/color][/size]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]There could no longer be any question of liberty of defence; the papal commission at Parissuspended its sessions for six months, and when it met again found before it only knights who had confessed the crimes they were charged with and had been reconciled by the local inquisitors. The fate of the Templars was finally sealed at the Council of Vienne (opened 16 October, 1311). The majority of its three hundred members were opposed to the abolition of the order, believingthe alleged crimes unproven, but the king was urgent, appeared in person at the council, and finally obtained from Clement V the practical execution of his will. At the second session of the council, in presence of the king and his three sons, was read the Bull "Vox in excelsis", dated22 March, 1312, in which the pope said that though he had no sufficient reasons for a formal condemnation of the order, nevertheless, because of the common weal, the hatred borne them by the King of France, the scandalous nature of their trial, and the probable dilapidation of the order's property in every Christian land, he suppressed it by virtue of his sovereign power, and not by any definitive sentence. By another Bull of 2 May he vested in the Hospitallers the title to the propertyof the suppressed order. In one way or another, however, Philip managed to become the chief legatee of its great wealth in France. As to the Templars themselves, those who continued to maintain their confessions were set free; those who withdrew them were considered relapsed heretics and were dealt with as such by the tribunals of the Inquisition. It was only in 1314 that the Grand Master, Jacques de Molay and Geoffroy de Charnay, Grand Preceptor of Normandy, reserved to the judgment of the pope, were condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Thereupon they proclaimed the falsity of their confessions, and accused themselves of cowardice in betraying their order to save their lives. They were at once declared relapsed heretics, turned over to the secular arm by the ecclesiasticalauthority, and were burned that same day (18 March, 1314). Of Pope Clement it may be said that the few measures of equity that appear in the course of this great crime were owing to him; unfortunately his sense of justice and his respect for the law were counterbalanced by a weak and vacillating character, to which perhaps his feeble and uncertain health contributed. Some think he was convinced of the Templars' guilt, especially after so many of the chief members had admitted it to himself; they explain thus his recommendation of the use of torture, also his toleration of the king's suppression of all proper liberty of defence on the part of the accused. Others believe that he feared for himself the fate of Boniface VIII, whose cruel enemy, William Nogaret, still lived, attorney-general of Philip, skilled in legal violence, and emboldened by a long career of successful infamy. His strongest motive was, in all probability, anxiety to save the memory of Boniface VIII from the injustice of a formal condemnation which the malice of Nogaretand the cold vindictiveness of Philip would have insisted on, had not the rich prey of the Temple been thrown to them; to stand for both with Apostolic courage might have meant intolerable consequences, not only personal indignities, but in the end the graver evil of schism under conditions peculiarly unfavourable for the papacy.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04020a.htm

You are full of it....10 Infallible Bulls of Il Papa Clement V CONDEMNING9( not just surpressing)  K TEMPLAR have NEVER BEEN REPEALED. I think I'll believe the Magisterium of Holy Church & Philip Le Bel b4 " Louis Bernard"....

Your calumny has been disproved long ago. Philip the “fair” was a wicked man and Clement V a weak Pope who was but a puppet and a disgrace to the memory of Boniface VIII who was murdered by a corrupt Monarch and his barbaric henchmen.

Philip didn't murder Boniface... If anything, the anti-pope(?) Boniface killed  Il Papa Saint Celestine V by throwing him in Gaol..

Anti-Pope? Another Richard Ibranyi. 
Also you are historically illiterate, either purposefully or by way of ignorance.
More than likely, you are trolling. God Bless.

This is also an excellent historical resource:  


https://angeluspress.org/products/templars-knights-christ

A history of the Papal commissions regarding the Knights Templar from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) for those interested:

The pope, irresolute and harrassed, finally adopted a middle course: he decreed the dissolution, not the condemnation of the order, and not by penal sentence, but by an Apostolic Decree (Bull of 22 March, 1312). The order having been suppressed, the pope himself was to decide as to the fate of its members and the disposal of its possessions. As to the property, it was turned over to the rival Order of Hospitallers to be applied to its original use, namely the defence of the Holy Places. In Portugal, however, and in Aragon the possessions were vested in two new orders, the Order of Christ in Portugal and the Order of Montesa in Aragon. As to the members, the Templars recognized guiltless were allowed either to join another military order or to return to the secular state. In the latter case, a pension for life, charged to the possessions of the order, was granted them. On the other hand, the Templars who had pleaded guilty before their bishops were to be treated "according to the rigours of justice, tempered by a generous mercy".  The pope reserved to his own judgment the cause of the grand master and his three first dignitaries. They had confessed their guilt; it remained to reconcile them with the Church, after they had testified to their repentance with the customary solemnity. To give this solemnity more publicity, a platform was erected in front of the Notre-Dame for the reading of the sentence. But at the supreme moment the grand master recovered his courage and proclaimed the innocence of the Templars and the falsity of his own alleged confessions. To atone for this deplorable moment of weakness, he declared himself ready to sacrifice his life. He knew the fate that awaited him. Immediately after this unexpected coup-de-théâtre he was arrested as a relapsed heretic with another dignitary who chose to share his fate, and by order of Philip they were burned at the stake before the gates of the palace. This brave death deeply impressed the people, and, as it happened that the pope and the king died shortly afterwards, the legend spread that the grand master in the midst of the flames had summoned them both to appear in the course of the year before the tribunal of God.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm

How are these bulls infallible?  They are disciplinary.  Your ideas of infallibility are laughable.  And then on the other hand you claim Boniface as an antipope, something that is infallible, that is who the popes are... So you throw out Unam Sanctum?  You just make it up as you go I guess...
The Jesuit order was suppressed for all "eternity" then 100 years later there were reestablished, so according to you one of those popes would be an antipope too.  
The evidence that Clement was just a puppet is overwhelming do your research. Many other popes were just as bad using the papacy as a political weapon in the European state of affairs.  
The reason why you HAVE to convince yourself that Clement was just and good is because of your false notion of papal infallbility brought on by your brand of Sedevacantism.  
The idiocy displayed here is laughable.  

My understanding after reading Fr Cuthbert's History Of The Vatican Council is that there are basically 3 levels of Infallibility. 1-- A Church Council ( Nicea, Tnent, Vatican etc) enacts Canon Law & then The Pope gives it his Placet. 2-- A Papal Bull. 3-- A Papal Encyclical. He says nothing that I can recall about anything 'Discplinary".
I predict that someday Boniface( protector of condemned Templars) & Leo will be determined to be anti-popes.
Unam Sanctum was really nothing new as Innocent III & other popes had basically proclaimed the same. It is Boniface who is after political manipulation....