CathInfo.com

I would suggest reading Fr Cuthbert- Butler's History of The Vatican Council for an understanding of Papal Infallibility.  :ready-to-eat:

After having read only the first of the above Bulls, the idea that there is nothing in them referring to Faith & Morals is as absurd as can be imagined. Every page REEKS of heresy, blasphemy and other things the Pope cannot bring himself to even describe specifically.

So far the Pope is full of praise for Philip. Among other comments, the King is described as Not being motivated by greed.

I cannot thank AC enough for posting these docuмents.

I hope the Forum is printing out copies of these Bulls before they are removed from the net.  :ready-to-eat:

In these docuмents they neither discuss or define any specific moral or dogma. Rather the docuмents specifically discuss they guiltiness of the Templars or the distribution of the Templars property in order to recover the recently lost Holy Land.


Papal Infallibility only applies when teaching about specific morals or dogma. Not to mention one of the docuмents speaks about having doubts about the circuмstances upon which the confessions were obtained.

If there is anything a pope may speak fallibly about, it's his personal view of a human being. While I don't see any evidence towards Phillip conspired with the Pope at the time of his election, I do see evidence towards Phillip having Clement elected for his rather mellow personality. Many descriptions of Clement entail his aversions to conflict and his generally mellow personality. Phillip needed a mellow pope for his plans regarding his French empire. Also it was only after Phillip was being accused of motivation by greed that he dropped his claims on the confiscated Templar property. One can also see Phillips support waning after the Council of Vienne ruled in favor of legal defense for the Templars, and accusations of greed coming against him. He renounces his claims and then ceases all of his direct intervention, which was the only testimony towards his "zeal". Little inconsistencies and lack tangible evidence not retrieved from medieval torture, might give one serious misgivings about the Templars trial. Without the umbrella of Papal Infallibility the whole ordeal has a very weak foundation and since no definitive answer has emerged regarding whether whether the Bulls actually deal in morals, we must leave the silent readers to draw their own conclusions.


Another quick observation before I jump off the soapbox, notice how desperate things become regarding the Holy Land after the suppression of the order. If the Bulls are to prove anything in that regard it's that the Templars were the only thing standing between Islam and the Holy Land, regardless of the accusations being true or not.