I find the old Catholic Encyclopedia’s account trustworthy (ie., God bless the Templar’s, and May they be restored through the Knights of Our Lady):

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

More here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/knights-templars!/

Correct me if I am wrong.  I read that the Knights of Templar were responsible to protect the Ark of the Covenant?  But there was found ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and they were hung? Is that right?

Consider yourself corrected.

Infallible Bulls of Pope Clement V re: condemnation of KTemplars

VOX IN EXCELSO
AD PROVIDAM
CONSIDERANTES
NUPER IN CONSILLO
LICET DUDEM
LICET PRIDEM
UNTITLED-- 22 MARCH 1312
--------------1 DEC 1312
-------------- 31 DEC 1312
-------------- 13 JAN 1313

:baby:

I find the old Catholic Encyclopedia’s account trustworthy (ie., God bless the Templar’s, and May they be restored through the Knights of Our Lady):

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

More here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/knights-templars!/

From the link above:

"This formidable trial, the greatest ever brought to light whether we consider the large number of accused, the difficulty of discovering the truth from a mass of suspicious and contradictory evidence, or the many jurisdictions in activity simultaneously in all parts of Christendom from Great Britain to Cyprus, is not yet ended. It is still passionately discussed by historians who have divided into two camps, for and against the order. To mention only the principal ones, the following find the order guilty: Dupuy (1654), Hammer (1820), Wilcke (1826), Michelet (1841), Loiseleur (1872), Prutz (1888), and Rastoul (1905); the following find it innocent: Father Lejeune (1789), Raynouard (1813), Havemann (1846), Ladvocat (1880), Schottmuller (1887), Gmelin (1893), Lea (1888), Fincke (1908). Without taking any side in this discussion, which is not yet exhausted, we may observe that the latest docuмents brought to light, particularly those which Fincke has recently extracted from the archives of the Kingdom of Aragon, tell more and more strongly in favour of the order."

Infallible Bulls of Pope Clement V are ' gibberish'?? WOW
Possibly the above poster no comprende Papal Infallibility

BTW SJ-- 10 Bulls of Pope Clement V have NEVER BEEN REPEALED.

Strange that St. Pius X had no problem with the CE article authored during his papacy, eh?

PS: Disciplinary proclamations are not infallible, any more than condemning eating meat on Friday could be "infallible."

An Infallible Bull is not a ' disciplinary proclamation' -- whatever that is..

If St Pius X thought that condemnation of Templars was in error, he would have repealed Bulls condemning them-- which he did not. :baby:

If St. Pius X thought the condemnation of the Templars was a doctrinal matter, he would not have allowed the publication of a CE article which tended to exonerate them.

Moreover, the scholarly community today more or less recognizes the political pressure which extorted those condemnations, which also exonerates them.

Finally, the recently discovered Chinon Parchment, found in the Vatican Archives after 700 years in 2001, absolves the Templars of Clement's charge of heresy...according to the words of Clement V himself.

Whoa....

Putting on the brakes a bit now...

The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia had provided content exonerating the Templars from various scandalous charges:

"The second disadvantage of this secrecy was, that it gave an opportunity to the enemies of the Templars, and they were numerous, to infer from this mystery every conceivable malicious supposition and base on it the monstrous imputations. The Templars were accused of spitting upon the Cross, of denying Christ, of permitting sodomy, of worshipping an idol, all in the most impenetrable secrecy. Such were the Middle Ages, when prejudice was so vehement that, to destroy an adversary, men did not recoil from inventing the most criminal charges. It will suffice to recall the similar, but even more ridiculous than ignominious accusations brought against Pope Boniface VIII by the same Philip the Fair."

I was persuaded by this.

However, the Chinon Parchment (which I only read subsequent to my post against Roscoe; previously I had relied upon references to it) which was only rediscovered in 2001 (i.e., a hundred years after the CE article) acknowledges many of the immoral acts the CE article sought to rebut.

In short, it looks like the Templars were indeed acquitted of all charges of heresy.

But it also looks like there was plenty of sacrilege and fαɢɢօtry mixed in as well.

For a description of the significance of the Chinon Parchment, see here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-templars/knights-templar-win-heresy-reprieve-after-700-years-idUSL093422320071012

To read the Chinon Parchment itself, see here: https://www.theknightstemplar.org/chinon-parchment/

For the (conciliar) Vatican exoneration from heresy, see here: https://www.theknightstemplar.org/templars-innocent/

In light of all this, I will be changing my avatar soon to that of a Knight Hospitaller.