Sovereign Magistral

Templars as Defenders of the Church:

The Templar Order as Guardians of the Church in the Modern Era



Under the Temple Rule of 1129 AD as its founding Charter, the Order of the Temple of Solomon, as the historical institution of the original Knights Templar, continues to serve as Defenders of the Church, primarily as Guardians of the origins of Christianity (Rules 1, 2, 8), and strictly operates “according to Canon law” (Rule 9) as a “canonical institution” (Rule 274) [1].


Templar Defender in Temple Church London

In addition to this fundamental historical mission of the Templar Order as Guardians of the Church, the same Temple Rule of Saint Bernard which makes it Christian as an institution, also proves – and indeed requires – that it was always authentically interfaith and non-denominational for individual membership (Rules 65, 66, 279, 630) [2].


The reasons for this original policy of inclusiveness are: (1) The Ancient Solomonic heritage of the Order embodies the timeless foundations underlying all major spiritual religions, and unifying all Christian denominations; (2) To defend Christianity, it is necessary to defend all religious rights under law, which requires cooperation with all traditional religions; and (3) Additional skills and resources of “Secular Knights” always strengthened the Order to most effectively defend Christianity.


While the Order actively defends the Church, it is not itself a Church, but rather an Order of Chivalry, which always included “Secular Knights”.  Accordingly, the Templar Sovereign Constitution authentically provides that all religious activities are separate from the chivalric side of the Order, and are thus optional for all Templar Brothers and Sisters.


Promoted by the authentic Templar policy of individual freedom of choice, many members choose to actively support the Christian Defense projects of the Order.


As a result, the restored Templar Order actively continues to dutifully fulfill its original historical mission of serving as Defenders of the Church.  An essential foundation of this core Templar mission is preserving the denomination of Ancient Christianity, as the keys to protecting and upholding the foundations of Christian Faith worldwide.


Notice: Templar interfaith cooperation rejects and prohibits the modern “ecumenical” trend of “mixing” and “blending” of religions, but rather is for strategic alliances in mutual defense of religious freedom, to effectively serve as Defenders of the Church.


History Reveals Deeper Forces Persecuting Christians


Volumes of the historical record document a sober reality of the human experience, that different religions unavoidably have a shared fate, whenever any religion is faced with persecution. Of course, most religions and denominations tend to believe that they are better or more beneficial than others, or that theirs is the only or best path to salvation of souls. However, all traditional spiritual religions can certainly agree that they have the right to exist, and that if the basic human right of freedom of religion is undermined, then none of them can exist, and important world heritage of humanity would be lost for future generations.

‘Angel and Lion’ sculpture by Ziandereden, in Church of Santa Croce, Florence Italy


Surely, all religions must agree that if any one of them is persecuted, then all of them are inevitably in grave danger. Especially if any dominant or majority religion can be undermined or suppressed, then certainly all other religions have no chance of survival, and are set up to fall like dominoes.


Therefore, all religions must support the defense of Christianity to ensure their own survival, and true Defenders of the Church must protect the rights of all traditional spiritual religions on the path of defending Christianity.


Benjamin Franklin, after signing the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 AD, is attributed with the saying: “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” [3] It means that defending liberty requires putting aside all lesser differences, to “hang together” in unity for the common cause of freedom, or else “hang separately” by the gallows at the hands of tyranny as the real mutual enemy.


Confirming that this call to unity directly applies to religious freedom against persecution, emphasizing tyranny as the real enemy of religion, Benjamin Franklin also promoted the patriotic and spiritual motto: “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” [4]


The history of persecution of Christians and other religions powerfully illustrates the need for defensive alliances, revealing that all religions are inescapably bound to need some support from the others, as natural allies in defense of religious freedoms.


Most importantly, history also reveals that the enemies of the Church are not really other religions, but rather totalitarian Empires and Socialist states, which impose persecution of Christians, and progressively seek to abolish all religions, as their fundamental policy and defining characteristic:

‘The Christian Martyrs Last Prayer’ (1883 AD) by Jean-Leon Gerome


Roman Empire – From the beginning of classical Christianity in the 1st century, especially during 64-313 AD, Christians were persecuted for their Faith under authority of the Roman Empire [5], usually executed, and sometimes publicly thrown to the lions. Even after legalization of Christianity by the Edict of Milan and conversion of Emperor Constantine in 313 AD, Christians became persecuted for their presumed alliance with the Roman Empire, by many other religions defending themselves against persecution by the Romans [6] [7].


This persecution of Christians continued until the tolerance brought by the Persian King Khosrow I in 531 AD, whose successor King Hormizd IV explained: “Just as our Royal throne cannot stand upon its front legs without its two back ones, our Kingdom cannot stand or endure firmly if we cause the Christians and adherents of other Faiths, who differ in belief from ourselves, to become hostile to us.” [8]

‘Taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099’ by Giraudon (1847 AD), in Palace of Versailles – Bridgeman Art Library collection


Medieval Islam – During the original Arab Muslim Conquests of 622-750 AD, Christians as “People of the Book” (Old and New Testament Bible) [9] were given the status of ‘Dhimmi’ (“Protected Person”), meaning non-Muslims living in an Islamic territory with guaranteed legal protections and rights, although with social and political restrictions [10] [11]. Accordingly, Christians were oppressed, but not actually persecuted. This same status was given to Jews and Sabians, and later to Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains and Buddhists [12].


This medieval policy of relative religious tolerance generally characterized the Muslim practices, including of the 12th century Knights of Salahadin (Saladin), despite the many battles over territories and outposts. By maintaining this balance by “peace through strength”, Christianity thrived throughout Europe and the Middle East, mostly peacefully coexisting with spiritual Islam until the 16th century, making the Church strong enough to defend other religions as well.


As a result, Jewish historians have documented and concluded that: “Had it not been for the Catholic Church, the Jews would not have survived the Middle Ages in Christian Europe” [13], and that throughout all major persecutions of Judaism and other religions in Europe, the Church reliably provided intervention, protection and refuge [14].

‘The Sack of Constantinople’ of 1204 AD, by J.H. Valda (ca. 1910), in ‘Hutchinson’s History of the Nations’ (Reproduction)


Ottoman Empire – The Ottoman Empire (1299-1923 AD) was the primary cause and focus of most major “Crusader” battles in defense of Christianity. The First Crusade (1096-1099 AD), Second Crusade (1147-1149 AD), and Fourth Crusade (1202-1204 AD) were actually fought to defend the Byzantine Christians against early Turkish imperialism. Christian Knights fought to defend Europe against invasion by the Ottoman Empire, in Bulgaria (1345-1393 AD), Serbia (1352-1463 AD), Venice (1423-1718 AD), and throughout Eastern Europe (1593-1606 and 1683-1699 AD).


With the establishment of the imperialist Ottoman Caliphate in 1517 AD, the Ottoman Empire wholly abandoned the degree of tolerance practiced by medieval Muslims for almost 900 years. The Ottoman Empire began aggressively persecuting Christians by genocide with atrocities, which escalated to the Kurdish and Ottoman Massacres of Assyrians (1843-1847 AD), Bulgarians and Serbians (1876-1878 AD), Armenians and Assyrians (1894-1896 and 1909 AD), and the extreme Genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks by the “Young Turks” (1915-1921).


These genocides against Christians continued until the Arab Revolt (1916-1918) of moderate Muslims from Mecca condemned the “impious” Ottoman Caliphate for violating the humanitarian doctrines of spiritual Islam [15], eventually causing the Empire to finally collapse in 1922, and its imperial Caliphate was abolished in 1924 [16].


French Socialist State – From 1789-1799 AD, the French Revolution imposed “Enlightenment” themed Atheism, under the banner of Socialist propaganda of supposed “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”. It aggressively persecuted Christians by a policy of “De-Christianisation”, which included “de-establishment” of the Catholic Church in France, deportation and execution of many Clergy, the destruction of Churches and religious monuments to abolish Christian culture, and outlawing public and private worship and religious education [17] [18] [19].

‘The Demolition of Saint Jean-en-Greve Church’ (ca. 1770 AD), by Hubert Robert


Soviet Socialist State – From 1922-1991 AD, the Russian Bolshevik Revolution essentially banned and officially sought to destroy all religions [20] [21] [22], and imposed state-sanctioned Atheism [23] [24], in the name of the same Socialist propaganda from the French Revolution [25]. The Soviet Socialist Communist government aggressively persecuted Christians [26], destroying Churches, Mosques and Buddhist Temples [27].


Nazi Socialist State – From 1933-1945 AD, the Nazi National Socialist government in Germany pursued measures intended to abolish all religions, and thus persecuted not only Jews, but also the Roman Catholic Church [28] [29] [30], and eventually even German Protestant Churches [31] [32].


Chinese Socialist State – Since 1949, the Chinese Socialist Communist government of China imposed official Atheism, outlawed foreign ecclesiastical support of Churches, and permitted Christianity only under strict state control within the Chinese Patriotic Protestant church and Chinese Patriotic Catholic church, with Bishops appointed by the state. Even these state churches were banned during the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976, with believers imprisoned and tortured, Churches and homes raided and religious items seized, and Bibles destroyed. The state churches were reinstated in 1979, but persecution continued, thousands of Christians were imprisoned from 1983-1993, and all “unregistered meetings” were banned since 1992. [33]


Ottoman Caliphate Revival – In the modern era, the most aggressive and openly genocidal persecution of Christians in Iraq and Syria, with terrorist attacks against both Christians and moderate Muslims in the Middle East and throughout Western Europe, is the self-styled “Islamic State”.


The so-called “Islamic State” is based on Saudi Wahhabi radical Islam [34], although condemned by Saudi religious authorities as an “Enemy of Islam” [35]. It began in 1999 as a branch of the terrorist group Al Qaeda, which actually rejected it as too radical [36]. Its founders were ethnic “Turkmen” who are descendants of the Ottomans [37]. In 2014 it proclaimed itself a “restoration of the Caliphate” of the Ottoman Empire, claiming totalitarian authority over all moderate Muslims worldwide [38].


The “Islamic State” Ottoman revival was primarily supported by the government of Turkey, actively facilitating its arming and funding, and providing operational and medical support by keeping the Syrian-Turkish border open [39] [40] [41] [42]. Turkey since 1952 is a member of NATO, which is dominated by Globalist governments [43] promoting Socialist policies [44] [45], and the Turkish government has demonstrated ambitions of restoring its Ottoman Empire [46] [47] [48].


The same way the Arab Revolt (1916) of moderate Muslims rose up against the Ottoman Caliphate, mainstream Muslims strongly condemned and opposed the “Islamic State”, rejecting its false and tyrannical Caliphate [49], and calling it the derogatory Arabic name “Daesh” meaning both “trampling others” and “sowing discord” [50]. Iraq invited and cooperated with Iran, and Syria invited and cooperated with Christian Russia, both declaring military victory over Daesh by the beginning of 2018 [51] [52], reducing it to a covert terrorist network mostly threatening Europe.


These facts, in the context of this overview of history, confirm that the enemies of the Church are not really any other religion, but actually the deeper forces underlying totalitarian Empires and Socialist states. They also confirm that the best way to overcome such forces is by strategic alliances with other religions, as natural allies in defense of religious freedoms as human rights.


History’s Lessons Learned – The dangers of failing to defend other religions, allowing the progressive expansion of persecution eventually targeting one’s own religion, is most compellingly expressed by the famous poem “First They Came…”, as distilled from speeches of the Nazi-era German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller:


First they came for the [Soviet] Communists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the [disabled] Incurables, and I did not speak out, because I was not an Incurable. Then they came for the Jews, only then did the Church take note, but I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out, because I am Protestant. And then they came for me – because there was no one left to speak out for me.” [53]


The harsh lessons of history are abundantly clear: For the restored Templar Order to effectively serve as Defenders of Christianity, modern Templars must also defend universal human rights of religious freedom, authentically serving as “Defenders of All Faith”, protecting the principle of Faith itself for all of humanity.


Understanding the Real “Enemies of Christ”


Defining the Templar concept of the “Enemies of Christ” is essential to understanding the true role of the Order as Defenders of the Church. Indeed, a defender is defined by one’s enemies.


The Temple Rule of 1129 AD defines the purpose of Templar warfare as only to “remove from the land” and “defend the land” from “the enemies of Jesus Christ” (Rules 14, 56), thus only for self-defense against aggression, not to suppress any other religions.


It defines the primary “Enemy” as all works of the Biblical Satan, the Devil, who “attacks… with Evil desires” (Rule 285), and “shadowy Enemies… [of] wickedness” (Rule 37). It commands to “Remove the wicked from among you” (Rule 46), and avoid “the ancient wickedness of the Devil” (Rule 48) [54]. This essentially describes Secret Societies involved with doing evil works of Satan.


The Code of Chivalry of 1066 AD commands to “[Fight] against Injustice and Evil… To combat all Evil, to defend all good” (Commandment X) [55]. It also commands to oppose “Enemies of the Cross”, defining this as “defense… of the Holy Church and God” (Commandment II) [56].


This proves that the Templars are Defenders of the Church primarily by fighting for good against evil, regardless of which other religions may or may not be involved, and are Defenders of All Faith against all enemies of God.


Therefore, the Templar definition of the “Enemies of Christ” is actually evil-doers in general, and Secret Societies of Satanists specifically, including even those who may pretend to be Christians.


Even during the Middle Ages, the Knights Templar came to understand that the real causes of the Crusader wars were not religious differences, but rather manipulations by secular Imperialist States, to artificially manufacture false Christian-Muslim conflicts, as a “divide and conquer” strategy, to impose Feudalism for elitist control over humanity [57].


(See full report Real Enemies of the Order for more details)


Defender Role Far Beyond “Protection of Pilgrims”


Having identified the real “Enemies of Christ” against whom the Templars are Defenders of the Church, we can now turn to defining the authentic Templar methods of defending Christianity. The legendary Templar role as Defenders of the Church is commonly associated with the superficial narrative of “protecting pilgrims” visiting Holy sites of Christianity, as popularized by mainstream modern history books on the Knights Templar. The true role of the Order as Defenders is much greater, and of much wider scope of worldwide significance.


The historical record proves that “protecting pilgrims” was mostly symbolic, initially a political justification for Royal Patronage establishing the Order, and essentially a part-time “day job” for the Knights Templar, to earn income for the real missions of recovering the Priesthood of Solomon and restoring the pillars of civilization [58] [59].  The Temple Rule evidences that only 10 Templars were actually assigned to protecting pilgrims (Rule 121) [60].


The Vatican recognized a much greater role of the Order, as non-military Defenders upholding civilization through professional skills as a “vocation” of “higher calling” [61] [62].


Historians confirm that the primary role of the Templars, as non-military Defenders of the Church, was actually as “high level diplomats serving kings and nobles” [63]. Vatican records witnessed that the Templar Order exercised its own sovereign Diplomatic status in international affairs to advance its missions [64] [65].


Such Diplomatic support for Kingdoms and Church involves the active practice of “Geopolitics”, dealing with the foreign policy of States affecting international relations in world affairs [66].  This necessarily involves dealing with inter-governmental alliances affecting the balance of powers, upholding the rule of law in defense of religious rights, defending the Church through human rights under international law.


(See full report on Modern Missions for more details)


Templar Guardianship of the Ancient Apostolic Church


Most essential to the survival and defense of Christianity (and any other religion), is the preservation of its original foundations which embody its authentic spiritual teachings. This body of knowledge serves as the greatest “weapon” to defend the integrity of the Church, and to protect and uphold the Faith for all Christians. The modern Templar Order has recovered and restored the same substance of the foundations of Christianity during the 21st century, which the medieval Order had recovered and restored in the 12th century. As a result, the Templar Order continues its original role as Guardians of the Church and Defenders of the Faith, primarily through its restoration and protection of the Ancient Apostolic Church.


Official Heraldic Seal of the Ancient Apostolic Church, continuation of the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon of the Knights Templar of 1118 AD

Official Heraldic Seal of the Ancient Apostolic Church, continuation of the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon of the Knights Templar of 1118 AD

The Order of the Temple of Solomon was first established in 1118 AD, specifically as a mission for the Cistercian Order of Saint Bernard de Clairvaux [67] to recover the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon, which the first Templar Knights restored by excavating the historical Temple of Solomon [68] [69] for a nine year period [70]. That Ancient Priesthood, which the founding Templars recovered and restored from the historical Temple of Solomon, thus became known as the “Templar Priesthood”.


The Temple Rule of 1129 AD from Saint Bernard, as a Papal Decree ratified by the Vatican Council of Troyes, recognized the Templar Order as being founded within its own “Religion” [71], and recognized the Templar Priesthood as being its own original denomination of Ancient Christianity: It describes the Templars as “Disciples” under the Grand Master as a Pontiff (Rule 7), uses an obscure Old Latin phrase for “Patriarchate” as subtle mention of the “Pontificate of the Temple of Solomon” indicating its own Pontifical authority (Rule 8), and declares the Grand Mastery to be exercising its own ecclesiastical authority (Rule 62) [72].


The Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD was issued by Pope Innocent II, who rose to the Papacy despite adversity, supported by Saint Bernard [73], who had supported the original founding Templar mission to recover the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon [74]. This fact evidences, and the Papal Bull itself explicitly confirms, that the Vatican grant of statehood was specifically based upon the Order’s own inherent ecclesiastical sovereignty from the Templar Priesthood, and thus the recognition of the unique denomination of Ancient Christianity was intentional:


This Papal grant highlights “the religious life… established in your house [Temple]… [by] divine grace… inviolably”, meaning that the Ancient Priesthood came from the Temple of Solomon, with inherent sovereignty as an original denomination of early Christianity. It emphasizes that “the house [Temple]… [is] the source and origin of your Holy institution and religious Order, so it shall be… forever the head and ruler” of its domain, meaning that because the Temple is the source of the Ancient Priesthood, precisely for that reason, it holds sovereignty. It mandates that “the customs [laws] instituted… by the [Grand] Master… of your religion… may not be infringed nor diminished by any ecclesiastical or secular person”, thus specifically meaning ecclesiastical sovereignty as a Pontifical denomination. [75]


The Templar denomination of Ancient Christianity is the foundation of the 12th century Independent Church Movement created by Pope Eugene III, as part of the Templar missions of Saint Bernard de Clairvaux [76] [77] who had sponsored the founding Templar mission to recover the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon [78]. Such Independent Bishops created the 19th century Old Catholic Movement, declaring “Adherence to the Ancient Catholic faith… of the Ancient Church” [79], based upon the “historical primacy… of the Ancient Church” and “Ancient Catholic doctrine” [80], and created the related 19th century Reformed Catholic Movement [81]. This developed into the early 20th century Liberal Catholic Movement, as a revival of the Ancient Priesthood as preserved by the Templars, which became the most widely recognized tradition within Old Catholicism [82].


Ancient Christianity is abundantly recognized by the Vatican, by five Papal Bulls, plus three Papal Decrees, and multiple provisions of Roman Canon law, such that its legitimacy, validity and inherent ecclesiastical sovereignty are indisputable. It is recognized directly as the Templar Priesthood [83] [84] [85], and additionally recognized as the origins and substance of the Old Catholic Movement [86] [87] [88].


Modern Accomplishments as Guardians of the Church


In the modern era, the persecution of Christians continues by armed terrorist attacks against Churches and communities, actively sponsored and enabled by Globalist politicians. The root cause of such violent persecution is not a military invasion, but rather a “cultural invasion”, driven by propaganda, and enforced by the Socialist censorship of “political correctness”. Mainstream mass media intensively saturates all “news” coverage, television shows and movies with superficial misconceptions of religion, designed to ridicule Christianity, and to make people doubt and even abandon their Faith.

‘Zealous Conscripts’ (2014) by Chris Rahn for MGT Proxies Cards (detail)


This relentless onslaught of propaganda discourages and intimidates many Christians not to stand up for religious freedom. That enables corrupt Globalist politicians to implement Pseudo-Socialist policies systematically dismantling religious rights, removing core legal protections such as freedom of speech. This progressively paves the way for aggressive legalistic persecution, while making Christians more vulnerable to violent attacks.


The same propaganda and resulting political pressures also weaken the Clergy, undermining and corrupting ecclesiastical education, such that most Churches can hardly represent genuine Christianity. This, in turn, makes Churches vulnerable to infiltration and corruption, and even subversive hostile takeovers, by Satanist secret societies.


The Templar Order aggressively defends against these modern threats, by actively restoring the foundations of Christianity to strengthen Churches and uphold the Faith, and by asserting religious rights in Diplomatic relations representing the Faith.


Restoring Classical Christianity – The Ancient Apostolic Church of the founding Knights Templar is a strategic institution of Christian world heritage, which provides Churches of all denominations with an infusion of ancient knowledge and classical traditions, as the timeless foundations to rediscover an unshakable Faith.


During a three-year period from 2013-2015, the modern Templar Order restored the 12th century Ancient Apostolic Church of 1st century Christianity:  The Order successfully recovered the direct foundations of original Christianity, as the Ancient Priesthood of the Biblical Magi, Melchizedek and Solomon, continued through Pharaonic Egypt and the Essenes, as taught by Jesus the Nazarene Essene in the 1st century, which became the “Templar Priesthood” of the 12th century.


From this, the Templar Order substantially restored the original 1st century denomination of Ancient Christianity, preserved by the 12th century Knights Templar, as the source of the 12th century Independent Church Movement and 19th century Old Catholic Movement, complete with its inherent Pontifical authority and multiple direct lines of Apostolic Succession.


As a result of this landmark restoration: The Pontiff of the Ancient Apostolic Church holds a constitutional seat on the Templar Grand Mastery as Grand Canon, to guide the Order on all canonical and ecclesiastical matters; The Templar Grand Master holds a constitutional seat on the Curia of the Church as Coadjutor Pontiff, to ensure the closest support and protection of the Church.


Restoring Canon Law Defenses – Contrary to modern propaganda, Canon law is not only Catholic, and is not for imposing any dogmatic beliefs or practices. Rather, it was developed by the Apostles of Jesus ca. 50 AD (Acts 15; Galatians 2), and became the historical foundation of all modern legal systems in Western civilization [89] [90]. Canon law embodies the Apostolic traditions which secure the integrity of Churches, and ensure the authenticity of original Christianity. It is the foundational rules for protecting Churches of all denominations, as the time-tested solutions for defense of the Faith, to easily and effectively prevent and resist infiltration, corruption and subversion of the Church.


During another three-year period from 2016-2018, the Templar Order restored a working system of Canon law, for practical application by Churches of all Christian denominations. The Grand Master Prince Matthew produced the “Handbook of Canon Law”, a landmark work making Canon law accessible for both the Faithful and Clergy of the Independent Church Movement and Old Catholic Movement. This revival of Canon law is a strategic resource to preserve the doctrinal authenticity and institutional integrity of Churches worldwide, in defense against the formidable challenges of the modern era.


Reestablishing Diplomatic Status – A Church can only exercise Diplomatic status if it possesses sovereign Pontifical authority. A joint Anglican-Vatican commission determined that Pontifical authority can only be held by a Church which is a historical institution, having juridical and doctrinal continuity of its own unique heritage and traditions, which uniquely embodies and represents a distinct primary denomination of Christianity, and which unifies diverse Churches from related secondary denominations [91] [92].


During the three-year period from 2016-2018, the Templar Order legally restored the original Pontificate of the Ancient Apostolic Church under the Code of Canon Law, and thus reestablished it as a “public juridical subject of canon law” (Canon 113, §2; Canon 116, §§1-2), with independent Pontifical authority for its own denomination (Canon 215), and its own “power of jurisdiction” (Canon 129, §1) [93]. The Church was thereby reestablished as a “sovereign subject of international law” with non-territorial statehood [94] [95], inherently possessing full Diplomatic status for official international relations [96] [97].


Restoring the Heritage of Christianity – After these major strategic accomplishments as Guardians of the Church, the Templar Order continues active ongoing restoration of the essential heritage of Christianity: Working with University history faculties and career Clergy from classical Churches, the Order develops translations from Latin, and develops new presentations of ancient Christian liturgies, from European libraries of Templar archives. These core foundational materials, which embody the original Apostolic practice of the Faith as taught by Jesus, are the essential pillars upholding the traditions and values of Christianity in Western civilization. This work restoring and promoting Christian culture strongly and directly supports the active Diplomatic relations asserting religious freedom as human rights.


Opportunities for Classical Church or Biblical Magi Experience


As a result of restoration of the Ancient Apostolic Church by the Templar Order, those seeking to experience the original Christianity of the founding Knights Templar in the 12th century have a unique and historic opportunity, for the first time in over 700 years.


Members of the modern Templar Order can experience the authentic Templar Priesthood in one or both of two different ways, as alternative voluntary options. Because of the many millennia of history and heritage involved, the denomination of Ancient Christianity is bifurcated into two separate and autonomous institutions:


Prayer of the Templar ‘Plegaria Del Caballero’ (2011) by La Mora

(1) The Ancient Apostolic Church, continuing the Priesthood of the Biblical Solomon, for the canonical 1st – 12th century classical Church experience; and


(2) The Magi Priesthood of Melchizedek, continuing the Priesthood of the Biblical Magi, to experience the most ancient universal sacred doctrines of Holy Communion since the beginning of recorded history.


Both the classical and ancient aspects of the Ancient Apostolic Church are supported by the protection of the Templar Order as Guardians of the Church and Defenders of the Faith.


Ongoing Restoration Project – The Ancient Apostolic Church is an ongoing restoration project, as a continuing mission of the Templar Order. It has been successfully restored to official legitimacy with active Diplomatic relations. However, it is not yet ready to service a general membership, and is currently accepting only career Clergy with classical Church experience.


Order & Church are Separate – The Order of the Temple of Solomon historically carries and protects the Ancient Apostolic Church, which is separate and independent.  The Templar Order has its own Chivalric Constitution and Grand Mastery, and is interfaith and non-denominational with its own Mystical spirituality, while separately supporting Ancient Catholicism.  Templars are not required to participate in the Church.  The Church has its own Ecclesiastical Charter and Pontificate, and its Faithful and Clergy are not obligated to join the Templar Order.


(Click for an Overview of the Ancient Apostolic Church of the Templars.)



Suggested Related Topics


Learn about the Real Enemies of the Order which Templars oppose.

Learn about Secret Societies Rejected by Templar core principles.

Learn about Christian Self-Defense justifying the fight against evil.

Learn about Sacred Activism as Templar methods of opposing evil.


Academic Source References


[1] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 8, Rule 9, Rule 274.

[2] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rule 65, Rule 66, Rule 279, Rule 630.

[3] Benjamin Franklin, Quote: Hang Together or Hang Separately (1776); Attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, reportedly spoken as verbal response to a comment by John Hancock; Alternately attributed to the American writer Thomas Paine, as:  “If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately”.

[4] US National Archives, Our Documents: 100 Milestone Documents from the National Archives, Oxford University Press (2006), “1782: Original Design of the Great Seal of the United States”, pp.18-19.

[5] John Williams Charles Wand, A History of the Early Church to AD 500, Routledge Press (1990), pp.12-13.

[6] Bowman, Garnsey & Cameron (Editors), The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 12, “The Crisis of Empire: AD 193-337”, Cambridge University Press (2005), p.474.

[7] Joel Thomas Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq, University of California Press (2006), p.111.

[8] Joel Thomas Walker, The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq, University of California Press (2006), p.112.

[9] John L. Esposito (Editor), The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford University Press (2014), Article: “Ahl al-Kitab”.

[10] Juan Eduardo Campo (Editor), Encyclopedia of Islam, Infobase Publishing (2010), Article: “Dhimmi”, pp.194-195.

[11] Clinton Bennett, Muslims and Modernity: An Introduction to the Issues and Debates, Continuum International Publishing Group (2005), p.163.

[12] Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History, Princeton University Press (2008), p.89.

[13] Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Age of Faith, Simon & Schuster, New York (1950), pp.388-389.

[14] Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, University of California Press, Berkley (2006), p.282.

[15] Sean McMeekin, The Berlin-Baghdad Express, Belknap Press (2012), pp.288, 297.

[16] Hakan Ozoglu, From Caliphate to Secular State: Power Struggle in the Early Turkish Republic, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara (24 June 2011), p.8.

[17] New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, Thompson-Gale (2002), Volume 5, “French Revolution”, pp.972-973.

[18] Jackson Spielvogel, Western Civilization: Combined Volume, Thompson Wadsworth (2005), p.549.

[19] Frank Tallet, Religion, Society and Politics in France Since 1789, Continuum International Publishing (1991), p.1.

[20] Library of Congress, Soviet Union: Policy Toward Nationalities and Religions in Practice, Country Studies Series, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress (, Washington DC (May 1989):  “Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs, except for Judaism, which was actively protected by the Bolshevik state.

[21] John Anderson, Religion, State and Politics in the Soviet Union and Successor States, Cambridge University Press (1994), p.3.

[22] John Anderson, The Council for Religious Affairs and the Shaping of Soviet Religious Policy, Journal: “Soviet Studies”, Volume 43, Number 4 (1991), pp.689-710.

[23] Paul Froese, I Am an Atheist and a Muslim: Communism and Ideological Competition, Journal of Church and State, Volume 47, Issue 3 (2005).

[24] William van den Bercken, Ideology and Atheism in the Soviet Union, Mouton de Gruyter (1989), pp.121-124.

[25] Dmitry Shlapentokh, The French Revolution and the Russian Anti-Democratic Tradition, Transaction Publishers, Edison New Jersey (1997), pp.220-228.

[26] Library of Congress, Revelations from the Russian Archives: Anti-Religious Campaigns, Washington DC (31 August 2016).

[27] Paul Froese, Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 43, Number 1 (March 2004), pp.35-50.

[28] Ian Kershaw, Hitler: A Biography, W.W. Norton & Company, New York (2008), p.290, p.295, p.332.

[29] Anton Gill, An Honourable Defeat: A History of the German Resistance to Hitler, Heinemann, London (1994), p.57.

[30] Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power, Penguin, New York (2005), pp.239-246.

[31] William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon & Schuster, New York (1960), p.236, p.240.

[32] Paul Berben, Dachau 1933-1945: The Official History, Norfolk Press, London (1975), p.140.

[33] Patrick Johnstone, Operation World, Paternoster Press, London (2001), p.164, p.168.

[34] David Kirkpatrick, ISIS Harsh Brand of Islam is Rooted in Austere Saudi Creed, The New York Times (24 September 2014).

[35] Staff, ‘ISIS is Enemy No. 1 of Islam’, Says Saudi Grand Mufti, Al Arabiyah News English (19 August 2014).

[36] Oliver Holmes, Al Qaeda Breaks Link with Syrian Militant Group ISIL, Reuters News (03 February 2014).

[37] Richard Barrett, The Islamic State, The Soufan Group “TSG”, New York (November 2014).

[38] Adam Withnall, Iraq Crisis: Isis Declares its Territories a New Islamic State with ‘Restoration of Caliphate’, The Independent, UK (30 June 2014).

[39] Natasha Bertrand, Senior Western Official: Links Between Turkey and ISIS are Now ‘Undeniable’, Business Insider (28 July 2015).

[40] David L. Phillips, Research Paper: ISIS-Turkey Links, Institute for the Study of Human Rights, Columbia University, New York (08 September 2016).

[41] Barney Guiton, ‘ISIS Sees Turkey as its Ally’: Former Islamic State Member Reveals Turkish Army Cooperation, Newsweek (07 November 2014).

[42] Staff, New Report Further Exposes Turkey Links to ISIL Militants, Press TV News, Iran (21 October 2014).

[43] Phil Butler, Brussels, NATO and the Globalists: In Total Disarray, Journal “NEO”: New Eastern Outlook (17 March 2017).

[44] Alex Newman, At UN Summit, World Rulers Adopt Agenda for Global Socialism, The New American (28 September 2015).

[45] Alex Lantier & David North, International Socialist Organization Backs NATO Escalation in Syria, Journal: “World Socialist Website” (21 September 2016).

[46] Cinar Kiper, Sultan Erdogan: Turkey’s Rebranding Into the New Old Ottoman Empire, The Atlantic (05 April 2013).

[47] Svetlana Alexandrovna, Erdogan’s Ottoman Ambitions Lead to Ties with Islamists – French Lawmaker, Sputnik News (16 April 2016).

[48] Nick Danforth, Turkey’s New Maps Are Reclaiming the Ottoman Empire, Journal: “Foreign Policy” (23 October 2016).

[49] Shafik Mandhai, Muslim Leaders Reject Baghdadi’s Caliphate, Aljazeera News, Qatar (07 July 2014).

[50] Collin Randal, Why Does a Simple Word like Daesh Disturb Extremists so Much, The National, Abu Dhabi (18 October 2014).

[51] Coker & Hassan, Iraq Prime Minister Declares Victory Over ISIS, The New York Times (09 December 2017).

[52] Chris Pleasance, Russia Claims it has Completely Liberated Syria of ISIS Terrorists, The Daily Mail, London (06 December 2017).

[53] Martin Niemöller, Speech for the Confessing Church, Frankfurt (06 January 1946), distilled from multiple versions of this speech to various audiences, including version mentioning “Catholics” (1955); Authenticating analysis: Prof. Harold Marcuse, Ph.D., Martin Niemöller’s Famous Quotation: “First They Came…”, History Faculty, University of California at Santa Barbara (12 September 2000); Niemöller was imprisoned by the Nazis from 1937-1945 for resisting Hitler’s progressive persecution, eventually against all religions; “Incurables” is a term from the Nazi Eugenics program.

[54] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 14, 56, 285, 37, 46, 48

[55] Emile Leon Gautier, La Chevalerie (1883); Translated in: Henry Frith, Chivalry, George Routledge & Sons, London (1891), Chapter IV, Commandment X.

[56] Emile Leon Gautier, La Chevalerie (1883); Translated in: Henry Frith, Chivalry, George Routledge & Sons, London (1891), Chapter II, Commandment II.

[57] Emile Leon Gautier, La Chevalerie (1883), translated in: Henry Frith, Chivalry, George Routledge & Sons, London (1891); Chapter IV: “Commandment VII”; Chapter IV, “Commandment VII”; Chapter II, “Commandment III”.

[58] Frank Sanello, The Knights Templars: God’s Warriors, the Devil’s Bankers, Taylor Trade Publishing, Oxford (2005), pp.5-6, 7.

[59] Piers Paul Read, The Templars (1999), Phoenix Press, London (2001), pp.91-92.

[60] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rule 121.

[61] Judith M. Upton-Ward, The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge, The Boydell Press (1992); Dissertation for Master of Philosophy at Reading University; Including Hierarchical Rules, pp.1-2.

[62] Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, Liber ad Milites Templi de Laude Novae Militiae, Documented in: J. Leclercq (Editor), Sancti Bernardi Opera, Rome (1963), Volume 3, Section 5, pp.217-218; English translation in: C. Greenia, Cistercian Fathers Series, Michigan (1977), No.19.

[63] Frank Sanello, The Knights Templars: God’s Warriors, the Devil’s Bankers, Taylor Trade Publishing, Oxford (2005), p.38.

[64] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 2, “Their Marvellous Growth”, pp.493-494.

[65] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Jerusalem”, p.363.

[66] Merriam Webster Dictionary, Springfield Massachusetts (2018), “Geopolitics”.

[67] Michael Lamy, Les Templiers: Ces Grand Seigneurs aux Blancs Manteaux, Auberon (1994), Bordeaux (1997), p.28.

[68] Keith Laidler, The Head of God: The Lost Treasure of the Templars, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1998), p.177.

[69] Piers Paul Read, The Templars: The Dramatic History of the Knights Templar, the Most Powerful Military Order of the Crusades, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1999), Phoenix Press, London (2001), Orion Publishing Group, London (2012), p.305.

[70] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.2.

[71] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard:  “Holy Communion”, “this Religion” (Rule 2);  “the Religion of knighthood” (Rule 14);  “type of new Religion”, “Religion of Knights”, “Religion by armed knighthood” (Rule 57), “in every Religion” as including the Templar Order (Rule 71).

[72] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard:  “Disciples” of the Grand Master as a Pontiff (Rule 7);  “Patriarchate of the Temple of Solomon” in subtle Old Latin phrase (Rule 8);  “divine service… dressed with the crown” as ecclesiastical sovereignty (Rule 9);  Grand Mastery exercising independent ecclesiastical authority (Rule 62);  “servants of the Church” under Grand Master as a Pontiff (Rule 64).

[73] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8.

[74] Michael Lamy, Les Templiers: Ces Grand Seigneurs aux Blancs Manteaux, Auberon (1994), Bordeaux (1997), p.28.

[75] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.59-64.

[76] Michael Horn, Studien zur Geschichte Papst Eugens III (1145-1153), Peter Lang Verlag (1992), pp.36-40, pp.42-45.

[77] Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, On Consideration, Letter to Pope Eugene III, Translated in: George Lewis, Saint Bernard: On Consideration, Oxford Library of Translations, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1908).

[78] Michael Lamy, Les Templiers: Ces Grand Seigneurs aux Blancs Manteaux, Auberon (1994), Bordeaux (1997), p.28.

[79] The Vatican, Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 11, “Old Catholics”, p.235:  “Adherence to the Ancient Catholic faith… of the Ancient Church”.

[80] Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches, The Declaration of Utrecht (24 September 1889), Translated in: Paul Halsall, Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University, New York (1999):  Continuing the 1st century “primitive Church” as the original “undivided Church” (Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 8); Recognizing the “historical primacy… of the Ancient Church” (Article 2) and “Ancient Catholic doctrine” (Article 6).

[81] Rev. Philip Schaff (Editor), New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 3rd Edition, Funk and Wagnalls Publishers, London (1914), Volume 9, “Reformed Catholics”; H.K. Carroll, Religious Forces of the United States, New York (1896), pp.82-83.

[82] William J. Whalen, Separated Brethren: A Survey of Protestant, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Other Denominations in the United States, 3rd Revised Edition, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. (1979), p.153.

[83] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Second Ecumenical Council (“Vatican II”), Enacted (1965), Amended and ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983):  “common and constant opinion of learned authors” (Canon 19); “immemorial customs” (Canon 26).

[84] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard:  “Disciples” of the Grand Master as a Pontiff (Rule 7);  “Patriarchate of the Temple of Solomon” in subtle Old Latin phrase (Rule 8);  “divine service… dressed with the crown” as ecclesiastical sovereignty (Rule 9);  Grand Mastery exercising independent ecclesiastical authority (Rule 62);  “servants of the Church” under Grand Master as a Pontiff (Rule 64).

[85] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.59-64.

[86] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983):  Valid Apostolic lines “conferred by the imposition of hands and the prayer of consecration” (Canon 1009); “By the reception of [consecration] a person… is incardinated in the particular Church… for whose service he is ordained.” (Canon 266); Independent “competent ecclesiastical authority” (Canons 114, 116, 118).

[87] The Vatican, The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Translation in:  H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, B. Herder, Saint Louis (1937), pp.236-296:  “The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers, that is, are independent.” (Canon 3); “Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees… In all provinces subject to their jurisdiction appeals may be taken to them when necessary” (Canon 5); Autonomous “cathedral churches” (Canons 10-11); “cathedral churches” independently elect their own Bishops (Canon 23).

[88] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church, published by Pope John Paul II (16 June 2000), republished by Pope Benedict XVI (August 2000), Article IV, Section 17.

[89] Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Harvard University Press (1983), p.86, p.115.

[90] Mary Ann Glendon, Michael Wallace Gordon & Christopher Osakwe, Comparative Legal Traditions: Text, Materials and Cases, American Casebook Series, West Publishing, Saint Paul, Minnesota (1985), p.43.

[91] Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), Authority in the Church I (Articles 21-23); Authority in the Church II (Article 19, Article 21);   Published in: Authority in the Church: The Final Report, Windsor (1981), London (1982), Reprinted in: C. Hill & E.J. Yarnold, Anglicans and Roman Catholics: The Search for Unity, London (1994)

[92] Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), The Gift of Authority: Authority in the Church III (Article 1, Articles 14-18), Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, London (1999);  Reprinted in: M. Tanner, The Gift of Authority: A Commentary, Anglican World (1999), pp.33-36.

[93] The Vatican, The Code of Canon Law: Apostolic Constitution, Ratified by Pope John Paul II, Holy See of Rome (1983):  “competent ecclesiastical authority” (Canon 114, §§1-3, Canon 115, §2, Canon 116, §1);  “public juridical subject of canon law” (Canon 113, §2, Canon 116, §§1-2);  Pontifical authority of denomination (Canon 215);  Charter of inherent Pontifical authority of denomination (Canon 116, §2, Canon 118);  “perpetual” (Canon 120, §1);  “power of jurisdiction” (Canon 129, §1).

[94] Rebecca Wallace, International Law: A Student Introduction, 2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (1986).

[95] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 3.

[96] Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), Preamble; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), Preamble; New York Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States (2004), Preamble: ¶5:  All recognizing the “status of diplomatic agents” from all forms of nation states “since ancient times”, including historical sovereign entities of “differing constitutional and social systems”.

[97] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Articles 3, 38:  Status as a sovereign “subject of international law” is binding upon all countries regardless of recognition; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), Article 47.1; New York Charter of Economic Rights of States (1974), Preamble: ¶3, ¶7, Article 4: Countries “shall not discriminate” against a historical form of nation state.


You cannot copy content of this page
Scroll Up