The Chinon Parchment (Chinon, France, 1308 AD)
1
Introduction to the Chinon Parchment
The Chinon Parchment is the famous Pontifical decree of 1308 AD, commissioned by Pope Clement V, which is considered to have vindicated the Templar Order from all charges by the French Inquisition. It was issued as the conclusion of the examination conducted by a Pontifical Commission of three Cardinals under Papal authority, in the town of Chinon, in the Diocese of Tours, France, during 17-20 August in 1308 AD.
This Chinon Parchment was a way for the Vatican to intervene in the French persecutions which had begun in October 1307 AD. It stated the Vatican’s finding that the Templar induction ceremony (the subject of all charges) contained “nothing… that was not proper”. It also “extended the mercy of absolution” to the Templar Order, “restoring [it] to unity with the Church and reinstating [it] to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church”. [1]
Although the term “absolution” implies forgiveness for sins, none of the accusations were ever proven nor accepted, and no adverse findings were ever made by the Vatican. Indeed, the Chinon decree did conclude that “nothing was improper”.
Therefore, by granting “absolution”, the Vatican declared all charges irrelevant, effectively exonerating and vindicating the Templar Order. Notwithstanding its unavoidable emphasis on the individuals who were questioned, the original text of the Chinon Parchment does contain a clear reference to its purpose of establishing “the pure and complete truth… about the Order itself”. Of course, despite its claims to the contrary, that “truth” was still colored by the effects and intimidation of historically proven torture by the French authorities. Nonetheless, the Pontifical Commission still succeeded in vindicating the Templar Order.
The Chinon Parchment was supported by the more direct Papal Bull Faciens Misericordiam (“Showing Mercy”), issued by Pope Clement V himself, dated 12 August 1308 AD. That Bull declared to the French King Philip IV that the Templar Order and its leaders were absolved and reconciled with the Church, and that any power to judge them further was exclusively reserved to the Pope alone. The fact that the Bull was dated 5 days before the Chinon hearings began, and 8 days before the Chinon decree was issued, may be a secretarial error, or might indicate a predetermined result of the Chinon process with the intent to protect the Templar Order. [2]
The Chinon Parchment is of great importance, as it has continued to remain in full force and effect. Even the Papal Bull Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD [3], widely (and mistakenly) believed to have “dissolved” the Templar Order, and the supporting Papal Bull Considerantes of 1312 AD [4], both upheld the Chinon decree, by preserving “any processes made… in conformity with what we have ordained at other times.”
As a result, in 1312 AD the Vatican had merely “suppressed” the Order as a solely administrative measure limited to the Vatican’s own relations with the otherwise independent Order, which therefore continued to exist in full legitimacy.
This Chinon Parchment marked the culmination of all the infamous “Templar Trials” in France, based upon all of the various testimonies and “confessions” under torture of the French authorities, which comprised a set of much larger parchment scrolls. Accordingly, this presents the condensed end result, consisting of the best summary of the accusations, and the final conclusions essentially vindicating the Knights Templar.
Analysis of the Chinon testimony provides a more focused insight into the select few accusations which the Vatican treated with any serious consideration.
It reveals that those accusations all originated from quasi-heretical spiritual teachings which were popular among the Knights Templar in France. Those metaphorical concepts were apparently taken literally, and out of context, to be transformed into accusations by the French authorities.
Analysis also reveals that if any of the alleged practices were ever actually done by any person, they would have been unsanctioned, and limited to a minority of local Templars in only some parts of France. It thus becomes clear that none of the things accused were ever a part of official or authentic practices of the Templar Order.
As with many Pontifical decrees of the Middle Ages, the original text flows continuously, without paragraphs, breaks nor division of sections. Paragraph breaks are added in this edition for convenience.
The original text of the Chinon Parchment is presented in colored font (dark red). Editorial emphasis (boldface and underline) is added for reference of significant parts. Annotations (in black font) are added for relevant explanations and academic commentary.
Original Authenticated Text of the Chinon Parchment:
In the name of Our Lord, Amen. We, by the grace of God, Berengar, Cardinal Presbyter of St. Nereus and Achileus, and Stephanus, Cardinal Presbyter of St. Ciriacus in Therminis, and Landolf, Cardinal Deacon of St. Angel, declare through this official proclamation addressed to all who will read it, that since our Most Holy Father and Lord Clement, by divine providence Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, after receiving word of mouth and also clamorous reports from the illustrious King of France, and prelates, dukes, counts, barons and other subjects of that Kingdom, both noblemen and commoners, along with some Brothers, Clergy, Knights, Commanders and Sergeants of the Templar Order, had initiated an inquiry into matters concerning the Knights, adherence to Catholic faith, and the Rule of the Order, because of which it suffered public infamy, the same Lord Pope wishing and intending to know the pure, complete and uncompromised truth from the leaders of that Order, namely brother Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Order of the Temple, brother Raymbaud de Caron, Grand Prior of the Commandaries of Templar Knights in Outremer, brother Hugo de Pérraud, Grand Prior of France, brother Geoffroy de Gonneville, Grand Prior of Aquitania and Poitou, and Geoffroy of Charny, Grand Prior of Normandy, ordered and commissioned us specifically and by his verbally expressed will for us with diligence to examine the truth by questioning the Grand Master and those named Grand Priors – one by one and individually, having summoned public notaries and trustworthy witnesses.
And having carried out that mandate as commissioned by the Lord Supreme Pontiff, we questioned the named Grand Master and Grand Priors and examined them concerning those matters described above. Their words and confessions were inscribed exactly as they are recorded here by those notaries whose names are listed below in the presence of those witnesses listed below. We also ordered these things to be written in this official form and validated by the protection of our seals.
The opening sentences emphasize that this Chinon Parchment is an “official proclamation” by the Vatican, as the result of Pope Clement V having “initiated an inquiry” into the Templar Order. It confirms that the three presiding Cardinals of the Chinon Parchment had been verbally but officially “ordered and commissioned” by the Pope to conduct the Chinon process. This establishes that the Chinon Parchment, while technically not a Papal Bull, is in fact a Pontifical decree by the Vatican.
The introduction describes the process as “an inquiry into matters concerning the Knights, adherence to the Catholic faith, and the Rule of the Order”. This evidently refers to “the Knights” in general and thus collectively as an Order. The “Rule of the Order” (the Temple Rule of Saint Bernard) is considered its Constitution, evidencing that this was an examination evaluating the Order as a whole, and its “adherence to the Catholic faith”.
It is significant that besides the Grand Master, the other four Templars examined were Grand Priors.
The original text uses a Latin word for “Preceptor”, meaning a “Provincial Master” of a province, which is also more traditionally called a “Grand Prior”, who is in charge of a substantial territory of a geographic region.
The fact of examining the Grand Master together with all four major Grand Priors of France further evidences that the Chinon process was an inquiry into the Templar Order itself, throughout all of France.
These declarations thus prove that the Chinon Parchment was in fact a Papal determination of the canonical status of the Templar Order itself, at least insofar as its relations with and standing within the Vatican.
This introduction features a key admission by the Vatican, that the Templar trials by the French Inquisition, and the subsequent Papal examination at Chinon, all occurred in response to “receiving word of mouth and also clamorous reports” from the French King, “because of which [the Templar Order] suffered public infamy”. This evidences that the entire process was driven by inflammatory rumors and related public defamation all initiated by the French royalty and nobility.
In the year of Our Lord 1308, the 6th convocation, on the 17th day of August, in the 3rd year of the Pontificate of Pope Clement V, brother Raymbaud de Caron, Grand Prior of the Commanderies of Templar Knights in Outremer, was brought before us, the named Cardinals, in the Town of Chinon of the Diocese of Tours. With his hand on the Holy Gospel of the Lord he gave Oath that he would speak the pure and complete truth about himself, and other individuals and brothers of the Order, and about the Order itself, concerning adherence to Catholic faith and the Rule of the Order, and also about five particular individuals and brothers of the Order.
This passage confirms that the Pontifical examination was not only about the individuals, but was primarily about “the Order itself”, evaluating its “adherence to Catholic faith” and the “Rule of the Order”, as a chivalric institution.
Diligently examined by us regarding the time and circumstances of his induction into the Order he said that it had been forty three years or thereabouts since he was knighted and admitted into the Templar Order by brother Roncelin de Fos, at that time Prior of Provence, in the Town of Richarenchess of the Diocese of Carpentras or Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux, in the Chapel of the local Templar Commandery.
During the ceremony the master said nothing to the Postulant that was not proper, but after the induction an assistant brother approached him whose name he does not recall, as he has been dead a long time. He took him aside holding a small Cross under his cloak, and when all the brothers exited and they remained alone, that is this assistant brother and the speaker, this assistant brother showed the Cross to the speaker who does not recall whether it bore the effigy of the Crucifix or not, but believes however, that there was a Crucifix either painted or carved.
This documents the Vatican’s finding that the Knighting Ceremony historically used by the Templar Order contained “nothing… that was not proper”. No authentic practice or tradition of the Order was ever found to be improper in any way.
This passage introduces a recurring theme, which is consistent throughout the Chinon Parchment, and in the related testimonies and confessions from the Templar trials: Any alleged denunciation of the Cross, if it can be believed to be true, only took place “after the induction” ceremony, by a low-level assistant “taking aside” the newly received Templar, apart from the others.
Even if the reported practice was true, this indicates that it would have been an unofficial and entirely unauthorized practice, and thus not condoned by the Templar Grand Mastery. Accordingly, by definition, any such practice was not authentic to genuine Templarism.
And this assistant brother told the speaker: “You must denounce this one.” And the speaker, not believing himself to be committing a sin, said: “And so I denounce.” That assistant brother also told the speaker that he should maintain purity and chastity, but that if he could not do so, it would better to be done secretly than publicly. The speaker also said that his denunciation did not come from the heart, but only from the mouth.
This introduces another consistently repeated theme, that any alleged “denunciation did not come from the heart, but only from the mouth”. This confirms that, even if true, denunciation of the Cross would have been intended only as a role-playing type enactment, and never as an actual denunciation.
This theme in various testimonies formed the basis for the prevailing theory among many scholars, that the Templars wanted to impress upon new Knights the intensity of the Muslim opposition they would face in battle. Thus, a sample denunciation would serve as a warning of how their faith would be mocked, disgraced and trampled by their enemies, especially if they were ever captured.
Then he said that the next day he revealed this to the Bishop of Carpentras, his familial relative, who was present in that place, and the Bishop told him that he had acted wrongly and committed a sin. Then the speaker confessed on this account to the same Bishop and was assigned penances with he completed, according to him.
When questioned about the sin of sodomy, he answered that he was never part of it neither performing nor enduring, and that he never heard that Templar Knights engaged in this sin, apart from those three knights who had been punished by perpetual incarceration in Pilgrim Castle.
When questioned whether the brothers of that Order were received into the Order in the same manner he was received into it, he answered that he did not know, because he never admitted anyone himself and did not see anyone being admitted into the Order other than two or three brothers. Regarding them he did not know whether they denounced Christ or not. When he was asked about the names of these brothers he said that one had the name Peter, but that he did not remember the family name.
When he was questioned what age he was when made a brother of that Order he answered that he was seventeen years of age or thereabouts.
When he was questioned concerning the spitting on the cross and about the worshipped head, he answered that he knew nothing, adding that he had never heard any mention of such head until he heard Lord Pope Clement speak of it this past year.
When he was questioned about the practice of kissing, he answered that the above named brother Roncelin kissed him on the mouth when he received him as a brother; he said that he knew nothing about other kisses.
One of the most frequent accusations, emphasized for its inflammatory nature and obvious implications of forbidden homosexuality, is the theme of “kissing on the mouth” allegedly related to the Templar induction ceremony. However, the historical record proves that this was merely a metaphorical spiritual teaching from 1st century early Christianity:
The Templar Order was originally founded as a Holy mission for the Cistercian Order, specifically to recover ancient scriptures from the historical Temple of Solomon [5] [6]. Archaeology has proven that the Temple contained a library of sacred scrolls [7], placed there by the 1st century Essenes [8], who had direct access to that Temple [9]. The Order was thus based upon recovering the Gnostic scriptures of the Essenes [10].
The Gnostic scriptures of Mary Magdalene refer to Jesus “kissing her often on the mouth”. [11] This was an early Christian reference to the Templar belief that Mary Magdalene was a “Gnostic Apostle” of Jesus, consistent with Saint Augustine having recognized her as “Apostle to the Apostles” [12].
Such “kissing” was a traditional greeting among Priests of the ancient Priesthood of the Essenes, of which Jesus the Nazarene was a High Priest. Accordingly, “kissing often” indicates frequent visits to a Master by his Disciple. The phrase “on the mouth” reflects an ancient esoteric principle of conveying sacred wisdom and Holy Spirit energy, metaphorically symbolized as spiritual “breath” from the “mouth”, which was conceptually related to the “word” of God.
In Christianity, this spiritual concept of “kissing on the mouth” was first found in one of the 2nd century Cistercian Chants, which were also sung by the original 12th century Knights Templar. One of the 12 liturgical chants of the Cistercians, Filie Jerusalem, features the lyrics “May he [Jesus] kiss me by kisses of his mouth” [13]. This was essentially a coded prayer for Jesus to convey divine sacred wisdom to the Knights as initiates of the Essene Priesthood.
Although it is possible that some Templars could have performed a symbolic enactment of this spiritual metaphorical teaching, there is no evidence that any such practice was ever part of any Templar induction ceremony. Most likely, this was merely a theme of quasi-heretical teachings from early Christianity favored by the Templars, which was taken literally out of context, and transformed into an accusation by the French Inquisition.
When he was questioned whether he wanted to maintain what he had said during the confession, whether it was done according to the truth, and whether he had added anything untruthful or withheld anything that is truthful, he answered that he wanted to maintain what he had previously said in his confession, that it was truthful and that he neither added anything that was untruthful nor omitted anything that was truthful. When he was asked whether he had confessed due to a request, reward, gratitude, favor, fear, hatred or persuasion by someone else, or the use of force, or fear of impending torture, he replied that he did not.
Afterwards, this same brother Raymbaud stationed on his knees with his hands folded asked for our forgiveness and mercy regarding the above said deeds. And as he so pleaded, brother Raymbaud denounced in our presence the said heresy, as well as any other heresy. For the second time he gave Oath with his hand upon the Holy Gospel of our Lord that he will obey the teachings of the Church, that he will maintain, uphold and observe the Catholic faith which the Roman Church maintains, upholds and proclaims, as well as teaches and requires others to observe, and that he will live and die as a faithful Christian.
After this oath, by the authority of lord Pope specifically granted to us for that purpose, we extended to this humbly asking brother Raymbaud, in a form accepted by the Church the mercy of absolution from the verdict of excommunication that had been incurred by the aforementioned deeds, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.
Also on that same day, brother Knight Geoffroy of Charny, Grand Prior of the Commanderies of the Templar Order in Normandy, appearing personally in the above described manner and form, in our presence, and in the presence of the notaries, and also witnesses, humbly swore with his hand on the Gospel of the Lord and was examined regarding the manner of his induction into that Order.
He testified that it has been forty years or thereabouts since he was admitted into the Order of Knights Templar by brother Amaury de la Roche, the Grand Prior of France in Étamps of the Diocese of Sens, in the Chapel of the local Templar Commandery. Present at that ceremony were brother Jean le Franceys, Prior of Pédenac, and nine, ten or more brothers of that Order who he believed are all now deceased.
And then, once he had been received into the Order and the cloak of the Order had been placed on his shoulders, the brother who administered the ceremony took him aside in that Chapel and showed him a Crucifix with an effigy of Christ, and told him that he should not believe in the Crucified, but should in fact denounce Him. Then the newly accepted brother at the demand of the receiving brother denounced Him verbally, but not in his heart.
This confirms the theme that any denunciation of the Cross, if it was ever actually practiced in some cases, would have been merely a symbolic reenactment, most likely as a warning of how captured Knights would be treated by enemies, and not with any intent of actual denunciation.
Also, he said that at the time of his induction, the Postulant kissed the receiving brother on the mouth and his chest through the garment as a sign of reverence.
This is the first reference to other accusations of “kissing” other places on the spine and torso during an induction ceremony. This testimony, accepted by the Vatican, that this was done only “through the garment”, proves that if it were ever actually practiced, it would have been purely symbolic, and entirely without any implications of anything sexual.
When asked whether brothers of the Templar Order while being received into that Order were admitted in the same manner as he was, he said he did not know. He also said that he himself received one brother into that Order by the same ceremony by which he himself was admitted. Afterwards he received many others without the denunciation described previously and in a good manner.
This recorded testimony, that “many others” received the induction “without the denunciation”, evidences that the Vatican accepted that the majority of Templars did not engage in any such practice. Therefore, if it was true that some did perform a symbolic enactment of denunciation of the Cross, it would have been practiced only by a small minority.
Accordingly, any practice of denunciation would probably have been a local variation, which might have developed only in France. Indeed, nothing of the Temple Rule nor the Code of Chivalry, both of which the Knights Templar strictly lived by, could have ever allowed such a practice, such that it could never be a part of authentic Templarism.
He also said that he confessed about the denunciation of the Cross which he had done during the induction ceremony and about being forced to do so by the brother performing that ceremony, to the Patriarch of Jerusalem of the time, and was absolved by him.
When diligently examined concerning spitting on the Cross, the practice of kissing, the sin of sodomy and the worshipped head, he answered that he knew nothing of it.
Further questioned, he stated he believed that other brothers had been received into the Order in the same manner as he was. He said however that he did not know this for sure since when those things took place the newly received were taken aside so that other brothers who were present in the Chapel would neither see nor hear what went on with them.
Questioned about the age he was when received into that Order, he answered that he was sixteen, seventeen or thereabouts.
When he was questioned whether he had said these things due to a request, reward, gratitude, favor, fear, hatred or persuasion by someone else, or the use of force, or fear of impending torture, he replied that he had not. When he was asked whether he wanted to maintain what he had said during the confession, whether it was done according to the truth, and whether he had added anything untruthful or withheld anything that is truthful, he replied that he wanted to maintain what he had previously said in his confession during which he had only said what was true, that what he said was according to the truth and that he neither added anything that was untruthful nor omitted anything that was truthful.
After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Geoffroy, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.
On that same day, in our presence and the presence of the notaries, as well as the witnesses listed below, brother Geoffroy de Gonneville personally appeared and was diligently examined regarding the time and circumstances of his induction and about other matters described above.
He replied that it has been twenty eight years or thereabouts since he was received as a brother of the Order of the Knights Templar by brother Knight Robert de Torville, Grand Prior of the Commandaries of the Templar Order in England , in the city of London, at the Chapel of the local Commandery.
And this receiving brother, after bestowing the cloak of the Knights Templar upon this newly admitted brother, showed him the Cross depicted in some book and said that he should denounce the one whose image was depicted on that Cross. When the newly received did not want to do so, the receptor told him multiple times that he should do so. And since he completely refused to do it, the receiving brother, seeing his resistance, said to him: “Will you swear to me that if asked by any of the brothers you would say that you had made this denouncement, provided that I allow you not to make it?” And the newly received answered “Yes”, and promised that if he were questioned by any other brothers of that Order he would say that he performed the denouncement. And, as he said, he made no denouncement otherwise.
He also said that the receiving brother told him that she should spit on the described Cross. When the newly received did not wish to do so, the receptor placed his own hand over the depiction of the cross and said: “At least spit on my hand!” And since the received feared that the receiving brother would remove his hand and some of the spit would get on the Cross, he did not want to spit on the hand with the Cross being so close.
When diligently examined concerning the sin of sodomy, the worshipped head, the practice of kissing and other things for which the brothers of that Order received a bad reputation, he said he knew nothing. When questioned whether other brothers of the Order were received into the Order in the same manner as he was, he answered that he believed the same was done with others as it was with him at the time of his described induction.
When he was questioned whether he had said these things due to a request, reward, gratitude, favor, fear, hatred or persuasion by someone else, or the use of force, or fear of impending torture, he answered that he had not.
After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Geoffroy de Goneville, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.
Then on the 19th day of the month, in our presence, and in the presence of the notaries and the same witnesses, brother Hugo de Pérraud, Grand Prior of the Templar Commanderies in France appeared personally and gave Oath on the Holy Gospel of the Lord, placing his hand upon it in the manner described above. This brother Hugo, having sworn as described, and being diligently examined said about the manner of his induction that he was received in London at a local Templar Commandary, in its Chapel. That was forty six years ago as of this past feast of St. Magdalene.
He was received as a brother of the Order by brother Hubet de Perraud, his own father, a Visitator of the Templar Commanderies in France and Poitou, who placed upon his shoulders the cloak of that Order. This having been done, some brother of that Order by the name of John, who later became Prior of de La Muce, took him to a certain part of that Chapel, showed him a Cross with an effigy of Christ, and ordered him to denounce the One whose image was depicted there. He refused, as much as he could, according to him. Eventually, however, overcome by fear and menaces of the brother John, he denounced the One whose image was depicted there only once. And although brother John multiple times demanded that he spit on that Cross, he refused to do so.
When questioned whether he had to kiss the receiving brother, he answered that he did, only on the mouth.
When questioned concerning the sin of sodomy, he answered that it was never imposed on him and he never committed it.
When questioned whether he received others into the Order, he answered that he did many times, and that he had received more people than any other living member of the Order.
When questioned regarding the ceremony by which he received them, he said that after they were admitted and given the cloaks of the Order, he ordered them to denounce the Crucifix and to kiss him at the bottom of the back, in the navel and then on the mouth. He also said that he imposed on them to abstain from partnership with women, and, if they were unable to restrain their lust, to join themselves with brothers of the Order.
This is the description of alleged ceremonial “kissing” which indicates specific locations on the back and torso. It is most significant that the referenced points were aligned along the spinal column (as opposed to kissing a hand, ring, etc.), giving the best clue to the origin of this accusation:
The Templars had recovered an ancient Gnostic Priesthood from their excavation of the Temple of Solomon. That Priesthood, which Jesus the Nazarene Essene had studied in Egypt, and of which Jesus was a High Priest and Master, featured spiritual practices involving meditation with energy centers along the spinal column [14].
This esoteric concept of the Essenes originated from the exclusive Djedhi Priesthood of Pharaonic Egypt, named after the “Djed” pillar which was a symbol for the spinal column. The Djedhi Priests specialized in mastering the flow of spiritual energy, learning to move such Holy Spirit energy through points along the spinal column using mental concentration and focused prayer. [15]
The reference to kissing “the bottom of the back” indicates that the focus was indeed on the spinal column. Selecting the lowest point on the back, despite the other points being on the front, indicates that anything supposedly sexual was carefully avoided, and confirms the purely spiritual nature of this concept. This is further supported by the earlier reference to kissing only “through the garment”.
This passage again confirms that any such “kissing” of points, if it were true, would have been done only “after they were admitted” into the Order, and thus separate from the Templar induction ceremony.
Therefore, if any such symbolic “kissing” of points actually was done, it would have been a local practice unique to some regions of France, and not part of official or authentic Templarism. Most likely, however, this was merely a metaphorical spiritual teaching, which was taken literally out of context, and transformed into an accusation by the French authorities.
He also testified under Oath that the above described denunciation, which he performed during the inductions, as well as other things described which he demanded from those received by him, was done in word only, and not in spirit. When questioned why he felt pained and did not perform in spirit the things that he did, he answered that such were the rules or rather traditions of the Order, and that he had always hoped this error would be removed from that Order.
This passage again confirms that any “denunciation” of the Cross “was done in word only, and not in spirit”, indicating that if practiced, it would have been only a symbolic enactment warning of the consequences and damage to the faith if the Knight were captured by an enemy.
Most importantly, here is introduced the revealing phrase: “such were the rules or rather traditions of the Order”. This serves to clarify and indeed define what some believed to be “rules”, as being mere “traditions”. By definition, “traditions” tend to evolve as local practices particular to a geographic region. This confirms that the alleged practices of kissing symbolic points and enacting a symbolic denunciation of the Cross, if ever actually done, would have been merely local “traditions” unique to some minority Templar groups in France.
When questioned whether any of the members newly received by him refused to perform the described spitting and other corrupted things listed above, he answered that only a few objected, and eventually all did as ordered. He also said that although he himself instructed brothers of the Order whom he received to join with other brothers, nevertheless he never did that, nor heard that anyone else committed this sin, except for the two or three brothers in Outremer who were incarcerated for this in Pilgrim Castle.
When questioned whether he knew if all brothers of that Order were received in the same manner as he received others, he answered that he did not know for sure about others, only about himself and those whom he admitted, because brothers are received in such secrecy that nothing can be known other than through those who were present. When questioned whether he believed that all were received in this manner, he answered that he believed that the same ritual is used for admitting others as was used in his case and as he himself performed when he received others.
When questioned concerning the head of an idol that was reportedly worshiped by the Templars, he answered that it was shown to him in Montpellier by brother Peter Alemandin, Prior of that region, and that this head remained in the possession of brother Peter.
The Knights Templar, together with other protected Orders such as the Cistercians, were generally immune from the Inquisition, subject only to a narrow exception ordered by Pope Honorius III in 1230 AD, only in cases of suspected “heresy”. Precisely for this reason, King Philip IV ordered the French authorities to concentrate their manufactured charges on that vulnerability of “heresy”, as the only way to penetrate the near-absolute immunity of the Templar Order. [16]
Therefore, as the Vatican continued resisting the accusations against the Templars since October 1307 AD, by August 1308 AD the charges increasingly focused on claims of some “strange idol” related to “a human head with a long beard”. [17] [18]
It is highly significant that this is the only testimony in the Chinon Parchment admitting the existence of any such “head of an idol”, whereas all the others insisted they knew nothing of it. It is revealing that this purported admission was very specific, naming a particular person and place where the claimed “head” artifact could be found, and yet no such object was ever found during any of the Templar trials.
It is a fact, proven by the historical record, that not one artifact of any of the alleged “idols” was ever found nor produced by the French authorities or the Inquisition [19] [20]. This conclusively proves that the idea of worshipping some “head of an idol” was purely the manufactured fantasy of the French Inquisitors.
In later centuries, this unsubstantiated fantasy of the French authorities was used to claim some secret affiliation with the legendary Knights Templar, by superficial references to it being mentioned in the Templar trials: For Freemasons, the “head” was associated with remains of John the Baptist with Holy connotations; For Satanic groups, it was called the “Baphomet” related to something demonic. However, none of those theories have any factual or historical basis related to the Templar Order.
When questioned how old he was when received into that Order, he answered that he heard his mother say that he was eighteen.
He also said that previously he had confessed about these things in the presence of brother Guillaume of Paris, Inquisitor of heretical actions, or his deputy. That confession was fixed in writing by the hand of the undersigning Amise d’Orleans and some other public notaries. He wishes to maintain that confession, just as it is, and also to maintain in the present confession that which is consistent with the previous one. And if there is anything additional in this confession before the Inquisitor or his deputy, as has been stated above, he ratifies, approves and confirms it.
When he was questioned whether he had confessed to these things due to a request, reward, gratitude, favor, fear, hatred or persuasion by someone else, or the use of force, or fear of impending torture, he answered that he had not. When he was questioned whether he, after being apprehended, was submitted to any questioning or torture, he replied that he was not.
After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Hugo, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.
Then on the 20th day of the month, in our presence, and in the presence of notaries and the same witnesses, brother Knight Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Order of the Knights Templar appeared personally, and having given Oath in the form and manner described above, and having been diligently examined, said that it has been forty-two years or thereabouts since he was received as a brother of that Order by brother Knight Hubert de Pérraud, at the time Visitator of France and Poitou, in Beune, Diocese of Autun, in the Chapel of the local Templar Commandery of that region.
Regarding the manner of his induction into the Order, he answered that having given him the cloak the receiving brother showed him a Crucifix, and told him that he should denounce the God whose image was depicted on that Cross, and that he should spit on the Cross. That he did, although he did not spit on the Cross, but near it, according to his words. He also said that he performed this denunciation in words, not in spirit.
This statement is the most specific about the alleged denunciation of the Cross, introducing an alternative theory of its symbolic meaning:
It clarifies that what was reportedly denounced, in particular, was “the God whose image was depicted”. Thus, it would be not Jesus himself, not the Cross itself, and not the Christian God which would be denounced. Rather, this would be a rejection only of exaggeration of the divinity of Christ as “a God”, which would be a major departure from Catholic faith.
Indeed, in the medieval period there was a growing popular trend of exaggerating the divinity of Christ into being “a God”. This would be an objective theological error, violating the tenets of monotheism, and contradicting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and thus worthy of rejection.
In contrast, the Knights Templar emphasized the Gnostic view of Jesus as an “Ascended Master”, both human and divine, but in the role of a teacher and intercessor of the One True God:
In the Biblical account of the Ascension, Jesus said to Mary Magdalene: “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17). [21]
This clearly establishes that Jesus was not to be deified as “a God”, but rather was divinely empowered by God, instructing the Apostles and Disciples to worship the same One God which Jesus declared to be his God.
The Vatican’s official Catechism in the modern era confirms that medieval interpretation by the Knights Templar, teaching that “Christ’s Ascension into heaven signifies his participation, in his humanity, in God’s power and authority.” (Entry 668) [22]
The clarification repeated again here, that it would be a “denunciation in words, not in spirit”, also supports the theory that this would be only a rejection of the exaggerated divinity of Christ. This Templar doctrine of emphasizing Christ as an Ascended Master, teacher and intercessor of the One True God, was most likely taken out of context and transformed into the accusation of “denouncing the Cross”.
Concerning the sin of sodomy, the worshipped head and the practice of illicit kisses, diligently examined, he answered that he knew nothing of that.
When he was questioned whether he had confessed to these things due to a request, reward, gratitude, favor, fear, hatred or persuasion by someone else, or the use of force, or fear of impending torture, he answered that he had not. When he was questioned whether he, after being apprehended, was submitted to any questioning or torture, he replied that he was not.
This is a standard statement repeated for each of the five Templars examined in Chinon, used as a superficial legalistic disclaimer, to give the appearance that testimony was not the result of torture nor the threat or fear of torture. Merely inserting such words, however, does not and cannot make them true.
It is extensively proven in the historical record that the Knights Templar were repeatedly and severely tortured by the French authorities:
The “confessions” extracted under torture were all derived from a list of charges developed by King Philip IV. The accusations were generally based upon recruited “witnesses”, who were mostly disgruntled former Templars who the Order had expelled for their own wrongdoing. [23] Such “witnesses”, including those with known ulterior motives, were given immunity from any punishment even if their accusations were proven false [24].
Proving that all “confessions” were only the result of torture, the moment torture was suspended, the Templar leaders immediately recanted their confessions, and told all other Templars to do the same [25].
Further proving that the confessions were obtained solely by torture, in 1309 AD when French Inquisitors questioned the Knights Templar in England, where torture was prohibited by law, none of the Templars would confess to any of the charges. [26] [27]
Vatican scholars have recognized that the confessions under torture were always of doubtful reliability, and have noted that most of the confessions were conflicting and contradictory, making them meaningless [28].
This instance of the misleading disclaimer is one of two occurrences which are more revealing than the others in the Chinon Parchment, because it includes the phrase “after being apprehended”. That fact of arrest by authorities, in the ominous shadow of months of extreme torture of Templars throughout France immediately preceding that arrest, indisputably evidences an imminent and strongly implied threat of torture. This conclusively proves that all testimony was still coerced under duress, notwithstanding the supposed disclaimers.
After this, we concluded to extend the mercy of absolution for these acts to brother Jaques de Molay, the Grand Master of that Order, who in the form and manner described above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy, and swore in person on the Lord’s Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the mercy of absolution, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.
While these proclamations of absolution appear to be worded with reference to the individuals who were questioned, the Chinon text features clear indications that they apply to the Templar Order as a whole: The introduction declares its scope as “matters concerning the Knights” (collectively), their “adherence to the Catholic faith, and the Rule of the Order”. It also specifies that the Oaths of all five leading Templars were to “speak the pure and complete truth… about the Order itself”.
Therefore, this passage repeated for each leading Knight effectively “extended the mercy of absolution” to the Templar Order as an institution, “restoring [it] to unity with the Church and reinstating [it] to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.”
The term “absolution” technically means forgiveness, usually granted for confessed sins. However, the partial “confessions” of the Templars were of a very limited nature, none of the accusations were ever proven nor accepted by the Vatican, and the Vatican never made any adverse findings. By granting “absolution”, with none of the accusations being proven nor accepted, the Vatican essentially declared that any and all charges were simply irrelevant.
These facts reveal that in this case, “absolution” was used as merely a means to protect the Templars and fully restore the good standing of the Order with the Church. In the absence of any adverse findings, this served to exonerate the Templar Order. It is for these reasons that the Chinon Parchment is generally considered to have declared the Knights Templar “not guilty” of all charges, and is considered a vindication.
On the same 20th day of the month, in our presence, and in the presence of the notaries and the same witnesses, brother Geoffroy de Gonneville freely and willingly ratified, approved and confirmed his signed confession which was read to him in his native language, and gave assurances that he intended to stand by and maintain both this confession and the confession he made on a different occasion before the Inquisitor or Inquisitors regarding the above described heretical transgressions, insofar as it was consistent with the confession made before us, the notaries and the named witnesses; and that if there is anything additional contained in the confession made before the Inquisitor and Inquisitors, as was said earlier, he ratifies, approves and confirms that.
On the same 20th day of the month, in our presence, and in the presence of the notaries and the same witnesses, brother Grand Prior Hugo de Perraud in a similar way freely and willingly ratified, approved and confirmed his signed confession which was read to him in his native language.
We ordered Robert de Condet, cleric of the Diocese of Soissons, notary by Apostolic authority, who was among us together with the notaries and witnesses named below, to record and make public as evidence these confessions, as well as each and every thing described above which occurred before us, the notaries and the witnesses, and also everything done by us, exactly as it is described above, and to validate it by attaching our seal.
This was completed on the year, indiction, month, day, Pontificate and the place as stated above, in our presence and the presence of Umberto Vercellani, Nicolo Nicolai de Benvenuto and the above referenced Robert de Condet, and also master Amise d’Orleans le Ratif, public notaries by Apostolic authority, as well as the pious and distinguished brother Raymond, abbot of the Benedictine monastery of St. Theofred, Diocese of Annecy, master Berard de Boiano, archdeacon of Troia, Raoul de Boset, confessor and canon from Paris, and Pierre de Soire, overseer of Saint-Gaugery in Cambresis, who were gathered specifically as witnesses.
And I, Robert de Condet, cleric of the Diocese of Soissons, notary by Apostolic authority, observed with the other notaries and witnesses each and every thing described above which occurred in the presence of the above named reverend fathers Lords Cardinal Presbyters, myself and the other notaries and witnesses, as well as what was done by their lordships. Upon the orders from their lordships the Cardinal Presbyters, I made this record, and put it in the official form, and sealed it with my seal, having been commissioned to do so.
And also I, Umberto Vercellani, cleric of Béziers, notary by Apostolic authority, observed with the other notaries and witnesses each and every thing described above which occurred in the presence of the aforementioned Lords Cardinal Presbyters, as well as what was done by their lordships Cardinal Presbyters just as described above in fuller detail. Upon the orders from these Cardinal Presbyters, for further assurance, I have underwritten this record and sealed it with my seal.
And also I, Nicolo Nicolai di Benevento, notary by Apostolic authority, observed with the other above named notaries and witnesses each and every thing described above which occurred in the presence of the above named Lords Cardinal Presbyters, as well as what was done by their lordships just as described above in fuller detail. Upon the orders from these Cardinal Presbyters, for further assurance, I have underwritten this record and sealed it with my seal.
And also I, Arnulphe d’Orléans called le Ratif, notary by authority of the Holy Roman Church, observed with the other above named notaries and witnesses the confessions, examinations and each and every other thing described above which occurred in the presence of the above named reverend fathers Lords Cardinal Presbyters, as well as what was done by their lordships just as described above in fuller detail. Upon the orders from these Cardinal Presbyters, as a testimony of truth, I have underwritten this record and sealed it with my seal, having been commissioned to do so.
Academic Source References
[1] Pope Clement V, Chinon Parchment (1308), Vatican Secret Archives, “Archivum Arcis Armarium” D 217-218; Replica Parchments, Processus Contra Templarios, Scrinium, Venice, Italy (2008).
[2] Barbara Frale, “The Chinon Chart Papal Absolution to the Last Templar Jacques de Molay”, The Journal of Medieval History, Vol. 30, Issue 2 (2004), p.132.
[3] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestrum 7952; translated in Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896); Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012); reprinted in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990).
[4] Pope Clement V, Considerantes (06 May 1312), “Part 1”, Regestrum 7952; translated in Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896); Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012); reprinted in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990).
[5] Michael Lamy, Les Templiers: Ces Grand Seigneurs aux Blancs Manteaux, p.28.
[6] Alan Butler & Stephen Dafoe, The Warriors and Bankers, Lewis Masonic, Surrey, England (2006), p.20.
[7] Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, Hirbet Qumran and the Problem of the Library of the Dead Sea Caves, German edition (1960), Translated by J.R. Wilkie, Leiden Press, Brill (1963).
[8] Minna and Kenneth Lonnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: The New Paradigm, Helsinki University Press, Helsinki (2002).
[9] Eric Meyers, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997), Vol.2, pp.268-269.
[10] Piers Paul Read, The Templars: The Dramatic History of the Knights Templar, the Most Powerful Military Order of the Crusades, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, Great Britain (1941), Saint Martin’s Press, New York (1999), Phoenix Press, London (2001), p.304, quoting conclusions of historians from “the German Freemasons”.
[11] James M. Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 2nd Revised Edition, E.J. Brill, Leiden (1988), Gospel of Philip, p.148, 63.34-65.12.
[12] Ken Doyle, Apostle to the Apostles: The Story of Mary Magdalene, Catholic Times, (11 September 2011).
[13] Marcel Peres, Cistercian Chant, annotated musical compilation, recorded by Ensemble Organum (1992).
[14] H. Spencer Lewis, The Mystical Life of Jesus, Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, San Jose, 1982, pp.191-192.
[15] J. Van der Vliet, Raising the Djed: A Rite de Marge, Akten Munchen, 1985, 3rd Ed., S. Schoske, Hamburg, 1989, pp.405-411.
[16] Barbara Frale, “The Chinon Chart Papal Absolution to the Last Templar Master Jacques de Molay”, The Journal of Medieval History, Vol.30, Issue 2 (2004), p.119.
[17] Barbara Frale, “The Chinon Chart Papal Absolution to the Last Templar Master Jacques de Molay”, The Journal of Medieval History, Vol.30, Issue 2 (2004), pp.115-116; citing Georges Lizerand, Le Dossier de l’Affaire des Templiers, Les Belles Lettres, Paris (1923), classic reprint, Classiques de l’Histoire de France au Moyen Age, Book 2 (1989).
[18] Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Vol. 3, Harper & Bros, New York (1901), pp.255, 263-265, 274-276, 295.
[19] Alain Demurger, Les Templiers: Une Chevalierie Chretienne au Moyen- Age, Points, Seuil (2008).
[20] Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, Cambridge University Press, New York (1978), pp.178-179.
[21] New Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), John 20:17.
[22] The Vatican, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Random House, Doubleday (1995), Chapter 2, Article 7, “Entry 668”.
[23] Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Vol. 3, Harper & Bros, New York (1901), pp.257, 262.
[24] Edward Peters, Inquisition, University of California Press, Los Angeles (1989), p.52.
[25] Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, Cambridge University Press, New York (1978), p.2.
[26] Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Vol. 3, Harper & Bros, New York (1901), pp.250-257.
[27] Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press (2006), p.220.
[28] Anne Gilmour-Bryson, The Trial of the Templars in the Papal State and the Abruzzi, Citta del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (1982), p.18.
