Talk:Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem/Archive 1

Archive 1

Insulting

Listing the SMOM here is completely insulting. They have their own page and it is so flagrantly commercial to list it here that it is without a doubt an abuse. Is there no sense of ethics? Whatever happened to chivalry?

Wow.....

....I came here to find out what Wikipedia had on the SMOTJ, after the constant edit wars on the Templars page over them. This is totally POV and basically an advertising pamphlet for the organisation......I agree with the need for a rewrite, but it would take some time and research. Any volunteers? In the meantime, barring protest, I would propose the article be moved to the talk page as a POV entry (as even a common google search reveals most, including members of the SMOTJ, do not take the claims of Templar descent seriously).....DonaNobisPacem 08:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

history of the order

I have moved the history of the order to the talk page - it was as follows:

"The Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem is an ecumenical Christian knighthood. Its roots stretch back to 1118 and the Knights of Christ of the Temple of Solomon, who aided pilgrims in their passage through the dangerous wilds of the Holy Land. The Temple was recognized as a religious-temporal order of chivalry at the Council of Troyes on January 31st, 1128. The rules and customs of the Knights Templar were supplemented by further precepts derived from the Benedictine rule, drawn up by Saint Bernard, first Abbot of Clairvaux. In his treatise De laude Novae Militiae St. Bernard emphasized the importance of the Templar's mission. To symbolize the purity of their lives, the chevaliers of the order were required to wear a white cloak by Pope Honorius II, who approved their recognition by the Council. In 1146, a red cross was added by Pope Eugenius III. In 1139, Pope Innocent II emancipated the Order from all temporal and ecclesiastical authority except that of the Supreme Pontiff himself in a Papal Bull, Omne Datum Optimum. The Grand Master was granted administrative powers, but remained obedient to the Pope in all spiritual matters. Special dignity and many honors were conferred upon the Order by the Church on June 15th, 1163 (Magnus Ordo in Ecclesia). The Order continues today as a secular order for those who would live the good example of Christian Faith and Life.

Although best know for their combat arms -- principally mounted knights (heavy cavalry), sergeants and men at arms (supporting infantry) -- the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem also developed engineering, architecture and maritime skills within the Order. This was not only combat engineering for siege warfare and bridge building, but is also seen today in their fortifications in the Levant, as well as in the Gothic cathedrals and in thousands of churches, built either by the Templars or with their aid, throughout Europe and the Middle East. Many place names containing the word "Temple" own their origin to a church built by the Knights Templar. To support their effort in the Holy Land they developed a naval force and international banking as a part of the Knights Templar logistics train. Knights Templar played a significant role in the establishment of the modern Scottish nation with Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn and in the fourteenth century North Atlantic explorations of Prince Henry Sinclair of Roslyn.

Jerusalem was lost in 1187, and the Templars took up positions at St. John of Acre, thence retiring, consequent to overwhelming Saracen pressure, to Cyprus after which the official Seat of the Order was placed at the Temple in Paris, sovereign territory of the Order, over which the King of France had no jurisdiction. Many Knights Templar returned to their own nations and countries, while maintaining their rule as a sovereign religious-temporal order of chivalry. By the end of the thirteenth century there were over nine thousand Templar Commandries. The riches of the Templars throughout France excited the cupidity of the King of France, Philip IV, who arranged to have Templars arrested on October 13th, 1307, and then to have Clement V (then living in "Babylonian Captivity" in France), publish a Papal Bull removing official Church sponsorship from the Order. The order was suppressed in France in 1312, but not abolished or dissolved in that the Pope declared that the Papacy did not have the right to abolish the Order by reason (among others) of its sovereignty. At this point, the Order reverted to its previous status as a secular-military order of Christian chivalry.

Historian Hilare Belloc, in THE CRUSADES, points out that the Holy Land and Europe lay in mortal peril from the Turks after the Byzantine defeat at Mazikert in 1071, and it was the Crusades which, in 1099, saved Christian Civilization from Turkish Islam, at least in Europe, and for nearly a century in the Holy Land. Knights Templar were major participants in that clash of cultures; they were the "few good men" who made a military contribution, and earned a lasting reputation, out of all proportion to their numbers. Although inadequate reinforcement of the Crusader states from Europe (with the failure to take Damascus) ultimately resulted in the loss of Jerusalem and the Holy Land, the Crusaders did buy time for Western civilization to develop the strength to withstand further onslaughts from the East"

This is very much disputed - it should definitely not be included in the article, without serious work on presenting an NPOV interpretation (see the reference to them at the knights templar page, under Self Styled Orders"). Most modern historians do not accept this version of the history; even many within the order itself do not take it seriously. DonaNobisPacem 06:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the content of the article. --Loremaster 15:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Assertions in this Article

I've never had the confidence to work on the contributing side of Wikipedia, so at the moment I don't think it's appropriate for me to edit the article, just yet. However, I thought I'd point out what I think are problems. I'm sorry to pick this apart, but I'm not trying to start a conflict

Some of the assertions the article makes seem to be in error to me. The article notes that the SMOTJ does not have a royal sovereign "(obsolete concept in the age of democratic republics where the people are sovereign)." There are many states in which the people are not sovereign and are still democracies (Although, of course, not republics). Many/Most constitutional monarchies have fully democratic governments, yet still possess orders of knighthood with royal patronage. These monarchies still serve as the "fount of honour" in their respective nations; this article terms that practice outdated and obsolete. What justification is there to term this obsolete, when many important offices, not just in knightly orders but also in goverment, still entail oaths to the sovereign, in many different countries?

"Using the outdated concept of fons honorum, chivalric or military orders can only be defined by the swearing allegiance to a national sovereign in the form of a person holding that office. This concept became obsolete the moment that constitutional democracies came into existence because democracies of any classification derive their power and sovereignty from the people of the nation as a whole unit. Even a democratic constitutional monarch cannot be sovereign because democracy implies, by definition, the sovereignty of the people."

No, democracy does not, by definition, imply the sovereignty of the people. Constitutional monarchies invest all sovereignty in the monarch, who in turn delegates it to the government. The people, through elections, supply the government with a mandate, not sovereignty. For example, in Commonwealth Realms, the Queen is considered to reign but not to rule. The fact that she does not exercise direct political power does not change the fact that all political sovereignty is vested in her person.

"In the time before democracies, one rule had to be applied to chivalric and military orders; that no order could have multinational full membership. This is because swearing loyalty to one monarch inherently meant disavowing loyalty to any other monarch. Even today American citizens cannot swear allegiance to either a monarch or a foreign government without the risk of losing American citizenship."

The Knights Templar recruited members from all over Europe and (I believe) were not sworn to a specific monarch. The only person who held ultimate authority over them was the pope. I know that this article is supposed to be about the modern OSMTH founded in 1804, but it makes so many unsubstantiated references to events before then that this statement should be clarified. Also, what is the point of commenting on American citizenship laws? They are by no means universal, and many states allow dual citizenship, including, I think, the US.

"The Templars lost the patronage of the Catholic Church in the beginning of the 14th century and ceased being a religious order. But the Templars did not cease to be a military or chivalric order. Conversely, it also didn't mean that they were chivalric or military under the conditions of those times. Nevertheless, without exception, contemporary Templar groups are multidenominational"

The Templar did not simply lose the patronage of the Catholic Church in 1307. The Order was disbanded, many of its members and most of its leaders put on trial and executed. Yes, there are stories about secret groups of knights sneaking off to Scotland or even beating Columbus to the New World, but they're just that, stories. And yes, there are and have been many groups which claimed to be the true survivors of the Templar and present their own histories to prove it, but the history community has judged these to be fabrications. The reputation of the Knights Templar was so great that many have sought to emulate and imitate it in the centuries since its destruction, but they are not the same entities. The website of the OSMTH spells it out, they are founded on the IDEALS of the Knights Templar, they are LIKE the Knights Templar, but they don't claim that they ARE the Knights Templar of medieval times.

"However, with the advent of democracies in the Age of Enlightenment, the Templars were the first order, owing to the opportunities afforded by reconstitution, to accommodate this shift in governmental philosophy with a change in the concept of fons honorum. Furthermore, the world economic explosion that began with the Industrial Revolution shifted the need for patronage FROM organized religion and national government which monopolized the sources of support for these types of organizations before 1700, TO individuals who gained the capability of independently accumulating large sums of equity."

This just seems completely out of place. It's very much historically questionable, especially since the OSMTH wasn't founded until well after the beginning of the Enlightenment (And long after the Templar were wiped out). And 1804 is before the Industrial Revolution is commonly considered to have begun in earnest, so there weren't a lot of capitalists around to accumulate those large sums of equity.

"The contemporary Templars, therefore, democratized their administration, membership, and patronage long before any other order. The practice of true "sovereign" military and chivalric orders died a natural death with the Age of Enlightenment. However, there are Templar organzations outside of SMOTJ and OSMTH that have reverted back to the practice of heritary and/or pseudo-sovereign leaders, and even use the name of SMOTJ and OSMTH or some variation thereof. They are pseudo-sovereign because in reality, there is no recognition as a sovereign nation either in the United Nations or by any other constituted nation. They simply cannot conduct business in that arena. The same reality applies in non-Templar orders as well."

So, the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (SMOM), known historically as the Knights Hospitaller, with its unbroken and fully documented history stretching back to the First Crusade, and with its Permament Observer status at the UN, cannot conduct business in that arena? Plus, this paragraph seems to contradict earlier use of the term 'sovereign'. Is it referring to the supposedly obsolete practice of swearing oaths to the sovereign mentioned earlier, or is it referring to the fact that the SMOM claims to have sovereignty over itself independent of any state?

I don't have the one book this article uses as a reference to examine, but the text as a whole makes far too many political and historical claims that, in my opinion, don't belong in a Wikipedia article on the modern OSMTH/SMOTJ. I feel that someone who comes here looking for information on that modern order could be getting the wrong idea. Like I said, I don't want to start a fight, but I'd like to see what others have to think about this. Void 00 04:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Like Penn and Teller so well puts it...

Bulls**t. The writer/order obviously has no knowledge of the concept of sovereignity and internationall law, and the reason to claiming the issue of fons honorum as an obsolete question is - of course - to maximize the number of dazzled candidates. Since OSMTH/SMOTJ (or any other templar order) does not have any connection to either a sovereign it simply will not be regarded as genuine och legitimate by the genuine orders of chivalry.

jonar242

there are tons of statements in the article

And, except for two reference WORKS listed, nothing is cited.--Vidkun 01:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger Caro

Roger Caro the Imperator of the French Apostolic Alchemical Order 'Ordre souverain des Frere Aines de la Rose Croix' (OSFAR+C aka FAR+C) was a 'Chevalier grand Croix' of the 'Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani' .. this comment placed here for researchers benefit. I have a copy of a 1972 Roger Caro business card.. if any one is interested or Wiki editors want a copy of this email me. Leonard.stevens@xtra.co.nz I don't know how to include.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.25.224 (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be good to go into more detail about the NGO status.

OSMTH has Special Consultative Status, which means they're only viewed as being active in a specific set of areas the UN deals with. (There are upward of 2000 groups with SCS, and only a hundred or so which deal with broad enough issues to be granted General Consultative Status.) I think noting which areas of interest and action OSMTH has in common with the UN would add value to the article.

Dan 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Message from the Help desk

This message was posted to the help desk this morning. Perhaps there are some editors watching this page that would be interested in researching the accuracy of these claims, finding sources, and working it into the article.

"Hello, in your article, you have: 1. Forgotten to mention the split in 1995 that occured in the OSMTH led by Mr Sousa Fontes 2. Consequently , you have named Col Stewart McCarthy as Grand Prior of the USA. This is not true anymore, there have been 3 other grand priors since then, and the current USA Grand Prior is Major General Robert DISNEY. The Grand Master of the Order is Rear Admiral James CAREY. The Grand Commander of the Order is Brigadier General Patrick E. REA. 3. OSMTH International is NOW - SINCE 1995 - NOT LINKED WITH MR FONTES . We are recognosed by the United Nations as an Non Governemental Organisation sine july 2002,we participate in the DPI of the United Nations, and we are member of the International Peace Bureau. 4. at present, we have Grand Priories (autonomous national entities) in 13 countries, and smaller representations in numerous others. 5. Our websites are : www.osmth.org (international web site) , www.osmth-france.org (in french), and we have other websites linked to these 2

Thank you to correct your article."

PS RELIABLE SOURCES: About the NGO Status and DPI membership : www.UN.ORG , under ECOSOC section, NGOs "sovereign military order of the temple of jerusalem "(OSMTH) , address of Grand Commander and web site address are referenced on page www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/asp/form.asp?RegID=all&CnID=all&kw=&NGOID=2904 as well as on page: http://esa.un.org/coordination/ngo/search/DisplayOrgInfo.asp?OrgID=1789&Mode=view

OTHER SOURCES: our websites cited in text, and our swiss registry Number CH Lt Col de PICCIOTTO

—LtCol Marcel de PICCIOTTO Grand Chancellor-elect ,OSMTH

Regards, Lara♥Love 13:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

do you realise that the supremus military order is not the sovereign order? they are using the wrong name. the sovereign only comes from a business charter in america and not the original order that still exists in scotland!

Cleanup

I took a cleanup pass at the article. I appreciate the information that's added, but I think we need to be careful here of the difference between an info page and an encyclopedia article. Especially as regards notability, I think that for best results, we should stick with including information that's been published in outside sources, rather than info that's coming directly from the organization's website. Can we find more newspaper/magazine articles that talk about the Order, or the split? --Elonka 03:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnt know what to keep and what to toss out myself ?!?! I have a fear that this group is deeply connected to the Mason movement, moreso than any connection to the Knights Templar. What brought me here was the link to here from the Knights templar in the Organization Section. I felt that mason connection must be shown. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove it via a newspaper article or book? If so, feel free to include it.  :) --Elonka 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Took me a bit to find it ... but on [1] the section is called "The Masonic Connection" (the link to the site was removed in an edit). As well here [2], on the left side of the page ... several logo's are grouped togeather, im just not sure what to make of it.

hehehe...did you happen to notice this [3], kinna funny under the circumstance. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd be cautious about using any of those, since they appear to be personal of "hobbyist" websites. Got anything a little more solid, like a reputable news source? --Elonka 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not anything more than 'my spider senses' atta mo' but I'll keep looking. Thanks so much for your help. This article looks a lot better than it did before. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC) _{p.s. Im rooting for you vs. the 3letter wonder}

I did a quick search of my own, and found some hits at http://books.google.com and http://scholar.google.com . I'll leave it to you to poke around and see if you can find anything interesting. If so, let me know and I'll see if I can help you track down a copy of one of the books or papers. There's also a really useful "Find this book in a library" feature at books.google.com which shows up on most (not all) books, so if you type in your zip code, you may find something nearby.  :) Best, Elonka 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding notability

There is stuff in this article that does establish notability... For the parent group Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani. I'm wondering if we should move this to an article on the OSMTH, and make the SMOTJ a section for that article. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "split"

I haven't been able to find anything saying that the SMOTJ split from the OSMTH. It looks like a former head tried to seize power and was pushed aside. An UK OSMTH timeline and a NY SMOTJ timeline are in agreement that a head by the name of De Fontes tried to change the rules (these changes were rejected), refused to authorise a meeting which would have chosen a new Grand Master, and later rejected the offer to hold on to a similar honorary title.

I'm going to remove references to there being a "split," as it appears to have been an outside misunderstanding. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian, OSMTH and SMOTJ are the same thing, one in latin the other in English. If you want I will clearly define what you are trying to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Still, the international organization goes by OSMTH, and the American branch goes by SMOTJ. Since the international group goes by OSMTH, and its the international group that meets the notability guidelines, the article title needs to be OSMTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving

Actually, considering the "split" issue and the notability issue... I'm just going to turn this into an OSMTH article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

History issue....

I took out the Napoleon quote for the following reasons: OSMTH states an 1804 founding on their site, and the quote about Napoleon's interest is unclear as stated. Looking into the Introvigne source, Fabre founded a "neo-Templar tradition" but no group in particular is named, and the quote actually indicates Napoleon's "interest" was to allow for a ceremony in 1808, not the implied statement of approval of the organization in 1805. MSJapan (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism in July/August 2007

Moderators please note the comments made by Marcel De Picciotto in 2007 that were escalated and approved as the correct version for OSMTH. I have just removed substancial vandalism that took place in July/August this year which perverted the text to suggest that Sousa De Fontes was the Grand Master of OSMTH (NGO). OSMTH (NGO) is the only Templar organisation recognised by the United Nations. The original articles also mentioned work specific to us around the globe, including, media articles by reputable agencies.

We suggest such edits were either made in intent or by misunderstanding of who and what our Order is.

Further clarification can be sought at www.osmth.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.251.177 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

2007 Version?

Why is the article being reverted back to an "approved" 2007 version of the article? If the article has been incorrect since 2007, please discuss here what is wrong with that article, instead of reverting back to a 4+ year old version of the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sudoghost, I am Paul McGowan, the Acting Chief Comms officer of OSMTH (position ended in 2012). An NGO registered in Switzerland and recognised by the United Nations in Special Consultative Status. The problem with the majority of edits since 2007 is that they are either biased or just plain nonsense. Our fellow colleague, Dr Marcel De Picciotto went through this loop 4 years ago. And what you see is "outdated" is in fact "historical" and needs to remain so. I was shocked when Wiki Mods are in fact allowing false and inaccurate graphics on the page. OSMTH (Internationally) uses the Cross Pattee, not the Patriarchal Cross. The modern Order exists as a Christian Organisation for the greater good of humanity. Further references can be found by contact the Department of Public Information at the UN in NYC.

Yes, the article needs some amendment, including the list of democratic Grand Masters their have been since the mid 90s, but in essence the current article is what the organisation represents and not some fantasists or deluded persons view of the Order today.

If that is the case, each issue needs to be handled on its own, a mass revert to a four year old version is not appropriate, and it seems the IP has serious WP:OWN issues, and edit warring is not the way to get things done. The edit has removed sourced content on a massive scale, and due to the WP:COI, it would be strongly preferred that a third-party editor change the article. I have requested semi-protection of the article to prevent further disruption. With respect, your organization does not own or control this article, and any sourced, valid changes cannot be reverted simply because they are not "approved". - SudoGhost 18:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate Sudoghost if you can reveal your name as it makes this process surreal. Nothing to do with "approved" items, its more to do with whats factual and representative of the totality of the information. As someone who has had to deal with public enquiry's for over 13 years and 10 of those dealing with European Templarism, I shudder at the level of misinformation is out there. Not trying to criticise yourself but you have less than 2 years on wiki and one of the other writers on the discussion page is still a student, who by the way does not understand the SMOTJ is the same as OSMTH. The contention about Sousa Fontes will never be resolved by WIki, the best it can do is to state (as we have done) that there is two OSMTH Orders, one known as OSMTH (IE the NGO one) and the other OSMTH Regency under Fontes. Please take you time to read the issue that was presented and you will see the clarity in what is there. Final question, are you trying to say that what was a fact 4 years ago is no longer the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that articles are never "finished", they are constantly being improved, and to wind the clock back four years because you feel that it's the "right" version is incorrect. While I have been editing Wikipedia as a registered user for two years, I have over 7000 edits, while you have less than 30, so whatever you are insinuating about my experience on Wikipedia is irrelevant, at best. If you do not address these issues one by one on the talk page, they will not be fixed, that is the way things are done, by discussion and consensus. Consensus which seems to be against your "version" of the article. - SudoGhost 18:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what was your name? Unfortunately and in reality, the only articles that survive are not by consensus but who can hold on longest. I have seen a number of good articles wasted on Wiki with this approach. Verifable Facts, Academic Proof, not the ability to be able to play ping pong until the other players give up.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems

Yes it's garbage, but it's delivered so much faster! By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco • Get more from this author Posted in Music and Media, 18th October 2005 03:48 GMT

Free whitepaper – The financial case for cloud computing

Encouraging signs from the Wikipedia project, where co-founder and überpedian Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work.

Criticism of the project from within the inner sanctum has been very rare so far, although fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, who is no longer associated with the project, pleaded with the management to improve its content by befriending, and not alienating, established sources of expertise. (i.e., people who know what they're talking about.)" Paulmagoo (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions, but unfortunately your opinion on the uselessness of consensus does not matter here. Crudely copy-pasting a six year old opinion piece doesn't exactly give you much here. Consensus is what gets things done, edit warring does not. This is not your article, it is Wikipedia's article, and Wikipedia operates through consensus. The version you reverted was backed by verified sources, just not sources you liked. Thus, it will be restored to how it was, and from there you're more than welcome to discuss what's wrong with the article and go from there. - SudoGhost 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the consensus version, I would ask that you list any issues with this version here, instead of reverting back to the older preferred version, which itself had numerous problems ("It today's world the Order exists", etc.) so that these issues can be addressed by a neutral, third-party editor. Thank you. - SudoGhost 18:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected

The article has been semiprotected, which means that anonymous edits will no longer be allowed. Please see WP:AN3#User:80.238.1.135 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Semi). The people who are arguing for a version that they think was approved in 2007 need to work patiently to get others to support your view. Using IP addresses to revert without waiting for a talk page consensus not a way forward. A person who identifies as an official of the group has joined the talk page discussion. This is fine, so long as you realize that you do not control Wikipedia and you are expected to follow the policy here. If you pay for your own web site, you can control what appears on it. What controls Wikipedia is consensus based on what reliable sources have published. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for alteration 01

Change: "The Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH), also known as the Knights Templar, is a self-styled order founded in 1945 by Antonio Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes (1878-1960), [2][3][4] claiming to be a continuation of the self-styled l'Ordre du Temple founded in 1804 by Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat. [5]

Fernando Campello Pinto Pereira de Sousa Fontes succeeded his father as the head of the order in 1960."

To: "The official name of the Order is Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH), commonly known in English as the "Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem" (SMOTJ), with the Latin motto “Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomine Tuo ad gloriam”, (“Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory”).

But to most people the Order - OSMTH and SMOTJ - is simply known as the "Knights Templar".

It today's world the Order exists as an ecumenical Christian international organisation which was founded in 1804, based on the traditions of the medieval Knights Templar and principles of chivalry first in 1118 A.D. The traditional weapon of the Knights was the sword. The traditional role of the Knights Templar order, which emerged in the middle ages, was to protect pilgrims in the Holy Land.

The central figure behind this revival was Fabre-Palaprat, a French physician who took a keen interest in the history of the medieval Knights Templar. In 1808 the Order of the Temple was granted patronage and recognition by Napoleon Bonaparte; this same recognition extended by Napoleon III."

Reasoning: a: OSMTH (NGO) is nothing to do with Sousa Fontes, He is the Autocratic Grand Master of OSMTH - Regency b: Footnote 5 (Who/When/Where) is partially correct to the point of below:

"The most direct lineage of the Knights Templars founded by Fabre-Palaprat, is the Belgian ‘lay’ branch (the only one still active), which in 1894 promoted the formation of an International Secretariat of Templars in Brussels. In 1942, the Order’s archives were entrusted to Antonio Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes (1878-1960) in Portugal, and Fontes thereafter proclaimed himself Grand Master, thus assuring the neo-templar movement international diffusion. In 1948 he designated his son Fernando Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes to succeed him as Grand Master. On his death, Fernando assumed the title of ‘Prince Regent’." c: Although footnote 5 continues to descibe the various schisms between the 70s and 90s it does not mention the separation of OSMTH (NGO) from OSMTH Regency in 95 and is described in various websites and under the "declaration of separation" on the osmth.org website. d: Neither does footnote 5 mention that there has been a subsequent division of OSMTH regency in the last couple of years where Sousa Fontes has been stipulated as having health issues. e: Footnote 2: Chivalricorders, is not an academic and agreed source of information but the rather specific viewpoints of a Guy Stair Saintly. f: Footnote 3 references to a page re AMORC. As a previous member of AMORC (Ancient Mystical Order Rosi Crucis), I can confirm that AMORC and OSMTH have no connection together. Note sure what this footnote was trying to prove but it doesnt prove that Fontes started OSMTH after the war? It does accept that Fontes took the Order's archive into protection during the second world war, which everyone is agreed upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 12:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The link you provided for the first reference gives a 404 error. The OSMTH indicates that SMOTJ is the American branch. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Request for alteration 02

Remove: "The American branch of this group, until recently, when under the leadership of Vincent G. Zubras, accepted the claims laid out in the Larmenius Charter, [6] although it no longer claims this today.[7]"

Reasoning: Zubrus is nothing to do with OSMTH and we strongly wish to dissassociate ourselves from Zubrus. Zubrus is not head, and has never been head of the American OSMTH Order.

Reference: http://thetemplebooklet.co.uk/The%20Templar%20Papers.htm "Vincent Zubras is the Grand Master of OPCCTS, a group claiming direct lineage from the Knights Templar."

Note OPCCTS, NOT OSMTH !

Request for this statement to be removed please?

Re the Larimus Charter, happy to discussion to continue on that on a separate heading under "Myths" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 13:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. The cite provided was a Masonic Templar site at any rate. Ian.thomson (talk)

Request for alteration 03

Add:

"Many groups claim to be the sole legitimate "Order of the Temple"; some even connect their spurious claims with medieval Templar lineage. However, it's important to note that very few medieval Orders started as anything more than fellowships; the status of "Chivalric Order" was earned though results-driven hard work. Which leads us to the Templars of today. "

To the end of the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit POV. The article should only describe the group, not glorify them ("non nobis") or put down competing groups. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for alteration 04

Either remove the graphics of the neck jewel and breast star as they are of OSMTH Regency or allow us to add our graphics and allow the changes to differentiate between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it on the grounds that the reference was a spamlink. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for alteration 05 - Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem

Remove:

a: Header, as the above alteration 01 confirms that SMOTJ (English) is the same as OSMTH (Latin), replace with "Modern History" b: Remove:

"In 1970, a split occurred within the OSMTH and Fernando Campello Pinto Pereira created the The Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (SMOTJ), having previously succeeded his father as the head of the OSMTH in 1960.[13] This was caused when Antoine Zdrojewski was unexpectedly elected as the new head of the OSMTH at the Convent of Paris.[14] Zdrojewski became the head of the SMOTJ until his death in 1989, and was succeeded by George Lamirand as the head of the SMOTJ until his death in 1994. [15]"

Fontes did not create "The Sovereign Military Order of the Temple" if he was still the Grand Master of OSMTH as it was the same thing? A more correct version is found below:

http://www.answers.com/topic/sovereign-military-order-of-the-temple-of-jerusalem "Antonio Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes died in 1960 and was succeeded by his son, Fernando Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes. However, not all approved his election and in 1970, a French-speaking group gathered in Paris where Antoine Zdrojewski was elected regent of what became a rival body. This rival body included a number of people with right-wing political affiliations. They soon involved the order in their political intrigues and it was disbanded in France in 1973. Internationally it became the source of a variety of new orders."

c: Please Add:

"In the mid-1990's a schism took place splintering the Order into several different factions, the two main groups being the "OSMTH Regency" and "OSMTH Atlantic Obedience". The remainder of this article specifically relates to the structure and works of the "OSMTH - Atlantic Obedience": what is now better known as the NGO "OSMTH" (Swiss Registration CH-660-1972999-4).

The Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (OSMTH) is structured as an international association of autonomous national Grand Priories, whose goals are: the preservation of the holy sites in and around Jerusalem; antiquarian research; charitable works; diplomatic lobbying and intervention.

Much of their work is humanitarian in nature focusing on international regions affected by conflict and/or disaster, as well as addressing the very real needs of the local community. Such work is often carried out in partnership with and/or for the benefit of other faiths, creeds and ethnic backgrounds.

OSMTH is not a church, fundamentalist group, or missionary organisation.

As a modern-day Christian Order of Chivalry OSMTH achieves its goals through "four pillars":
1. Peacemaking and Peacebuilding: diplomacy, humanitarian relief and development
2. Clergy: active and close working relations with all Christian denominations
3. Membership: quality membership in terms of background, expertise, motivation, and networks
4. Tradition: as expressed in patronage and code of conduct

However four other factors are crucial to the approach and governance of the Order: democracy, transparency, equality and non-political activity or allegiance.

In 2001, the Order was accredited by the United Nations Economic and Social Council as a Non-Governmental Organisation, with Special Consultative Status. Additionally the Order, as an ecumenical Christian and humanitarian organisation, is an associate member of the International Peace Bureau, founded by Alfred Nobel in 1891, and an affiliate of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy.

In terms of membership, Christian men who join the organisation are called "Knights" with the republican honorific of Chevalier and females are termed "Dames" with the republican honorific of Chevaleresse (or Chevalière). A secular-military order of chivalry, the Knights Templar operate as a modern day network of educated professionals, with numbers exceeding 5200 (Aug. 2007), including

• government officials,
• diplomats,
• clergy,
• military officers,
• physicians and surgeons,
• engineers and
• historians.

The knighthood is intended to possess high ethical and moral principles. The Christian and humanistic chivalric ideals of the Order of the Knights Templar are:

• honour,
• honesty,
• civility,
• tolerance,
• care of others, and
• support for ecumenical religious faith

The virtues or guiding lights of the Knights Templar are:

• faith,
• hope and
• charity

The weapon of the modern Templar Knights is the word which is used:

• to serve peace,
• to help the oppressed,
• to assist humanity,
• to promote education, and
• to promote and propagate those values

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 14:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Answers.com does not meet the reliable source guidelines. I have not been able to find any reliable sources discussing a mid-90s schism. Also, just "citing" the United Nations website is no way to provide a citation. Many of the citations you provided are not proper citations: they're just the root website. Please cite the exact page that states that the Order is a UN recognized NGO instead of just citing www.UN.org (for example this PDF and this one listing the SMOTJ as a recognized NGO, or the the IPB's membership list, etc). Your citation from RMC.CA only gives a 404 error. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Request for alteration 06 - Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem

Remove: "The SMOTJ has an American autonomous[16] branch of the Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani.[17][18] The ecumenical organization operates as a modern day network of educated professionals.[9][16] As of August 2007, the organization had approximately 5,200 members.[19] Their goals are the preservation of the holy sites in and around Jerusalem; antiquarian research; charitable works; diplomatic lobbying and intervention.

Despite the organization's name, it has never been sovereign, nor is it a military order." -- The first paragraph is replaced by a statement in the previous section. The Autonomous Grand Priory of the USA (OSMTH) is referred interally within the US as SMOTJ. I can see how that confuses people but in essence:

OSMTH = SMOTJ... OSMTH is an association of associations, the body of which it is made up of its respective (Country) Grand Priories.

Re the Second paragraph re Sovereign/Military. This adds nothing to the article and should be removed. OSMTH does have Religious and Royal Protectors: Ref: http://www.osmth.org/admin_exec.htm

"RELIGIOUS PROTECTOR His Beatitude Metropolitan Theodosius"

ROYAL PATRON H.R.H. Princess Elisabeth zu Ysenburg und Büdingen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read the reliable source guidelines, and our citation policies. We can't just add information, we need sources for it. If it doesn't have a source, it's not supposed to be added. We especially cannot remove cited information. As for the Royal patron, it would be more accurate to say that they have sovereign patronage, but that does not technically make them sovereign. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(NGO) OSMTH - Knights Templar International validation of UN work

- http://www.csvgc-geneva.org/officers-and-members.html - NGO committee on Spirituality, Values and Global Concerns: At the United Nations Geneva - Ref: - Marcel de Picciotto (Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani OSMTH) - Full Member - John Schmeling (Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani OSMTH) - Full Member - Jean Ford (Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani OSMTH) - Full Member - - - - http://www.csf-ong.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=69 - NGO Committee on the Environment: At the United Nations Geneva - Current Members - - Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (OSMTH). Vice Chair and Co Founder: Col.Dr Marcel de PICCIOTTO GCTJ - - Others to be referenced: - NGO Comittee on Human Rights (Geneva) - Marcel de Picciotto (Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani OSMTH) - Full Member - CoNGO : OSMTH is a full member

Request for assistance by a third party Editor and Promotion of changes on discussion page to article

Can we have assistance please from a third party editor in being able to correct a number of errors on the article page, thanks. Paulmagoo (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a little more clear what exactly you're wanting to add from the CSVGA and CSF sites? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Page forked, duplicated, or ?

I was looking at Category:Knights Templar and saw a link to a recently-created page:

Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani - Knights Templar International, Swiss Reg No: CH-660.1.972777-4

As a result, I have two questions:

• Is that page a content fork of this one, or ?
• Is there a reason this page isn't included in Category:Knights Templar?

Thanks, Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New Idea: Equal Treatment of the 3 Branches

Editors, I want to bring up a new idea for this article as it has suffered from Editorial wars as each of the 3 branches of this organization fight for legitimacy as the "True " order.

As an Editor, I'm a member of 2 of these 3 branches of this organization as I belong to OSMTH.org/SMOTJ.org and I belong to OSMTJ.net. I have no ill-will toward the 3rd branch, OSMTH.net, and I think I can be fair and objective in their treatment. Being in two of these branches and knowing a great deal about the 3rd adds to my knowledge to be able to break through some of the confusion and infighting.

In the very first sentence here, "The Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH), also known as Knights Templar International...", that second half refers to only 1 of the 3 branches. "Knights Templar International is a legally registered name for the OSMTH.org and does not apply to the other two branches. I have therefore removed that second statement as it does not describe the "The Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH)" as a whole.

Let me ask then if there is a consensus for: 1) Making it clear that there are 3 branches of the "Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani" 2) Give each branch equal treatment and acknowledgement. 3) Not giving in to the pressure from any of the 3 branches to dominate the article.

Let me start out by giving a short history of the 3 branches:

1) www.OSMTH.net - Is the original with it's seat in Portugal and still under Regent/Grand Master de Sousa Fontes, also referred to as "OSMTH Regency".

2) www.OSMTJ.net with its U.S. Priory at www.TheKnightsTempalr.org - In a 1970 election, General Zdrojewski defeated the previous Regent de Sousa Fontes by election. However, at least half of the organization stayed with Regent Fontes and now you have the first split. Unlike the other two, this group goes by, the name OSMTJ or "Ordre Souverain et Militaire du Temple de Jérusalem."

Up to this point it was simple, and after 1970, the original group went by OSMTH, and the General Zdrojewski group went by OSMTJ. Then in 1995 you had a 3rd split from OSMTH Regency Fontes group that is the following:

3) From the 3rd split in 1995: www.OSMTH.org and www.SMOTJ.org (together) broke off, the first being the international branch and the 2nd being the American branch of the same organization. This group was part of OSMTH Regency and split off in 1995. Their United States Grand Prior was founded in 1962 by Crolian William Edelen. This group has legally registered the name, "Knights Templar International," and it's the only branch that can go by that name. Here's were it get's confusing, even though they call their organization OSMTH, their U.S. Branch calls itself SMOTJ and has a 1993 TradeMark on the name "Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem." That trademark can be found here: http://www.trademarkia.com/the-sovereign-military-order-of-the-temple-of-jerusalem-74449931.html This group is the one that has NGO observer status with the United Nations and lots of retired U.S. Military Officers. In 1995, this group successfully sued the group they split from, and made the original group, OSMTH.net stop using the name, "Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem," in the United States because the original group didn't show up in court to defend itself.

So you can see how no other group can refer to themselves in the U.S. as the, "Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem," and that name only refers to one of the 3 branches.

Currently, this article is 70% about only one branch of the OSMTH, that being the ones found at OSMTH.org/SMOTJ.org. All 3 of the "External Links" go to Priories of the OSMTH.org. A self aggrandizing book is on the "Further Reading List" that is written by one of the Leaders of the OSMTH.org and only represents their view of the order: Chev. Leo Thys, KCTJ. "History of the Order of the Temple of Jerusalem: From 1118 to 2005", ISBN 90-901931-7-0. Chev. Leo Thys was/is the Grand Prior of the Grand Priory of Belgium under the OSMTH.org.

Thoughts? Dr. B. Jones (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

OSMTH vs SMOTJ

OSMTH is the umbrella term for at least three organizations (OSMTH, OSMTH-Regency). SMOTJ is a registered trademark of the Grand Priory of the USA and not the generic term. Further, the OSMTH page was updated with additional information (and will be restored). The intention is to change SMOTJ to a redirect to this page. Please do not delete this page again without justification or a rebuttal regarding the correct use of a trademarked name. Sources: osmth.org, osmth.org, osmtj.net

User:RHaworth Please explain the justification for deletion. The content was moved from SMOTJ to OSMTH and updated and both were undone without any justification for either or any response to the talk page. A private message was sent and a response was not provided.

---

CORRECTION: The "OSMTJ" is not under that same umbrella you mentioned above, it is a totally different organization because it recognizes the 1970 Election of Grand Master Zdrojewski and is trademarked under a totally different organization. Here is the Trademark for the "OSMTJ" totally separate from the "SMOTJ" Trademark: https://trademarks.justia.com/866/32/osmtj-86632875.html

Untitled

Wall of text by Michael mifsud canilla

The'Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH), is the modern name given to this ancient and well recorded Order by membership consensus in 1970 as a suggestion by the Regent Fernando de Sousa Fontes because of legal complications relating to the use of the word sovereign (originally Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem and Orden Soberana y Militar del Templo de Jerusalem) there being no sovereign landholding or Crown to substantiate it. Technically, it is a lay order of chivalry by direct association to the well recorded transmission of powers from Jacque de Molay (executed by the French State) through the centuries, via the aristocracy and Church hierarchy to this day. Historical investigators of the Order like Norberto Castro Tossi, (diplomatic representative to UNESCO for Costa Rica in his days 1930 - 1960) who concluded that the Order had never lost its sovereignty,since it had it,just like the Order of Malta (Hospitallers)in its own right. Supremus therefore in the interim was found acceptable. As a result, some distinguished members of the Order who were also against the transmission of the Regency to his son Fernando, lamentably left the fold. They were however now all reaching advanced ages and simply retired. The suppression, as has been discovered in documents in the Vatican by Dr.Frale and internationally published as a personal letter written by Clement V, was reversed by the exoneration. In which case the Order would have and did become a lay Order under the internal "sovereignty" of its Grand Master or Regent.There is sufficient detailed documentation in the Vatican, The records of the Cistercian Order and the French National Archives to show that there is only one Order of the Temple of any legitimacy today. Whilst the transmission of father to son of the Regency, was perhaps a source of great aggravation over the years, there is nothing to challenge the present legitimacy with respect to a proper and signed transmission from father to son in difficult years in a country under communist rule. Dr.Fabre Palaprat inherited the Order from the Duc. de Chevrillon who in turn inherited it from the Duc de Brisac who as head of the Scots Guards was to be executed during the Revolution. All documents including one which was apparently not to be released publicly, were passed on to the Duc de Chevrillon who under fear of death by the powers of France relunctantly passed it on to the first non nobleman and all problems stemmed from there. The aristocracy had influence and knew how to handle Orders of Chivalry with elegance and secrecy as a brotherhood. Fabre Palaprat was not equipped at first and clashed with the Church instantly as a result of his indiscretions relating to the contents of some of the documents. There is therefore no doubt that Fabre Palaprat and his administrators whose letters in the National Archives from prominent members of the Society to Priors in other parts of the world, were not founders but heirs of the "Sovereignty" of the Order and that Napoleon knew and respected that. The transmission by the "so called" last Grandmaster of the Order, Jacque de Molay,was questioned in so far as the man named in this document as successor was none other than Larmenius the Patriach of the Orthodox Church in Jerusalem or as he was called, The Latin Patriarch. The contents of the document called The Larmenius Charter, show without doubt that it is not the forgery Masons claim it to be. The London HQ of the movement has always had a Marc. Lodge and displayed this document with great pride. The other important and valuable document inherited by Palaprat, was the public revival of the Order under Philippe d´Orleans, a royal prince, at Versailles. Again (and mistakingly deliberately or not), Masons for some absurd reason have called it another forgery "by their own members", but the extensive document published together with a list of the noble families within the fold,is as clear as any legal document can be except that for reasons to do with country´s special relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, the name Templar was changed to Orient. The Order was to be known externally as The Order of the Knights of the Orient. This gave rise to the usual protective stance by the British Crown with respect to membership by its citizens of foreign "committments" and the Masonic Central Lodge which emerged from nothing, followed with the excuse that it could be traced through the Scottish Royal Order of Templar origins. In 1804, France´s most celebrated publishing house published it to all an sundry including a manual for the modern knight. This was exactly 100 years after the installation at Versailles. The French Royal Records of the Palace testify to its authenticity. Whilst the controversy over the management of the Order (mainly unfair) by the "dynastic" house of Fontes, continues to rage even at the very late age of the present Regent, it is clear by mere meticulous records of membership and their backgrounds that there is no scope for the present copies which lack knowledge of real documentary evidence, secret cyphers attesting to continuity in collar and ring of the Regent and obvious glossy treatment for commercial reasons by most of these. There were very many attempts to remove the Regent during his period of office, but the stalwarts and supporters of the Order despite the difficulties of running such a vast organisation without proper access to economic means - most Priors influenced by Masonic relations, were not keen on annual dues and left all international correspondence in the hands of the Grand Master in a poverty stricken country with very low property rateable values and from which estate he could barely keep his own family together. In the UK a retired Major General who made no bones about his wish to deflect the Order´s legitimacy,took it over whilst deriding the authority of the Magistral Legate to the country. In other parts of the world, a so called Scottish right to rule outsted many a good working Prior and in Switzerland the sinister PD2 of Masonic origins, unable to obtain the release of the Regency to its Grand Prior, by financial enticement of a high order, helped to create what is now called the Sovereign Order and all the spurious claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael mifsud canilla (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725024735/http://www.osmth.org/documents/OSMTH%20International%20-%20Overview%20-%20V7.pdf to http://www.osmth.org/documents/OSMTH%20International%20-%20Overview%20-%20V7.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://us.osmth.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

succession du Maître Lamirand

Correction: Grand Master Georges Lamirand passed away in 1994 having left his Grand Commander Dr. Nicolas Hastier, in charge to be his Regent.

Notability?

Is this article even necessary? As far as I can see it's about a bunch of fantasists who like dressing up in fancy robes and granting each other ever more extravagant titles. Very little in the way of notability from reliable sources other than the websites of the OSFGTHJ or the OHMTJS (or whatever it is called). I speak as the Supreme Arbiter of Supplicants to the Ineffable Essence of the Peacock Throne, so naturally my words carry authority. FrankP (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• OSMTH-OSMTJ Splits updated.png (discussion)
• OSTMH-OSMTJ Timeline.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)