Templars Pros And Cons

488 Words2 Pages
The Masons who were responsible for learning these phrases and teaching them to other brothers had to take an oath. This would have been convenient for the Templars because lack of trustworthiness led to a death by burning. It is only appropriate that an oath breaker should have a worse punishment than a slow death. This brings forth the oath of initiation for a Master Mason. In it, he swears that if he breaks his oath that his “body be cut into two pieces and that his bowels be burned to ashes.” Once again, why would a guild of stonemasons go to such measures to take these oaths and how are these oaths even relevant to their society? It makes sense to Templars because their capture meant torture via whips, chains, and hot iron rods and being burned alive at the stake (Robinson). Not all Templars fled on foot. Jacque de Molay and some of his men set sail on…show more content…
The Templars were betrayed by the Pope, which is the embodiment of St. Peter on earth and the only interceder between them and God. This caused them lose faith in the Church and more importantly lose faith in the link between them on earth and God in heaven. They did not lose faith in God though. They still had to have a being by which to swear by because no Templar would have trusted an atheist brother’s oaths to protect his life. Once again, the tenets of Freemasonry seem to be relevant as a Freemason believes in a “Supreme Being” but is not allowed to discuss his beliefs or persuade others of it. Worshipping anyone other than the Christian God or worshipping through anyone but the Pope would have been heresy at the time so the Old Charges of Freemasonry are relevant. The Charge says that “no Mason should reveal the secrets of a brother that may deprive him of his life and property.” Since being a stonemason did not involve heresy, there is little chance that this rule applied to
Open Document