The Ecclesiastical Orders of Knighthood

by James Herman Van der Veldt

To the question why the Papacy bestows these decorations, the answer is given by a Pope who certainly disapproved of any vanity or show but who nevertheless recognized the value of such decorations, namely St. Pius X. In the preamble to the Brief Multum ad excitandos (Feb. 7, 1905)[30] in which he reorganized the Orders of Christ, of the Golden Spur and of St. Sylvester, the holy pontiff makes this statement: “Multum ad excitandos ad egregia facinora hominum animos, praemia virtuti reddita valent, quae dum ornant egregios bene de re sacra vel publica meritos viros, ceteros exemplo rapiunt ad idem laudis honorisque spatium decurrendum.” And his predecessor, Pius IX, in the Brief Romanis Pontificibus (June 17, 1847),[31] declared that orders of knighthood “are not instituted to encourage vanity and ambition, but solely to reward virtue and outstanding merits.”[32]

THE SUPREME ORDER OF CHRIST
MILITIA DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI

Saint Pius X in his Brief Multum ad excitandos, mentioned above, decreed that the Supreme Order of Christ is to be considered the highest ranking of all Pontifical Orders. It looks almost like an ironical twist of history when we recall that the highest decoration granted by the Pope at the present day proves to derive from a religious order which one of the Pope’s predecessors suppressed in the fourteenth century.

The Order of Christ was founded in the year 1318, but since it is a continuation—under a different name—of the Order of the Templars, it goes as far back as 1119. In all probability this makes the Order of Christ the oldest order of knighthood in the world. We say, in all probability, for there is quite a controversy about the prior antiquity of the Order of the Temple or that of the Hospital. The most likely answer seems to be that the Order of the Hospital antedates the former by a few years, inasmuch as the Hospitallers were organized in the year 1112. However, at first they were an order of charity and only gradually did they develop into a military order during the reign of the second master, Raymond du Puy (1120-60), whereas the Templars were organized from the outset as a military order. For that reason the Temple can be said to be the prototype of all orders of knighthood.

Although the leaders of the first Crusade had defeated the infidels in the Holy Land and captured Jerusalem, July 15, 1099, still many bands of Saracens were left which held several mountain strongholds and were roving around the countryside, harassing the Christian pilgrims on their way to the holy places. In view of this state of affairs, Hugh de Payns, a knight from Champagne, in 1119, twenty years after the capture of Jerusalem, gathered around him in that city seven companions and formed with these knights a religious community. In contrast with the ordinary religious groups, this community had a special character, for the knights not only took the usual vows of obedience, poverty and chastity, but they added a fourth vow of a decidedly military nature. In virtue of this vow the knights became a kind of transport troops, providing the Christian pilgrims with police escort. Later, the vow assumed a more general character, namely that of defending the Holy Land. The knights called themselves Milites Christi, soldiers of Christ, but because their first Convent was a part of the palace of the king of Jerusalem, which was supposed to have been built close by the place where once Solomon’s temple stood, they became traditionally known as the Knights of the Temple, or the Templars.

In the first few years of their existence, they followed the Augustinian rule, but later adopted a rule written for them by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the great promoter of the second crusade and admirer of the Templar’s ideal. This rule was based on the rule of the Cistercians but adapted to the way of life of the knights. Because of this connection with St. Bernard’s order, the knights wore over their armature a white mantle to which Pope Eugenius III added a red cross. The members of the Temple were divided into three classes: the knights, the sergeants-at-arms and priests who acted as chaplains for the order.

In the space allotted it is not possible to discuss in detail the development, the activities and the decline of the Templars. They proved themselves real heroes in the battles against the enemies of the Cross, although at times they were imprudent and reckless, and needlessly sacrificed their men. Occasionally, they were in arms against their Christian brothers, especially the Hospitallers of St. John. They had the reputation of being proud, even to the point of arrogance. Great wealth they accumulated, but—unlike the Hospitallers—they were little engaged in works of charity and thus left themselves open to charges of selfishness and greed as launched against them by their enemies.

After the fall of Acre (1291) the Templars gave up the fight against the Crescent. The Knights of St. John kept on fighting at sea while the “Soldiers of Christ” (Knights Templar) retired to Western Europe, and became bankers as well as financial administrators of kings and merchants.

These financial enterprises—so different from the original objectives as envisaged by St. Bernard—did not last long. Twenty-one years after they had left the Orient, the Templars were suppressed on April 3, 1312, by Pope Clement V who acted under pressure from the French king Philip the Fair. The merits of the trial, in which the charges against the Templars were weighed is still a matter of debate among historians, the majority of whom, however, believe that these charges were false in general. There is the curious note that the Pope in his formula of suppression stated that the act of extinction was not to be taken as a condemnation of the Templars; also, that Philip the Fair had the last Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, burned at the stake (March 18, 1314), before the three cardinals whom the Pope had ordered to investigate his case had a chance to bring the trial to an end. It is true, nonetheless, that the Order of the Templars outlived its usefulness for the Church—except in Portugal and Spain.[33]

That exception was to have far-flung consequences. The Templars in Portugal and Spain had not become mere bankers, but still lived up to the purpose for which they were founded, namely the fight against the infidel. Hence, King Denis I of Portugal—husband of St. Elizabeth—and James II of Aragon were quite satisfied with the services of the Templars in their countries and refused to believe the charges of idolatry and heresy brought against them. They therefore failed to obey the directives of the papal decree of suppression. Of course, they could not possibly allow the Templars to continue under their old name, for such a flagrant act of disobedience might well have merited excommunication. In their countries, they allowed the Templars to reorganize as a new military order of knighthood. Thus the Order of Christ came into existence in Portugal (1318) and the Order of Our Lady of Monteza in Spain; the latter was used for the defense of the coastal areas against the Saracens.[34]