Sovereign Spanish Magistral Order of the Knights Templar
History of Priory
That from 1960 when French public opinion echoed the existence of a semi-secret society called Priorate of Zion.
Since that date, its statutes and material from the most diverse sources, not always contrastable, have been published, which implies walking with lead feet around everything that surrounds the organization.
Among his alleged affiliates we find names such as Leonardo da Vinci, Victor Hugo or Isaac Newton, among others more or less known. That is to say, if the pretensions of the priory were true, it would have housed in its ranks as great masters some of the greatest luminaries in Western history, as well as members of the main royal and aristocratic families of Europe.
Although the present existence of the organization seems undoubted, as well as that of an ancient Order of Zion in the time of the Crusades, the case of a continuity between the two over the centuries is not so clear.
The chronicles tell that in the year 1099, after the conquest of Jerusalem, the ruler of the city of Godfrey of Bouillon founded a mysterious Order on the abbey of Notre Dame du Mont Zion, of which little is known. Image result of Priory of Zion and the Templars.
It would later be such a society which would promote the creation of the Order of the Poor Knights of Christ, better known as Templars. If we listen to the texts coming from the Priory, the Order of Zion would have at the time of its foundation a considerable power, yes, always behind the scenes, even going so far as to affirm that the kings of the holy city owed their throne to this enigmatic society.
Thus, they would be the true architects of the extraordinary progression that the Templars experienced in the following years, obeying all this to a previously established plan. According to these sources, at least five of the nine founders of the Temple belonged in turn to the Order of Zion, and it could be said that in principle the Temple was the armed wing of the previous one or even that both orders were one, since they apparently shared the same Master.
It would be the case of André de Montbard, one of the knights originally from the Templar order and who would become the top leader of it. But St. Bernard's uncle also stands as a member of Zion, so we can get an idea of the twinning between the two.
This situation of fellowship would last for about sixty years, until in 1188, a year after the fall of Jerusalem into Muslim hands, there was a schism between the two orders that produced their definitive separation.
According to the Priory of Zion, the loss of the Holy Land would be largely guilty of the Order of the Temple, and Godfrey of Bouillon specifically his Master Gérard of Ridefort, whom the documents “prioré” accuse of treason. He dragged the Templars to fight at the Battle of the Horns of Hattin, which meant an authentic disaster for the Crusaders and led to the fall of Jerusalem.
- The situation would result in the Order of Zion moving to France, abandoning the Templars to their fate, their pupils and protected to date. The breakdown of relations was symbolized by the felling of an eight hundred-year-old elm, in the city of Gisors. From that moment on, the Order of Zion changed its name to Priory and devoted itself to its own objectives. But... what goals was it? Supposedly, the Priory's mission would be to protect a great secret related to the descendants of the dynasty of the Merovingian kings and to restore one of its members in the monarchy of France.
- Their legitimate offspring, which is believed to be extinct, would have been demonstrated by scrolls discovered in the French village of Rennes-le-Château. This discovery, which constitutes itself a complex enigma, we will treat it extensively in a later legend.
- Image result of Priory of Zion and the Templars To continue meeting the Temple, we must now delve into the intriguing mission that the Priory of Zion has imposed.
- 2. The Real Blood: The Custody of a Secret The behavior of the Priory of Zion, so it suggests in his publications, seems to obey a carefully precise and long-planned calendar.
They imply that they are the custodians of a secret of paramount importance, of which they would have irrefutable proof. It would be something that makes them extremely special and that takes its mission of a halo of attractive mysticism. There are traditions that attach great importance to Mary Magdalene, who we are told that after the crucifixion of Jesus arrives in the Gallic escorted by Joseph of Arimathea and carrying the Holy Grail.
According to what we can draw from the conception of the Priory, Mary Magdalene would be the wife of Jesus, and when she traveled she made him pregnant or accompanied by her progeny. Naturally here the term “Holy Grail” must be understood in the sense of Holy Blood, that is, as the physical offspring of Jesus, who moved to the Gauls and continued there. The Church omits all mention in her own tradition of the Holy Grail, so, logically, it does not suit her.
It is the struggle that until today would survive between the heirs of Peter and those of Mary Magdalene, the heirs of the faith and the heirs of the Blood. Once in present-day France, this Jewish lineage was maritally united with that of the Frankish kings, giving rise to the Merovingians. Around 500 A.D., with the baptism and conversion of King Cloveo, the Roman Church was established as the supreme spiritual authority of the West.
It could be said that it was a pact between Rome and the Merovingians, originating an alliance that should beget a new Holy Roman Empire. But it seems that the loyalty of the Franks to the Church was not very intense, since the Merovingians continued to maintain sympathy for the Aryan religion they practiced before their conversion to Christianity. Two hundred years later, the Merovingian king Dagoberto II was killed along with his family on behalf of his own palace butler, Cucumber of Heristal.
The Church, seeing its hegemony endangered, would have supported the conspiracy. With the death of Dagobert and his descendants the Merovingian dynasty came to an end, and that of the palace butlers began: the Carolingians, who had the ecclesiastical support. These, who were ultimately usurpers, tried to legitimize themselves by marrying Merovingian princesses and continued their reign. With Charlemagne they came to encompass an empire that extended throughout Western Europe and ruled it in the service of Rome. But it could be that the Merovingian dynasty did not go extinct with Dagobert II.
According to the Priory of Zion, the Merovingians, the lineage of Jesus, survived through a son of Dagobert who would have been saved from the murder of his family. His name was Sigisbert IV, and among his descendants would later be Godfrey of Bouillon. We know from the Gospels that Jesus was royal blood and David’s lineage. Jesus was the rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem.
His most unconditional followers were the Celotic nationalists, some fundamentalist fanatics who aspired to expel the Skull of Dagobert pro-Roman puppet government and reinstate the true royal lineage. In the Crusades, with the conquest of Jerusalem and the coronation of Godfrey of Bouillon, an heir of Jesus regained his legitimate heritage again being king of the Holy City. It is possible that given the hegemony of the Church at the time, Godfrey could never claim as his lineage and his right would like.
After all, Rome would be behind the betrayal of her family and although we do not know whether or not the Church was aware of the new king’s lineage, a public revelation could have been very dangerous. Godfrey would then have, to protect the secret of that sacred lineage, created the Order of Zion and its armed wing, the Order of the Temple. Interestingly, the grylalic legends that emerged in the Middle Ages, present the Templars as the custodians of the Holy Grail. Thus, the Holy Grail would be the bearer of the blood of Christ, but not in the symbolic sense of a vessel, but of its offspring: the bearers of its blood. And this would be the great secret of the Priory of Zion.
Secret also shared by the Knights of the Temple. It is now understood because the Templars associated the worship of the Mother Goddess to the Magdalena (see legend “The cult of black virgins”), since it represented the basis of their existence by identifying themselves with the mother of the lost lineage, the wearer of the Grail.
Priory himself, the Templars, or perhaps both, developing a long-term strategy, would have protected the heirs of the King of Israel with the aim of achieving world domination under the aegis of the Davidic dynasty. Needless to say, historical circumstances did not allow the target to be met. After the fall of Jerusalem and the loss of the Holy Land the project went down.
David’s heirs were once again seen without a crown and the existence of the Order of the Temple became unnecessary. Some try to see in this an explanation of why the Templars did not resist when they were captured by Philip IV’s troops. Without possessions in Overseas, separated from the Order of Zion and with the descendants of the Merovingians again in the shadow, they no longer had reason to be.
The Priory of Zion, which after the disappearance of the Temple dedicated itself to handling the threads that govern Europe from the underground in pursuit of its objectives, assures that soon there will be a turnaround in the French political situation that will prepare the way for the restoration of a monarchy. Will the goals of Zion and the Temple be met eight centuries later? Will we witness how a Merovingian descendant regains the throne of France? Time will tell.
THE PRIORATE OF ZION: DID JESUS CHRIST HAVE OFFSPRING?
The passion and death of Christ are the central point of the Christian faith since the early days of the Church. But if only he died on the cross, would he have married and had children? What if their descendants lived today? The discovery of secret documents, of a treasure or – as some have suggested – of mummified relics, of Christ in the village of R e n n e s – l e –Château, in the southwest of France, suddenly transformed into a millionaire a poor rural priest.
But that also set in motion a series of events that led to the discovery of a certain secret; if this turns out to be true, it will be the most important revelation in the history of Christianity.
Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln tell the story of the clues that led them to formulate “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” published in 1982. The book has provoked reactions of both enthusiasm and rejection among readers. Conventional critics, as expected, have dismissed the authors’ claims as an absurd fantasy, based on insubstantial evidence.
But those comments are as unfair as they are false. No one can dismiss for the good the numerous evidence gathered, which are otherwise presented with extreme caution. Rather it could be claimed that these authors have underestimated the breadth and true implications of the material they have gathered, and that they have overlooked many things. Behind the revealed secrets underlies an even greater mystery.
The authors of a book full of compelling arguments, “The holy blood and the Holy Grail” (1982), believe not, and present an entirely new interpretation. The authors of the book present evidence of the existence of an ancient mystery of international scope and of a secret society with numerous strata and whose influence has come to this day.
- The starting point of his research was a huge and enigmatic hidden treasure; his final conclusion is the amazing claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children. The descendants of those sons - they believe - were related to other kings and rulers of antiquity, especially with the Merovingians, the first dynasty of Frankish kings in the Gaul, and there are still direct descendants who await a call - or an opportunity - to assume a decisive role in European politics and, possibly, in the world.
- That, at the very least, is what the authors deduce from the facts they have discovered. The link between the holy blood and the Holy Grail that appears in the title of the book starts from an ingenious play on words.
- The Holy Grail is a complex and mysterious concept. For some authors it is a stone; for others a deposit of holy relics. But, more often, it is the cup that Christ used in the Last Supper, a cup in which his blood was collected when he was on the cross. In many of the earliest manuscripts on the Grail it is called Sangraal and even in the later version of Malory it appears as Bloody. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln claim that some of these forms—Sangraal or Blood—were closer to the original.
- And dividing them into two words, as seems logical to do, they come to the conclusion that the word might originally not be “San Graal” or “San Grail,” but “Sang Raal” or “Sang Réal.” “Or – as they claim triumphantly – using modern spelling, Sang Royal, that is, royal blood.” That is, the legend about the transfer of the Holy Grail from Judea to Europe does not refer to the legend of the transfer of an object, but to the true story of the arrival of the descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, bearers of royal blood or “rhial blood”. This is at least an impressive hypothesis.
But the hypothesis of the existence of these living descendants of Christ constitutes a weak link in the authors’ chain of argument, a very unconvincing interpretation of the facts. It seems unlikely, for example, that in the dozens of generations that have occurred since the time of Christ no descendant has succumbed to the temptation to proclaim “I am a direct descendant of Christ.”
We find no trace of such a revelation in the last 2,000 years, nor any solid evidence of a real progeny. Instead, we have a lot of trials and stories that refer tangentially to a central mystery and concrete details, such as the Holy Grail, talking skulls and severed heads, blood as a substance and as a symbol, alchemical wonders and some kind of society of elders or initiates.
But although the authors are right about the survival of Christ’s descendants, the central mystery is broader and more ancient. The story of Christ and the facts that surround it constitute only one piece (although an important piece, no doubt) of a mosaic whose magnitude is much greater than it seems. Warrior Monks Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln claim that the Knights Templar were among the most important depositaries of the secret.
This society of warrior monks was formed around 1120, to protect the pilgrims who went to the Holy Land. With amazing speed they transformed into a powerful military force and, in addition, the bankers of Europe. But his influence abruptly eclipsed on the night of Friday, October 13, 1307, when in compliance with an order of Philip IV of France all the Templars of that country were arrested. There were judgments and punishments, and the order was suppressed, it was discovered, it was not suppressed, but suspended, by order of the pope, in 1312, and this small but very important difference has been kept secret.
The authors have discovered documents that would indicate that the Templars constituted the military wing of an alliance. Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln and Michael Baigent, authors of “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.” In this book they raise the surprising theory that a secret society—the Priory of Zion—preserves the interests of Christ’s direct descendants. The Templars, a very powerful order of warrior monks that flourished between 1124 and 1307, were only the military arm of an even more powerful organization, the Priory of Zion, which dealt with the interests of Christ’s descendants. Such an alliance, according to them, was created and continues to exist for the purpose of protecting and promoting the interests of Christ’s direct descendants.
The list of leaders of the Priory of Zion through the ages is impressive; it includes Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli, Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo and Claude Debussy, and also a few seemingly unimportant French aristocrats. During the trials to which the French Templars were subjected in 1308, a member of the order declared that in his initiation he was shown a crucifix and was told: “Do not place much faith in this, for he is too young.” Another was told, “Christ is a false prophet”; and to a third: “Do not believe that Jesus, the man whom the Jews crucified in Outremer (Palestine) is God, nor that he can save you.”
In addition to other concrete accusations, the Templars were accused of denying, trampling and spitting out the cross. Considering this, it may be significant that in his decorations of the church of Notre-Dame de France, in London, made in 1960, Jean Cocteau, who supposedly succeeded Debussy as head of the Priory of Zion, represented himself standing, with his back to the cross.
And what’s more: at the foot of the cross he painted a gigantic pink, a mystical symbol whose antiquity is lost in the night of time. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln admit that there is no satisfactory explanation for the Templar’s rejection of the cross and crucifixion. But they do not recognize the serious weakness that this rejection means in their reasoning. If the Templars and their associates rejected the cross and the crucifixion (for whatever reason), why would they devote themselves to preserving the secret of the physical offspring of Jesus Christ and to restoring them in power?
One possible explanation that the authors then raise is that the one who died on the cross was a false Jesus Christ, and that the real one escaped. But that does not seem to be the tenor of the statements of the Templars: “Christ is a false prophet” and not “that was a false Christ.” And how to interpret the observation that the crucifix is “too young” to be the object of veneration? In fact, there is much evidence to show that the concerns of the Templars were other, immemorial and much more mysterious.
In the mural for the church of Notre-Dame de France, in London, Jean Cocteau, supposed Grand Master of the Priory of Zion from 1918 to 1963, was represented with his back to the cross.
The Templars were also accused, both by the Church and by persistent popular rumors, of believing that the bearded heads and skulls they worshipped in secret could “make the trees bloom and germinate the earth.” This accusation may seem innocuous at first sight, but, in fact, it firmly links Templar practices and traditions with the ancient pre-Christian fertility religions, with things that were not “d e m a s i a d or young” to have true occult powers.
There are many other things that the authors do not consider, for example, the fact that the Templars shouted “Selah” and other words “nonsense” when they fell before the heads. “Selah” occasionally appears at the end of some verses from the Psalms, and scholars have suggested that it might be a musical indication for choir directors. But there is another possible explanation: wouldn’t it be a “Shiloh” corruption? Shiloh is an ancient site in the mountains near Jerusalem (the Templars were born in Jerusalem), which the ancient Jews considered sacred place and whose name appears in the Old Testament to indicate the “Messiah.”
However, like Jerusalem itself and the Jewish Sabbath, Shiloh was considered a woman by the Jews, which is very significant. The Knights Templar were handed over to the Inquisition, and arrested simultaneously on Friday, October 13, 1307. Given the medieval concern for numerology, perhaps that is significant. And although those who attacked the Templars did not take into account superstitious details, perhaps someone organized the fall of the Templars, but warned them in advance, and allowed them to destroy most of their archives and bring to safety their enormous treasure and sacred relics (including, perhaps, the shroud of Turin and some important relics on Christ).
Perhaps the Priory of Zion was interested at any given moment in suppressing his military arm in order to avoid greater evils: for example, to prevent the central mystery, the treasure or its long-term purposes from being destroyed. The number 13 plays a significant role in the mystery revealed by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln.
Starting from the book of these, let us consider one of the many suggestions that shed light on that number. Records state that the Grand Master of the Priory of Zion from 1637 to 1654 was J. Valentin Andrea. At the beginning of that century the Rosicrucian movement – a mysterious fraternity that claimed to possess certain “spiritual truths” – had announced its existence in Europe. Andrea was a practicing Rosicrucian, although she knew that for 200 years all heresies had been severely punished by the Church.
Andrea organized in Europe a network of semi-secret societies, the Christian Unions, aimed at preserving some “knowledge” that the Orthodox Church considered heretical. Each of those unions was headed by an anonymous “prince,” assisted by 12 followers. This number, of course, immediately evokes the -12 men’s or women’s witch bands led by a “family” or initiate – and the group formed by Jesus and his 12 disciples. Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair was apparently elected Grand Master of the Priory of Zion on 17 January 1981.
It is also said to be a direct descendant of Christ. A particularly fascinating fact cited by the authors is related to John XXIII. The fact that Angelo Roncalli took that name when he was chosen in 1959 is surprising, if an antipope of the 15th century is considered to be also called John XXIII. After the death of the modern pope, Pier Carpi hypothesized that he had been the “brother Johannes” whose prophecies had proved so successful. There were also those who suggested that he was a member of the Rosicrucian and the Priory of Zion. Did he adopt the name John because it was the name of the pile of Jean Cocteau, Grand Master of Zion at that time?
The coincidence seems more significant if considered another fact: the modern Pope John decreed that Catholics had permission to be Freemasons, which represented a 180-degree turn in Vatican politics. The Masons claim to be direct descendants of the same Templar knights, but also of organizations such as the Christian Unions.
Furthermore, John XXIII proclaimed that the most important fact of the crucifixion was not the resurrection, but the shedding of the blood of Christ. This strange proclamation makes the Holy Grail think of, the receptacle that is believed to have gathered the blood that Christ shed on the cross, while for Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln the blood of Christ means the bloodline, the offspring of Christ. But in fact, as we will see, the implications of blood are older and broader than the authors assume.
Most Christians will be surprised to learn, for example, that the word sabbath, Sabbath (from the akkadian shabattu or shapattu), originally means “festival of the goddess of the moon that menstruates.” It is these issues, apparently detached from each other, that we will begin to analyze, discovering a network of secret and public societies connected to each other. The Wedding of Cana: Marriage of Christ Married Jesus Christ.? According to Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, authors of “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” the Gospels themselves suggest it. They quote, in particular, the first important miracle of Jesus, the transformation of water into wine in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-13).
According to the well-known story, Jesus and his mother Mary were invited – or “called” to a peasant wedding. For reasons that the Gospel does not explain, Mary asked Jesus to replenish the wine, which normally had corresponded to the owner of the house or the family of the groom. Why would he do it unless it was actually his own wedding? There are more direct evidence that appears immediately after the miracle was performed, when “the master leaves the wedding called the bridegroom and said, “Everyone serves good wine first, and when the lower one is already drunk, but you have kept the good wine until now.” The implication is clear: the wedding is that of Christ himself. If the assumption is correct, one must ask: then who was the bride of Christ? Again, the authors have an answer.
The two most obvious candidates, after reading the Gospels are Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany. The authors assume that these two characters are actually one woman, and that she was the wife of Christ. In the apocryphal Gospels, which were suppressed early in the history of the Church, are found some confirmations of this theory. In the Gospel of Mary, for example, Peter speaks to Mary Magdalene in these words: “Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior that you remember, that you know but we do not.”
Afterwards, Peter complains to the other disciples “Did he really speak privately with a woman and not openly with us? Should we turn around and listen to her? Would you prefer it to us?” Later, one of the other disciples comforts him: “Surely the Savior knew her very well. And that’s why I loved her more than we did.” Philip’s Gospel is even more emphatic: “And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her frequently in the mouth. The other disciples were offended by this and expressed their disapproval.
They said, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior responded by saying, “Why don’t I love you like her?” The authors point out that, towards the end of that Gospel, there is another relevant passage that, for those who are willing to accept it as proof, solves the question: “There is the Son of man and the son of the Son of man is. The Lord is the Son of man and the Son of the Son of man is the one who is created through the Son of man.” Christ meets Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. Was it an encounter between husband and wife?
