Modern Templar Organisations: Revival Movements and Claims of Medieval Descent

Modern Templar organisations are associations formed after the medieval Knights Templar had been dissolved. Their history begins with Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat’s revival in France in 1804, then follows later groups that developed in Europe and internationally. Some inherited ideas, names and practices from that revival; claims that they continued the medieval order uninterrupted are a separate matter, and are not supported by an authenticated line of succession.

On this page5 sections

The medieval order’s end and the limits of continuity

The Knights Templar were a Catholic religious and military order active in the Holy Land and across European provinces. Pope Clement V formally dissolved the order in 1312. In most regions, its members faced investigation, entered other religious institutions or received permission to live out their lives. The order’s property was generally transferred to the Hospitallers.

There were also medieval institutional transfers in Iberia. In Portugal, the Order of Christ was founded in 1319 under royal protection and received Templar members and property. In Spain, some Templars and assets were absorbed by the Order of Montesa. These developments belong to the immediate aftermath of the medieval order’s dissolution. They do not establish a continuous line from the Templars to the revival associations that appeared centuries later.

Fabré-Palaprat’s French revival

In Paris in 1804, the physician Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat founded a new Ordre du Temple, or Order of the Temple. Its central claim to medieval descent rested on the Larmenius Charter, a Latin document said to have been written in 1324. The charter purported to record a succession of grand masters from the medieval Templars to Fabré-Palaprat. Its account of an unbroken succession is not independently verified; historians have treated the document as apocryphal and probably a much later creation.

Fabré-Palaprat’s circle was connected with the Masonic lodge of the Knights of the Cross. Such connections help explain the shared use of chivalric language and symbols, but Masonic Templar degrees and independent neo-Templar organisations are distinct traditions. Neither the use of Templar imagery nor an organisational link to a modern lodge demonstrates descent from the medieval order.

The revival presented its ceremonies and objects as evidence of Templar identity. In 1808, members held a public requiem in Paris for Jacques de Molay, the medieval order’s last grand master. The revival’s inventory described objects, including a sword and fragments of bone, as Templar relics. Their presentation shows how the new group gave its claims a public and ceremonial form; it does not verify the objects’ medieval provenance.

The movement also developed a religious dimension. Fabré-Palaprat established a Johannite church in 1812 and claimed authority as a leader of a primitive form of Christianity opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. A text called the Lévitikon, published in 1831, recast the Gospel of John and described a hidden religious lineage linking Jesus, John and the Templars. Although Fabré-Palaprat presented the text as ancient, it is generally considered a later work, probably dating from the seventeenth or eighteenth century.

The religious turn divided the revival. Most of Fabré-Palaprat’s Templars remained Catholic and did not join the Johannite church. Disputes over the church’s place in the order led to a schism in 1836. After Fabré-Palaprat died in 1838, attempts to bring rival branches together did not last, and the movement fragmented further.

From a French revival to international organisations

One branch of the revival reached Belgium, where Templars encouraged the formation of an International Secretariat in Brussels in 1894. A Belgian organisation was established in 1932 under the name Sovereign and Military Order of the Temple. The association supplied a new organisational framework for the revival’s international branches.

During the Second World War, the Belgian organisation’s archives were entrusted to the Portuguese leader Antonio de Sousa Fontes. After the war, Fontes asserted authority over the international movement. In 1945, he adopted the name Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, commonly abbreviated OSMTJ. Some priories, meaning regional or national branches, did not accept his leadership. Disputes over authority and succession therefore developed among modern organisations, rather than providing new evidence of medieval continuity.

A major division followed in 1970, when priories that rejected Fontes’s authority supported Antoine Zdrojewski as grand master. Groups associated with Fontes were commonly identified as OSMTH, from the Latin name Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani, while Zdrojewski’s branch used OSMTJ. The names and acronyms are not applied consistently across all organisations, with several organisations using related titles while maintaining separate leadership.

Further disputes followed reform efforts in the 1990s. At a meeting in Salzburg in 1995, a majority of OSMTH representatives rejected Fontes’s leadership and adopted reforms. In 1997, OSMTH voted to expel him; his supporters formed a separate body known as OSMTH-Regency. Other independent priories and associations also existed, making any short account of the movement a selection rather than a complete directory.

What modern descent claims establish

The distinction between organisational history and medieval descent is essential. Modern groups can document their own foundations, leaders, archives, disputes and succession from earlier revival associations. That is a real modern history. It is different from proving that the medieval Knights Templar continued as an institution after 1312.

The Larmenius Charter was used to support a claim of direct descent, but its purported medieval date and succession are not accepted as authenticated historical evidence. The contemporary OSMTH describes its connection to the medieval Templars as one of inspiration and ethical tradition, not direct institutional descent. A modern organisation’s name, ceremonies or stated values do not by themselves establish a medieval inheritance.

Nor should modern revival associations be confused with the medieval transfers to the Order of Christ and the Order of Montesa. Those orders received Templar members or property in the fourteenth century. The new orders developed under papal and royal settlements of the former estates.

Contemporary aims and different forms

Modern Templar organisations do not all have the same structure or purpose. OSMTH has described itself as an ecumenical Christian association, with stated aims that include human rights, religious and political freedom, humanitarian assistance, charity and diplomacy. It holds special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, allowing engagement with that body as a modern nongovernmental organisation. Its national grand priories raise donations and support projects. OSMTH reports relief grants to organisations responding to the 2020 Beirut explosion and support for a church and pilgrim centre at the Jordan River baptismal site. These are described projects of the present association.

The Catholic Militia Templi, founded in 1979, follows a different religious model. It is a lay association with professed knights making private vows, non-professed knights undertaking obedience and witness to their faith, and women serving within its local organisation. Members prepare through a novitiate and practise prayer, liturgy and service under a modern rule. Its stated purposes include receiving pilgrims and educating young people. Masonic Templar bodies instead organise ceremonies within Freemasonry’s own degree systems.