Fabre-Palaprat Is the Father of Neo-Templarism

More precisely, he is considered as such, which is not exactly correct. It would be far more appropriate to confer this distinction on Chevalier Ramsay. He claimed, without supporting historical evidence, that European Freemasonry came about from an interaction between ‘crusader masons’ and the Knights Hospitaller.

Ramsay was initiated as a Templar by his mentor Fran;ois F;nelon into the non-Masonic Ordre du Temple. Ramsay was initiated into Freemasonry only around 1730. Since Ramsay’s Templarism predated his relationship with Freemasonry by some 20 years, this is the likely source for the introduction of Templarism into Freemasonry – and makes him the real father of Neo-Templarism.

Bernard-Raymond Fabr;-Palaprat was a Catholic priest, a physician, a self-proclaimed mystic and a “serial religious entrepreneur” with ambitions of a megalomaniac. In 1804, he founded a self-styled order (i.e., not recognized as such by anyone whose opinion mattered) called Ordre du Temple, claiming direct descent from the original Knights Templar. Producing no evidence whatsoever.

In 1812, he founded the Johannite Church – a Gnostic Christian denomination which claimed continuity with the primitive Johannine Christianity of saints John the Baptist and John the Apostle, and other Christian scriptures attributed to John.

Predictably, he did not stop there and proclaimed himself Grand Master of the Templars and Sovereign Pontiff of the Primitive Catholic religion, opposing the Church of Saint Peter.

Ordre du Temple was (predictably) based on Larmenius Charter or “Charter of Transmission”. The Charter is a coded Latin manuscript allegedly created by Johannes Marcus Larmenius (who may or may not be a real person) allegedly in February 1324, detailing the transfer of leadership of the Knights Templar to Larmenius after the death of Jacques de Molay.

It also has appended to it a list of 22 successive Grand Masters of the Knights Templar after de Molay, ending in 1804, the name of Bernard-Raymond Fabr;-Palaprat appearing last on the list. Not surprisingly, it was the latter who revealed the existence of the Charter in 1804… and very possibly created the list (if not the whole document). 

In the document, Larmenius, then an aged man, implies that the Grand Mastership of the Knights Templar Order was transmitted to him ten years earlier by the imprisoned Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar who was burned at the stake in March of 1314.

In the document, Larmenius states he has become too aged to continue with the rigorous requirements of the Office of Grand Master, and transfers his Grand Mastership of the Templar Order to Franciscus Theobaldus, the Prior of the Templar Priory still remaining at Alexandria, Egypt.

With this declarative Charter, Larmenius sought to protect the Order for perpetuity by continuing the legitimate line of Grand Masters of the order of Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon.

The Charter traces the Order through a dark period until its semi-private unveiling at the Convent General of the Order at Versailles in 1705 by Philippe II, Duke of Orl;ans, elected Grand Master of the Templar Order, and later Regent of France.

The Larmenius Charter is still used today by some in the neo-Templar movement as a means to claim legitimacy back to the original Order (so Fabr;-Palaprat probably was the “father of Neo-Templarism”).

Over the last century, conclusions regarding its legitimacy seem to have settled firmly into the camp of “Forgery” and “Hoax”. However, even some distinguished historians disagree… which is a grave mistake.

Grave mistake for one fundamental reason: Jacques de Molay had no motive for transfer of leadership of the Knights Templar. For starters, he had no such right – Grand Master of Knights Templar was elected, not appointed – and violation of this right immediately made his successor illegitimate.

Second, in 1312 was legally dissolved by the Pope so in 1314 it already did not exist. Which made his successor illegitimate twice. True, theoretically the order could have been restored by one of the next Popes, but it had to be restored first – before the election (or appointment) of the next Grand Master could have taken place.

So… sorry, folks, but the Larmenius Charter is a forgery; its claims are a hoax; Fabr;-Palaprat is a fraud… and his Ordre du Temple is an impostor that has no relation (and no connection) to the order of Knights Templar.

Which (obviously) is true for all “Neo-Templar” orders and their founders.