Talk:Chinon Parchment

French

Trying to access the French version of this article brings a non-existing page about "Parchement de Chinon". I don't know how to correct that, but the legitimate article in French exists : it is "Parchemin de Chinon"

Aliabastre, 195.132.66.248 18:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : scrap that... I found it (duh)

Point of view

This article, in its present state, is completely uncritical of Dr Frale's interpretation, which is not universally accepted by crusades scholars. Silverwhistle (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Some apropos quotes, with citations, will bring to the article the balance you feel it lacks. We are all aware that virtually nothing is "universally accepted", whatever that may imply.--Wetman (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Templar scholars say there is nothing unique about the document discovered by Frale, and adds nothing new to the subject matter of the Templars. The only thing new is Frale's novel interpretation, but unfortunately nothing has yet been published to this effect (to date) and putting this into the article would be categorised as Original Research according to Wikipedia guidelines Lung salad (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Different Chinon parchments

There are different Chinon parchments in existence, the introduction needs clarification Lung salad (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The opening sentence to this article "The Chinon Parchment is a historical document, published by Étienne Baluze in Vitae Paparum Avenionensis ("Lives of the Popes of Avignon"), Paris, 1693" has been copied all over the internet, and while this may be factual the document published by Baluze is different from the parchment discovered by Barbara Frale, and this needs rectifying, if there is anyone out there with the capability and references to do this. Lung salad (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Volume III of Étienne Baluze's Vitae Paparum Avenionensis contains transcripts listed in chronological order of documents relating to the Trial of the Templars, and the document discovered by Barbara Frale is absent from that list. Baluze, Volume III, can be downloaded from here[1]. The document found in Baluze referred to in the introduction to this article is an entirely different one, also originating from Chinon. That is found on pages 98-100 in Volume III. The transcript of this document was also published in Histoire de l'Ordre Militaire des Templiers by Pierre Du Puy (Foppens, Brusselles, 1751. Page 262). Lung salad (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing a sloppy conflation. However, do you think, on the basis of your knowledge, you might add an explanation of the other significant document? (I.e., "Another document also referred to as Chinon Parchment was published by Baluze in 1693...it...") Wareh (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead of this article should be rewritten to give a more general summary of the article. Right now it has too much in the way of specifics, such as reference numbers. As a general rule of thumb, there should never be information in the lead which appears only in the lead. The details should be in the body of the article, and then the lead simply summarizes the article. For more information, see WP:LEAD. --Elonka 13:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."Lung salad (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. --Elonka 13:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If the subject of the article is a parchment, the parchment's reference number is a basic enough "vital coordinate" (as I put it in my edit summary) to belong in the lead. Compare Anonymus Londinensis, where the papyrus is identified as "(PBrLibr inv. 137 = P.Lit.Lond. 165)" in the lead and nowhere else. This is like giving the birth and death years in an article on an individual. I am sure the lead (and everything else) can be improved, but I see examples of topheavy leads all the time, and this just doesn't seem like one to me. Wareh (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point about reference numbers, and agree with you about topheavy leads. My own preference is that a lead be a good summary of an article that is understandable to a layperson. If no one else has time to update the lead on this article, I'll go ahead and do it. We may also want to condense the amount of information about the parchment at the Knights Templar article, since it's starting to creep up into undue weight territory. --Elonka 14:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to refer to the Chinon Parchment, then we should also simultaneously state in the same place that what Frale discovered is different to what is found in the book by Baluze - these are two different Chinon documents, and this mistake is copied all over the internet that these two different Chinon documents are "one and the same". Lung salad (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the other document notable enough to justify a separate article, do you think? Then we could have articles like "Chinon Parchment (2001)" and "Chinon Parchment (1600)" (or whichever disambiguation tags might make sense). --Elonka 15:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability - it's taken for granted that what was discovered by Frale is also found in Baluze, which is incorrect - the other Chinon Parchment was addressed to the King of France stating that Templars received absolution, thus making this information nothing new as is constantly repeated in various popular books on the Templars Lung salad (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The word Absolved and Absolution were used incorrectly here - document says "Pardoned" - entirely different meaning

I changed them to reflect the actual translation. The various translations all say that the Templars were "pardoned" not "absolved". They have two completely different meanings. There is a confusion in this article as to what actually happened at Chinon. The actual text goes something like this: "The Templars became ill and in the fear of their dying, were given absolution. This means that the individual templars were each given "The Sacrament of Penance" in which they privately listed their sins, (in this case it was a Cardinal, who is also a priest), gave them a "Penance" and then says the words: "EGO absolve vos..." I absolve you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That concept was exactly the same in the middle ages and has never been changed. The pope could NOT have absolved them since he was not present to hear each and every individual private "Confession". The term "Absolution" in the Catholic Liturgy only means one thing. The Sacrament of Penance http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm .

Further, The Seal of the Confessional and at http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0059.html and at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13649b.htm would have prohibited the priest (in this case a Cardinal) from relating even to the Pope the contents of their confession. It is an ancient concept and was also certainly well understood in the Middle Ages.

As to "pardoning" of these individuals, the Pope may have (as it seems to state in the translation) Pardoned them or the entire Order from Excommunication, but I must emphasise that he did not and could not "absolve" them unless he heard each and every one of their private Confessions personally. The special procedure indicated in the Chinon Parchment was a form of PUBLIC questioning and therefore the word "Pardoned" is used not the incorrect word of "Absolution". Mugginsx (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You have made this argument on several pages, and you may very well be correct. However, the SOURCE GIVEN does NOT say "pardoned", it says "absolved". If you can find a better source that says "pardoned" then do so and then you may change it, however, until then, what the source given states should be accurately used. Vyselink (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "Et sic itaque praedictis omnibus examinatis, et petentibus absolutionem de commissi, eisdem abjurantibus omnem haeresim, sigillatim et singulariter absolvimus eosdem, et eos restituimus Sacramentis, et Ecclesiae unitati." (Translation: When all the aforementioned had been examined and had sought absolution from the Emissaries, and had foresworn all heresy, we gave each of them absolution individually and restored them to the Sacraments and to the unity of the Church.) Lung salad (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Extract: Papal Bull, Vox in excelso (28 March 1312). "We wished to know the truth of the whole matter and whether their confessions and depositions, which were said to have been made in the presence of the inquisitor of heresy in the kingdom of France and witnessed by certain public notaries and many other good men, and which were produced in public and shown to us and our brothers by the inquisitor, were true. We empowered and commanded our beloved sons Berengar, Cardinal, then with the title of Nereo and Achilleo, now Bishop of Frascati, and Stephen, Cardinal-priest with the title of Saint Cyriac in Thermis, and Landulf, Cardinal-deacon with the title of Saint Angelo, in whose prudence, experience and loyalty we have the fullest confidence, to make a careful investigation with the grand master, visitor and preceptors, concerning the truth of the accusations against them and individual persons of the Order and against the Order itself. If there was evidence, it was to be brought to us; the confessions and depositions were to be taken down in writing by a public notary and presented to us. The cardinals were to grant absolution from the sentence of excommunication, according to the form of the Church, to the master, visitor and preceptors - a sentence incurred if the accusations were true - provided the accused humbly and devoutly requested absolution, as they ought to." Malcolm Barber, Keith Bate, The Templars: selected sources translated and annotated, page 313 (Manchester University Press, 2002). ISBN 978-0-7190-5110-4

Lung salad (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection

Lung Salad and Vyselink: Since the Pope cannot "absolve" long distance (according to Canon Law). he could only Pardon despite the link for Absolution. He also could not give general absolution since he could not fulfill the second requirement. So, it seems as pointed out by fellow editors, the Pope did something he did not really have the power to do. Sorry I was so stubborn. If he was evil enough to do all of he other things he did, certainly he could "invent" powers he did not actually have. It seems that my religious teachings conflicted with medieval reality. Well, it will interesting to see how this is "explained" when, (and if) the Vatican Papers are produced as they have promised. Mugginsx (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chinon Parchment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011034616/http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1308.htm to http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1308.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060101174727/http://www.mulino.it/edizioni/foreign_rights/backlist/history/frale.htm to http://www.mulino.it/edizioni/foreign_rights/backlist/history/frale.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011034616/http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1308.htm to http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1308.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)