Talk:Militia Templi

Spread in the word

By my opinion, Preceptories or Magistral Legations, in other dioceses, than Sienna, are against canonical law, because can. 579 CIC say, that :"Episcopi dioecesani, in suo quisque territorio, instituta vitae consecratae formali decreto erigere possunt,..". As I understand, associations of local law cannot make "preceptories" in other dioceses. --Yopie 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Yopie. The canon cited is not about Lay Associations of the Faithful but rather Institutes of Consecrated Life. -ANON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.143.249 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello anon, in this case this Preceptories may violate CIC can 312 § 1,3 and § 2. --Yopie 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

• Moved from article:

The preceding statement is based on Canon 312. This canon pertains to "PUBLIC associations of the Christian faithful." The Militia was erected according to Canons, 288, 289 and 301 as a "PRIVATE association of the faithful." Therefore, the requirements of Canon 312 do NOT apply to the Militia.

So,can. 288 is about permanent diacons, can. 289 is about military service of priests, and can. 301 is that only ecclesiastic authority can promote association for public holy mass. Maybe last cannon fit to "private association" but for me is relation to Militia Templi unclear. Please, make it clear. Thanks. --Yopie 04:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yopie, you are addressing the wrong organ of the Militia for the clarification you seek. I am not an expert in canon law. I recommend that you contact the Magistral See directly at cancelleria@ordo-militiae-templi.org Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.212.39 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are not expert in church law, why you delete my words? I´m lawyer and member of Church law Society in Prague [1], so I understand church law and cannons. Only, what I want know, is on what basis operate Legation of the MT. Again, why you vandalize WIKI anfd this article? We can talk about MT and I´m sure, that we can settle. --Yopie 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Hi Yopie,

No one is vandalizing this article. You are positing a speculation that has no place here. The Militia is a lay association of the faithful. They do not need you or anyones approval according to law as you should well know if you are a lawyer and "member of Church law Society in Prague". You clearly have an axe to grind and your edits are hostile and creating scandal where there is none. There is no question about the Militia's standing and they are nothing other than what they claim to be. I ask you in the name of Christian charity to cease. Thanks for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashooker (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thomashooker, be civil and assume good faith. There is question about right of the MT to have "Legacies". If "Militia" is association of faithful, thus by law must have written consent from all dioceses, where is working. If they have it, why not to say, "Yes, we have consent". If you, or your friend wrongly cite Codex Iuris Canonici, this is not encyclopedian work, this looks badly. Understand me? This is not about charity or Christianity and I don't attack "templar heritage" or legality of "Militia". They were approved by the Archbishop of Sienna and they can do work in Sienna. So this is not speculation. --Yopie 01:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

• BTW boys, this looks as I find "skeleton in backyard" :-) Please, don't vandalize, with more vandalizing my opinion looks more as true, and as you don't have arguments. --Yopie 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

• Page is protected, so I hope, that we can settle without vandalism.--Yopie 00:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First point, we have consent in the following dioceses in America: Ft. Worth, Texas, Richmond, Virginia and Hartford, Connecticut. These are where our knights are located; there are only 6 of us. For the other countries I have suggested before that you contact the Magistral See at cancelleria@ordo-militiae-templi.org. That is the headquarters of the Militia. I can only speak for this preceptory. Miles Christi (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Miles Christi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.212.39 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Second point, you cite canons that do not apply to the Militia. We were erected under canons 298,299 and 301. Have you read these canons? They deal with PRIVATE associations of the faithful. There is nothing in these canons that requires diocesan approval outside Siena. Canon 312 pertains to PUBLIC associations of the faithful. You are comparing apples to oranges.Therefore, the information you are promulgating is inaccurate and misleading. Is this the purpose of an encyclopedia? To provide inaccurate and misleading information? If it is, you are doing a wonderful job! Congratulations! Miles Christi (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Miles Christi

Dear Miles Christi, thank you for your reply. Problem is solved, because Milita have consents from dioceses. This is, what I want know. By the way, of course, every association, erected under can. 301 is public (see can 301. § 3) and thus need approval. As argument I can use, if Militia have this approval, thus need it. So, for neural point of view, I will change my words in article to "Legations need consent by appropriate diocese, but this was usually granted" It will be OK?--Yopie 05:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Yopie, the Militia page belongs to the whole Militia not just to the American preceptory. Therefore, neither I nor you, as a matter of fact, have any authority to make changes to the original text. If you believe that your sentence is an appropriate addition, you must seek the permission of the Grand Master who resides at the Magistral See. He can be reached at cancelleria@ordo-militiae-templi.org. I repeat. I cannot speak for the entire Militia. I do not understand your reluctance to deal with the competent authority that can make decisions for the whole order. I take my orders from the Grand Master not from you. I cannot give you the permission to do what you are asking to do. 69.243.212.39 (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Miles Christi

Dear Miles Christi, we are in Wikipedia, not on pages of Militia. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, where everybody can edit every article. Thus I don't need to talk with GM and I have the authority to change the text. Please read first WP:FIVE, specially WP:OWNERSHIP. If you don't understand, feel free to ask, please. Repeatedly, I don't need permission from your GM. --Yopie 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For Yopie:

The Militia Templi is canonically a private association of faithful approved by the Archbishop of Siena who granted her the canonical personality with the Decree n° 24/88 of September 8, 1988 (published in the Bulletin of the Diocese). The Rule of the Militia was approved by the new Archbishop of Siena on November 18, 1990. Private association of faithful are originated by the agreement of faithful who have the right to do so according canon 299. Public association of faithful, instead, are not originated by the agreement of faithful but have to be erected by the Ecclesiastical authority (can 312). That’s why each diocesan section of a public association of faithful has to be erected by the local Ordinary (can. 312 §1, n. 3 and §2).

This is not the case for private associations which, even if praised, commended or recognized, remains nevertheless private (can 299 §§2-3), because their origin is the agreement of faithful and so the association existed before the eventual act of recognition by a bishop. Thus, when a private associations is joined by members of other dioceses it does not need to be erected in that diocese as for public ones, just because, as written above, it has been originated by the agreement of faithful and not by the official act of the local Ordinary. The bishop usually takes into consideration the presence of the association and can either deny it the possibility to act in his diocese or grant it welcoming the association into the area of his jurisdiction. This is what happened with the Militia Templi in several dioceses in Hungary until 1999 when the entire bishop’s conference welcomed the Militia in all dioceses of that country.

In conclusion, the creation of branches of a private association of faithful in other dioceses than the original one is not an act “against the canonical law”. In addition to the reasons written above, the decree of recognition by a bishop is an act “erga omnes”, that is to say that the association is a canonical person in the Church and not only in the archdiocese in which it was recognized. The bishop has the right to refuse the association the possibility to be present in his diocese, but he cannot affirm the non existence of the association outside the borders of the diocese of origin. As a matter of fact, for private associations even the recognition of pontifical right does not change this situation, since it remains unaffected the right of the bishop to say no to the request of an official presence of the association in the his diocese.

• • • I hope you can agree that your addendum to the heading "spread in the world" is out of place and that it should be reverted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashooker (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with version of 14:17, 6 July 2008 PowerOfXcompelsYou. We don't need edit war, causa finita. --Yopie 16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yopie, I would agree with it if the article claimed that the Milita was a Public Association of the Faithful or an Institute of Consecrated Life but it does not. This is an absolute non-issue. There is no "skeleton in backyard" here. I object to the recent edit because it is essentially saying "this order is probably breaking the law" which, after everything that has been written here simply amounts to calumny at its worst or internet-busy-bodyism at its best.

Further, the language used in the negative that the order is "not approved by the Holy See" makes it sound like this order is disapproved of. It was already written above: "the creation of branches of a private association of faithful in other dioceses than the original one is not an act “against the canonical law”. In addition to the reasons written above, the decree of recognition by a bishop is an act “erga omnes”, that is to say that the association is a canonical person in the Church and not only in the archdiocese in which it was recognized. The bishop has the right to refuse the association the possibility to be present in his diocese, but he cannot affirm the non existence of the association outside the borders of the diocese of origin. As a matter of fact, for private associations even the recognition of pontifical right does not change this situation, since it remains unaffected the right of the bishop to say no to the request of an official presence of the association in the his diocese."

I am going to revert this to how it was before all of this and I thank you for your cooperation.

--Thomashooker (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Thomashooker,

• in article is, that MT is Association of the Faithful, not "private Ass."
• "skeleton in backyard" was used about vandalizing and fury reaction. This reaction can be seen as unchivalrously and unchristian. Think about it.
• Is MT approved by Holy See? Not, so is "not approved by the Holy See".
• Meaning of my words is, than bishop can refuse MT in his diocese. Maybe some bishop don´t want MT in his diocese?
• I agree with you, that MT have subjectivity in whole Church, this is not question. --Yopie 07:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Yopie,

There are a lot of orders and groups within the Church that are "not approved by the Holy See". Have you gone around and written this on every article about all of them?

A bishop can allow/disallow whatever he wants in his diocese. All Catholics within his diocese are subject to him.

Yopy, anybody can start a private association of the faithful. There are gazillions of them. Una Voce is a good example of a PAF. Perhaps you should add to their article that they are probably breaking canon law by having chapters around the world and that they are not approved by the Holy See.

"Fury reaction"? Like I said you have simply added a blurb to an article saying that this order is probably criminals with a veiled hint that they are against or disapproved by the Church and the Holy See . I have gone through great lengths already to answer your questions. Any speculation or discussion on such a thing should be relegated to this talk page anyway.

I have made an edit changing "LAY" to "PRIVATE" and I hope that this will settle this to your satisfaction and you can move on to something else.

--67.186.143.249 (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Militia Templi. 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/20070929052149/http://christi-militia-templi.org/ to http://www.christi-militia-templi.org/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)