Source: http://www.knightstemplarorder.org/legitimacy-chivalric-order/
Timestamp: 2019-03-25 15:49:48
Document Index: 790497471

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 6', 'art 10', 'art 2', 'art 4', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 4', 'art 2', 'art 2']

Legitimacy of Chivalric Order « The Knights Templar – Order of the Temple of Solomon
Legitimacy & Restoration of Historical Chivalric Orders Full Report on the Rules of Legitimacy Under Customary International Law
‘Portrait of a Man’ depicting a Legal Notary (ca. 1515) by Quentin Massys, in National Gallery of Scotland
‘Knight Academy Lecture’ (ca. 1620) by Pieter Isaacsz, in Rosenborg Palace
‘St Adrian of Nicomedia’ depicted as a Knight (early 16th century) at Thomas Del Mar Auctions London
‘Allegory of the Coronation of George III’ (c.1755), by Gaetano Manini, Lisbon
Experts in heraldic law and chivalric rules generally maintain that an “order of knighthood is legitimate” whenever it is “legal, recognized and acknowledged as such by a sovereign authority.” [22]
According to Catholic scholars, “besides those orders who are considered to form part of the Public Law or International Law, there exist no other orders.” Vatican experts often quote the opinion of the scholar Bascape, that under Canon Law and in jurisprudence, “Outside the Public Law there can exist no Orders of Chivalry. … The ‘Jus Honorum’ cannot emanate if not from a Sovereign state or person, at least by title, and in consequence the private associations who assume names and decorations of the Old Equestrian Orders or Military Orders which are extinct, are destined to extinguish themselves, unless they will obtain from the [Church] or from a Sovereign State or at least from a deposed Sovereign, an explicit juridical recognition and valid Protection (Tutela)”. [23] [24]
‘Allegory of the Tudor Succession’ (c.1572), by Lucas de Heere (detail), at Sudeley Castle
Just as a deposed non-ruling non-territorial Sovereign House may grant legitimate chivalric sovereignty to an Order, by extension, the doctrines of jurisprudence dictate that a non-territorial chivalric historical institution may also possess its own inherent sovereignty. This must be created by a grant of “Sovereign Protection” which is evidenced in the historical record, or is documented by an authenticated proper Letters Patent indicating the legal fact of such Protection. “In that case the Order involved, which can be a national or a supranational chivalric Order… [can] dispose over the necessary Fons Honorum.” [34]
A chivalric Order, once validly granted its own inherent Fons Honorum in perpetuity, remains wholly independent and sovereign in its own right, and forever thereafter is never dependent upon continued endorsement from any external Sovereign:
The ICOC describes one major legal precedent: “The only recognized Order with the style of ‘Sovereign’ [in its name] existing nowadays [as known ca. 1963] is that of St. John of Jerusalem… as an independent non-territorial power”. This refers to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) which received Sovereign Patronage from the Vatican. [37] Legal experts point out, about the ICOC reference to SMOM being the only “Sovereign” chivalric Order: “Note that… The Commission says nothing else. In particular it does not say that no other organization is entitled to the style ‘Sovereign’”. [38]
Supremacy of Inherent Ecclesiastical Sovereignty
By Canon Law as customary international law, Ecclesiastical sovereignty holds supremacy over Royal or State sovereignty. Accordingly, for Pontifical Orders rooted in a source of ecclesiastical sovereignty, “These Orders are to be considered as emanating from the spiritual sovereignty of the Church, which sovereignty is to be considered hierarchically superior, in theory, to that of the State. Some jurists seem to prefer to put the Jus Honorum of the Holy See on the temporal sovereignty rather than on that which is spiritual, but in this case when Rome, that is the Holy See, lost its temporal status from 1870 to 1929, it would have lost the right to confer honors, which is contrary to the de facto truth.” [51]
In Canon Law, “Magistral Orders”, which can properly use the style “Magistral” in their full institutional name, are those “whose juridical position is most special, because this Order contains two distinct prerogatives: The Religion (monkhood), and the chivalric Order annexed to the Religion, hence ‘Religio Militaris’ [as] a military Order of monks. The Sovereignty… is an attribute of the Religion, which is understood under the technical juridical Canon Law subject. The Grand Master, Head of the Religion (monks), the Supreme Head of the Order [is] the holder of the Sovereignty”. [52]
Historical Continuity and Doctrinal Succession
According to a law firm affiliated with University of Leiden: “Legitimacy can be understood as a perceived right beyond the positive law, based on consent derived from an agreement on shared values.” The concept of “shared values” goes to the heart of the issue of continuity of the historical institution, highlighting the juridical and canonical principle of Doctrinal Succession. “Relevant first of all [is] the possession of common historical roots with the original Order of [chivalry], as it existed before”. [53]
“Doctrinal Succession” is defined as “a continuity in doctrinal teaching from the time of the [founders] to the present.” [54] This is established by “True Continuity” of the original doctrines of the historical institution, defined as “the continuity of [the authentic] experience, the fellowship in the gift of the [founding] Spirit; in the continuity in the allegiance to the [original principles], the continued proclamation of the message; [and] the continued acceptance of the mission”. [55]
The juridical basis for legitimacy and validity of Doctrinal Succession, even in the absence of direct legal and generational succession, is that the foundation of a historical institution does not need to repeat itself, and that if a generation is extinguished, “they are replaced by their writings.” [56]
The Anglican Church supports the principle of Doctrinal Succession of historical institutions, as effective to overcome any periods of discontinuity or abeyance. It holds that valid succession is achieved by (A) continuity of scriptural or doctrinal teaching, and also (B) when “the functions they performed of [teaching], governing and ordaining were the same as the [founders] had performed”. [57]
Legitimacy by historical continuity can be established when “an Order maintains an ‘uncorrupted historical and traditional link’ with the original Order” by Doctrinal Succession. To determine if this criteria is fulfilled, “one can look at the Order from the point of view of its constitutional developments… [based] on phases or degrees of influence of certain parties on the Order… [placing] the relevant events in a wider historical framework.” This includes “the power-plays in which the Order and its successors played a part, but not necessarily the major part.” Additionally: “Historical roots or lineage, whatever these exactly are, can be direct or indirect.” [58]
Lawyers note that heraldic experts provide “a correct approach to the question of historical continuity and what constitutes a same identity and what constitutes a revival: A new society can be committed to charity, dedicated to religion, and use regalia and ceremonies.” However, “it would be anachronistic to call them orders of knighthood (and they would not have been called so in medieval times either)… Some may also be revivals of historical institutions… Whether they are ‘the same’ in some substantial (as opposed to historical) sense depends on… the importance of the context in defining the substance of such associations.” [59] [60]
“In the case of military-monastic orders… Orders of knighthood, whatever they may be, are institutions composed of members selected according to certain rules, [and] governed by certain rules. The institution may be said to continue to exist as long as its current membership has been formed following the original set of rules… Typically, these rules will of themselves define the sense in which historical continuity must exist.” [61]
“In the case where some present-day [institution] appoint members of an order in legitimate fashion, i.e. in accordance with the statutes of the order, even though a substantial time-gap exists… This seems possible only where the statutes appear to allow such a time-gap without resulting in an extinction of the order.” [62]
The Order of the Temple of Solomon, the historical institution of the original Knights Templar, was governed by the Temple Rule of 1129 AD as its founding constitution, charter and statutes. The Rule commanded that the Order be “guarded purely and durably” by “pure diligence and firm perseverance” (Rule 2), and mandated that the Order “must not be forgotten, and… must be guarded firmly,” proclaiming the Templar blessing: “Per infinata seculorum secula”, meaning “By the eternity of the centuries of time” (Rule 8). This officially declared and legally established its status to be in perpetuity, such that it could never be considered extinct.
Additionally, the Temple Rule described the Templar Order as having “revitalized” the “Religion” of the Ancient Priesthood which the founders had restored from the Temple of Solomon (Rule 2), thereby establishing the juridical and canonical precedent that the Order itself could be legitimately restored, in precisely the same manner, to survive any period of abeyance in the future. [63]
“There is a sense in which, by historical continuity, a present-day institution can be called an order of knighthood… There is also a sense in which an order of knighthood can be revived, although this [is] only truly possible for monarchial orders” holding Sovereign Patronage or Protection. “The charitable activities of some private revivals are worthy of praise, but they in no way compensate for the lack of historical continuity they so crave.” [64]
An important issue in establishing historical and doctrinal continuity is raised in the “First Principle” of the ICOC criteria: “It must be made clear that only the higher degrees of [Sovereign] Orders can be deemed of knightly rank.” [65] Legal experts in nobiliary and chivalric law emphasize the importance of this rule, addressing the problem that outside of the recognized European Orders, “the lowest grades of most foreign Orders are styled ‘Knight’”, which marks a “reduction in the use of style”, debasing and eroding the very substance of Chivalry. [66]
This issue refers to the “self styled” Orders, which visibly treat “knighthood” as a mere membership in a club, as if it were only some simple “association” of professional networking. As a result, just to “join” and participate at all, at entry level, new members are called a “Knight” or “Dame”, with no substantive training, and no demonstration of earned merit. What the heraldic experts are saying then, as an important rule, is that knighthood or damehood must be reserved for trained, tested and accomplished members of proven merit in the Order.
The modern continuation of the restored Order of the Temple of Solomon solves this problem, by strict adherence to the original membership levels and criteria established by the Temple Rule of 1129 AD: The primary membership consisted of Sergeants who gave a commitment but did not take the Vow of Chivalry (Rule 67), and wore alternate uniforms to distinguish them from the Knights (Rule 68). Members then earned Knighthood through Postulant studies (Rule 1, Rule 6, Rule 9), learning the laws of the Order (Rule 11), being “put to the test” of knowledge from such studies and training (Rule 14) and then swearing the Vow of Chivalry. [67]
Restoration of a Historical Order to Full Legitimacy
The historical record evidences one major precedent of an Order being properly restored after abeyance, achieving juridical continuity, specifically through reconstitution by lower-level membership, and later obtaining Ecclesiastical Protection to reestablish the Grand Mastery:
When the original Order of Saint John of Jerusalem (later Malta, modern SMOM) lost the Holy Land with the fall of Acre in 1291 AD, “everything seemed to point to its extinction or at least disintegration”. The Grand Master Ferdinando Hompesch “tried to regroup the Order, but a considerable number of knights asked for and obtained the protection of the Emperor Paul I of Russia, and therefore they elected him their Grand Master.” However, Paul I “was Orthodox and therefore he was not eligible to head a Catholic Order… [and] could not become their Grand Master.”
As a result, the Grand Mastery was canonically de jure in abeyance for 587 years from ca. 1291 AD until 1878 AD when Pope Leo XIII officially “reestablished the Grand Mastership”. The Order was de facto in abeyance for at least 12 years from the death of Paul I in 1805 AD until Fr. Tommasi was installed as provisional Grand Master by Pope Pius VII in 1817 AD. During this period of abeyance, “the Order was governed by Lieutenants, whose prime aim was to reconstrue the Order… and to try to revive some Priories.” [68] [69]
In the Order of Saint John, Lieutenants were not professed knights, but were the equivalent of Sergeants of the Knights Templar. Accordingly, during a period of legal and practical abeyance on the verge of extinction, the Order preserved the legitimacy of its historical and juridical continuity, through common members adhering to its original Rule, restoring its infrastructure, and eventually obtaining Sovereign Protection to “reestablish” its authentic Grand Mastery anew.
In Canon Law, an Order can be legitimately restored by a non-ruling deposed Sovereign whose Dynasty carries historical Patronage or Protection of that Order: “These Orders are considered Dynastic because it is an accepted juridical tenet, and also under International Law de facto, [that] a dethroned Prince although he loses his throne, he will still hold his ‘Jus Collationis’ of his Dynastic Orders.” [70]
“Recognition” Secondary to Verifiable Legitimacy
As noted by heraldic experts: “It should also be clear that, whereas national laws aim to provide clear-cut definitions or criteria, their validity extends only to their own borders. One country may well be indifferent to, or even recognize, what another calls bogus.” [71] [72]
Legal scholars with the University of Leiden explain that “no State can validly declare that some organization is recognized as chivalric, if [it] has no valid Fons Honorum. A State can also not declare that a certain organization is legitimate, if this is not the case. The sole fact of the act of recognition, express or implied, does not make an organization more legitimate, if it already is legitimate. The act of recognition can at the most only be a confirmation of that fact. It can never be a constitutive element for being legitimate or have declaratory effect.” [73]
Seminary professors explain an inherent conflict of interest, which generally tends to prevent any government from recognizing most legitimate Orders outside of its own: “According to the juridical dogma of our times especially in Italy, the chivalric Orders of the State are Juridical Public Persons… Therefore, the State cannot give its recognition, thus putting them in the same juridical parity to that of [its own] chivalric Orders, [for] whom the eyes of the Law (to which they form part) have the same requisites”. [74]
According to experts of ICOC: “The recognition of Orders by States or supernational organizations, which themselves do not have chivalric Orders of their own, and in whose Constitutions no provisions are made for the recognition of knightly and nobiliary institutions, cannot be accepted as constituting validation by sovereignties, since these particular sovereignties have renounced the exercise of heraldic jurisdiction. The international ‘status’ of an Order of Knighthood rests, in fact, on the rights of ‘Fons Honorum’ which, according to tradition, must belong to the Authority by which this particular Order is granted, protected or recognized.” [75] [76]
This means that a chivalric Order itself may possess greater historical authority of inherent legitimacy than even most modern nation-states which could purport to “recognize” it, especially if it can verifiably demonstrate that it possesses its own “heraldic jurisdiction” and “Fons Honorum” authority evidenced in the historical record.
International lawyers explain: “This emphasis on the alleged importance of being recognized, whatever that may be, seems contrary to the independent character, attitude and history of [an] original Order… which [is] sovereign, meaning independent. … Independence is the same as sovereignty.” [77] In other words, a chivalric Order with verifiable legitimacy as a historical institution, and possessing independence from Sovereign Protection, is wholly exempt from any need or requirement for “recognition” by any external entity.
Experts of ICOC further confirm: “Dynastic Orders [of a] Sovereign House… retain their full historical chivalric, nobiliary and social validity, notwithstanding all political changes. It is therefore considered ‘ultra vires’ [beyond authority] of any republican State to interfere, by legislation or administrative practice, with the Princely [Sovereignty] or House Orders. That they may not be officially recognised by the new government does not affect their traditional validity or their accepted status in international heraldic, chivalric and nobiliary circles.” [78]
Historical Rules Incorporated Into Modern International Law
The rules and protocols of chivalric law, heraldic law, nobiliary law and Canon Law are not merely some historical rules. Rather, they comprise the very substance of customary law, which continues to govern and apply to historical institutions. It is that body of customary law which has fully entered into the modern system of international law, and is enforceable by law in international affairs.
The UN Convention on Diplomatic Relations confirms that “all nations from ancient times have recognized… privileges and immunities” of sovereign entities of “differing constitutional and social systems” including historical institutions (Preamble). It requires that a “State shall not discriminate as between States” including a historical institution possessing statehood (Article 47.1). [79] The UN Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States confirms that “No State shall be subjected to discrimination” based on “differences in political, economic and social systems” (Preamble: ¶3, ¶7, Article 4) [80]. The UN Convention on Consular Relations further recognizes the customary protocols of sovereign relations “since ancient times” (Preamble). [81]
Multiple United Nations conventions declare that historical “rules of customary international law continue to govern”, including the UN Diplomatic Relations (Preamble, Article 47.1), UN Consular Relations (Preamble), UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States (Preamble: ¶5), and UN Convention on the Law of Treaties (Preamble, Article 38). [82] [83]
The UN Convention on the Law of Treaties mandates that this clear and direct recognition of historical customary law, declared as fundamental principles in those two UN conventions, is made binding upon all countries. It specifically recognizes the validity of “subjects of international law”, and establishes that the absence of ratification of a Convention by any countries “shall not affect… The application to them of any of the rules… to which they would be subject under international law independently of the Convention.” (Articles 3, 38). [84]
[1] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.35-36.
[2] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.413.
[3] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.419.
[4] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Independent Orders as Seen by the Canon Law and Italian Public Law, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 2, Part 2.
[5] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.35-41.
[6] Christian Joerges, On the Legitimacy of Europeanising Private Law: Considerations on a Justice-making Law for the EU Multi-Level System, Ius Commune Lectures on European Private Law, Part 6, Volume 7.3, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law (September 2003).
[7] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.30.
[8] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), History of the ICOC, official website “icocregister.org” (2015).
[9] Nicholas Higham, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, B.A. Seaby, London (1992), “Britain Without Rome”, pp.71-72.
[10] A.S. Esmonde-Cleary, The Ending of Roman Britain, Batsford Press, London (1989), p.161.
[11] E.A. Thompson, Britain AD 406-410, in Britannia, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, London (1977), Volume 8, pp.303-18; P. Bartholomew, Fifth-Century Facts, in Britannia (1982), Volume 13, pp.261-270.
[12] Zosimus, Historia Nova, Book 6, Part 10.2, reprinted by Green & Chaplin, London (1814).
[13] Christopher A. Snyder, An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons AD 400-600, Pennsylvania State University Press (1998), citing: Gildas, De Excidio, 18.1.
[14] François Velde, The Title of Vidame, Heraldica (1996), updated (2002).
[15] Emile Leon Gautier, La Chevalerie (1883), translated in: Henry Frith, Chivalry, George Routledge & Sons, London (1891), Chapter IV, Commandment X, citing the Vatican’s medieval Dubbing of Knighthood of the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome.
[16] Emile Leon Gautier, La Chevalerie (1883), translated in: Henry Frith, Chivalry, George Routledge & Sons, London (1891), Chapter IV, Commandment X, citing the 13th century liturgy Benedictio Novi Militis established by William Durand.
[17] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry – Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.
[18] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Independent Orders vis a vis the Holy See, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 4.
[19] Vatican, Official Statement of the Holy See on Self-Styled Orders, l’Osservatore Romano (1953), Republished (1970), translated in: Hyginus Eugene Cardinale, Orders of Knighthood Awards and the Holy See: A Historical, Juridical and Practical Compendium (1983).
[20] Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), Authority in the Church I (Articles 21-23); Authority in the Church II (Article 19, Article 21); Published in: Authority in the Church: The Final Report, Windsor (1981), London (1982), Reprinted in: C. Hill & E.J. Yarnold, Anglicans and Roman Catholics: The Search for Unity, London (1994).
[21] Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), The Gift of Authority: Authority in the Church III (Article 1, Articles 14-18), Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, London (1999); Reprinted in: M. Tanner, The Gift of Authority: A Commentary, Anglican World (1999), pp.33-36.
[22] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section III, “Legal Definitions of Orders of Knighthood”.
[23] G. C. Bascape, Casa Editrice Ceschina, Milan (1940), p.263.
[24] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Independent Orders as Seen by the Canon Law and Italian Public Law, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 2, Part 2.
[25] Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001), updated (2015), “Tutelage”.
[26] Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001), updated (2015), “Tutor”.
[27] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.
[28] Michael Richard Brett-Crowther, Orders of Chivalry Under the Aegis of the Church, Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology Thesis, London (1990), pp.80-90.
[29] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.36.
[30] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 2, Principle 3.
[31] Hyginus Eugene Cardinale, Orders of Knighthood Awards and the Holy See: A Historical, Juridical and Practical Compendium (1983), p.119.
[32] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.291-292.
[33] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Independent Orders as Seen by the Canon Law and Italian Public Law, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 2, Part 2.
[36] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 4.
[37] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 6.
[38] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.292.
[39] Rebecca Wallace, International Law: A Student Introduction, 2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (1986).
[40] United Nations, Convention on the Law of Treaties, Registry Vol. 1155, No.18232, Vienna (1969), Preamble, Article 3.
[41] BBC News, Mass Commemorates Knights Leader, BBC Online (8 March 2008).
[43] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 6.
[44] Noel Cox, The Sovereign Authority for the Creation of Orders of Chivalry, “Arma” Journal, Heraldry Society of Southern Africa (1999-2000), pp.317-329.
[45] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.294.
[46] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 1.
[47] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.
[48] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.
[49] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Teutonic Order”, p.542.
[50] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Teutonic Order”, p.541.
[51] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.
[52] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.
[53] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.32, 34.
[54] Donald S. Armentrout & Robert Boak Slocum, An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, Church Publishing (1999), “Apostolic Succession”, p.25.
[55] Eric G. Jay, The Church, John Knox Press (1980), p.229.
[56] E.A. Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, James Clarke & Co. (1960), p.389.
[57] Arthur Michael Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church, translated from Spanish edition, Dominican Republic (1964), p.134 et seq.
[58] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.40, 47, 416.
[59] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, B-2, “Identity and Revival”.
[60] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.289-290.
[61] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part B-1, “Historical Continuity: Military-Monastic Orders”.
[62] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part B-1, “Historical Continuity: Time Gaps”.
[63] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rule 2, Rule 8.
[64] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part C, “Conclusion”.
[65] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 1.
[66] Noel Cox, The Sovereign Authority for the Creation of Orders of Chivalry, “Arma” Journal, Heraldry Society of Southern Africa (1999-2000), pp.317-329.
[67] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rules 67-68, Rules 1, 6, 9, 11, 14.
[68] Ambassadeur Géraud Michel de Pierredon, Histoire Politique de l’Ordre Souverain de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem (Ordre de Malte), Paris (1926), Tome 5.
[69] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Regular Orders of the Holy See, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 4, “The Order After the Loss of Jerusalem to the French”.
[70] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.
[71] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section III, “Legal Definitions of Orders of Knighthood”.
[72] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.291.
[73] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.415.
[74] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Independent Orders as Seen by the Canon Law and Italian Public Law, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 2, Part 2.
[75] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 5.
[76] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.416.
[77] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.424.
[78] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 2.
[79] United Nations, Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Vienna (1961), UN Treaty Series, Volume 500, at p.95 et seq., Preamble, Article 47.1.
[80] United Nations, Charter of Economic Rights & Duties of States, UN General Assembly Resolution 29/3281 of 12 December 1974, Preamble: ¶3, ¶7, Article 4.
[81] United Nations, Convention on Consular Relations, Vienna (1963), UN Treaty Series, Volume 596, at p.261 et seq., Preamble.
[82] United Nations, Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States, New York (2005), UN General Assembly Resolution 59/38 of 02 December 2004, Preamble: ¶5.
[83] United Nations, Convention on the Law of Treaties, Registry Vol. 1155, No.18232, Vienna (1969), Preamble, Article 38.
[84] United Nations, Convention on the Law of Treaties, Registry Vol. 1155, No.18232, Vienna (1969), Articles 3, 38.