Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

Where I'm going from here

- I believe that Rogers probably had the material from Gonella that he claimed to have. If you guys can accept that that is a reasonable position to take, I can move on to other issues...

- Since I doubt very seriously that you guys can accept such a position, that's where I'm going to turn for now -- to see if I can round up some more serious reasons to believe that Rogers wasn't lying.
- If, somehow, you do think that's a reasonable position to take, I'll begin my summary of our movement (towards the front, or the rear) so far -- my "reconnoitering" report of our current "military" situation -- with that agreement.

- Whatever, I'll be back.

--- Jabba

 

[Pixel42]

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

[*]the fact that the medieval church authorities accepted that the shroud was a forgery

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I'm not sure to what you're referring here.

--- Jabba

I imagine the reference is to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin#14th_and_15th_centuries

In 1389, the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers, who had been concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture. Bishop D'Arcis continued, "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed." (In German:.[33]) The artist is not named in the letter.[34][35]

 

[Jabba]

I imagine the reference is to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin#14th_and_15th_centuries

Pixel,

- I couldn't resist responding, cause I was able to immediately find a good reference presenting the case against the D'Arcis memo.
- Also, the issue has been brought up, many times, before -- and I just didn't feel like I had the time to even cursorily look for what I had previously read about it. I've kept something of a bibliography -- but typically, I haven't described the contents of the link well enough to easily find that for which I'm looking.
- This writing is pretty long, but it does address the issue pretty well, and the link it is included within (http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#article) is much longer.

--- Jabba

The D'Arcis Memorandum
Past Sindonoclasts (Shroud opponents), and now Gary Vikan, think they are revealing a historical coup against the TS when they cite this document. If the d'Arcis Memorandum (the Memo) is to be used as evidence, it should be assessed as all historical documents are: in detail and in its historical context. At least eight other documents clarify and even tend to impugn the Memo.

Doc. A. The Memorandum of Bishop Pierre D'Arcis of Troyes Addressed to Anti-Pope Clement VII in Avignon (1389)
D'Arcis states: "About" 1355 the church at Lirey procured a cloth on which, in a subtle manner, was depicted a twofold image which was falsely declared to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. This was done to procure money from the multitudes attracted to the church. At that time Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes held an inquest at which an unnamed artist stated it had been manually depicted. This resulted in Henri ordering its removal from the church.

The reader should note that this document alone, of those relating to the Lirey Shroud, cites this inquest. D'Arcis, who has never seen the Lirey cloth, goes on (paraphrased): Now I hear it has been replaced in the church to raise money. Its owner, Geoffroy II de Charny, claims it had been removed to safety by order of Henri because of the (Hundred Years) war then raging. Now it is spread about that I want the cloth myself. Geoffroy II has obtained from your Holiness a Brief (Doc. C) confirming permission to display the cloth, while I, as I hear, am ordered to perpetual silence.
The Other Documents

Doc. B. Bishop Henri's only letter addressed to Geoffroy I de Charny, original owner of the TS--dated 28 May 1356--mentions no inquest. In it Henri praises Geoffroy's piety and "... as we have been informed by legal documents, we praise, ratify, and approve a divine cult of this sort." The TS is not mentioned, and Henri has not gone to Lirey, but has "been informed." This letter denies the claims of d'Arcis. D'Arcis, a lawyer, who elsewhere carefully cites documents, cites no dated official documents in his Memorandum, saying only that the inquest had been held "about" 1355.

Doc C. Anti-Pope Clement VII's Brief to Geoffroy II, dated 28 July 1389 (about five months before the Memorandum of Bishop d'Arcis). Clement acknowledges the Charnys' religious motives for showing the cloth and agrees that it had been removed from the church and brought to safety because of war and pestilence. He permits the showing of the cloth publicly, but calling it a "figure or representation," and on Bishop d'Arcis, Clement imposes "perpetual silence." The Brief mentions no inquest, artist, or scandal.

Doc. D. Letter from King of France Charles VI to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 4 August 1389. "The Bishop of Troyes has stated before our Curia that the church in Lirey is displaying a certain handmade and artificially depicted cloth as if it were the true Sudarium Christi." The king commands the Bailly "to get the cloth and bring it to me so that I might relocate it in another church in Troyes."

An observant attorney might ask why, just months before the drafting of his Memo, d'Arcis, a canon lawyer, did not cite the damning evidence of Henri's inquest or the name of the artist? Had he done so, it would surely have been recited in the King's letter. Instead, the King mentions only d'Arcis' charge, not Henri's charge, that the image on the cloth was handmade. Fr. Herbert Thurston, first English translator of the Memorandum and a sindonoclast himself, noted this, adding that d'Arcis feared that the King would be able to verify its truth (Thurston, p. 26).

Doc. E. Report of the Bailly of Troyes, dated 15 August 1389, says, in essence: We went to the church at Lirey but the Dean would not hand it over to us, and we did not proceed further in the matter.

Doc. F. Letter from the First Sergeant of the King to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 5 September 1389: The writer says he officially announced to the Dean and to Geoffroy II that the cloth was verbally made the property of the King. Nothing, in the end, came of this.

Doc. G. Clement's letter to Bishop d'Arcis, dated 6 January 1390: Written after the Memo but not referring to it, as was customary, this letter says that the cloth was replaced in the church with Clement's permission, despite the Bishop's prohibition, and any opposing action would be visited with excommunication.

Doc. H. Papal Bull of Clement VII, dated 6 January 1390, admits he has changed his mind. First he repeats the words of his letter to Geoffroy II of 28 July 1389. He again orders d'Arcis to perpetual silence. Then follow the modifications: To remove every chance of error or idolatry in the display of the cloth, we ordain that whenever said figure or representation is displayed, one should announce loud and clear that it is not the true Sudarium of the Lord, but a picture or copy only.

Doc. I. Papal Bull also dated 1 June 1390. Six months later Clement again changed his mind. He again supports the Lirey shroud, making no mention of idolatry. Here is the gist: Since we have heard that crowds go to Lirey out of devotion to the cloth, we, desiring to encourage this pilgrimage, enlarge the indulgence for the faithful who visit said church annually at Christmas, etc. And we strictly prohibit anyone, of whatever rank, from appropriating or usurping the offerings of the faithful.

In summary, not one of these primary documents from 1356 to 1390, aside from the Memorandum, refers to an inquest or artist in 1355. Rather, Henri's letter praised Geoffroy I (Doc. B). Anti-Pope Clement VII in the end granted more indulgences than ever to visitors to Lirey (Doc. I). The documents also force us to conclude that neither Henri nor d'Arcis nor Clement ever saw the cloth in Lirey.

Most damning to those who would base their case against the TS on the Memorandum of Bishop d'Arcis are the following facts. First, all extant copies of the Memo are unsigned, undated drafts with words marked for deletion with the Latin "vacat" in the margin. All other documents discussed here are duly dated. No properly sealed copy of the Memo has ever been discovered in Avignon or Vatican archives. No document of Clement refers to it, suggesting it was never received. Most significantly, the heading of the copy in the Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris (Champagne 154, fol. 137) describes it as a letter d'Arcis "intends to write."

Clement's Bull (Doc. I) warns against anyone usurping gifts to the Lirey church. In his Memo, Bishop d'Arcis had shrugged off the notion that he coveted the cloth for his own gain, and he alludes often to greed. These money concerns were not for nothing. The construction of Troyes Cathedral (ca. 1200-1400) had suffered from the effects of The Hundred Years War and the plague, both events of d'Arcis' time. Then around Christmas 1389, precisely when the Memo was drafted (!), the nave of the unfinished Cathedral collapsed, and in 1390 a large rose window fell out. The shoddy work that led to these mishaps may be blamed on d'Arcis himself and caused him guilt, since "symptoms of structural distress had already been observed in the 1380s" (Murray, p. 54).

Is this sufficient evidence to cast a shroud of doubt on d'Arcis' words? Let us hope the d'Arcis Memorandum will be seen for what it really was, a claim by a good but needy bishop under pressure to remedy his own poor judgment in the procuring of building materials for his cathedral, one who was ready to scheme to acquire a relic to attract pilgrims' donations and then was found out and warned against pursuing that plan.

--- Jabba

 

[IanS]

- I believe that Rogers probably had the material from Gonella that he claimed to have. If you guys can accept that that is a reasonable position to take, I can move on to other issues...

- Since I doubt very seriously that you guys can accept such a position, that's where I'm going to turn for now -- to see if I can round up some more serious reasons to believe that Rogers wasn't lying.
- If, somehow, you do think that's a reasonable position to take, I'll begin my summary of our movement (towards the front, or the rear) so far -- my "reconnoitering" report of our current "military" situation -- with that agreement.

- Whatever, I'll be back.

--- Jabba

For what must be the 20th time - it does not matter whether Rogers was lying or not. The Vatican's own science advisor (as well as all 3 radiocarbon labs) have all produced a mountain of evidence to show that Rogers was definitely mistaken to think the C14 sample came from a patch - it definitely did not!

The only thing you need to do, and the only thing which is relevant here, is for you to (30th time of asking?) ...

... post a reference to any genuine scientific research publication from properly qualified independent scientists who say that the C14 was wrong.

 

[catsmate]

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I do not accept that such was shown. I accept that numerous researchers have claimed that the sample was not part of a patch (and, they could be right); but then, other researchers have claimed that it is. I still think that "patch" is a reasonable possibility -- but also, that there can be other explanations for the sample not being representative. Mostly, so far, I do believe that the sample is not representative...

--- Jabba

Rubbish. You, just like all the other shroudies, have failed to show any evidence of patching. Those experts who've actually examined the shroud, both before the sampling and more recently, state categorically that there was no patching in the sampled area.
Your unwillingness to accept reality only reflects on you.

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- Taken from our "Opening Statement" in http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43.
- While the documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.
- Google "Sudarium of Oviedo."

--- Jabba

Again, rubbish. Just because some believers choose to think one fake shroud is actually the same as another fake shroud is proof of nothing.
Let's see the evidence. I have no intention of doing your research for you.

You're the one making the claims, it's up to you to support them.

 

[catsmate]

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I'm not sure to what you're referring here.

--- Jabba

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone by now that you're lying. You've been shown in this thread that the church authorities did not believe the shroud was authentic, and one bishop had interviewed the alleged artist.

 

[Pixel42]

the issue has been brought up, many times, before -- and I just didn't feel like I had the time to even cursorily look for what I had previously read about it.

So you did know what catsmate1 was referring to then? So you lied when you said you didn't?

Is this sufficient evidence to cast a shroud of doubt on d'Arcis' words?

The only evidence that's sufficient to reach anything approaching a safe conclusion where the shroud is concerned is the C14 evidence. Everything else is open to question, including the contents of this letter.

I'd say the existence of the letter was sufficient evidence to show that there have always been people who doubted the authenticity of the shroud as well as people eager to swallow the story whole, and to justify catsmate1's statement that "the medieval church authorities accepted that the shroud was a forgery".

 

[Jabba]

D'Arcis memo

So you did know what catsmate1 was referring to then? So you lied when you said you didn't?


The only evidence that's sufficient to reach anything approaching a safe conclusion where the shroud is concerned is the C14 evidence. Everything else is open to question, including the contents of this letter.

I'd say the existence of the letter was sufficient evidence to show that there have always been people who doubted the authenticity of the shroud as well as people eager to swallow the story whole, and to justify catsmate1's statement that "the medieval church authorities accepted that the shroud was a forgery".

Pixel,
- I knew about that issue, and even started to address it when catsmate said what he did about the medieval church -- but thought better of it realizing that he could be referring to something else, and thinking that he probably knew about the argument made against the validity of that memo.

--- Jabba

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I'm not sure to what you're referring here.

- Again, I'm not sure to what you're referring.

- I haven't really thought much about this issue.

For someone who claims to have been researching the subject for decades, and who runs a site dedicated to the authenticity of the shroud, you seem to know surprisingly little about the subject.

 

[realpaladin]

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- Taken from our "Opening Statement" in http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43.
- While the documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.
- Google "Sudarium of Oviedo."

--- Jabba

I thought I had taken care of the Sudarium?

 

[Jabba]

I thought I had taken care of the Sudarium?

Paladin,
- Can you remind me where that was?
--- Jabba

 

[realpaladin]

Paladin,
- Can you remind me where that was?
--- Jabba

www.evernote.com is my recommendation for you...

I don't want to search back to find my post, but basically we covered all aspects and especially why the sudarium had nought to do with the shroud.

It ended with you asking me to be patient for some proof.

Jabba, I do not wish to be unkind, but I have about 4 or 5 items 'waiting for indepth research', but still you keep posting your 'proofs' before checking why my answers made them invalid.

You will understand that that feels a bit like being taken for a mickey?

 

[Ladewig]

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I do not accept that such was shown. I accept that numerous researchers have claimed that the sample was not part of a patch (and, they could be right); but then, other researchers have claimed that it is.

Really!?

The researchers who claimed it was not a patch were Franco Testore, professor of Textile Technology at the Turin Polytechnic, and Gabriel Vial, curator of the Ancient Textile Museum, Lyon, France. They are two of the very few researchers who have seen both sides of the sampled area of the Shroud. Can you provide the qualifications of the people who a) have examine the area under a microscope and b) claim it was a patch?


Of course, your assertion brings us back to the miraculous-weaver theory. Someone rewove the cloth in such a perfect manner that high powered microscopes could not detect where the authentic area ended and the rewoven area began.

I still think that "patch" is a reasonable possibility -- but also, that there can be other explanations for the sample not being representative. Mostly, so far, I do believe that the sample is not representative...

--- Jabba

Yes the 50-mg-of-dirt-on-50mg-of-fabric theory. Invisible dirt, apparently.

 

[Ladewig]

You will understand that that feels a bit like being taken for a mickey?

Yeah, I am considering that possibility. But why would someone do that here? I cannot think of an easier place to troll than the JREF message board. We get genuine kooks every single day. When someone shows up pretending to have a kooky theory, it doesn't take any effort at all to find several JREFers who take the claim at face value.

Is our message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards?

 

[Jabba]

Did Rogers have the material from Gonella that he claimed?

- It looks like no one here agrees with me that Rogers probably had the material from Gonella that he claimed to have -- or, even that such is a very reasonable possibility...
- So, I'm going to see if I can find more info on the subject.
--- Jabba

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- It looks like no one here agrees with me that Rogers probably had the material from Gonella that he claimed to have -- or, even that such is a very reasonable possibility...
- So, I'm going to see if I can find more info on the subject.
--- Jabba

Evidence would be favourite. Real, impartial evidence.

 

[pakeha]

- ...Okay guys, I'll try to give superficial answers to the above objections -- but, I'll have to leave it there for now. Right now, I'm trying to provide evidence and arguments that the small piece (1cm by 7cm) was not representative of the larger cloth.

You don't mention the C14 dating as one of the topics you'll adess.
Why is that?

...

I accept that numerous researchers have claimed that the sample was not part of a patch (and, they could be right); but then, other researchers have claimed that it is. I still think that "patch" is a reasonable possibility -- but also, that there can be other explanations for the sample not being representative. Mostly, so far, I do believe that the sample is not representative...

Which researchers are these, Jabba?

Ladewig (and everybody else),
- As far as I can tell, that just isn't true. The church doesn't claim that the Shroud is authentic -- but as far as I can tell, that is the direction to which they are currently leaning.
--- Jabba

Could you cite a source that has convinced you of that, please?

- It looks like no one here agrees with me that Rogers probably had the material from Gonella that he claimed to have -- or, even that such is a very reasonable possibility...

That's right, no one does.
Now, about the C14 dating?

 

[tsig]

- It looks like no one here agrees with me that Rogers probably had the material from Gonella that he claimed to have -- or, even that such is a very reasonable possibility...
- So, I'm going to see if I can find more info on the subject.--- Jabba

Looks like a dodge.

 

[Marduk]

why, its almost as if Jabba had made up his mind about the shroud before he'd looked at any evidence, and now appears desperate to prove his assumption well founded after the fact.
That's religion right there

 

[pakeha]

...This writing is pretty long, but it does address the issue pretty well, and the link it is included within (http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#article) is much longer.

What does this have to do with C14 dating of the shroud?


And on to the reference itself.
I'll snip for space, of course.

The D'Arcis Memorandum
...At least eight other documents clarify and even tend to impugn the Memo.

Wrong. Clarify, yes.
Impugn? Hardly.

Doc. A. The Memorandum of Bishop Pierre D'Arcis of Troyes Addressed to Anti-Pope Clement VII in Avignon (1389)
D'Arcis states: "About" 1355 the church at Lirey procured a cloth on which, in a subtle manner, was depicted a twofold image which was falsely declared to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. This was done to procure money from the multitudes attracted to the church. At that time Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes held an inquest at which an unnamed artist stated it had been manually depicted. This resulted in Henri ordering its removal from the church.

The reader should note that this document alone, of those relating to the Lirey Shroud, cites this inquest. D'Arcis, who has never seen the Lirey cloth, goes on (paraphrased): Now I hear it has been replaced in the church to raise money. Its owner, Geoffroy II de Charny, claims it had been removed to safety by order of Henri because of the (Hundred Years) war then raging. Now it is spread about that I want the cloth myself. Geoffroy II has obtained from your Holiness a Brief (Doc. C) confirming permission to display the cloth, while I, as I hear, am ordered to perpetual silence.

So we're reading about a known forgery which is a proven money-spinner.

Doc. B. Bishop Henri's only letter addressed to Geoffroy I de Charny, original owner of the TS--dated 28 May 1356--mentions no inquest. In it Henri praises Geoffroy's piety and "... as we have been informed by legal documents, we praise, ratify, and approve a divine cult of this sort." The TS is not mentioned..

Since the docco refers to divine cults, not money-spinning forgeries, why would the TS be mentioned here?

Doc C. Anti-Pope Clement VII's Brief to Geoffroy II, dated 28 July 1389 (about five months before the Memorandum of Bishop d'Arcis). Clement acknowledges the Charnys' religious motives for showing the cloth and agrees that it had been removed from the church and brought to safety because of war and pestilence. He permits the showing of the cloth publicly, but calling it a "figure or representation," and on Bishop d'Arcis, Clement imposes "perpetual silence." The Brief mentions no inquest, artist, or scandal.

This is embarrassing, Jabba.
Do you actually read what you cite?
So Clement KNEW the TS was a "figure or representation," 5 months before the d'Arcis Memo.

Who is stupid enough to think Clement's Brief is anything but documented proof the TS was considered an artefact?
Even the Anti-Pope knew it.

Doc. D. Letter from King of France Charles VI to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 4 August 1389. "The Bishop of Troyes has stated before our Curia that the church in Lirey is displaying a certain handmade and artificially depicted cloth as if it were the true Sudarium Christi." The king commands the Bailly "to get the cloth and bring it to me so that I might relocate it in another church in Troyes."

An observant attorney might ask why, just months before the drafting of his Memo, d'Arcis, a canon lawyer, did not cite the damning evidence of Henri's inquest or the name of the artist?...

Why bother, since Anti-Pope Clement VII's Brief already made it clear the TS was an artefact?

Doc. E. Report of the Bailly of Troyes, dated 15 August 1389, says, in essence: We went to the church at Lirey but the Dean would not hand it over to us, and we did not proceed further in the matter.

And?

Doc. F. Letter from the First Sergeant of the King to the Bailly of Troyes, dated 5 September 1389: The writer says he officially announced to the Dean and to Geoffroy II that the cloth was verbally made the property of the King. Nothing, in the end, came of this.

And?

Doc. G. Clement's letter to Bishop d'Arcis, dated 6 January 1390: Written after the Memo but not referring to it, as was customary, this letter says that the cloth was replaced in the church with Clement's permission, despite the Bishop's prohibition, and any opposing action would be visited with excommunication.

So we have a bone of contention over a money-spinner, known by Clement to be an artefact.
Just out of curiosity-How could Clement mention the Memo if he'd never received it, Jabba?

Doc. H. Papal Bull of Clement VII, dated 6 January 1390, admits he has changed his mind. First he repeats the words of his letter to Geoffroy II of 28 July 1389. He again orders d'Arcis to perpetual silence. Then follow the modifications: To remove every chance of error or idolatry in the display of the cloth, we ordain that whenever said figure or representation is displayed, one should announce loud and clear that it is not the true Sudarium of the Lord, but a picture or copy only.

That's pretty clear, Jabba.

Doc. I. Papal Bull also dated 1 June 1390. Six months later Clement again changed his mind. He again supports the Lirey shroud, making no mention of idolatry. Here is the gist: Since we have heard that crowds go to Lirey out of devotion to the cloth, we, desiring to encourage this pilgrimage, enlarge the indulgence for the faithful who visit said church annually at Christmas, etc. And we strictly prohibit anyone, of whatever rank, from appropriating or usurping the offerings of the faithful.

Money trumps, even in medieval times!

In summary, not one of these primary documents from 1356 to 1390, aside from the Memorandum, refers to an inquest or artist in 1355. Rather, Henri's letter praised Geoffroy I (Doc. B). Anti-Pope Clement VII in the end granted more indulgences than ever to visitors to Lirey (Doc. I). The documents also force us to conclude that neither Henri nor d'Arcis nor Clement ever saw the cloth in Lirey.

And?
All we see is that a known artefact is allowed to spin money at the expense of the faithful.

... all extant copies of the Memo are unsigned, undated drafts with words marked for deletion with the Latin "vacat" in the margin. All other documents discussed here are duly dated. No properly sealed copy of the Memo has ever been discovered in Avignon or Vatican archives. No document of Clement refers to it, suggesting it was never received. Most significantly, the heading of the copy in the Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris (Champagne 154, fol. 137) describes it as a letter d'Arcis "intends to write."

Since it was a draft of a letter d'Arcis intended to send, it's clear why it doesn't show up in the Vatican records, don't you think?

Clement's Bull (Doc. I) warns against anyone usurping gifts to the Lirey church. In his Memo, Bishop d'Arcis had shrugged off the notion that he coveted the cloth for his own gain, and he alludes often to greed. ..

What does this have to do with the forged artefact? Other than showing it was a money-spinner?

So.
The Shroud was well-known to be a forgery and a money-spinner to the point it was discussed in letters between Popes and the King of France.

Thanks for posting this, Jabba.
If there was any doubt the Shroud was known to be a forged artefact in medieval times, you've dissipated it with this information.

...Is our message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards?

It wouldn't be the first instance I've seen here.