that purpose, renovated at a time when the entire French nation was suffering
under a series of national calamities.
Over the following decades, this situation led to an ever-deepening crisis with
the ecclesiastical authorities, including the Franco-Roman Pope, Clement VII of
Avignon, who had the final word on authenticity. In particular, the Bishop of
Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis—appointed to head the chapter of Lirey and responsible for
upholding ecclesiastical standards in the region—wrote to the Pope that this was
not and could not be the authentic shroud of Jesus. (A bishop is an adviser and
mentor in religious matters within his diocese.)
D'Arcis cited two compelling reasons attributed to his predecessor, Bishop Henri
of Poitiers. Henri had personally investigated the matter and concluded that the
shroud was the work of a painter who, he said, had admitted creating the image to
depict the Passion of Christ. The bishop further added that the creation of the
image must be an artwork rather than authentic, because the Gospels make no
mention of such an exact reproduction. D'Arcis even referred to the Gospel of John,
in which he quoted "strips of linen" rather than a single burial cloth.1
Pierre d'Arcis presented his evidence to the Pope of Avignon and expected a
decision granting his appeal to stop the exhibitions of the shroud in the church of
Lirey altogether, because "the sindon (shroud) of the Lord was nothing of the
kind." The Pope's ruling, which rejected the appeal, came as a shock to the bishop,
because he was threatened with excommunication if he ordered the exhibitions to
cease entirely. This decision, at the instigation of Cardinal de Thury, the Pope's
chief ambassador in France, cleared the way for the resumption of public showings.
A few years after the first exhibition, de Charny's son (Geoffroi de Charny II)
communicated with Cardinal de Thury and claimed that the transfer of ownership
of the shroud to his father (from the French royal family) had been a civil rather
than a religious matter and therefore did not fall under the Church's jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, the cardinal may have requested proof of the royal decree by which
the king granted possession of the shroud, but this cannot be demonstrated by
legal documentation in the papal archives. Ultimately, it remains unclear whether
ownership was transferred to Geoffroi de Charny personally or to the church of
Lirey—or to neither. (The author leaves the question of authenticity and the
1 John 20: 6–7
ר