Home > News & Views > Accusations of Intellectual Dishonesty

Accusations of Intellectual Dishonesty

October 23, 2014

imageDiscussions can be come highly charged at times and it is easy for some of us to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty.  If I say someone misunderstands the data (and I mean it), that’s okay.  If I say someone is misrepresenting the data, it’s a close call; it goes to intent but it is probably a good idea to avoid such language.  If I say someone is manipulating the data that is an accusation, plain and simple.  If I’m going to accuase someone, I have to be able to prove it.

I discarded such a comment this morning. Please don’t say that someone is “trying to manipulate the data.”

There have been some recent comments that I perhaps should have edited or discarded. I don’t like to do so, however. So I’m asking everyone to think carefully about how comments are worded to avoid inappropriate accusations.

  1. Max patrick Hamon
    October 23, 2014 at 10:57 am

    On October 23, 2014 at 9:32 am I write as a reminder:

    (Re the Lirey Shroud aka Turin Shroud) (The Latin formula) Omni fraude cessante can also be rendered by “all false assertion ceasing” (whether for or against authenticity) as a misrepresentation may be made fraudulently, negligently, or non‐negligently (innocently). In other words, it refers here to any false assertion (of fact, opinion or intention) made whether for or against authenticity in the state of knowledge of the time.

    Sincerely, methinks Charles is not basically dishonest (as OK regrettably asserted) but only the victim of his tunnel vision and reductive intellectual constructions to say nothing of his manyfold iconographic, literary and archaeological blind spots.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      October 23, 2014 at 11:17 am

      I just don’t buy into Charles’s ‘Shroud Braghettone’ theory.

      • October 23, 2014 at 12:27 pm

        Regardless of the precise meaning of “omni fraude cessante”, it is clear from the rest of the sentence that the Shroud was not to be exhibited as the true shroud, but only as a representation.

        • October 23, 2014 at 12:34 pm

          It’s a moot point. If we can’t discern today if the Shroud is authentic or not, what chance someone of that time period. It really doesn’t matter what they said, they had no better idea than we do.

        • October 23, 2014 at 12:46 pm

          Oh, I quite agree. Neither the d’Arcis memorandum nor the Papal bull prove that the Shroud is not authentic, not even that their respective authors really thought it was not authentic. But the fact that it was to be announced “alta et in intelligibile voce, omni fraude cessante, quod figuram … non ostendunt ut verum sudarium … sed tanquam figuram” clearly says that it was not to be claimed to be the Shroud, whatever anyone’s beliefs.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 1:45 pm

          Hugh, methinks you REALLY cannot read Medieval Ecclesiastical circonvoluted/ambiguous Latin.

          Firstly the best translation for omni fraude cessante is “all misrepresentation ceasing”, which we can more positively paraphrase in “in all honesty”.

          Secondly, (and you may have missed on another thread) I wrote:

          “The first version (not to be held yet held by Ulysse Chevalier with a potential to mislead) reads:

          “(…) The one who makes the ostensions warns the people and says publicly, loudly and clearly, when the influx is strongest, all fraud/misrepresentation ceasing, that this “figure” or representation is not the real shroud of Christ, but a painting or picture of the figure or a representation of the shroud that is said having been Christ’s (…)”

          The second and definite version (to be held) reads:

          “(…) the one who makes ostensions, every time there is a sermon, at least, warns the people and says publicly, loudly and clearly, when the influx is strongest, all fraud/misrepresentation ceasing, that we don’t show the figure or representation as being the true Shroud of Christ, but as figure or representation of the shroud which is said to be Christ’s (…)”

          Now this last sentence can also be translated, considering the balanced use of “ut” in front of “tanquam” and of the double function, subjective and objective of the genitive “dicti sudarii” that “we don’t show the figure or representation because it is the true Shroud of Christ but because of the figure or representation which it carries that is said to have been that of Christ’s”

          Last but not least, most curiously (in order to make your point sound valid) you totally overlook the fact Pope Clement VII enjoined D’Arcis to perpetual silence on the matter under pain of excommunication… Just guess why?

        • October 23, 2014 at 1:55 pm

          Max I believe you are inexplicably confusing early Renaissance Ecclesiastical Latin, with late Medieval Ecclesiastical Latin. An oversight I’m sure.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 2:15 pm

          Oh really? Are you kidding? If you aren’t, could you refer me to ‘your’ early Renaissance Ecclesiastical Latin dictionary and ‘your’ late Medieval Ecclesiastical Latin dictionary, PLEASE?

        • October 23, 2014 at 2:19 pm

          Dictionaries? Are YOU kidding?

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 2:22 pm

          No comment.

        • October 23, 2014 at 3:17 pm

          Max, I’m afraid that regardless of your skill in Latin, your translation “We don’t show the figure or representation because it is the true Shroud of Christ but because of the figure or representation which it carries that is said to have been that of Christ’s” is not terribly clear in English. Can I have a guess?

          “We don’t show the figure or representation because it is the true Shroud of Christ but because the figure or representation which it carries is said to be that of Christ.”

          If this is what you mean, then it seems you are distinguishing between two meanings of word “figuram”, the first one meaning the cloth itself, and the second being only the image on the cloth. Is that correct?

          If so, then I disagree. I don’t believe my Latin is any worse than yours, and do not think such an interpretation is valid. However, if I have not corrected your English correctly, perhaps you would like to have another go yourself.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 3:40 pm

          Hugh, you wrote: “it is not terribly clear in English.”

          The true fact it is not very clear in Medieval Ecclesiastical Latin either. The original sentence is circonvoluted and ambiguous per se. Recurring to the subjective or to the objective of the genitive “dicti sudarii” make all the difference here and trigger the alternative reading of the same sentence. Just ask a Medieval Ecclesiastical Latin specialist, both interpretations are valid no matter how circonvoluted they may seem. This is Medieval Ecclesiastical Latin not mine.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 3:46 pm

          Hence just have a try…

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 3:54 pm

          And what about the first translation of the Second and definite version? Does it suits you best?

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 4:06 pm

          Here is Poulle’s translation in French:

          1st translation of the passage in the Second and definite version:

          “(…) qu’on ne montre pas figure ou représentation comme étant le vrai linceul du Christ mais en tant que figure et représentation du linceul qu’on dit avoir été celui du Christ (…)”

          2nd/alternative translation of the same passage in French:

          “(…) qu’on ne montre pas ladite figure ou représentation parce qu’elle est le vrai linceul du Christ mais à cause de la figure ou représentation que porte le linceul qu’on dit avoir été celui du Christ”.

          Hope it can help.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 4:08 pm

          Typo: “qu’on ne montre pas LA figure et représentation…” (1st translation)

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 4:10 pm

          More typo: (1st translation) read each time “la figure OU représentation” (getting tired)

        • October 23, 2014 at 4:26 pm

          Yes, never mind all that; I have Poulle’s 2006 paper and Chevalier’s two are at archive.org. I know what they say, and it’s perfectly clear in all of them that the shroud was not to be exhibited as the true shroud. What I’m not sure about is your interpretation as to why. Do you think ‘figuram seu representationem’ refers firstly to the cloth and secondly to the image, as I think is implied by your translation above? As I say, I cannot agree or disagree with your interpretation until I know what it is!

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 23, 2014 at 5:02 pm

          Hugh you wrote: it’s perfectly clear in all of them that the shroud was not to be exhibited as the true shroud”. What is perfectly clear if we rely on the Second and dinite version of the papal bull is the Lirey Shroud was NEITHER presented as the true shroud NOR as a false one that is a painting, a fake or an hoax.

          You also wrote: “Do you think ‘figuram seu representationem’ refers firstly to the cloth and secondly to the image, as I think is implied by your translation above?” It should remain ambiguous as the sentence per se is ambiguous.

        • October 23, 2014 at 6:31 pm

          “What is perfectly clear if we rely on the Second and dinite version of the papal bull is the Lirey Shroud was NEITHER presented as the true shroud NOR as a false one that is a painting, a fake or an hoax.”
          Thanks for your clarification, Max. I’m afraid that in my opinion, which I consider at least as valid as yours, the words of the Papal bull do not, indeed cannot, bear that interpretation.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 24, 2014 at 5:39 am

          Hugh,

          Hugh, you have to be aware when I wrote the last sentence you comment I was really getting very tired (working on a 16-18 hours per day basis at the moment). So let me REALLY clear it up now I feel more rested.

          Reminder: as I am a non-English speaking person, I had to go back practicing the English written language and actually have been practicing it thanks to Dan’s blog since late october 2011 (from the summer of 1994 summer to the autumn of 2011, I just wrote once in English in order to prepare a poster session to be presented in Frascati, Rome, Italy).

          Back to the issue.

          Re your opinion “it’s PERFECTLY CLEAR (my upper case) in all of them (the alternative translations) that the shroud was not to be exhibited as the true shroud” and again “But the fact that it was to be announced “alta et in intelligibile voce, omni fraude cessante, quod figuram … non ostendunt ut verum sudarium … sed tanquam figuram” CLEARLY SAYS (my upper cases) that it was not to be claimed to be the Shroud, whatever anyone’s beliefs.”

          Methinks actually you’re totally off the mark.

          Firstly, the Latin sentence is NOT clear at all per se as it can trigger two translations. It is most circumvolved nay deliberately ambiguous.

          The true fact (my correction) is it doesn’t say clearly whether this is not the true shroud nor this is a fake/forgery/hoax. Translation is neither revision nor correction. You shall stick to the way it is phrased no matter how circumvolved and ambiguous and, if need be, provide an alternative translation for the sake of intellectual honesty. Still with me that far?

          Besides if the Shroud had been CLEARLY VIEWED in June 1390 to be a painting/fake/hoax/forgery, could you then tell me/us why would Clement VII have allowed and even encouraged the Lirey Shroud to be displayed with an indulgence attached? This is not serious.

          Taking into account the intrinsic and extrinsic context namely Medieval Ecclesiastical prose per se + Pierre d’Arcis’s report + conflict of interest + the very fact the Lirey Shroud could be the Constantinople Shroud that was stolen by Crusaders during the 4th Crusade) now I ask you another question:

          Investigation made, had Clement VII really known the Lirey Shroud was the true Shroud of Christ, could the pope officially recognize the Lirey Shroud as the Shroud of Christ that was stolen during the 4th crusade of which the whole episode is one of the most shameful blots on church history? Could he have deliberately associated the Holy Relic with this shameful episode? He just couldn’t have, which DOES account for his/his official scribe most circumvolved and ambiguous prose.

          Finally I refer you to your own conclusion (proving my point). On October 23, 2014 at 12:46 pm, you wrote:

          “Oh, I quite agree. Neither the d’Arcis memorandum nor the (second and definite version, my comment added) Papal bull prove that the Shroud is not authentic, not even that their respective authors really thought it was not authentic.”

          All the ambiguity is encapsulated in the sentence written in Medieval Ecclesiastical Latin and in the formule omni faud cessante, “all misrepresentation ceasing” or “all misstatement ceasing” in other words “in all honesty”.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 24, 2014 at 6:35 am

          In other words, Clement VII neither could tell it was not the true Shroud of Christ nor it was a fake. Don’t you misrepresent the documentary evidence: stick to the SECOND AND DEFINITE VERSION of the Papal bull don’t you fraudulently rely (alike Ulysse Chevalier!) on the FIRST VERSION that is NOT to be held, please.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          October 24, 2014 at 7:03 am

          Seeing how some Papal bulls (alike contracts at times!) could seem to say one thing but actually say something else, it should have had Hugh be more cautious in his flawed interpretation.

        • Thibault HEIMBURGER
          October 24, 2014 at 5:36 pm

          Hugh”: Regardless of the precise meaning of “omni fraude cessante”, it is clear from the rest of the sentence that the Shroud was not to be exhibited as the true shroud, but only as a representation.”

          Yes, but,as strange at it is for our modern conceptions, it does not mean at all that Clement VII considered the Lirey shroud as a forgery.

          We have to take into account the history of the Councils of the Church regarding the relics to understand the final official bull of Clement VII.

          Clearly, Clement VII had truly a neutral position,

          More tomorrow.

        • October 24, 2014 at 6:10 pm

          That is indeed possible, Thibault. Have you read my comment below? (October 24, 2014 at 6:47 am) It explains my views in detail. However, the Pope’s personal opinions are not reflected in his bull, where it is clear that the Shroud was not to be exhibited as the true shroud, but only as a representation.

  2. October 23, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Thanks for this Dan. It’s been getting out of hand of late, sometimes it’s been a bold accusation, more often it is a patronizing aside. Either way this needs to be curtailed.

  3. October 24, 2014 at 1:51 am

    The entire thread that is discussing Charles’ article has turned into a mud slinging competition. I decided to withdraw from it, which is a shame, since there are arguments on both sides that I believe deserve careful analysis. For example, Thibault’s reply is well thought and yet it is barely discernible in that avalanche.

    • October 24, 2014 at 2:05 am

      * well thought out

    • October 24, 2014 at 9:48 am

      Agreed Eric. I myself have contributed to that avalanche (out of pure frustration). It would be nice to get back to debating without the personal barbs.

  4. October 24, 2014 at 6:47 am

    Thanks, Max, that really is much clearer. I agree that the the finel version of the papal bull was much less antagonistic towards the shroud, and by implication its owner than the previous ones. I’m afraid I cannot go along with your suggestion that the phrase ‘omne fraude cessante’ can be reduced to a formulaic expression of general good faith, but do agree that the second part of the sentence (ut tanquam…) is indeed couched in somewhat legalistic jargon (especially with all those predictam, dicti and diciturs!).

    So did Antipope Clement think the Shroud was authentic or not? I think he had no idea. While any bit of bone or cloth might be considered a genuine relic in its local environment, partly out of loyalty to its area and partly for lack of anything else to compare it to, the hierarchy in the Vatican (or Avignon in this case) must have realised that there were dozens of conflicting, and sometimes impossible, relics scattered around Europe, many or most of which could not be authentic, and were at best pious representations and at worst deliberate frauds. I do not think consideration for the irregularities of the Fourth Crusade were much of a consideration; at the time these things were considered ‘rescued’ rather than ‘robbed’ I think, but the seniority of the place where the relic was displayed may have played a part in making a decision. A humble parish priest suddenly announcing he had a nail from the cross could have been denounced out of hand, while a bishop might have been accorded considerably more respect. A conflict of interests between two important men over the Shroud had to be handled very delicately. Various middle paths were possible: the shroud was authentic, but couldn’t be displayed; the shroud was not authentic, but could be displayed; or the pope didn’t know whether it was authentic or not. The last, ignorance, would have shown a hierarchical weakness an antipope would have wanted to avoid, and the first would have rendered the relic useless (practical things, relics). The second, I think, was the best compromise the pope could come up with.

    Two questions arise; why would one grant an indulgence to someone who visited a painting? and why was the bishop enjoined to perpetual silence on the matter?

    The first is easy. An act of veneration is made to God, not to an artifact, miraculous or not, and indulgence is granted to a person, not a thing. The visiting of a holy place, whether or not it contained a relic, could be considered sufficient devotion for an indulgence to be awarded.

    The second is less easy. My guess is that, being personally hostile to the de Charney family, d’Arcis had another go at the Pope, who now felt that his authority was being attacked and who felt that he had already made as good a compromise as necessary.

    As to whether the Shroud is really authentic or not, I don’t think any of this correspondence sheds any light on the matter at all!

    • October 24, 2014 at 9:51 am

      “As to whether the Shroud is really authentic or not, I don’t think any of this correspondence sheds any light on the matter at all!”

      It doesn’t. Not one iota.

  5. Max patrick Hamon
    October 24, 2014 at 7:07 am

    Hugh, just in cas you could miss it on October 24, 2014 at 7:03 am, I wrote:

    Seeing how some Papal bulls (alike contracts at times!) could seem to say one thing but actually say something else, it should have had Hugh be more cautious in his (flawed?) interpretation.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      October 24, 2014 at 7:41 am

      Reminder: the Shroud of Christ was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the 4th crusade, which means its legal owner were STILL the Byzantine emperors.

      One of the latter could have asked Clement VII to restitute the relic anytime and its illegal owner been under the pain of excommunication. Now Geoffrey II de Charny’s mother had remarried with Aymon of Geneva who was the uncle of the anti-pope.

      Either/at one and the same time Clement VII knew the Lirey Shroud was the Shroud ‘rescued’/stolen during the 4th crusade (whether the true one or not) or/and he wanted to avoid being in a most difficult/delicate situation as far as his authority was concerned. To impose “perpetual silence” (“all misstatement ceasing” whether the shroud was not the true shroud of Christ or was not a fake) was the best ‘diplomatical midway’ to adopt and avoid future difficulties from all sides…

  6. October 24, 2014 at 9:53 am

    Goodness me! We seem perilously close to agreeing!

  7. Max patrick Hamon
    October 24, 2014 at 11:17 am

    The only snag with anti-authenticists IS they build all their reductive intellectual construction on that very document Ulysse Chevalier MISREPRESENTED (again!)

    Reminder (I previously wrote on another thread): “As early as the end of the 14th c CE, it was agreed Clement VII took a position clear and cut against authenticity of the TS: it was indeed the obvious conclusion upon the reading the documents published by the canon Ulysse Chevalier more than a hundred years ago… till in 2006, Emmanuel POULLE published his work in a peer-reviewed journal (“Revue d’Histoire de l’Eglise de France, t.92, p.344-5358) and convincingly demonstrated the documents in question were falsified by the canon.”

    NEVER in the official version of the Papal Bull (the second version to be held) Clement VII could tell it was not the true Shroud of Christ nor it was a fake. This does show up to the attentive reader of the two versions in light of the Pierre d’Arcis’ report.

    Shall I repeat: “in all intellectual honesty”:

    1/Don’t you misrepresent the documentary evidence, just stick to the SECOND AND DEFINITE VERSION of the Papal bull

    2/ Don’t you do as most anti-authenticists would fraudulently do: they essentially rely (alike Ulysse Chevalier!) on the FIRST VERSION that is NOT to be held and disqualified them as honest truth seekers.

    The papal position was neutral as far authenticity and non-authenticity was concerned.

    Anti-authenticists just cannot rely on those documents (the d’Arcis memorandum and the Papal bull first version and TOTALLY overlook the final version of the bull) to misleadingly tell us the TS is a fake/hoax/forgery/painting. If they do this is intellectual dishonesty.

    What have they left with to fight their battle against authenticity: the 1988 radiocarbon dating ONLY! What is the latter really worth in the light of the Khi 2? Scientifically it is invalid!

    In other words, anti-authenticists are catching at straws… However they keep demanding authenticists archaeological, iconographic and literary proofs they (the anti-authenticists) are themselves totally unable to provide to back up their own HOLLOW claim. The true fact is their anti-authenticity prosecution case has neither iconographic, nor literary or archaeological legs to stand on while the authenticity prosecution case does have.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      October 24, 2014 at 11:26 am

      WHAT IF THE ANTI-AUTHENTICISTS WERE JUST ‘FAKE PEOPLE’?

  8. October 24, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Ah. Not that close then.

  9. October 25, 2014 at 6:22 am

    Hugh et allia:

    You are making novels in Da Vinci’s Codex style. We don’t know the true motives of
    the main characters of the story. They could be political, theological or sincere. We only know the facts:
    D’Arcis: A complaint for fraud: the monks show a sheet as the true Shroud. It is a fraud.
    First papal bull: To avoid the fraud (the painted shroud), he imposes to the monks some conditions: to utter aloud that the Shroud is not the true Shroud but a representation, etc.
    Some corrections are done by Jean de Naples. He erased some expressions (specially the “painted”) but he maintains the main corpus and the structure of the writing: avoid the fraud and pronounce the warning; all this with the same words that the first redaction.
    The first rule of interpretation: without any evidence adverse, you ought to accept the main sense of a word or text. The main sense of fraus, fraudis is guile, fraud or deceit.
    So, the fraud or guile which is mentioned in D’Arcis’ memorandum and the different versions of papal bulls (all in the same terms) is to present the Shroud as the true Shroud of Our Lord. The Pope explicitly disavows this.

    The Liege’s episode (1449) confirms the straightforward interpretation: the inauthenticity of the Shroud was presupposed in the papal bull. This is what the commission created by the bishop concludes on the basis of a direct exam and the checking of the papal bull in power of Marguerite de Charny.

    Of course, this is not an evidence of the Shroud is false. But the determination of some sindonists to speculate about unfounded interpretations of the last version of papal bull, and the aggressive terms usually uttered are hints of something. The papal bull disturbs them.

  10. October 25, 2014 at 6:38 am

    Exactly so, David Mo; I agree completely.
    (Except for making up novels! I merely speculated.)

    • Max patrick Hamon
      October 25, 2014 at 7:20 am

      Typo: Pierre d’Arcis’s accusations were doing HARM to Geoffroi de Charny

      • Max patrick Hamon
        October 25, 2014 at 7:20 am

        …Geoffroi de Charny II’s reputation.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        October 25, 2014 at 7:28 am

        Reminder (again and again): Clement VII imposed a ban of perpetual silence upon Pierre d’Arcis BECAUSE of his bad faith (in terms of conflict of interest) and his accusations were harming Geoffroi de Charny II’s reputation.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      October 25, 2014 at 7:29 am

      DaM and Hugh, you got it ALL WRONG!

    • October 26, 2014 at 4:57 am

      Hugh:

      I know. To speculate is free. But I am able to do some speculations based on objective data.

      Data: The Pope Clement VII was relative of Geoffroi II de Charny (nephew of the second husband of Geoffroi mother’s).

      Speculation: Perhaps his interdiction to d’Arcis was an attempt to silence an irritating complainant which, with or without reason, was disturbing a lucrative business of a relative. Don’t forget that d’Arcis was supported by the king Charles VI. Don’t forget that the moderate last papal bull had allowed Geoffroi II de Charny continue with the lucrative ostensions of the “figure and representation” of the Shroud.

      I think my speculation fits better with the papal modus operandi in this period,and introduces less unverifiable and complicated hypothesis. Though is also a speculation.

      • October 26, 2014 at 5:32 am

        I think you’re right, David. I think that Clement felt he had made an appropriate compromise, and enough complaining was enough.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      October 26, 2014 at 6:20 am

      We may speculate and speculate … !

      D’Arcis may have been on good terms with King Charles Vi. No less so was Geoffroi II de Charnay. The bailli Venderesse had a letter signed by Charles VI to retrieve the Shroud. Who drafted this letter? Had Charles actually bothered to read the letter or was it in a stack of “unimportant correspondence” for his routine signature? At the very time that Venderesse was seeking to retrieve the Shroud from Lirey, Geoffroi II was in Paris with a celebratory party to mark the arrival of Isabel of Bavaria as preliminary for her coronation as Queen of France. Geoffroi II took part in the joustings as did Charles VI himself, all a very cosy party for the lads and mates of the king. And Venderesse was all too easily discouraged from his assigned mission, directed against a fellow bailli.

      D’Arcis himself may well have been confused about the matter. He may have been aware that the genuine Shroud had perhaps once been in Besancon, and that there was said to be a shroud still there. Unknown to him, this was the replacement shroud that had been painted and the poor fellow had probably confused one with the other, as the replacement had been done in secret.

      He had his own interests and problems to think of as well. Here the lucrative pilgrim tourist traffic was heading off to some little insignificant village church in Lirey, while his own seat was in a state of disrepair. During the Christmas period in 1389, the entire nave of Troyes’ cathedral collapsed, and shortly afterwards the rose window of the north transept fell out. D’Arcis had to hire 30 labourers just to clean up the mess. A bishop needs to think of his priorities and where the money should be going.

      Now coming to the matter of the relationship between Antipope Clement VII and Geoffroi II: Was it merely a question of disturbing a lucrative tourist trade of a relative, as David Mo would suggest, or were there in fact higher motives? Is it not possible that Clement, as a family relative, in fact had inside knowledge of the true origins of the cloth that Geoffroi II was displaying? Did he know that in truth the Shroud had been captured from Constantinople, and that therefore there were rather bigger issues at stake. On 5 January 1390, Clement sent his stern letter to Bishop D’Arcis. On the same date, he sent a letter to Geoffroi II, stating that he could continue to hold the Shroud expositions, though he should limit the lavishness of the accompanying ceremonial. There was not even any mention that Geoffroi II was required to describe the Shroud as a ‘figure or representation’ of Jesus’ shroud.

      Did Bishop D’Arcis send his memorandum to Clement VII with all its accusations against the de Charnay family? I think not. That is an invention of Ulysse Chevalier, echoed by his co-conspirator Herbert Thurston, who wrote lies for the Catholic Encyclopedia.

      As David Mo says, “To speculate is free”, but I think my own are closer to the mark!

  11. Max patrick Hamon
    October 25, 2014 at 7:33 am

    Pierre d’Arcis’s memorandum did MISPRESENT the case to the pope. This was the FRAUD.

  12. October 25, 2014 at 8:26 am

    I think you misunderstand, Max. Neither I nor David Mo (I suspect) know what d’Arcis’ motives were; perhaps he was indeed the liar you claim. However he did denounce the Shroud as a fraud. And we have no idea what Clement’s motives were; perhaps he was convinced that the Shroud was genuine. However he did announce that it could not be displayed as such. That’s all we’re saying here. Above, you and I have discussed the subtleties of the reasons for that announcement, but the instruction itself was clear from the start.

  13. Louis
    October 26, 2014 at 11:32 am

    Assuming that what was exhibited in Lirey was one and the same object preserved in Constantinople, it was stolen. Another problem was the schism.
    https://www.academia.edu/7447446/Was_there_a_link_between_the_Knights_Templar_and_the_Turin_Shroud_An_interview_with_Dr._Barbara_Frale

  14. Max patrick Hamon
    October 26, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    Reminder for Hugh and DaM:

    Anti-Pope Clement VII in Avignon wanted both the pilgrimage to the Besancon Shroud (a painted copy of the former Shroud that used to be kept and exhibited in the cathedral) and that to the Lirey Shroud (kept and exhibited in the collegiate church) to peacefully coexist.

    Investigation made (most likely after he received the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis’s memorandum), most strikingly, the Pope officially took a position clear and cut against the very bishop himself: he imposed him a ban of perpetual silence under a pain of excommunion.
    In order words Pierre d’Arcis was NO LONGER ALLOWED to claim the Lirey Shroud was a fake.

    Conversely, the Pope imposed the canons of Lirey to publicly announce on ostensions “(They) don’t show the figure or representation because it is the true Shroud of Christ but because the figure or representation which it carries is said to be that of Christ.” In other words the Lirey canons were not allowed to say the Lirey shroud was the true Shroud of Christ (whether de facto it was the true one or not) since, had they said it was the true one, it would have been very much detrimental to the pilgrimage to the (painted) Besancon Shroud.

    The formula omni fraude cessante, “all misrepresentation/fraudulent presentation ceasing” just means neither Pierre d’Arcis could claim the Lirey Shroud was a fake/”a painting on a table” nor the Lirey canons claim they were going to show what was the true Shroud of Christ ONLY the figure OR representation the Shroud carried that was said to be the Shroud of Christ.

    DaM’s position disqualifies him as so-called ‘historian’ as he still relies on the first bull (based on Pierre d’Arcis report heavily tinged with conflict of interest) that shall not be held and (alike Ulysse Chevalier) keeps falsifying the second and definite Papal bull (final version CORRECTED once the investigation was made). DaM’s heavy misreading of the formula omni fraude cessante is ‘a fraud’ in itself as he totally overlooks both the intrinsic and extrinsic contexts. It shall be translated “all misrepresentation/misstatesment ceasing” since it simply applies to the correct way the Lirey Shroud shall be presented to the public/pilgrims not to the Lirey Shroud as forgery or fake! To unashamedly and wronly assert that the sentence “We don’t show the figure or representation because it is the true Shroud of Christ but because the figure or representation which it carries is said to be that of Christ” means the Shroud is clearly a fraud is a linguistic and intellectual fraud (une imposture)!

    [Last two sentences removed by moderator]

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: