So the Holy Shroud is not some kind of mysterious veil shining out amongst a constellation of more or less similar copies. It is a miraculous veil which was imitated through devotion, the intention being to create pious reproductions which might themselves share in the thaumaturgic powers of the divine Model.

     As soon as we cease identifying this holy relic with the Mandylion, there is no longer any reason to think that it left Constantinople for Edessa during the iconoclast persecutions; rather, it remained there hidden. Whence the discretion, not to say uncertainty, of the evidence concerning its presence in the imperial treasure house.

     However, shortly before the city was plundered by the Crusaders (April 1204), we have the unequivocal evidence of Robert de Clari, who saw the «sydoines la ou nostres sires fut envelepes» (the shroud in which Our Lord was wrapped)¹. By affirming that «on i pooit bien veir le figure notre seigneur» (the figure of Our Lord can be clearly seen thereon), he indicates what the expositions of the Holy Relic will be like one hundred and fifty years later at Lirey. For «the figure» designates the full human form.

     Two years earlier (1201), Nicolas Mesarites, the treasurer of the relics kept at Saint Mary of the Pharos, the “sainte chapelle” of the imperial palace, had recalled the mystery of the risen Christ’s life perpetuated in those places by the presence of a particularly precious relic: «Here He rises, and the Shroud and the cloths are clear proof of this [...]. They are of linen [...]. They defy corruption, because they wrapped the ineffable Dead One, naked and embalmed after His Passion.»

     «The cloths» are the «othonia» (Jn 19.40). The «Shroud» is the «soudarion» (Jn 20.7). They are «of linen», apo linou: like the Holy Shroud of Turin. «The ineffable Dead One» wrapped by this Shroud was «naked», as can be seen on the Holy Shroud, and «embalmed», as can be read in Saint John (Jn 19.39-40). It also seems that Mesarites thought the explanation of the imprint left by «the ineffable Dead One» lay in the aromatic spices.

     Ten years before this description, around 1192-1195, a miniature in the Pray manuscript – named after the scholarly Jesuit who discovered it in the 18^th century and kept in the National Library of Budapest – depicts a burial clearly inspired by seeing this identical Shroud (fig. 11, p. 15). We reproduced this miniature in 1986², and used it to contest the results of the carbon 14 dating in 1988³. One particular detail, observed by a correspondent of Father Dubarle’s in 1986, two years before this “dating” took place, demonstrated that the author of this miniature had definitely seen the material «of linen» along with its herringbone weave and its imprint, delineating the image of «the ineffable Dead One, naked and embalmed after His Passion»⁴.

THE LEGEND OF BESANÇON

     In the words of Robert de Clari, «ne ne seut on onques, ne grieu ne franchois, que chis sydoines devint, quand le vile fut prise», no one any longer knew, neither Greek nor French, what became of this shroud when the city was captured on 13 April 1204. Today we know that it was taken to Athens. In the following year, the nephew of Emperor Isaac II Angelus asked Pope Innocent III, from all the treasures stolen from his uncle, for «that which is holy», the relics and «amongst them, the most sacred object of all, the Shroud» which was then «at Athens» (1205).

     It was from there that Agnes de Charpigny, wife of Dreux de Charny, the elder brother of Geoffrey, the Lord of Lirey, brought this «saincte relique» (holy relic) into France⁵. It has long been surmised that the widow of Geoffrey de Vergy, originally from the noble Franche-Comté family, deposited the Shroud in the Church of Lirey, after it had first been in the possession of the Cathedral of Besançon from whence it had disappeared during a fire in 1349. This hypothesis makes too many unfounded assumptions:

     «In 1207-1208, the Holy Shroud was very probably at Besançon, and almost certainly lacking in any kind of authentication given the circumstances of its unofficial seizure (?). It is probable that the family did not donate it to the Bishop or the Chapter of Saint Stephen’s; most likely it was laid away in storage […]. Unfortunately, there is no evidence dating back to this period…⁶»

     So we must relinquish this idea. No relic arrived at Besançon in the 13^th century from Byzantium «other than in the minds of the canons in 1523», writes Vignon. The inventories are completely silent, although they do not neglect to mention the arms of Saint Stephen and the remains of Saint Epiphanius and other relics of lesser importance.

     Let us reflect for a moment: «We are in or around the year 1355, at Lirey, writes Vignon. The Holy Shroud suddenly appears from no one knows where. But it nevertheless draws enormous crowds from almost unbelievably distant parts of the world. These people hasten towards the marvel, as towards something never before seen. They venerate with wonder and amazement an object which the West had never heard of until then. But what would have been so new about this sheet if for a century and a half it had been kept at Besançon before it came to Lirey? Not to mention the fact that the people of Besançon would quickly have recognized the relic as their recently “mislaid” treasure.⁷»

     We can only conclude that the “shroud of Besançon”, catalogued in an unmistakable way from the 16^th century onwards and destroyed during the Revolution, was a clumsy copy of that at Lirey. We need not speak of it further…

THE FOUNDING MIRACLE

     We are now in the period immediately following the Holy Year, the Jubilee of 1350, which drew an immense number of pilgrims to Rome to venerate the “Veil of Veronica”.

     A small village in Champagne, answering to the name of Lirey and belonging to the diocese of Troyes, is itself attracting numerous crowds who have come from all over the world to venerate a Relic about whose identity there can be no doubt. Proof of this can be found in an amulet, a lead medallion of the kind worn by pilgrims in the Middle Ages and today kept in the Museum of Cluny. It shows two figures vested in copes – whose heads have disappeared – holding up the said Relic, the Holy Shroud extended full length, as though they had just taken it out of its reliquary. Embossed on the reliquary are the arms of Geoffrey de Charny on the right (on the left for the reader). This object must therefore pre-date this knight’s death on the battlefield of Poitiers where he bore the standard of the King of France (19 September 1356).

Fig. 12: BADGE OF CLUNY. Two figures vested in copes, whose heads have disappeared, hold the Shroud full length, as though they were taking it out of its reliquary. The reliquary is struck with the arms of Geoffrey de Charny, on the right (on the left for the reader), and of Jeanne de Vergy his wife, as well as with instruments of the Passion and signs of the Resurrection: the empty tomb and the Holy Shroud. An admirable piece of craftsmanship, this lead medal represents the weave of the Shroud with an extreme care for detail, even down to the selvage recognized by Gabriel Vial on the edges of the Shroud as we know it today (cf. The Shroud of Turin – Technical study, in Bulletin du CIETA, no 67, 1989. p. 11-26). And even down to the oblique series of lines alternating their direction along the threads of the warp, which serve as their axis of symmetry (ibid.).

     In a letter dated Saturday 28 May 1356, duly signed and sealed after it was given in his palace at Aix-en-Othe, his summer residence, Henri, elected and confirmed in the episcopal see of Troyes since 1354, had recently granted the noble knight Geoffrey de Charny, Lord of Savoisy and Lirey, his «assent, authority and decision» to the «divine cult» celebrated in the collegiate church founded by the aforesaid lord, inasmuch, specified the bishop, «as we have been informed by legitimate documents».

The Bishop of Troyes’ letter of approbation

     «Henri, by the grace of God and of the Apostolic See, confirmed bishop elect of Troyes, to all those who will see these present letters, eternal salvation in the Lord.

     «You will learn what we ourselves learned on seeing and hearing the letters of the noble knight Geoffrey de Charny, Lord of Savoisy and Lirey, to whom and for whom our present letters are enclosed, after having scrupulously examined these letters and especially the said knight’s sentiments of devotion, sentiments which he has hitherto manifested towards the divine cult and which he manifests ever more daily.

     «And wishing, insofar as lies within us, to further a divine cult of this nature, we praise, ratify and approve the said letters and each and every one of the points contained within them which are there declared and reported to have been established, admitted, conceded and even prescribed in a ritual and canonical manner, inasmuch as we have been and are informed by legitimate documents. On and regarding these same points, we give our assent, authority and decision. In witness whereof we esteem it our duty to affix our seal on the present letters in perpetual memory.

     «Given at our palace in Aix, from our diocese, in the year of Our Lord 1356, Saturday the 28^th of the month of May.¹»

     This approbation was confirmed the year after, following the death of the said lord, by a bull of indulgence dated 5 June 1537. Co-signed by twelve bishops, it gave full support to all the pilgrims who visited the church and venerated its relics, including the Shroud therefore²!

     This Geoffrey I de Charny, a valiant and courteous knight, twice a prisoner of the English, a poet of chivalry and a loyal son of the King of France, had founded the collegiate church of Lirey in honour of the Virgin Mary after a miraculous delivery at the time of his first captivity in 1342: an angel had appeared to him in the form of a young boy, a servant of the tower guard. He had opened the doors of the prison for him, provided him with English clothing and got him enlisted in a troop of soldiers who were leaving to fight the French. Geoffrey obeyed with docility and was taken prisoner by his compatriots, to whom he made himself known. Thus did he escape his enemies.

     This first captivity of Geoffrey’s in 1342 is well documented, as we have already remarked, following Joseph du Teil. It is this that inspired his vow and the foundation he built after his miraculous deliverance. His second captivity in 1349 ended with his being ransomed³.

     This wonderful escape is confirmed by a notice entitled “To serve the truth” put up in the Church of Lirey around 1525⁴. «Historians do not accept this storybook escape», writes Father Dubarle. But this is not surprising: knowing only of Geoffrey’s second captivity and the ransom which freed him, his escape appears to them «the result of an unbridled imagination». On the other hand, Father Dubarle would appear to be a prisoner himself, the victim of an inveterate modernist prejudice which leads him to gratuitously conjecture that «the piety of Geoffrey or of the canons made an angel intervene, perhaps by way of an allusion to the deliverance of Saint Peter as recounted in the Acts of the Apostles».

     That an angel answered Geoffrey’s fervent prayers seems less surprising when we realise what happened next in God’s designs: the foundation of a church to act as a reliquary and an ostensory of the Holy Shroud.

THE DEVIL’S ATTACK

     Knowing what we do of Byzantine iconoclasm, we will not be surprised to see how the enormous surge of enthusiasm aroused by the expositions at Lirery also enkindled a furious controversy.

     Thirty years after the foundation of the pilgrimage, a tract attributed to Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes († 1395) and addressed to Clement VII, the antipope of Avignon, denounced the “Shroud” exposed at Lirey as a cunning «prestidigitation» (sleight of hand), a simoniacal «fraud», a «work of art created by the talent of man», in short, a false relic. The anonymous author of this “Memorandum” alleges that an «enquiry» had taken place at the conclusion of which Henri de Poiters, Pierre d’Arcis’ predecessor in the diocese of Troyes, had supposedly obtained a confession from the «painter».

     Having held this document in my own hands (fig. 13), I was able to observe that it was unsigned, undated and unsealed, all of which deprives it of the marks of an authentic archive document. No proof of despatch, no reproduction or certified copy can be found in any of the chancellery’s official files⁵. Despite being copied out very neatly, this “Memorandum” is in the form of a “draft”, and this explains its curious title, quite inappropriate for an official document: «Truth concerning the cloth of Lirey which, having long been exhibited at an earlier period, has recently been so exhibited once again, on the subject of which I intend to write to Our Lord the Pope in the following terms and as briefly as possible.»

     A clerk prepared for his bishop and in his name the text of a letter which never saw the light of day, and this is why no original or proof of despatch exists. It is a “tract” written in evident bad faith. Part of its conclusion has been cancelled and crossed out, its tone having been judged unacceptable. In the end, the Bishop of Troyes abandoned the idea of sending it.

     This tract claims to report an earlier conflict between the Canons of Lirey and the Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poiters, «thirty-four years ago». We communicated to the Congress of Saint Louis (22-23 June 1991) the result of a complete study of archive files relating to the collegiate church of Lirey ( a small locality a few kilometres away from our Maison Saint-Joseph). We had found these files in the archives of Aube and the town of Troyes as well as at the National Library, in the “Champagne” collection and other particular collections. Nowhere is there any evidence of the existence of commissions of theologians and the investigations alleged by the so-called “Memorandum of Pierre d’Arcis”. The latter contains no references or dates except for the phrase «around thirty four years ago»⁶.

(continued on p. 20)     

Fig. 13: Facsimile of the so-called “Memoir of Pierre d’Arcis” (Champagne 154, folio 137; photo National Library; full translation in the English CRC no 237, p. 13-14) where one can read: «Probatum fuit etiam per artificem qui illum depinxerat, ipsum humano opere factum, non miraculose confectum vel concessum». Which translates: «It was even proved, thanks to the artist who had reproduced it, that the original had been made by human hand and was not a miraculous work or a present from heaven.» Today we know with absolute certitude that the Holy Shroud is not the work of an artist. And people already knew this in those times. Which tells us just how much credibility the tract said to be by Pierre d’Arcis really has! Not to mention the credibility of those in the twentieth century who appeal to such evidence.

     What is more, the anonymous clerk, the author of the “Memoir of Pierre d’Arcis”, affects to believe that the Shroud was an invention of the Dean and Canons of Lirey enticed by the lure of money. He only mentions Geoffrey II of Charny, and does not even speak of Geoffrey I, his father, who founded the shrine of the Holy Shroud at Lirey before his death, «the banner of France between his hands»¹, at the battle of Poitiers on 19 September 1356.

     In 1418, the Holy Shroud was transferred to Bourgogne by Marguerite de Charny, daughter of Geoffrey II, the last of that name, wife of Humbert de Villersexel. Despite the protests of the Canons of Lirey, the Relic was kept at the Church of Saint Hippolytus, exhibited in various places, and finally relinquished to the House of Savoy in 1453².

     Once the iconoclast quarrel was over, the authenticity of the Shroud was never again contested. The Popes continually approved the cult of adoration which rightfully belongs to it «in consideration of the divine Blood with which it is stained», as Sixtus IV said. From 1502, the Relic resided in the chapel of the chateau at Chambéry to which this pontiff granted the title of “Sainte Chapelle of the Holy Shroud”, along with indulgences and privileges.

THE DEVIL RETURNS

     On the night of 3 to 4 December, a fierce fire broke out in the Sainte Chapelle of the Holy Shroud: «The fire took hold of the stalls of the canons and cantors. In an instant, it became so intense that, even before those living in the chateau were aware of the blaze, it had cracked the marble on the high altar and reached the sacristy. Crowds of people ran up. A single thought preoccupied them: to save the Holy Shroud.³»

     Charles III’s chamberlain, two Cordeliers and several locksmiths rushed in among the flames, «smashing the iron trellis which enclosed the choir. They plunged into the blazing sacristy and from a cupboard engulfed in fire they seized the already half melted casket that contained the Relic».

     Having made good their escape, they expected to «find the Most Holy Shroud in ashes; but to the amazement of all, when the brave men who had snatched it from the fire took it out of its casket and held it up before the excited crowd, it was seen to be still intact, except in a few areas where the fire had blackened and slightly damaged it. And while they were carrying the Treasure out of the chateau, the news of its preservation, judged miraculous even by men of letters, spread throughout the town and its surrounds.» We lived through this tragedy again on the night of 11 to 12 April 1997⁴.

     «However, continues the Abbé Bouchage, the heretics, the newly professed enemies of the holy Relics, quickly seized on the news of the fire in the Sainte Chapelle to try to spoil devotion to the Holy Shroud of Chambéry among the Savoyard people and the local pilgrims.

     «Listening to naught but the malice of their hearts, they apparently persuaded themselves that the august Relic had perished, and they spread this false news abroad: “The Shroud being displayed is not the same as that of previous times, they said. It is a cleverly made copy and nothing more.” And as the lie succeeded in deceiving many of the simple, the alleged destruction of the true Shroud achieved a certain credibility. So much so that the Duke felt obliged to ask for the venerable Relic to be officially acknowledged in a way that would put it beyond dispute. So he wrote to the Pope, asking him to appoint a bishop to solemnly re-establish the identity of the Holy Shroud of Chambéry. Clement VII willingly agreed to Charles III’s request.»

     He ordered his legate a latere on this side of the mountains, Cardinal Louis de Gorrevod, Bishop of Maurienne, 1^o to recognise whether, yes or no, the Holy Shroud had been saved from the fire, and 2^o to have it repaired by nuns of his choosing, should he find that it had been damaged by the fire. The cardinal acquitted himself of his mandate on 15 April of the following year, 1534, and he concluded in the perfect identity of the Holy Shroud. Nevertheless, the Protestants continued to proclaim that it had perished in the fire:

     «It is time to have done with the Shroud, said Calvin…, there are half a dozen towns at least which boast of possessing the entire burial Shroud…

     «What is more, they have clearly demonstrated that they have painters at their beck and call. For when one Shroud has been burned, a new one is always found the very next day. They may say that it is the same one which existed previously and which was saved from the flames by a miracle; but the paint is so fresh that the lie is utterly worthless for anyone who has but eyes to see.⁵»

     Here «the lie» is that of Calvin who never once saw the Shroud during his whole life!

     Having examined the Holy Shroud, the cardinal, the bishops of his retinue and the other witnesses declared under oath that they recognised the Holy Shroud which they had beheld and venerated prior to the fire. This declaration was drawn up into an act, along with a description of the state of the Relic. Then the cardinal carried the Holy Shroud in procession to the monastery of Saint Clare.

     But at this point we must read the account of the POOR CLARES³:

THE POOR CLARES GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY

     «On the fifteenth of April (Wednesday) of the year fifteen hundred and thirty-four, His Most Serene Highness the Duke of Savoy and Monsieur the Legate sent to us, before Vespers, Messire Vesperis, Treasurer of the Sainte Chapelle, accompanied by several other canons, to advise us to be ready to receive the Most Holy Shroud, which was to be brought to us to be repaired in those places where the fire had burned it.

     «The Reverend Mother Abbess, Louise de Vargin, having thanked them, answered on behalf of the whole Community that we were ready to obey the orders of His Highness and the Legate, despite our unworthiness to be employed in such a holy work as this. Nevertheless, we adorned the choir as well as we could, and there, after Vespers, was brought in the table on which the Holy Relic was customarily laid out.

     «The following day (Thursday 16 April), at eight o’clock in the morning, there was a public procession during which all the church bells were rung. Monsieur the Legate carried the Holy Shroud, followed by His Highness, by Monseigneur the Bishop of Belley and by Monsieur the Suffragan Bishop, as well as by the Notary Apostolic and several canons and ecclesiastics and the principal nobility of the country. Having rested it for a time on the high altar of our church, they carried it into the choir and placed it on the table which had been set up for it to be laid out upon.

     «We received it in procession, our candles lit. It was spread out on the table so that the places where it was to be mended could be identified. Whereupon Monsieur the Legate asked all the counts and barons present if this were not the very same Shroud that they had formerly seen. After having diligently examined it on one side and then the other, they testified that it was the same. The notaries apostolic made a note of their statement, while they made way for other gentlemen, ecclesiastics and prelates, who were similarly questioned.

     «After that, Monsieur the Legate told our Reverend Mother to choose some of her nuns to mend it. She offered herself along with three others whom she had appointed to carry out this work. Then all four of them gave their names to the notary, in the presence of all the nobility. Monsieur the Legate fulminated the most grievous excommunication against anyone who should touch it, apart from the four chosen sisters.

     «After that, His Highness’ normal preacher gave a beautiful sermon on the Holy Shroud, standing in front of the choir grille which lay completely open; the preacher was facing the people, and at the end of his talk, he read the Apostolic Brief which His Holiness had sent to His Highness, in which he permitted the Poor Daughters of the Observance of Saint-Clare-in-the-Town of Chambéry to make adjustments to it. The crowd of people who had rushed up to see this precious Relic was so great that it was scarcely possible to turn round.

     «After the Brief had been read out, Monsieur the Legate recommended us to treat it with the most meticulous care, and to pray to God that He would give us the grace to carry out this holy action in accordance with His holy will. Having made us say the Confiteor, he gave us all absolution. Then they all withdrew, except for Monsieur the Treasurer and Monsieur the Canon Lambert, whom His Highness had specially entrusted with the care of the Holy Shroud.

     «After dinner, the embroiderer brought the wooden frame to stretch the holland cloth on which the Holy Shroud was to be laid. After two hours of fixing the cloth to the frame and to the open-work, we laid out the precious Holy Shroud on top of it, and we sewed it turn by turn using tacking stitches.

     «His Highness came, accompanied by the Legate and several prelates, canons and gentlemen, before we had begun to place corporal cloths on the places damaged in the fire. He asked us about our sentiments towards this Relic; but we all shared his own sentiments, as they appeared most reasonable.

     «Such large numbers of people used to come to our grille while we were working that we were unable to achieve much. Monsieur Audinet, His Highness’ chief steward, was therefore forced to ask Canon Lambert to go outside frequently and to make them withdraw, apart from the guards who had been posted to prevent disorder.

     «When His Highness learned that the crowds were so great that never a day passed without more than a thousand people being seen, he was obliged to take possession of the key to the grille. Nevertheless, he often gave it back to his chief steward in order to satisfy the holy desire of a large number of pilgrims who had come from Rome and Jerusalem and several other distant countries. They were shown the Holy Shroud in the presence of lighted candles, while we knelt down and chanted. Loud were the cries of people begging for mercy with sentiments of devotion that cannot be expressed; and they returned filled with consolation, stating that it was the same shroud that they had seen formerly.

     «From the first day that it was brought to us, Thursday the sixteenth of April, several gentleman were sent to us, between seven and eight o’clock in the evening, who, having greeted the Reverend Mother and the whole Community, told her that they had orders to post guards before our grille to watch over the Holy Shroud during the night; and that, although His Highness trusted us, he was doing this out of the respect due to this sacred token of Our Saviour, and in order to avoid any kind of accident. When large number of strangers came to see it, they acquitted themselves of their commission and had the curtain covering the grille drawn back. Monsieur le Syndic also brought people of honour to keep a similar watch.

     «However, we always had a large lighted candle in a basin before the Relic, and four guards were always present, holding lighted candles, each taking turns with such great modesty that they seemed more like novices of a well reformed Religion [How I love this wonderful expression, and may it never be erased from our hearts! exclaims Brother Georges of Jesus-Mary] than lay people. Our Mother Vicar thanked them for not getting in our way, to which they replied that His Highness had ordered them to act thus. On several occasions they urged us to go and take a little rest, leaving just three or four of us to watch over this sacred deposit; but we could not bear to part from it, and we had obtained permission from our Reverend Mother to remain there as long as we wished. If some of us retired around ten or eleven o’clock, they would get up at midnight and would all take part in Matins; the others only took their rest between two and four o’clock, and several used to stay up the whole night with inconceivable satisfaction.

     «All our conversation was with God. We passed our gaze repeatedly over all the bloody wounds of His sacred body, the traces of which were apparent on this Holy Shroud. It seemed to us that the opening in His sacred side, being the most eloquent to express His Heart, spoke these words to us incessantly: O vos qui transitis per viam, attendite et videte si est dolor similis sicut dolor meus.

     «Indeed, we saw on this rich tableau sufferings which could never have been imagined. We could see the marks of a face completely battered and bruised from being struck, His divine head pierced with thick thorns, whence issued trickles of blood which flowed down onto His forehead and separated into different branches, arraying Him in the most precious purple in the world.

     «Then we saw a long stain descending from the neck, which made us believe that He was bound with an iron chain when He was captured in the Garden of Olives, for the neck seems to be swollen in several places as if He had been dragged and tossed about. The marks of the lead pellets and the whip lashes are so frequent on His stomach that scarcely a spot the size of a pinhead can be found that is exempt from the blows; they cross each other and extend the full length of the body, right down to the soles of the feet. A large clot of blood marks the holes in the feet.

     «On the second side of this Holy Shroud, which represents the back of Our Lord’s body, one can see the nape of the head pierced with long thick thorns, which are so frequent that it is evident that the crown was made in the form of a cap and not in the form of a circlet like that worn by princes, as painters represent it. On careful inspection, one sees that the nape has been more traumatized than the rest and that the thorns were more deeply embedded in it. Large conglutinated drops of blood appear in the hair, which are covered in blood. The bloodstains below the nape are thicker and more visible than the others, due to the fact that the sticks used to strike the crown made the thorns penetrate the skull; given the fatal nature of these wounds, it was a miracle that He did not die under the blows. These wounds would have been reopened by the jolting of the cross, and before this when He was made to lie down on the cross to be nailed to it. The shoulders are entirely torn and bruised by the extensive whip lashes.

     «The drops of blood seem as large as marjoram leaves; in several places there are large gashes which have been caused by the blows. Half way down the body, one can see traces of the iron chain that bound Him so tightly to the column that every part of Him appears to be bleeding. The variety of the blows indicate that they used different kinds of whip, like birch-rods knotted with thorns and iron chains which tore at His Body so cruelly that on looking at the Shroud from underneath, while it was stretched out on the holland cloth or canvas, we could see the wounds as though we were viewing them through glass.

     «During the fifteen days that this precious Relic remained in our convent, we had the opportunity to go to confession in order that we might approach the Most August Sacrament of the Altar and receive the Son of God, and this at a time when we had before our eyes a part of Himself in the image painted with His very own blood. We finally made our confessions in the parlour on Monday and Tuesday (27 and 28 April); and on the Wednesday we satisfied our devotion.

     «On that day His Highness was coming to see what the state of the Holy Shroud was; but fearing to disturb us, he postponed his visit to seven o’clock on the following morning (Thursday 30 April), whereupon he gave orders for it to be wrapped in violet taffeta; after this, tapestries were brought in to us, adding to those that we already had. By Friday (1 May), we had hung them all up, both inside and out, and then it was arranged that on the following Saturday (2 May), they would come to take it away. (The feast was being celebrated on 4 May.)

     «On that day there arrived My Lords the Bishop of Belley and the Suffragan, and several other prelates and other ecclesiastics and gentlemen, who had watched over and agreed our work. Afterwards, they rose to make us take one last look at it. They then folded it around the roll and covered it in a veil of red silk. Monseigneur arrived in procession, just as before when he had brought it to us, advancing right up to the two doors of the convent. All the bells of the town rang out, accompanied by trumpets and other musical instruments. Whereupon, My Lords the Bishops covered the Holy Shroud with a golden drape and carried it off, while as for us, we all began to sing the hymn: Jesus nostra Redemptio. We all had our candles lighted. With the greatest veneration possible, My Lords the Bishops handed it to His Highness, who was waiting for them between the two doors.

THE NEW ICONOCLASTS

     «The heretics, newly declared enemies of the holy Relics», as the Abbé Bouchage calls the Protestants, were quick to spread the news of the fire «in an attempt to spoil devotion to the Holy Shroud of Chambéry among the Savoyard people and the local pilgrims».

     The fire had broken out in the year in which Farel began to preach the Reformation at Geneva, whence it would soon spill over into Savoy. In Paris, the posting of “Placards” against the Mass, even on the door of the King of France on 18 October 1534, showed that the audacity of the innovators knew no bounds. But the Duke of Savoy, Charles III, did not display the same weakness in their regard as did his nephew Francis I.

     Thus, for two hundred years, the miraculous deliverance of the holy Relic established the people’s devotion to this sacred object as the devotion par excellence of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Last year we reproduced some of the old drawings belonging to the collection of the late King of Italy, Humbert II of Savoy († 1983). They are the most eloquent illustration of this growing devotion towards the Holy Shroud of Chambéry¹.

     One of them commemorated the exposition presided over by Saint Charles Borromeo on 12 October 1578 in Turin, whither it had been taken on the occasion of the holy archbishop’s pilgrimage, made in thanksgiving for the delivery of his diocese from the plague. The Relic did not return to Chambéry and became the Holy Shroud of Turin.

     Another drawing depicted the exposition presided over by Saint Francis de Sales on 14 May 1613, the feast day of the Holy Shroud instituted by Pope Julius II in 1506. There we see an immense and picturesque crowd of pilgrims drawn by these expositions from all corners of the known world. People from all social classes rub shoulders with one another: king, princes, lords, the bourgeoisie and serfs.

Fig. 14: DEVOTIONAL IMAGE associating the “Veil of Veronica” with the Holy Shroud (King Humbert II collection).

     So, how is it possible to maintain that the Church has «never taken a position vis-à-vis the Holy Shroud of Turin»? Coming from journalists, this is often due to their ignorance of the affairs of the Church. But coming from the men of the Church, what a monstrous act of repudiation²! So what is the «position of the Church»? Blessed Sebastian Valfré (1629-1710), an Oratorian and chaplain to Duke Victor Amadeus, expressed it in an aphorism of such perfect completeness that whoever pauses to reflect on it is plunged  into an abyss of contemplation:

«The Cross receives the living Saviour and gives Him back dead;
the Shroud receives the dead Saviour and gives Him back alive.»

     On 1 June 1704, the Relic was transferred to the chapel built in the chevet of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist by Guarino Guarini. There, the Holy Shroud will pass through two hundred years of obscurity. Buried in its “sepulchre”, so aptly named, above the Bertola altar, it sleeps whilst awaiting its resurrection.

     A devotional image, dating from the end of the 16^th century portrays the Holy Shroud stretched out and adored by angels, surmounted by the holy Crown of thorns and the “Veil of Veronica” (fig. 14). In this way we can see that tradition, sustained by a very confident and profound mystical intuition, instinctively associates the “Veil of Veronica” with the Holy Shroud. Our historical research does but rediscover this original association, which two hundred years of impiety would have had us forget... if Divine Providence had not intervened.

THE MANIFESTATION OF THE HOLY FACE

Fig. 15: STATUE OF SAINT VERONICA, in her widow’s wimple, holding in her two hands the veil imprinted with the Holy Face (former collegiate church of Écouis-en-Vexin, 14th century; photo RMN, J-G Berizzi). Saint Veronica’s action, her breaking through the cordon of soldiers to kneel before Jesus bent under the wood of His cross, to wipe the sweat and blood of His face with a cloth, and discovering the Holy Face imprinted on this veil, does not appear in paintings before the end of the Middle Ages. The statue at Écouis is «one of the most ancient examples that can be cited», according to Émile Mâle. «The reason for this is quite simple, he explains: the ancient tradition only became popular when it entered into the setting of the Mysteries» which were enacted in the cathedral squares. «It will be found in all the great Passions, those of Mercadé, Gréban and Jean Michel, where it forms the principal episode on the ascent to Calvary.» (Émile Mâle, L’art religieux de la fin du Moyen Âge en France, 2nd edition, Paris 1922, p. 64)      Paul Perdrizet imagines «the effect produced on the immense audience crowding round the stage on which the Paris Confreres of the Passion were performing, when, for the first time, in a scene never seen before, the daughter of Jerusalem, who had thrown herself before Christ as He was carrying His cross, turned round to the spectators, stretching out in her two hands the cloth on which the sorrowful Face had just been miraculously imprinted…» (op. cit., p. 9)

     The devotion shown to the Holy Face in the West, starting with the arrival of the Veil of Veronica in Rome, suffered no decline until the nineteenth century. Philippe Auguste, on his return from the Holy Land, venerated the famous relic in 1191. The Liber pontificalis, the book of pontifical ceremonies, lists the days of its public exposition: the Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday of Holy Week, as well as the Ascension and the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, the Sunday after the octave of the Epiphany.

     In Jubilee years, of which the first was instituted in 1300 by Pope Boniface VIII, the exposition was extended to every Friday and to all the great feasts. When danger threatened, the Holy Face was sheltered in the Castel Sant’Angelo. Having escaped the sack of Rome in 1527¹, it was transferred to the new basilica of Saint Peter’s on 21 March 1606. Less than twenty years later, a silk copy of the “Veil of Veronica” was executed under the pontificate of Gregory XV (1621-1623). Currently kept in the sacristy of the Gésu in Rome, this copy reveals an obvious affinity with the Holy Face imprinted on the Holy Shroud². It is said to be acheiropoietic, «not made by hand», even though it manifestly bears the mark of a human hand. It was called this because the artist was seeking to reproduce the pure and simple acheiropoietic image of the Holy Shroud using a procedure which still remains to be discovered.

     A scientific study needs to be carried out on the “Veil of Veronica” currently kept at Saint Peter’s in one of the chapels built between the pillars of the transept crossing. For a thousand years this veil was the “Palladium”, the aegis of the Holy City, an object of extraordinary veneration which was reawakened in the last century by a number of miracles.

     In January 1849, during the Pope’s exile in Gaeta, the Veil of Veronica was exposed to the veneration of the faithful in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s. We can read in the correspondence of Monsieur Dupont, the “holy man of Tours”, an account of the miraculous manifestations which marked this exposition:

     «On 6 January, the feast of the Epiphany, the Holy Face on the Veil of Veronica could be distinctly seen, even though it was covered by a silk cloth which completely prevented its features from being distinguished. Then, on the third day of the exposition, the Veil took on a flush of colour and the countenance of Our Lord showed itself alive in the midst of a gentle light […].

     «The Holy Face became fully alive before an immense crowd for three hours  and made the most inexpressible impression on every one; many people wept and everyone was astonished by the prodigy. A notary apostolic was called upon to witness the event; a copy of the act was sent to the Holy Father in Gaeta.»

     «For several days, adds Monsieur Dupont, this astonishing prodigy was the only topic of conversation in Rome. In the evening, several white veils on which the Holy Face was drawn were placed in contact with the miraculous veil. These veils are to be sent on to France.»

Fig. 16: THE HOLY FACE REPRESENTED ON THE “VEIL OF VERONICA” kept in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s in Rome, and propagated by “the holy man of Tours”, Monsieur Dupont.

     The rest of the story is worthy of the holy Mandylion as celebrated by Gregory Referendarius and Constantin Stilbes: «Towards the end of Lent, wrote Monsieur Dupont in 1851, several of these images reached us in Tours via the Benedictines of Arras. I placed one of them in the chapel of Monsieur Redon at the Lazarist house and I kept the other.» He set it up in his living room and placed a lamp before it so that this image of the Saviour’s Divine Face might be honoured with an external sign visible to all, a sign of respect, adoration and love. Whereupon commenced marvels that would create a worldwide stir. The oil in the lamp multiplied miracles: cures of cancer, of internal and external ulcers, of cataracts…

     These duly attested prodigies take their place alongside those of the ancient Byzantine and Roman chronicles. They are like an appeal to the revelation of the last times: «Lord, show us Thy face and we shall be saved!» Despite the authority of the late lamented Father Bourguet SJ, formerly chief curator of the National Museums and Professor at the School of the Louvre, these authentic miracles do not allow us to compare the power of the Holy Face with «that attributed by the pagans to the head of the Gorgon, an image which they placed on the gates of their cities as well as on the helmets, breastplates and shields of their soldiers»¹. Such an incongruous comparison reveals the inability of the best specialists to explain Byzantine art. They fail to see it as an abstraction of the unique Model, the Holy Shroud, which provided it with its “orthodox” canon.

     Today, more than ever, the Holy Face of Christ is the palladium of Christendom. Sister Mary of Saint Peter received the revelation of this in 1845, when she heard Our Lord telling her: «I am looking for Veronicas to wipe My divine Face which has so few adorers […]. I give you this Holy Face… Through it, you will work wonders.²» Before we show how this promise still holds true today, let us listen to the Curé d’Ars who immediately started to propagate it, insisting on its importance in a way that seems astonishingly topical to us: «It seems that in the absence of His vicar [Pius IX, exiled at Gaeta], Our Lord Himself comes down on earth; He takes up His humanity to show Himself to men [...]. The Holy Face has been seen again, this time sad and shedding tears.»

Fig. 17: STANDARD OF A RUSSIAN REGIMENT (1916). Having disembarked at Marseilles and stationed itself in Provence, this regiment is preparing to move to the front. Ever since its foundation in 988, “holy Russia” has inherited from Byzantium the cult given to the Icon par excellence whence all the others derive, the acheiropoietic Image («not made by human hand»), on which the Son of God made man left the miraculous imprint of His Holy Face.
     The image seen here is of the same lineage as the Holy Face kept at Laon in France (Eng CRC no 237, p. 22). It is shown as painted on a cloth, the «mandylion» of tradition, the folds of which can be clearly seen, along with an inscription expressing the faith of the Russian people in its protection: «GOD WITH US!»

Page 16
(1) SS I, p. 21-22, 138.  –  (2) SS I, p. 144.  –  (3) SS II, p. 32.  –  (4) SS II, p. 32; cf. La data delle prime bruciature che si osservano sulla sindone, in Collegamento pro Sindone, no  5, July-August 1986, p. 37-43. As can be seen, the discovery was not due to the distinguished Professor Lejeune, even though he had gone to Budapest to «examine on site» the Pray manuscript in May 1993 (cf. J-M Le Méné, Professor Lejeune, founder of modern genetics, Mame 1997, p. 129)!  –  (5) SS I, p. 108; SS II, p. 31.  –  (6) Brother Hilary of Jesus, The Holy Shroud refound. From Constantinople to Lirey (1204-1354), Eng CRC no 238, April 1991, p. 42-47. According to Father Dubarle, the “Shroud of Lirey” was a gift from the King of France to Geoffrey de Charny, which presupposes an incognito transfer of the relic via the Sainte-Chapelle. Quite untenable !  –  (7) Paul Vignon, op. cit., p. 108; quoted in SS I, p. 108.

Page 18
(1) Archives de l’Aube, I 17. Quoted by Nicolas Camuzat, Promptuarium sacrarum antiquitatum Tricassinæ dioecesis, Troyes, 1610, f^o 422 v^o. Latin text in the Eng CRC no 237, p. 18, note 2.  –  (2) Ibid., 9G1 (unclassified bundle).  –  (3) CRC no 237, p. 17, note 11.  –  (4) Dubarle reproduces the transcription made by Hilda Leynen, in accordance with one of the two manuscripts kept at the National Library (Champagne 154, f^os 133-136).  –  (5) The confession can be read in Ulysse Chevalier, Autour des origines du Suaire de Turin, in Mémoires de l’Académie des sciences, belles-lettres et arts de Lyon, vol. 7 (1903), p. 241-242.  –  (6) B Bonnet-Eymard, Study of original documents of the archives of the diocese of Troyes in France with particular reference to the Memorandum of Pierre d’Arcis, in History, science, theology and the Shroud, Acts of the Symposium of Saint-Louis (Missouri, USA), p. 233-260; cf. Eng CRC no 237 p. 7-24.

Page 20
(1) Chroniques de Froissart, in Collection des chroniques nationales françaises, by Buchon, Paris-Verdière, 1824, vol. 3, p. 232. Ulysse Chevalier has him die on 26 March 1356 (Autour des origines, p. 241). This crude error reveals the immense imposture of the “Chevalier file” today invoked in support of the carbon 14 “mediaeval dating” of the Holy Shroud.  –  (2) This was the year when Constantinople was taken by the Ottoman Turks. One trembles to think what might have happened to the Holy Shroud if the Crusaders had not taken it from there in 1204! Or rather: let us admire the ways of Providence...  –  (3) L Bouchage, Le Saint Suaire de Chambéry à Sainte-Claire-en-Ville (1534), address to the Congress of learned Savoyard societies (1890), Chambéry 1891.  –  (4) Cf. G de Nantes, The Holy Shroud saved from the flames, Eng CRC no 295, Easter 1997, p. 31-34.  –  (5) John Calvin, Traité des Reliques, 1st edition, Geneva, 1543.

Page 23
(1) Eng CRC no 317, March 1999, p. 13-16. – (2) Cf. The declaration of Cardinal Ballestrero, Archbishop of Turin, 13 October 1988 (cf. SS II, p. 29).

Page 24
(1) Contrary to what several historians maintain, who are only too eager to see it cast into oblivion, for example Perdrizet, op. cit., p. 3.  –  (2)  SS II, p. 38.

Page 25
(1) Pierre du Bourguet, SJ, op. cit., p. 107.  –  (2) Quoted by the Abbé Georges de Nantes in “Sanctify 1989” through the grace of the Holy Face of Jesus Christ, Eng CRC no 216, February 1989, p. 7.