various authors
|
NOTE |
The Shroud of Turin has engendered controversy since it first appeared in the historical record in the later fourteenth century. Some believe it may be the same shroud that Robert of Clari claimed to see in Constantinople when sacking the city with the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The historical record makes clear that most of the educated elites understood the Shroud of Turin to be an imposture from the beginning. The shroud, originally known as the Shroud of Lirey, was first displayed in the region of Champagne in France in 1389, prompting the local bishop of Troyes to report to the anti-Pope, Clement VII, in Avignon that the local temporal lord, a certain Geoffrey (French: Geoffroi, Latin: Gaufridus) II de Charny, was using it to make unscrupulous money. His father, Geoffrey I de Charny, a powerful and respected knight, had apparently acquired the shroud in the 1350s, around the time the previous bishop of Troyes had investigated and found it to be a fake. In an exchange of letters culminating in a Bull, Antipope Clement VII agreed that the Shroud was a representation of the resurrection and not the genuine burial shroud, and he ordered that its display be stripped of holy rites and prefaced with an announcement of its artificiality. These documents are presented below. However, such precautions failed, to the point that when the chapel where the Shroud resided caught fire in December 1532, Pope Clement VII (the legitimate one this time) wrote that the pious believed it to be the shroud of Christ and its rescue occurred with “divine assistance.” In 2025, Nicolas Sarezad made news by identifying the oldest reference to the Shroud in medieval literature, from Nichole Oresme, which I give below in both the original Latin and English translation so you may see the full reference for yourself.
|
Robert of Clari, Conquest of Constantinople (after 1205)
These others entered into another monastery called Madame St. Mary of Blachernae, where was the Shroud (sydoines) in which Our Lord was wrapped. This is opened out every Friday, so that the figure of Our Lord can be clearly (bien) seen. No one, whether Greek or Frenchman, ever knew what became of this shroud when the town was taken.
translated by H. B. Mackey, “The Holy Shroud of Turin,” The Dublin Review, January 1903, p. 19 (adapted)
Nichole Oresme, Problemata 1 (before 1382 CE)
|
Non enim fiunt miracula ut mali fiamus sed ut boni.
Pro responsione rationis in oppositum, scilicet de fama quod ita sit, nota unum diligenter quod a vulgo multa audivi dicente esse vera et communia apud omnes, ita quod quasi non audebam dicere oppositum. Et quesivi ulterius “quomodo scitis?” Respondet quilibet “scit hoc”, et cum ulterius quesivi “vidistine?”, dixit “non”. […] Et in hoc non solum decipitur vulgus simplex, ymmo et clerici magni qui sepe dicunt “hoc est notorium”. Et tamen si queras “quomodo scitis hoc?”, ipsi non plus respondebunt quam simplex mulier. Numquid si due bone persone testentur se fuisse curatos subito a tali vel tali facto, numquid debeo credere eis? […] Ad sextam, dico primo quod si bone persone tale etc. dicant et attribuant miraculo et Deo glorioso, quod hoc non est contra rationem, ut iam dixi. Sed causa quare hoc permittebat non latet in sacra Scriptura. Non est michi necesse credere cuilibet dicenti: “talis fecit michi tale miraculum”, quia sic multi viri ecclesiastici deciperent alios ut oblationes suis ecclesiis afferrent. Patet hoc ad sensum de ecclesia in Campania ubi dicebatur quod esset sudarium domini Ihesu Christi, et de quasi infinitis qui finxerunt talia et cetera. Latin text from Boureau and Delaurenti (eds.), Nicole Oresme, vol. VIII, quoted in Nicolas Sarezad, “A New Document on the Appearance of the Shroud of Turin from Nicole Oresme: Fighting False Relics and False Rumours in the Fourteenth Century,” Journal of Medieval History (online preprint, 28 August 2025), notes 14-16.
|
For miracles are not performed so that we may become evil, but so that we may become good.
In response to the argument on the contrary, namely from common report that it is so, note one thing carefully: I have often heard many things said by the common people to be true and universally known among all, so much so that I scarcely dared to say the opposite. And when I inquired further, “How do you know this?” each person answered, “Everyone knows this.” And when I pressed further, “Did you see it?” he replied, “No.” […] And in this not only is the simple populace deceived, but even great clerics, who often say, “This is a matter of common notoriety.” And yet, if you ask them, “How do you know this?” they will answer no more than a simple woman. Now, if two good people were to testify that they had suddenly been cured by such-and-such a deed or event, must I therefore believe them? […] To the sixth objection, I say first that if good people should say such a thing and attribute it to a miracle and to the glorious God, this is not against reason, as I have already said. But the reason why this was permitted is not hidden in Holy Scripture. It is not necessary for me to believe every person who says: “So-and-so worked such a miracle for me.” For in this way many clerics would deceive others, so that offerings might be brought to their churches. This is plainly evident in the case of the church in Champagne, where it was said that the Shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ was kept, and of nearly countless others who fabricated such things, and so forth. translated by Jason Colavito.
|
Letter from Peter D’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, to Robert of Geneva, Antipope Clement VII, 1389
The Dean of Lirey, deceitfully and wickedly, inflamed with avarice and cupidity, not from devotion but for gain, had the cleverness to obtain for his church a certain painted cloth on which was painted with subtle method the double image of a man, front and back; falsely asserting and making out that this was the very shroud which enveloped Christ in the sepulchre, and in which had remained thus impressed the whole image of the Saviour, with the wounds which He suffered. This was so spread abroad not only in France, but throughout the whole world, so to speak, that the people flocked from every side. Moreover, to draw the said people and artfully to get money out of them, miracles were lyingly invented, certain men being suborned to pretend that they had been healed on occasion of the exposition of the said shroud, which was believed by all to be that of the Saviour. Seeing all this, Henry of Poitiers, then Bishop of Troyes, at the persuasion of many prudent men, and, indeed, as a duty of his ordinary charge, made an investigation. Theologians and other learned men declared that this could not be the Lord's shroud since it was marked with the Saviour's image, and the Gospel makes no mention of such a marking. Were it true, it is not likely that the Gospels would have omitted to mention it, nor that it would have remained secret and unknown till now.
At length, after diligent efforts and from information taken, he at last detected the fraud, and found that the said cloth had been painted by the hand of an artist. It was even proved by the artist who had painted it that it was made by human skill, and was not made or given miraculously. He thereupon, after counsel, proceeded against the said dean and his accomplices, who hid the said cloth so that he could not find it, and kept it concealed during about thirty-four years, until this present year. And now the present dean, with fraud prepense, and for the sake of lucre, has suggested to Geoffrey (II.) de Charny, the temporal lord of the place, to get the aforesaid relic put back in his church in order to renew the pilgrimage and increase the revenues. The said knight, at the suggestion of the dean, who followed the example of his predecessor, has been to the Cardinal de Thoire, legate of your Holiness in France, and—suppressing the fact that this cloth had been asserted to be the shroud of the Saviour, and that it had the image of the Saviour on it, and that the Ordinary had treated the matter and that the cloth had thereupon been suppressed—he stated to the Cardinal that it was a representation or figure of the shroud, begging that he might be allowed to replace it in the church in order to be venerated by the faithful. Cardinal, without granting the petition entirely, permitted that it should be placed in the said church, or in any other becoming place, without the permission of the Ordinary or of anyone else.
Under pretence of these letters, the said cloth was openly exhibited to the people in the said church on feast days and other occasions, with the greatest solemnity, even greater than is shown there to the Lord's body. And although, in public, it is not asserted to be the true shroud of Christ, yet this is said and proclaimed secretly, and is believed by many, especially as it was formerly called the true shroud of Christ. Moreover, it is now called not Sudarium but Sanctuarium, which gives the same idea to the common people. . . . For my part, seeing this scandal, after taking the counsel of many prudent men, I forbade the dean to expose the said cloth to the people; but he has appealed, and meantime continues the said ostension, while the knight has procured a royal warrant to the same effect. Meanwhile, also, they have spread the report that I am proceeding in this from envy, from cupidity and avarice, from the desire of getting hold of this cloth myself, as my predecessor also was accused of doing. Wherefore, I procured that the said cloth should be placed under the king's authority, which I did without any difficulty, as the whole court of parliament is fully informed as to the superstitious finding and abuse of this shroud. Finally, the said knight has brought back letters from your Holiness confirming those of the above Cardinal, ex certa scientia, by which it is conceded to him to exhibit the said cloth to the veneration of the faithful, and by which perpetual silence is imposed on me at least, so it is reported, for I have not seen the letters. Deign, then, to provide in such sort that the above scandal and superstition may be extirpated from the root, and that this cloth be not offered for veneration either as a Sudarium, or a Sanctuarium, or a representation or figure of the Lord’s Shroud (since that shroud was not such as this), or in any other way or name. For I hereby offer to inform myself sufficiently and unquestionably, for the discharge of my conscience, on all the points above put forward about this fact.
At length, after diligent efforts and from information taken, he at last detected the fraud, and found that the said cloth had been painted by the hand of an artist. It was even proved by the artist who had painted it that it was made by human skill, and was not made or given miraculously. He thereupon, after counsel, proceeded against the said dean and his accomplices, who hid the said cloth so that he could not find it, and kept it concealed during about thirty-four years, until this present year. And now the present dean, with fraud prepense, and for the sake of lucre, has suggested to Geoffrey (II.) de Charny, the temporal lord of the place, to get the aforesaid relic put back in his church in order to renew the pilgrimage and increase the revenues. The said knight, at the suggestion of the dean, who followed the example of his predecessor, has been to the Cardinal de Thoire, legate of your Holiness in France, and—suppressing the fact that this cloth had been asserted to be the shroud of the Saviour, and that it had the image of the Saviour on it, and that the Ordinary had treated the matter and that the cloth had thereupon been suppressed—he stated to the Cardinal that it was a representation or figure of the shroud, begging that he might be allowed to replace it in the church in order to be venerated by the faithful. Cardinal, without granting the petition entirely, permitted that it should be placed in the said church, or in any other becoming place, without the permission of the Ordinary or of anyone else.
Under pretence of these letters, the said cloth was openly exhibited to the people in the said church on feast days and other occasions, with the greatest solemnity, even greater than is shown there to the Lord's body. And although, in public, it is not asserted to be the true shroud of Christ, yet this is said and proclaimed secretly, and is believed by many, especially as it was formerly called the true shroud of Christ. Moreover, it is now called not Sudarium but Sanctuarium, which gives the same idea to the common people. . . . For my part, seeing this scandal, after taking the counsel of many prudent men, I forbade the dean to expose the said cloth to the people; but he has appealed, and meantime continues the said ostension, while the knight has procured a royal warrant to the same effect. Meanwhile, also, they have spread the report that I am proceeding in this from envy, from cupidity and avarice, from the desire of getting hold of this cloth myself, as my predecessor also was accused of doing. Wherefore, I procured that the said cloth should be placed under the king's authority, which I did without any difficulty, as the whole court of parliament is fully informed as to the superstitious finding and abuse of this shroud. Finally, the said knight has brought back letters from your Holiness confirming those of the above Cardinal, ex certa scientia, by which it is conceded to him to exhibit the said cloth to the veneration of the faithful, and by which perpetual silence is imposed on me at least, so it is reported, for I have not seen the letters. Deign, then, to provide in such sort that the above scandal and superstition may be extirpated from the root, and that this cloth be not offered for veneration either as a Sudarium, or a Sanctuarium, or a representation or figure of the Lord’s Shroud (since that shroud was not such as this), or in any other way or name. For I hereby offer to inform myself sufficiently and unquestionably, for the discharge of my conscience, on all the points above put forward about this fact.
translated by H. B. Mackey, “The Holy Shroud of Turin,” The Dublin Review, January 1903, pp. 21-23 (parentheticals omitted).
Letter of Antipope Clement VII to Geoffrey, Lord of Lirey, July 28, 1389
Clement [VII], bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved son, the noble man Geoffrey, lord of the place of Lirey, diocese of Trento, greetings and apostolic blessing. The sincerity of your devotion, which you are known to have towards God and us, and the Roman Church, merits our favorable response to your petitions, especially those which are known to respect the honor and glory of the divine name. The series of your petitions, which were presented, contained what was recently explained to our beloved son Peter, cardinal priest of the title of Saint Susanna, on your part, that your father, inflamed with zeal for devotion, had once caused a certain figure or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was generously offered to him, to be venerably placed in the church of Blessed Mary of Lirey, diocese of Trento, of which he himself was the founder; and that finally, when the Lord permitted those parts to be severely shaken by wars and plagues of mortality, a figure or representation of this kind, also at the command of the ordinary place and for other specific reasons, was transferred from the said church of Blessed Mary to another safer place, and had remained decently hidden until then and venerably guarded; and that you, for the sake of the aforesaid church’s decorum, the devotion of the people and the increase of divine worship, desired that the aforementioned figure or representation be replaced in the aforesaid church, the same cardinal, whom we had then appointed to our dearest son Charles, illustrious King of the Franks, for certain business of ours and the aforesaid Roman church, and who, in doing, carrying out, exercising, and during the prosecution of such business, in the cities and dioceses and provinces through which he passed on his way and returned, and in which he happened to stay, had the authority from us to do, carry out and exercise everything and everything that a cardinal of the Roman church, fulfilling his office, can do, carry out and exercise within the limits of his legation. Whoever had passed through the province of Senone, from which the said diocese of Trento exists, granted you, during the prosecution of such matters, by his letters, without seeking or obtaining permission from the diocesan or any other person, that you might place and arrange the aforesaid figure or representation in the aforesaid church of Saint Mary in a suitable, honorable and decent place; and that the said figure or representation was decently placed in the said church of Blessed Mary by virtue of this indult; and that afterwards our venerable brother Peter, bishop of Trento, moved by this indult, in his last synod celebrated, ordered the rectors of parish churches and those whom he happened to propose the word of God not to make any mention of the shroud of Jesus Christ, the figure or representation of Him in their churches or sermons, whether in good or bad; and finally he forbade his beloved son, the dean of the aforesaid church of Blessed Mary, from showing the said figure or representation to anyone under penalty of excommunication. From which prohibition made to the said dean, on behalf of the said dean, an appeal was made to the Apostolic See. And because the said figure or representation after such a petition was publicly exhibited and shown to the people; we therefore, inclined by your supplications in this part, having the aforesaid indult (permission) ratified and approved, confirm it, as stated above, from certain knowledge, with apostolic authority, and share the patronage of the present writing; and nevertheless we grant to the said dean and the beloved sons of the chapter of the said church of Blessed Mary, by the tenor of the present, that, notwithstanding such prohibition, they may publicly exhibit and cause the same figure or representation to be shown to the people, whenever it may be opportune; imposing perpetual silence on the said bishop on the aforesaid prohibition. Therefore let no man be permitted, etc. Given at Avignon, on the fifth day before the Kalends of August, in the eleventh year [of our papacy]. Expedited on the third day before the Nones of August, in the eleventh year. Delivered on the third day before the Nones of August, in the year 11.
VATICAN ARCHIVE, Registra Avenionensia 258, folio 468v.
translated by Jason Colavito from Ulysse Chevalier, Autour des Origines du Suaire de Lirey (Paris: Alfonse Picard et Fils, 1903), 31-33.
translated by Jason Colavito from Ulysse Chevalier, Autour des Origines du Suaire de Lirey (Paris: Alfonse Picard et Fils, 1903), 31-33.
Papal Bull of Antipope Clement VII, January 6, 1390
Clement [VII], etc., for perpetual remembrance.
The careful foresight of the Apostolic See sometimes modifies concessions once made, and sets forth and arranges matters as the character of things and times requires, and as it sees to be expedient in the Lord.
For formerly, on the part of our beloved son, the nobleman Geoffrey, lord of Lirey, of the diocese of Troyes, it was set before us that, not long ago, our beloved son Peter, presbyter cardinal of the title of Saint Susanna, had been informed on Geoffrey’s behalf that once Geoffrey’s father, inflamed with zeal of devotion, had caused a certain image or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, which had been freely given to him, to be reverently set up in the church of Blessed Mary at Lirey in the said diocese, of which he himself was the founder. Afterwards, when by God’s permission those parts had been sorely troubled by wars and plagues of pestilence, that image or representation, at the command of the ordinary of the place and for other definite reasons, was transferred from the said church of Blessed Mary to another safer place, where it was honorably kept and reverently guarded until then.
But Geoffrey desired, for the adornment of that same church, for the increase of the devotion of the people, and for the fostering of divine worship, that the aforesaid image or representation might be replaced in the same church. The said cardinal—whom at that time we had sent to our dearest son in Christ, Charles, the illustrious king of the French, for certain matters concerning us and the Roman Church, and to whom, during the prosecution of those affairs, we had granted full faculty to perform, manage, and execute within the cities, dioceses, and provinces through which he might pass and in which he might sojourn on his journey, all things which a cardinal of the Roman Church acting in the office of legate could do within the limits of his legation—this cardinal, passing through the province of Sens (in which the diocese of Troyes lies), granted by his letters to the said Geoffrey that he might have the said image or representation placed and set in a fitting, honorable, and decent spot in the church of Saint Mary aforesaid, without having sought or obtained the license of the diocesan or of any other whatsoever.
And the said image or representation, by virtue of that indulgence, was accordingly decently restored in the said church of Blessed Mary.
But afterwards our venerable brother Peter, bishop of Troyes, moved by that indulgence, in his last synod prohibited the rectors of parish churches, and those appointed to preach the word of God, from making any mention, in their churches or sermons, either in praise or in blame, of the Shroud of Jesus Christ or of the image or representation thereof. And finally, he forbade the dean of the said church of Blessed Mary, under pain of excommunication, to show that image or representation to anyone. From which prohibition the said dean appealed to the Apostolic See. And because after that appeal the said image or representation was publicly displayed and shown to the people, we confirmed the aforesaid indulgence, of our certain knowledge and apostolic authority. Moreover, we granted to the same dean and to the chapter of the said church of Blessed Mary that, notwithstanding the aforesaid prohibition, they might lawfully show and cause to be shown publicly to the people the said image or representation whenever it should be opportune, imposing perpetual silence upon the said bishop with regard to that prohibition, as is more fully contained in our letters then issued.
We therefore, taking care to provide a suitable remedy concerning the manner of such display, so as to remove all occasion of error and idolatry, will and by the tenor of these presents we decree and also ordain by apostolic authority, that whenever in future the said image or representation shall happen to be shown to the people, the dean and the aforesaid chapter, and other ecclesiastical persons showing that image or representation or being present at such showing, shall not on that account put on copes, surplices, albs, copes, or any other ecclesiastical vestments or ornaments whatsoever, nor make any solemnities such as are customary in the showing of relics; nor shall torches, flambeaux, or candles be lit, nor any lights of any kind be used there.
And that the person showing the said image, when a greater multitude of people is gathered there, shall publicly preach to the people and say in a loud and intelligible voice, without fraud, that the said image or representation is not the true Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, but is a certain painting or picture made in the likeness or representation of the Shroud, which is said to have been that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And we decree that, if our aforesaid letters and their effect, and this our will, statute, ordinance, and constitution, are not observed, they shall lack all force.
Let no one, therefore, etc. infringe this page of our will, statute, ordinance, and constitution, etc.
Given at Avignon, on the eighth day before the Ides of January, in the twelfth year [of our pontificate]. Registered on the eighth day before the Ides of February, in the year 12.
The careful foresight of the Apostolic See sometimes modifies concessions once made, and sets forth and arranges matters as the character of things and times requires, and as it sees to be expedient in the Lord.
For formerly, on the part of our beloved son, the nobleman Geoffrey, lord of Lirey, of the diocese of Troyes, it was set before us that, not long ago, our beloved son Peter, presbyter cardinal of the title of Saint Susanna, had been informed on Geoffrey’s behalf that once Geoffrey’s father, inflamed with zeal of devotion, had caused a certain image or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, which had been freely given to him, to be reverently set up in the church of Blessed Mary at Lirey in the said diocese, of which he himself was the founder. Afterwards, when by God’s permission those parts had been sorely troubled by wars and plagues of pestilence, that image or representation, at the command of the ordinary of the place and for other definite reasons, was transferred from the said church of Blessed Mary to another safer place, where it was honorably kept and reverently guarded until then.
But Geoffrey desired, for the adornment of that same church, for the increase of the devotion of the people, and for the fostering of divine worship, that the aforesaid image or representation might be replaced in the same church. The said cardinal—whom at that time we had sent to our dearest son in Christ, Charles, the illustrious king of the French, for certain matters concerning us and the Roman Church, and to whom, during the prosecution of those affairs, we had granted full faculty to perform, manage, and execute within the cities, dioceses, and provinces through which he might pass and in which he might sojourn on his journey, all things which a cardinal of the Roman Church acting in the office of legate could do within the limits of his legation—this cardinal, passing through the province of Sens (in which the diocese of Troyes lies), granted by his letters to the said Geoffrey that he might have the said image or representation placed and set in a fitting, honorable, and decent spot in the church of Saint Mary aforesaid, without having sought or obtained the license of the diocesan or of any other whatsoever.
And the said image or representation, by virtue of that indulgence, was accordingly decently restored in the said church of Blessed Mary.
But afterwards our venerable brother Peter, bishop of Troyes, moved by that indulgence, in his last synod prohibited the rectors of parish churches, and those appointed to preach the word of God, from making any mention, in their churches or sermons, either in praise or in blame, of the Shroud of Jesus Christ or of the image or representation thereof. And finally, he forbade the dean of the said church of Blessed Mary, under pain of excommunication, to show that image or representation to anyone. From which prohibition the said dean appealed to the Apostolic See. And because after that appeal the said image or representation was publicly displayed and shown to the people, we confirmed the aforesaid indulgence, of our certain knowledge and apostolic authority. Moreover, we granted to the same dean and to the chapter of the said church of Blessed Mary that, notwithstanding the aforesaid prohibition, they might lawfully show and cause to be shown publicly to the people the said image or representation whenever it should be opportune, imposing perpetual silence upon the said bishop with regard to that prohibition, as is more fully contained in our letters then issued.
We therefore, taking care to provide a suitable remedy concerning the manner of such display, so as to remove all occasion of error and idolatry, will and by the tenor of these presents we decree and also ordain by apostolic authority, that whenever in future the said image or representation shall happen to be shown to the people, the dean and the aforesaid chapter, and other ecclesiastical persons showing that image or representation or being present at such showing, shall not on that account put on copes, surplices, albs, copes, or any other ecclesiastical vestments or ornaments whatsoever, nor make any solemnities such as are customary in the showing of relics; nor shall torches, flambeaux, or candles be lit, nor any lights of any kind be used there.
And that the person showing the said image, when a greater multitude of people is gathered there, shall publicly preach to the people and say in a loud and intelligible voice, without fraud, that the said image or representation is not the true Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, but is a certain painting or picture made in the likeness or representation of the Shroud, which is said to have been that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And we decree that, if our aforesaid letters and their effect, and this our will, statute, ordinance, and constitution, are not observed, they shall lack all force.
Let no one, therefore, etc. infringe this page of our will, statute, ordinance, and constitution, etc.
Given at Avignon, on the eighth day before the Ides of January, in the twelfth year [of our pontificate]. Registered on the eighth day before the Ides of February, in the year 12.
VATICAN ARCHIVE, Registra Avenionensia 261, folio 258v.
translated by Jason Colavito from Chevalier, Autour des Origines, pp. 33-35.
translated by Jason Colavito from Chevalier, Autour des Origines, pp. 33-35.
Papal Letter of Antipope Clement VII, January 6, 1390
Clement, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our beloved sons, the officials of Langres, Autun, and Châlons: greeting and apostolic blessing. Formerly, on the part of our beloved son, the nobleman Geoffrey, lord of Lirey, of the diocese of Troyes, it was set before us that not long ago our beloved son Peter, presbyter cardinal of the title of Saint Susanna, had been informed on Geoffrey’s behalf that once Geoffrey’s father, inflamed with zeal of devotion, etc., as in the letter immediately preceding, up to the point where it is more fully contained in the letters we caused to be drawn up thereon. We, taking care to provide for the manner of this kind of display, in order to remove all matter of error and idolatry, desired and by apostolic authority we established and also ordained that whenever the said figure or representation happened to be shown to the people at that time, the aforesaid dean and chapter and other ecclesiastical persons showing this figure or representation and present at this kind of display should not perform any solemnities that are usually done in showing relics, and that therefore no torches or candles should be lit for any solemnity, nor should any lights be used there for that purpose, and that showing the said figure, while a larger multitude of people have gathered there, at least occasionally while a sermon should be given there, he should publicly preach and say to the people in a loud and intelligible voice, all fraud being ceased, that they do not show the aforesaid figure or representation as the true shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, but as a figure or representation of the said shroud, which is said to be of the same Lord Jesus Christ. The aforementioned letters and their effect, if they do not observe our will, statute and ordinance of this kind, are decreed to be void, as is more fully contained in our other letters. We therefore desire that our will, statute and ordinance aforesaid be observed inviolably, we command at your discretion by apostolic writings that you or two, or one of you through you or another or others, solemnly publish the aforementioned will, statute and ordinance, where and when you see fit, by our authority, and cause that aforesaid authority to be firmly observed by ecclesiastical censure, restraining those who contradict with a similar censure, with an appeal added. Notwithstanding if the same dean and chapter and persons or any others jointly or separately have an indult from the Apostolic See that they cannot be interdicted, suspended or excommunicated without making a full and express and verbatim mention of this indult by apostolic letters. Given at Avignon, on the eighth day before the Ides of January, in the year 12.
VATICAN ARCHIVE, Registra Avenionensia 261, folio 259v.
translated by Jason Colavito from Chevalier, Autour des Origines, pp. 36-37.
translated by Jason Colavito from Chevalier, Autour des Origines, pp. 36-37.
Papal Letter of Antipope Clement VII, June 11, 1390
While we devoutly examine the precious signs of merits by which the Queen of heaven, the glorious Virgin Mother of God, shines forth from her glorious thrones like the morning star, while we also ponder the mysteries within our hearts that she herself, as the mother of mercy, the friend of piety, the comforter of the human race, stands as a diligent intercessor and vigilant intercessor for the salvation of the faithful who are burdened with the burden of sins, intercedes with the King whom she bore; we consider it a worthy duty to continue to support the churches dedicated to the honor of her name with the gracious expenses of remissions and gifts of indulgences. Since, therefore, as we have received, a considerable multitude of people flock to the church of Blessed Mary of Lirey, in the diocese of Trento, in which, as is asserted, the figure or representation of the shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ is venerably preserved, for the sake of devotion and also for the sake of this kind of representation, we desire that the church itself be frequented with appropriate honors, and that the faithful of Christ may flock to it more willingly for the sake of devotion, and may more readily lend their hands to the construction of the same church, so that from these they may see themselves there more abundantly refreshed by the gift of heavenly grace, trusting in the mercy of Almighty God and the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, to all truly penitent and confessors who on the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Resurrection, Ascension and Corpus Christi of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Pentecost, as well as on the Nativity, Annunciation, Purification and Assumption of the aforementioned blessed Virgin Mary, and the Nativity of the blessed John the Baptist, the said apostles Peter and Paul, and the festivities of the dedication of the church itself, and on the feast of All Saints and during the octaves of the Nativity, Epiphany, Resurrection, Ascension and Corpus Christi of the Lord, and of the Nativity and Assumption of the blessed Mary herself, and of the Nativity of blessed John, and of the aforementioned apostles, and during the six days immediately following the said feast of Pentecost, they devoutly visited the aforementioned church annually and lent their hands to its construction, namely one year and forty days for each of the festivals and festivities, but on the octaves and six days of the aforementioned days on which they visited the church itself and lent their hands to its construction, as is preferred, we mercifully remit fifty days from the penances imposed upon them. Moreover, so that all and sundry that may be offered or given by the same faithful for the purpose of obtaining the grace of this kind of indulgence may be fully converted to the uses for which they were offered or given, we strictly forbid, under the threat of divine judgment, that anyone, of whatever status, condition or dignity, may appropriate or usurp for himself in any way anything of what is offered or given. But if anyone presumes to attempt this, he cannot obtain the benefit of absolution from the guilt of such presumption by anyone, except with the Apostolic See, and by satisfaction due by him for those things which he has appropriated for himself, really present and paid, unless he is at the point of death. Given at Avignon, the Kalends of June, in year 12. Expedited three days before the Ides of June, in the year 12.
VATICAN ARCHIVE, Registra Avenionensia 261, folio 309v.
translated by Jason Colavito from Chevalier, Autour des Origines, pp. 37-39.
translated by Jason Colavito from Chevalier, Autour des Origines, pp. 37-39.
