We must not forget that if we are impressed by the seeming mysteries of the Turin Shroud image, we are only listening to dramatic people who do not know or want to know what they are talking about.
Visit this amazing site https://medievalshroud.com
Quote: The truth is that the Shroud has not been sufficiently well examined for a definitive description of the image making method to be derived. Far from being the most studied artefact of all time, all we actually have is a handful of photographs, a few spectroscopic analyses and some sticky tape slides, achieved by pressing tape so weakly onto the cloth that scarcely more than adventitious debris was removed. The fibres adhering were then so thoroughly cleaned in the process of extracting them from the adhesive that it comes as no surprise that almost nothing was discovered on them. Sadly, records of the man who originally created the the image, which were collected by Bishop Henri de Poitiers in the late 1350s and prepared as evidence by Bishop Pierre d’Arcis around 1390, are no longer in evidence. From https://medievalshroud.com/how-was-it-done/
The D’Arcis Memorandum is one of the most significant early historical documents concerning the object now known as the Shroud of Turin. Written around 1389 by Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Troyes to Pope Clement VII, the memorandum accused the canons of the collegiate church at Lirey of fraudulently exhibiting a painted cloth as the genuine burial shroud of Jesus Christ. D’Arcis claimed that an earlier bishop, Henri de Poitiers, had already investigated the relic and discovered that it was the work of an artist who admitted to painting it.
This was no normal painting - what else could it be but a fake imprint? "Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front."
The controversy erupted during a period when relics were not only
devotional objects but also major sources of prestige and income for
churches. The alleged miracles associated with the Lirey cloth drew
crowds of pilgrims and revenue, prompting episcopal concern about
deception and sacrilege. D’Arcis’ memorandum, therefore, was both a
pastoral warning and a legal appeal to the papacy to suppress what
he saw as a calculated fraud.
Although some modern defenders of the Shroud have questioned whether the memorandum was ever sent or whether it referred to the same cloth now kept in Turin, historical evidence suggests that Pope Clement VII responded to D’Arcis’ accusations. In 1390, Clement permitted public displays of the cloth only if it was explicitly presented as an “image” or “representation” of Christ’s burial shroud, not the authentic relic itself. This papal compromise indicates that D’Arcis’ protest had reached Rome and had real influence on ecclesiastical policy.
The memorandum remains a cornerstone of the sceptical case against the Shroud’s authenticity. It demonstrates that, as early as the fourteenth century, Church authorities were already aware of claims that the image was man-made rather than miraculous—and that even the papacy treated it with caution.
From the D'Arcis Memorandum
"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which he bore...And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud."
Of the previous bishop who investigated he wrote, "Eventually after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."
CURES
There are no verified miraculous cures - of say the standard you might associate with Lourdes - associated with the Shroud of Turin.
Interestingly when it first appeared, a heap of fake cures had to be claimed.
What is even more bizarre, is that while you have impressive cures at Lourdes which are rejected as true miracles, the Turin Shroud has nothing even to compare to them.
The Bible hints the cloth is fake for it says the apostle's handkerchiefs could cure.
ATTEMPTS TO SMEAR THE BISHOPS
That the bishops never saw the shroud is unlikely
speculation.
That the memorandum was only a draft and therefore not final is a desperate
claim.
That the memo may have been unreliable because it might not have been sent to
the Pope is, again, speculation.
To say the memorandum is hearsay ignores the fact that it presents itself as
factual and appeals to research.
Another objection is that the cloth mentioned was not the Turin Shroud but a copy being passed off as such. If so, could this poor imitation suggest that the original cloth was not impressive either and therefore not our Turin Shroud? And why is there no mention of what it was copied from? It is safe to say that we are told to speculate about lies for which there is no evidence. That is a completely unreasonable approach to the data.
EVIDENCE THAT THE D’ARCIS MEMORANDUM IS TELLING ONLY THE TRUTH
In 1389, Pope Clement VII was informed by a letter from the new bishop, Pierre d’Arcis, who told him that the Shroud was a fake. Bishop Henri, who had previously investigated the cloth, had found it to be a forgery—a painting—and the artist had admitted to creating it.
Some claim the letter was “apparently” never sent. But “apparently” does not mean much. What do they want—an affidavit from the postmaster? Clement VII, in 1390, responded to the Shroud controversy by decreeing that it must be viewed only as a likeness of Jesus and not the real thing. His reaction is evidence enough that he received a letter or some form of communication from D’Arcis.
What supports the sceptical bishops is the fact that the cloth was in the possession of Geoffrey de Charny, who would not display or publicise it. This is bizarre from both religious and financial points of view. Why hide the cloth of Christ and risk it being lost forever—unless it was a fake, and there was fear that people might discover how it was made, or even who made it? Why not make money from displaying it? The Shroud had to wait until Geoffrey’s death before it could be brought before the public.
Pope Clement responded by allowing the exposition of the Shroud to continue, provided that the owners declared it to be only an image of the true Shroud (see The Turin Shroud, p. 100). He likely told D’Arcis to remain silent, as he would not have liked this compromise. There was no need for further protest because the Pope had already been convinced that the Lirey Shroud was a clever painting. Clement wanted the cloth venerated not as a genuine relic of Jesus but as an icon.
The Pope’s decision shows that he accepted the evidence that the cloth was not the true burial sheet of Christ. The bishops could have taken the same approach but must have been so confident in their findings that they expected the Pope to prohibit its display altogether. Had they been uncertain, they could simply have said that its origin was unclear and advised the clergy of Lirey to do the same—allowing public enthusiasm to die out naturally.
Most people believe that the Shroud image was created around the time Geoffrey de Charny acquired the cloth, which he kept hidden in a chest. After his death, his second wife displayed it in Lirey around 1355 to attract pilgrims and revenue (The Jesus Conspiracy, p. 218). We cannot prove that Geoffrey himself had the cloth, as he never mentioned it. It is hard to believe that he would never have looked into the chest, yet he remained silent. Either he knew the image was made by immoral means and feared discovery, or his wife had someone forge it and falsely claimed that it had belonged to her husband to make it seem older.
If Geoffrey knew of the image, he would surely have wanted the world to revere it. Yet he left no testimony or letter defending it—not even on his deathbed. He remained silent because he knew it was a forgery.
ANOTHER DRAFT
In 1993, Hilda Leynen discovered that two distinct drafts of the D’Arcis Memorandum were held in the Champagne collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France—one very rough and containing bracketed words, and the other relatively neat and polished. There is no significant difference between them. The polished one appears to be the copy that was sent to the Pope. It was addressed to Maître Guillaume Fulconis, a scribe responsible for preparing the final version for the bishop’s signature.
Bishop D’Arcis had a panel of learned experts and theologians who agreed that the cloth was not genuine. Canon Ulisse Chevalier referred to this as a “commission of investigation,” though believers in the Shroud claim it was merely an advisory panel rather than a formal inquiry. But since when could a commission not also be advisory?
THE MISSING LINK
Attempts have been made to argue that the cloth in this case was not the Turin Shroud but a copy of it. These are mere speculations. Believers should hesitate to make such claims, for they imply that at a time when a genuine Shroud should have existed, only a fake was venerated.
While we cannot be absolutely certain that the Turin Shroud is the same as the Lirey Shroud, if the Shroud of Turin were truly a miraculous relic, it is reasonable to expect that God would have preserved stronger evidence for its authenticity. The cloth cannot be securely linked even to the fourteenth century, let alone to the time of Jesus.
If the Lirey episode is dismissed as irrelevant to the Turin Shroud, then the supposed link with the Knights Templar—often imagined as its secret guardians—collapses. That link is essential to the pro-authenticity argument. Are we to believe that the Lirey image was crude, yet coincidentally introduced the novel idea of a double front-and-back figure that later inspired a “better” version?
ANOTHER VICTIM
The learned and devout priest Canon Ulisse Chevalier popularised the bishops’ evidence that the image was a forgery. He was widely regarded as an erudite and pious scholar, a tireless researcher, and a careful collector of documents who rendered great service to history and science. Of his integrity and good faith there can be no doubt—yet defenders of the Shroud still try to implicate him in misrepresentation and deceit.
THE BAILIFF OF TROYES
The bailiff also examined the cloth, and his report clearly states that it was a painting—or, at the very least, that it appeared to be one.