The sun., 1903-05-17

u
make any allusion whstever to the
Shroud in their sermons, and prohibited
It's public exhibition until further notice.
Appeal having been made to the POPE.
the exhibition, under careful regulations.
was allowed but the Bishop OF Troyes'
In an exhaustive report to him had pre-
sented evidence that the Shroud was
spurious. Disregard by the Canons OF
these regulations gave the Bishop the OPP
portunity to forbid ceremonies and &C.
clesiastical vestments at the exposition
and to require the priest who displayed
it to announce in an intelligioie ana
loud voice, without any ambiguity,
that it wsA not the real Shroud OF Chhisr'
but simply an imitation.
The objection that a. this CLEMENT
was an Antelope his decisions had no
validity h without force, for the recog-
milton Of relic is at best no suoJecV Oh
papal infallibility.' 1t was simply
question of fact and the decision was
according to historical evidence which
has never been successfully disputed
This CLEMENT VII, we will explain incl
dentally, was ROBERT, Count OF Geneva.
Bishop Of Cambray. On the death OF
GREGORY XI. in 1873, URBAN vi. NbAR-
ToLoMMEo PRI0NANI. Archbishop oi
BarD was elected Pope at the demand OF
the Italians, though the majority OF the
College of Cardinals were Frenchmen;
but afterward these French Cardinals
on the plea that they had acted under
intimidation Withdrew to Provence and
elected ROBERT of Geneva, known as
CLEMRNT VII. Thus there were two
rival Popes. one holding his court at
Rome and the other at Geneva; but, as
the Jesuit writer contends the quee-
ton of fact decided as to the Shroud is
not affected by the question OF the valid
itv Of the election of CLEMENT. More
over, his legitimacy rs Pope was recog-
nized by GEorFREY, the Bishop, and the
Canons, and he was regarded by all OF
them as the supreme court of adjudica-
ton.
No ofurther mention Of the relic ia made
until twenty years after, when. in l4ls,
it was among various objects intrusted
by the canens OF Lirey to HUMBERT,
Count OF La Roche, and described as a
cloth on which is la figure ou repre-
sentation du Suaire Nostre Seigneur
Jesucrist." In l44s its exhibition at
Chinay in Hainault by his widow caused
so great sensation that by orders of
the Bishop of the diocese a thorough
examination of it was made by two highly
competent theologians. with the result
that again it was pronounced spurious.
Next il. came into the possession of the
Duke Of SAVOY, and thereafter, to Use
the Language of the Jesuit critic, it stood
as the hallowed relic and Palladium Of
the House OF Savoy
The Church evidence against the au-
thentieity Of the Shroud is iadsputable,
therefore but DR.. PAUL VIGNoN has come
forward lately with a scientific theory
to sustain its genuineness.
We shall not undertake to go into an
explanation Of the grounds on which
the Jesuit critic opposes this theory.
but will merely say that he presents
great array OF evidence to show that DR..
PAUL y1GNoN has failed utterly in his at
tempt to demonstrate that the picture
on the alleged Shroud Of CHRIST was
produced by a discoloration of the
aloes superinduced by the decomposi-
ton of the deaths sweat generating
ammonia gases.
At any rate, the historical evidence
alone. as adduced by 50 firm Catholic
as Father BRAUN, would seem to be suffi-
cient to establish the fact of it's spuri-
ousness.