The evidence against the authenticity and reliability of the D’Arcis memo is overwhelming. To recap:
1. The letter is unsigned, undated, and there is no record of it ever sent to Antipope Clement VII. We cannot verify who wrote it, when it was written, and if it ever left the trash can.
2. The alleged forger was not named. Without a name, it’s a baseless claim it was a forgery.
3. Relics were throughout churches in Europe. It makes no sense to critique a single church for activity that was done in all churches in Europe, including D’Aris’s own church.
viewtopic.php?p=1108860#p1108860
4. All churches were expected to have a relic. It makes no sense to attack a church for a particular relic if all churches have a relic which all pilgrims believed they are genuine.
viewtopic.php?p=1109029#p1109029
5. The D’Arcis memo was written 33 years after the first public showing of the shroud. 3 bishops presided during those 33 years and none of them complained about the shroud. It makes no sense the 3 prior bishops made no complaints and the 4th bishop afterwards then makes a complaint.
viewtopic.php?p=1109213#p1109213
6. The Lirey church display of the shroud never claimed it was the true burial cloth of Jesus. It makes no sense to critique Charny if he never claimed it was genuine.
7. Scriptural justification against the authenticity of the shroud also would apply to the most famous relic, the True Cross. This would make many other churches throughout Europe guilty.
8. The D’Arcis memo refers to “Lord Geoffrey de Charny”, but to be more precise, it should’ve been “Lord Geoffrey II de Charny, Knight.” Was D’Arcis confused when he wrote this?
viewtopic.php?p=1109367#p1109367
9. D’Arcis had the ecclesiatical power to handle the dispute himself. There was no need to appeal to the Pope.
viewtopic.php?p=1109439#p1109439
10. The Lirey church was an insignificant church is a small town. It should not have been considered any threat to the massive churches in Troyes. Why attack a small church if it was obviously a fake?
viewtopic.php?p=1109508#p1109508
11. Charny never put the shroud on display in the Lirey church. His family did after he had died. So, the charge in the D’Arcis memo is factually incorrect.
viewtopic.php?p=1109636#p1109636
12. There is no record of the D’Arcis memo in Promptuarium Tricassinae Diocesis of the canon Nicolas Camusat. There is no corroborating evidence to support the authenticity of the D’Arcis memo.
13. Bishop Henri de Poitiers (Charny’s bishop) makes no mention of the shroud.
14. Papal Bulls never mention the D’Arcis memo. Again, there is no corroborating evidence to support the authenticity of the D’Arcis memo.
viewtopic.php?p=1109867#p1109867
15. The financial value of the shroud was recorded in textual records to be very high. It’s doubtful Charny had the means to buy the shroud near this price even if it was a forgery.
viewtopic.php?p=1110247#p1110247
In conclusion, the D’Arcis memo as one of the top two shroud skeptics arguments is totally flawed.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1110516#p1110516