Replies

If I remember that history, de Molay was first severely tortured, then allowed a long recovery before being burned at the stake. So the suggestion is that during de Molay's recovery, the Shroud was used as a miraculous aid to healing. The image then would result from de Molay's high fever and sweating. That's the suggestion.

That's sort of a chicken and egg conundrum, Joe. If the image is de Molay, then what made the Shroud, sans image, anything more than an old sheet? In other words, why would it have had any miraculous healing abilities if it did not have the image of a crucified man on it? Which came first? The image or de Molay healing to make the image? It is illogical grasping at straws by a certain group of skeptics who want the Shroud to be something other than what it appears to be.

King Phillip order four men executed on March 14: Templars Jacques de Molay, Geoffroi de Charnay (Grand Preceptor of Normandy), Hugh de Peyraud (Visitor-General), and Guy d’Auvergne (Grand Preceptor of France). 40 years later, the Shroud would be put on display in a little wooden chapel in Lirey, France, by one Geofrey de Charney, King John II's Standard bearer, author of the French Code Of Chivalry, and thought to be either de Charnay's great nephew or grandson. The differences in spelling in those times was a matter of opinion. So there certainly appears to be some connection to the Templars.

"If the image is de Molay, then what made the Shroud, sans image, anything more than an old sheet?"

Well, naturally, now I can't find (was it borrowed?) the old book where I read that story years ago, so can't even confirm that I retold it correctly. And obviously, the book itself offered no "proof," so it's strictly an assertion based on speculation, and no doubt some bitterness by "heirs" to Knights Templar traditions.

My main point in all this is that the Shroud image itself strikes me as more of a warrior Knight Templar, than of the somewhat effeminate or Jewish "man of peace" image we typically see. Of course that's subjective, and others might as easily claim it looks just like their Uncle Shem. ;-)

One final point on the broader subject. I'm not a Mason, don't know any Masons, but read that many of our Founding Fathers were Masons, including Washington and Franklin, so am inclined to think very highly of Masons. Indeed, I'd say, if there were no Masons, there would be no USA, as we know it today.

Therefore, I note with some distress that the Church historically ranked Freemasons and Jews along with Communists as among the worst of the worst anti-Christians. But these days the Church has begun to make peace with Jews, and I wonder if now maybe they would also take another look at the Freemasons, beginning with their purported ancestors, the Knights Templar?

If sincerely acknowledging the Templars' role in preserving the Shroud is an effort in that direction, then I applaud it.