Posted on 06/09/2006 3:31:39 PM PDT by NYer
Almost four centuries after its mysterious disappearance, Fr. Heinrich Pfeiffer reported that he has rediscovered one of Christendom's most intriguing relics: the Veil of Veronica, the cloth with which Jesus wiped His face on the road to Calvary.
Fr. Pfeiffer, a professor of Christian Art History in Rome, found the relic in the Abbey of Manoppello, Italy. The German Jesuit invested 13 years of searching through archives to prove that this is the same cloth that disappeared from the Vatican in 1608. Stolen, Sold and Donated The Same Face as the Shroud
Manoppello is a small, ancient town in the Abruzzo region of Italy, about 150 miles from Rome in the Apennine Mountains. The Capuchin friary there is appropriately named the Sanctuary of the Holy Face. A piece of stained, pale cloth kept in this tiny village has long been regarded by the Capuchin monks as a sacred icon with wondrous properties.
The story of St. Veronica and her veil appears in various early Christian writings. Most notably, the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate" from the sixth century, identifies Veronica with the hemorrhaging woman who was cured by touching the hem of Jesus' cloak. Veronica is described as a pious matron from Jerusalem, and numbered among the holy women who accompanied our Lord to Calvary.
During the Passion, she is said to have wiped sweat from His brow. Jesus rewarded Veronica for her charity by leaving her an imprint of His face on the "veil." She later traveled to Rome, bringing with her this image of Christ, which was long exposed to public veneration.
The almost transparent white veil measures about 6-1/2 x 9-1/2 inches and bears dark red features of a serene bearded man with long hair and open eyes, patiently enduring suffering. Bruises and other scars are apparent on his forehead. Clotted blood is on his nose, and one pupil is slightly dilated.
The sacred veil is so thin one can easily see through it. In fact, the image becomes invisible depending on the angle from which the cloth is viewed, something that was considered a miracle in itself in medieval times.
Documented history of the mysterious relic dates back to at least the fourth century. On the occasion of the first known Jubilee year, 1300, we know that the veil was kept in the Vatican Basilica as a popular goal of pilgrims, as it is mentioned in Canto XXXI of Dante's Paradiso. Fr. Pfeiffer believes the sacred relic was stolen during the restoration of the Basilica in the year 1608., when the chapel housing the veil was demolished. Shortly thereafter, the veil appeared in Manoppello.
Ten years later, in 1618, Vatican archivist Giacomo Grimaldi drew up a list of the sacred objects held in the old St. Peter's Basilica. The reliquary containing the Veil of Veronica was on that list, but Grimaldi indicated that the reliquary's crystal glass was broken.
According to records at the monastery written in 1646, the wife of a soldier sold the veil to a nobleman of Manoppello in 1608 in order to ransom her husband from prison. Thirty years later, the nobleman donated the relic to the Capuchins. In 1638, it was placed in a walnut frame adorned in silver and gold between two sheets of glass. It remained in the monastery ever since.
"There are few such objects in history," Fr. Pfeiffer explained to Rome's Zenit News Agency a few years ago. "This is not a painting. We don't know what the material is that shapes the image, but it is the color of blood."
Ultraviolet examinations of the cloth confirm that the image is not paint, and the fibers of the veil do not have any type of color. Thus, it was not woven with dyed fibers. Particularly noteworthy are several small flecks of reddish brown — presumably drops of blood from the wounds caused by the Crown of Thorns.
Enlarged digital photographs of the veil reveal that the image is identical on both sides of the cloth — a feat impossible to achieve by ancient techniques, and extremely difficult to achieve even today. These photographs have also been used to compare the veil with the face on the Shroud of Turin. Striking similarities are apparent: the faces are the same shape and size, both have shoulder-length hair with a tuft on the forehead, the noses are the same length, and the beards match. The only difference is that on the veil the mouth and eyes are open. Those who carried out the tests concluded that the two relics bear the image of the same face, "photographed" at two different times.
For those interested, the Veil of Veronica remains on display at the Capuchin Abbey of Manoppello.
Veronica's veil is displayed annually in St. Peters basilica - I am led to believe! - have you any idea which date?
On the fifth Sunday of Lent after Vespers a Canon of St. Peter’s displays from the upper balcony of the Veronica pillar in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome a cloth which we now know is only a copy of the Veil of Veronica. Nothing at all can be seen on this cloth. The actual icon which is known as the Veil of Veronica is in the Capuchin Fathers Shrine of the Holy Face (Santuario del Volto Santo) in the verdant hills just outside the historic small town of Manoppello near the Italian port city of Pescara on the Adriatic Sea. The Holy Face of Manoppello (formerly known as the Veil of Veronica) is the most amazing image in the world. It has the image of Christ on both sides of a very fine cloth. The images on both sides change in color and perspective before one’s eyes. Any person who goes there is able to come within less than a foot of this wonderful icon to pray, meditate and observe for as long as one desires. At times before one’s eyes the image disappears and the cloth itself becomes transparent as if it were made of clear glass. The citizens of Manoppello who have cared for this icon for 500 years since its removal from St. Peter’s are to be greatly commended, blessed and praised for their wisdom, foresight, and general Christian charity. On Sept. 1, 2006 Pope Benedict XVI visited Manoppello and prayed at length before the Holy Face. Anyone who wishes further information about this image please refer to my earlier posting, or you may contact me.
**Amazing rediscovery. The fact that it is the same face as the Shroud of Turin adds to the credibility of both.**
Truly amazing.
Wasn’t aware of this.
This is a very good article from last year regarding the Holy Face of Manoppello. There is still a lot of work to be done translating documents and research from the Italian and German languages into English. When people begin to have these articles by Fr. Pfeiffer, Sr. Blandina Schlomer and others available, along with the wonderful photos of the various views of the image, many will be wonderfully surprised and happy to learn what the world has found in Christ.http://www.messengersaintanthony.com/messaggero/pagina_articolo.asp?IDX=320IDRX=93
Thanks for the link.
Recently the Capuchin friars website added an english translation of Fr. Pfeiffer’s reply to Falcinelli which was originally published in italian in the official journal of the shrine of the Holy Face. I hope that all who have read Falcinelli’s paper will be able to read what Fr. Pfeiffer has to say. There are a number of German and Italian scientists who are dedicating themselves to research on this amazing icon. I myself visited the shrine recently and honestly have a hard time understanding how anyone who has seen it for more than five minutes could think that it was a painting. But if it is a painting, let’s have more of them. I’ll pay whatever price it takes. http://www.voltosanto.it/Inglese/dettagliofnti.php?x1=17
Actually, it toured the US a couple of years ago. :-)
I have read Fr. Carmine Cucinelli rebuttal. It is not a rebuttal from a scientific or scholarly position... it is more what Fr. Carmine believes, rather than established facts.
"...As Sr. Blandina Pascalis Schlomer has shown that the Holy Face is able to be perfectly superimposed over the Shroud of Turin, the presumed painter, let’s say Albert Durrer, would first have had to place his cloth over the Shroud and copy onto it exactly the characteristics of the negative. ..."
Sorry, but Sr. Bandina's "scientific" approach was to place a photograph of the Manoppello image over a photograph of the Shroud... and then claim that it was an exact match. It isn't. Her further method was to hold a transparent plastic ruler up to the Manoppello image and then measure on the Shroud photograph... which was not guaranteed printed to scale. First direct measurements of both cloths show that the head sizes are completely different. Second, the Shroud image has a pronounced mustache and beard while the Manoppello image does not... The mustache and beard of the Manoppello image are best described as "wispy." Secondly, other scientists, more skilled in comparative projection, have found that the two images are similar only in that both are human male faces... and bear the same similarity to any such faces.
Iconographic analysis of the Manoppello Veil finds that there are numerous points of congruity and similarity with the known self-portraits of Raphael, much more than with the face on the Shroud of Turin. While none of the exemplar self portraits are guaranteed to be "life size" neither can we assume that the Veil is "life size," but the positioning, eyebrow , eye shape, lips, expression, and beard styles do provide an amazing number of point of consistency with Raphael and not the man on the Shroud.
Look at them side by side:
I agree that the image does not match the contemporary images of Albrecht Durer, however, it is an almost exact match for Raphael's contemporary self portraits. There are extant contemporary documents that establish that Raphael, fascinated by Durer's technique, duplicated it and sent a self portrait to Durer. Compare the Manoppello image to a later (than the Durer-Raphael self-portrait exchange) Raphael self-portrait:
The similarities are far stronger between the image and Raphael than between the Image and the Shroud above.
As to the impossibility of painting on Byssus (If it is Byssus it might be Cambric, a very fine cotton), nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, photomicrographs of the Manoppello image HAVE been made through the glass and paint particles are seen clinging to the fibers particularly in the area of the whites of the eyes and the teeth seen inside the mouth. Father Carmine argues that paint will not stick to Byssus... but that it can be stained. However, he shoots himself in the foot when he writes: "If one might find something one could only speak of a strip of paint applied afterwards to highlight some pre-existing detail of the image." If that "strip of paint" is there (and there are many), then how does IT adhere to the byssus if, as he claims, paint will not stick?
The Father's argument that color changes such as he claims to see in the Manoppello image only occur in nature is also false. I suggest you look at any number of man-made objects with iridescence... including a modern $20 bill, many vases made by Tiffany, and any number of very fine cloths. As a matter of fact, the iridescence is inherent in the Byssus which is one of the qualities that makes it, by far, the most expense cloth in the world. Finely woven Cambric can also display iridescence.
Finally, contrary to the good father's assertion that the artist had to have had access to the Shroud to copy it, he is again wrong. That assertion is based on the assumption that the face IS a rendition of the face of Jesus and IS a copy of the face on the Shroud. That's begging the question.
Father Carmine is not a scientist... he is a believer. Father Carmine's arguments are pious dogma... he sees what he wants to believe, not what is actually there.
"... Mrs Chiara Vigo, from Sardinia, who is one of the last people still to weave this type of fabric using traditional methods. She confirmed that, seen with the naked eye, the cloth (of the Manoppello veil) was indeed made of cambric.
" It is quite surprising that there are still written reports claiming the absence of pigment on the veil, while a simple microscopic observation clearly proves the opposite..."
By the way, Cambric is a form of cotton that was developed in 16th Century France... and was not at all available in the First Century.
Just an observation from the images: The face on the Manoppello appears somewhat distorted. I think it’s from the cloth not being evenly stretched when it was flattened to be framed. I won’t speak to the Vatican cloth, but I’m kind of surprised that there’s any controversy about this one. The faces aren’t the same, and at least in the web images, it appears to obviously be a painting.
I think so too... Cambric and byssus are both very flexible and very light fabrics. Think how difficult it is to keep a fine veil flat while putting something flat like glass on it with air moving the veil. Also the artist who may have painted it would have had to have EVENLY stretched the very fine cloth on the frame before painting... and if he didn't the very nicely layed out painting would be distorted as soon as it left the frame, never to be an undistorted image again.
That is some graphic. Wow!
thank you for your replies. I appreciate this give and take very much.
When did Chiara Vigo say that it was cambric? In Paul Badde’s article in Die Welt translated for Inside the Vatican she is shown as having accompanied Badde to Manoppello in 2004 and as having said that the fabric of the Holy Face is marine byssus.
the expert in the article responding to Falcinelli is not Fr. Cuccinelli but Fr. Pfeiffer. Fr. Pfeiffer, although not a scientist, is one of the world’s leading experts on the history of art.
Falcinelli’s argument that the Holy Face is a Renaissance work of art seems to be based largely on the reference to the painting in Vasari’s book, and Falcinelli’s own judgment that the Holy Face is similar to the artist’s face. To me this is purely coincidental and subjective argumentation, and does not reach the level of Fr. Pfeiffer’s research or argumentation.
Has anyone positively refuted Fr. Pfeiffer’s assertion that the image of the Holy Face can be superimposed on the face on the Shroud of Turin.
how to explain that the image is perfectly worked on both sides of the fabric? Has anyone produced such a work of art?
On what part of the fabric of the Holy Face is the enlargement that you posted taken from?
It should be noted that many photographs which have been taken of the Holy Face are quite different in aspect than the one which was posted.
See for example http://www.voltosanto.it/Italiano/dettagliogalleria.php?x1=3
A google image search for Holy Face of Manoppello will also supply many others even different from this website’s and different from the one which you posted. In any case I don’t think it would be possible to make certain judgements based on photographs.
Thank you again for your pursuit of the truth.
For the Shroud, the image is not a photograph in that it is not a product of light. What it most resembles is a topographical map with the darker areas of the image directly proportionally to the closer distances of the cloth from the body. However we can see that the man on the shroud was beaten beyond recognition... the bodily wounds from the scourging could alone have killed him from shock. His face was swollen and covered with blood. Anyone who knew him in his unbeaten form would have difficulty recognizing him after the beating.
It is my considered viewpoint that the Manoppello image is not that of Christ so has no bearing on how He looked on his way to the Cross.
We seem to be citing two different versions of the same event... the Badde invitation to Chiara Vigo. An English translation of a German press release by Die Welt in October 2004 states that Ms. Vigo saw the Manoppello image through the glass and declared that was indeed cambric. Which is correct? I have no idea... although I have seen photomicrographs of the weave of the Manoppello cloth at a Shroud conference several years ago and to my untrained eye the fibers looked very different from photomicrographs of known byssus samples. It looked much more similar to samples of cambric.
the expert in the article responding to Falcinelli is not Fr. Cuccinelli but Fr. Pfeiffer. Fr. Pfeiffer, although not a scientist, is one of the world’s leading experts on the history of art.
You are right... my error. Sorry. I cut and paste the name of the article's author into my reply and had a senior moment for the rest.
Has anyone positively refuted Fr. Pfeiffer’s assertion that the image of the Holy Face can be superimposed on the face on the Shroud of Turin.
I saw a presentation by Dr. Alan Whanger where he used his technique of polarized light superimposition on photos of the Manoppello image and the Turin Image that were, according to him, exact 1 to 1 photos... He also compared the Manoppello image to the Raphael self-portrait. There were about 10 points of congruity between the Manoppello image and the Shroud but over 50 between the image and Raphael's self portrait. i have problems with Whanger's conclusions on herbs, flowers, and crucifixion tools on the Shroud but when he demonstrates specific mapped congruities, I don't doubt them. The obvious things between the Manoppello image and the Shroud were that the sizes of the faces did not match. It has been noted as a criticism of authenticity that the head of the Shroud image is oversized... and this makes quite a difference... IF the photos were true one-to-one reproductions. The most glaring difference is the lack of the Shroud's pronounced mustache on the Manoppello image... and the Shroud's hair and beard are much fuller than the wispy beard and hair of the Manoppello image.
how to explain that the image is perfectly worked on both sides of the fabric? Has anyone produced such a work of art?
This is not as miraculous as some claim. The Veil's material's threads, whether they are cambric or byssus, are fine enough (about 150nM +/-50 in diameter separated by ~270-300nM) and transparent enough that any dye or stain applied to one side could be equally seen on the obverse. It is not necessary to repaint, re-dye or re-imprint the image in reverse on the obverse. Many veils have been dyed with block print or silk screen techniques on one side and will have the printed image on the obverse be as perfectly registered as the Manoppello cloth. The contemporaneous works that mentioned Durer's self-portrait commented on the duality of the images - front and back.
On what part of the fabric of the Holy Face is the enlargement that you posted taken from?
I can't answer that because I do not know.
A google image search for Holy Face of Manoppello will also supply many others even different from this website’s and different from the one which you posted.
I know. I had a heck of a time finding photos of it back in 2006. Even the original article I posted back in June 2006, published by the Catholic Exchange, had the wrong picture.
In any case I don’t think it would be possible to make certain judgements based on photographs.
There we are in agreement. The Holy Face Image has not been examined or photographed outside of its glass frame. The glass, being handblown, adds distortions to any photograph. All of these questions can only be accurately answered once a through, non-destructive, examination is done to the image as was done to the Shroud ... of course, you an seen how definitive THOSE were... ;^)>
As it stands, it remains my considered (and source material researched) opinion that the Manoppello image is a self-portrait of Raphael which he might have sent to Albrecht Dürer. It is a beautiful work of art of the period.
It is also my opinion that had Veronica offered her veil to Jesus Christ on the Via Della Rosa it would most certainly not have been made of byssus. Byssus cloth was pretty much reserved for royalty and a veil of byssus would have been worth an artisan's lifetime of earnings in that period. Unless the iconically named Veronica were a princess of Rome, or a priestess of one of the Roman gods, it is unlikely she would be wearing such a costly veil. The veil that is kept at the Vatican, made of fine Linen, is much more likely to have been the commonly worn "sweat cloth" in the possession of the woman of Jerusalem who encountered him on his way to the Cross.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.