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.