Painting in Sacred Blood (Veronica's Veil Re-discovered)

Catholic Exchange ^ | June 9, 2006 | Michael S. Rose

[Suzy Quzy]

LOL!! We are a CULT ya know!! My Baptist friend tells me so!

[Suzy Quzy]

That COLORED picture is the "veil"??? Color me skeptical.

[Suzy Quzy]

That picture in the left hand corner does NOT look like the picture that is posted...is it the same?

[Dajjal]

Gee, I hope that image in #17 is an "artist's rendition" of what the blood-on-cloth face would look like. I would have a hard time believing that was "not painted by human hands."

The JUNE 3 1999 !!! version of Fr. Pfeiffer's story

So it's been at least seven years since Fr. Pfeiffer made his "discovery" and there are still NO images on the internet besides the one Swordmaker posted in #17???

Excuse me if my skepticism starts to kick in.

[wagglebee]

We are a CULT ya know!! My Baptist friend tells me so!

Unlike the "real" Christians:

[HiTech RedNeck]

A snake, and cymbals, and a drum set. ?!?

[wagglebee]

Hey! They're not drinking or dancing though!

[Swordmaker]

This is not a new story. Pfieffer reported his find about seven years ago, if I recall correctly.

As to what I think.

First of all, the entire story of a woman named Veronica and her veil are somewhat suspect... the woman's very name means Vera - "True" - Icon - "Image" in a combination of Latin and Greek. While a woman may have offered her veil for Jesus to wipe his face on while carrying his cross on the Via del a Rosa, the likelyhood of her name being "Veronica" is doubtful.

Secondly, the material that the Manoppello image is on is not one that would likely be used for a sweat cloth... it would not absorb anything... or even your average veil. It is an extremely rare and costly cloth, far more costly than silk. It is still the rarest cloth on Earth. The cloth is Byssus, made from the cillia of the pinna nobilis Sea Urchin. As far as we know, there is only one living weaver of Byssal cloth still around. The cloth produced from these filaments can be woven even finer than silk and is extremely light and warm, but attracts moths which eat it. It was said that a pair of women's gloves could fit into half a walnut shell and a pair of stockings in a snuffbox. 2000 years ago it was something that was pretty much reserved for royalty.

Thirdly, most Shroud scholars are of the opinion that the various traditions of the "Veronica" and the "Mandylion" as seperate cloths arise out of the possibility that the shroud, to hide the brutal nature of the assault on Jesus' body, had been kept in a frame folded twice in four or, as it was referred to in many early references, "tetradiplong". When folded, doubled four times end over end, it is possible to have a section of the Shroud that shows only the face exposed.

Fourthly, the image on the cloth at Matoppello is hardly an exact match for the image on the Shroud... there are some distinct differences... for example, where is the mustache?

The differing widths of faces is not as important because the shroud's image is artificially narrowed by artifacting of the bleaching method which resulted in darker Linen bands on each side of the head and the face on the Shroud may be actually wider and rounder than previously thought.

Fifth, the depiction of teeth and eyes in the "veil" is problematic... There is no way they could have been created by contact... and bear an artistic appearence. These may have been added or enhanced by pious, well meaning "restorers" of a later period... or be originals from the artist who may have created the veil. The whites of the eyes are actually whiter than the imageless parts of the transparent cloth...

Lastly, the Manoppello Veil has not been subjected to any kind of scientific examiniation beyond light and ultraviolet photography. Neither of which is sufficient to determine the presence or absence of pigments. I believe the whiteness of the eyes and teeth indicate that pigments are indeed present. I would want to see much more done before making a positive judgement such as this article makes.

[Swordmaker]

Gee, I hope that image in #17 is an "artist's rendition" of what the blood-on-cloth face would look like

No. That's a photograph of it. The keepers of the veil will not allow it to be dismounted from the double sided glass fram it's held in. When it was put in the frame, it was apparently actually CUT to fit (not even a rectangular shape but sort of jagged cuts around the oval of the face)! It has the look, to me, of some medieval portraiture... a bit primitive. The mounting is also less than perfect with distortion from not being placed to best fit to anatomy.

Photographing it is also very difficult... it is up, behind the altar, and not well lighted. Given that the cloth is transparent, very diaphanous, getting a good picture in situ is almost impossible. The image is only viewable or photographical when the angle of incident light is just right. It does appear to be mysterious...

[Tax-chick]

Thanks, everyone, for the informative responses! We went to the pool right after I posted the question, and then my son played "Star Wars Battlefront," and now Vlad's hungry again :-).

[GregoTX]

I think that this is it here.

[Suzy Quzy]

THANK YOU!!

[Suzy Quzy]

Look at #31....HUGE difference!

[monkapotamus]

I put them together so we can compare:

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Swordmaker]

Fiirst of all, RE: Reply #31, GregoTX and Suzy Quzy, that picture and the one attached to the article are both of the "Veronica's Veil" relic and reliquary that are kept in the Vatican in Rome, not the Manoppello Veil, which is housed in the Sanctuary of the Holy Face, in Manoppello (Literally "Haystack"), Italy, which is about 150 miles north of Rome.

Since I had not visited this topic in sometime (like about five years) I decided to go digging. Here is what I have found.

I find I was somewhat wrong in my discussion above... there has been more scientific work done on the Manoppello Veil that I was not aware of... and it proves that it is not as Pfeiffer describes... and in fact probably has identified WHAT it is, HOW it was created, and WHO it is, and WHO did it! Not only that, the work of art that it is was spoken and written about by its creator and its owner contemporary with its creation... along with a description of the work.

• The statement that there are no paints or pigments is untrue. The Veil (although still not allowed to be removed from its mounting) has now been investigated with multiple scientific instruments... and microphotographs show pigments and adhesions from pigments on the veil. These pigments have soaked completely into the fibers of the cloth and are thus easily seen from both sides.

• The material might not be the far rarer Byssus but rather Cambric, a fine cotton developed in France in the 15th Century for use in veils and fine needlework. One textile expert who has examined the Veil through its glass coverings has stated categorically that it is Cambric. However, both Byssus and Combric have similar appearance so until the cloth can be removed from its glass and examined under a stronger microscope, it could be either.

• The statement that the features "match" those on the Shroud was made by a Nun who used a transparent ruler and measured through the glass and then compared to a photograph of the Shroud... hardly a "scientific" approach to prove anything... and as I pointed out the lack of mustache is glaring. In fact, although there are some superficial similarities, they are merely that: superficial. However, this statement has been taken as "factual" and "proved" when it is anything but.

• It is a work of art by a famous artist... in fact, it is a self portrait... and it was a gift by the artist to another famous artist, both of who spoke of it in letters and the gift recipient showed it to others who also wrote of seeing it and described it.

  Albrecht Durer (1471-1528) was very fond of self portraits and often sent his own to others. Sometime in the early 16th Century, he sent a self portrait to his friend Raphael (1483- 1520) that was painted on a transparent cloth, visible from both sides and was described by Raphael and those who saw it as "miraculous".

  "According to Vasari, Dürer’s self-portrait was painted in watercolour on a canvas so extremely fine that it could be seen from both the front and the back side. It was truly a piece of virtuosity, which beside immortalizing the artist’s features was clearly intended to show his painting skills."
  Wolfram Prinz

  Raphael, using the same technique and same Byssus cloth, painted his OWN portrait and sent it to Dürer.

  “By these and other works the fame of Raphael spread to France and Flanders. Albert Dürer, a remarkable German painter and author of some fine copper engravings, paid him the tribute of his homage and sent him his own portrait, painted in water-colours, on byssus, so fine that it was transparent, without the use of white paint, the white material forming the lights of the picture This appeared marvellous to Raphael, who sent back many drawings of his own which were greatly valued by Albert...”
  Giorgio Vasari

  Various persons who saw both Dürer's and Raphael's "miraculous" self-portraits described them as being made from either Byssus or Cambric. There is no consistency to the reports of either material.

  
  Self Portrait of Raffaello Santi (Raphael)
  c.1514

  
  Raphael Self Portrait Gift to Dürer
  now known as "Veronica's Veil"
  C. 1500-1503 (?)

• Iconographic analysis of the Manoppello Veil finds that there are numerous points of conguity and similarity with the known self-portrait 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.

Source of much of this information is the following PDF file by Roberto Falcinelli. Check out the photographs at the end.

The Veil of Manoppello: work of art or authentic relic?

This is still research in progress but it looks very solid. As an aside, Albrecht Dürer is one of the "suspects" among those who maintain the Shroud of Turin in a "self portrait" by an artist of the period.

[Swordmaker]

Monk... nice work, but the "Veil" picture you are using is the wrong one... That is the "Veronica's Veil" that the Vatican has claimed has ALWAYS been in their possession (Well, since they, er, acquired it, ahem, from Constantinople in the 13th Century). It is mounted so that the back cannot be seen.

I think it has much more provenance than does the Manoppello Veil discussed in this article... which was purportedly STOLEN from the Vatican (who then replaced it with a "fake" that is in your picture), used to ransom a soldier, held for 30 years and then donated to a small church in a village called "Haystack".

[Swordmaker]

It took some digging but I finally found a much better picture of the Manoppello Veronica's Veil.

[Swordmaker]

Here is their "proof" that the Veil and the Shroud are from "identical" faces:

[Swordmaker]

Here is a link to the "Official site of the Holy Face Sanctuary" in Manoppello, Italy.