410 years of Burial face Veil of Christ came to Manoppello, Italy

The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear readers,

On 1508 it was mysteriously brought to the town of Manoppello, on the Abrizzi region, made from a mollusk excretion a look like traditional Hebrew veil used to cover the face of a dead person for burial, with the exact same size of the face on the Shroud, become the most enigmatic, fascinating & controversial Christ relic ever.

The Manoppello Veil a purpoted relic of Christ

According to local tradition, an anonymous pilgrim arrived in Manopello in 1508 with the cloth wrapped in a package. The pilgrim gave the package to Dr. Giacomo Antonio Leonelli, who was sitting on a bench in front of the church. The doctor went into the church and unwrapped the package, discovering the veil.

He immediately left the church to find the pilgrim but could not trace him. The veil was owned by the Leonelli family for a century.

In 1608, Pancrazio Petrucci, a soldier married to Marzia, a member of the Leonelli family, stole the veil from his father-in-law’s house. A few years later, Marzia sold it for 400 scudi to Doctor Donato Antonio De Fabritiis to pay a ransom demand for her husband who was a prisoner in Chieti. The veil was given by De Fabritiis to the Capuchins who currently holds it today.

This history has been documented by Father Donato da Bomba in his Relatione historica and is based on research that had been started in 1640.

The Manoppello veil became news in December 1st of 2006 when H.H. Pope Benedict XVI decided to visit the Volto Santo sanctuary of the Capuchines on the town of Manoppello where it is in permanent exhibition and pray in front of it. In 1970s also the famous Father Pio also prayed toward this relic he believed was authentic.

In ancient times there were two objects that had actually the image of Christ face and it was believed to be of miraculous origin, the Camulia of Cappadocia and the Mandylion of Edessa. Both were Byzantine relics highly appreciated and venerated along centuries and were in Constantinople until the very assault of the Crusades and Turks over the city, when they mysteriously vanished.

The Orthodox Church believe that both relics may been destroyed on the siege of Constantinople, but they are not completely sure on that and also it is said that at least the Mandylion was lost in a ship sinking on the middle of the Marmara sea when it was trying to escape from the Muslim siege over Byzantium.

The Mandylion is supposedly a relic carried by one of the Apostles of Christ, St Jude, or by one of his subsequent disciples, St. Thaddeus, being brought to the king Abgar of Edessa , the leper, that supposedly was cured miraculously by simply touching it.

Please check:
King Abgar V of Edessa, the Black of the Leper

The Holy Mandylion of Edessa, an Image of Christ Not made by Human Hands

The Camulia or Kamuliana of Cappadocia was an achairopoeitia, Imagen not made by human hands, of Christ that supposedly appeared floating on a river in central Turkey to a woman that survived doing laundry on that region. This relic became extremely famous on middle ages and was moved to Constantinople where it became the central part of the banner of the Imperial Byzantine armies, always carried on battles to assure the victory.

Camuliana is mentioned in the early 6th century by Zacharias Rhetor, his account surviving in a fragmentary Syriac version, and is probably the earliest image to be said to be a miraculous imprint on cloth in the style of the Veil of Veronica (a much later legend) or Shroud of Turin. In the version recorded in Zacharias's chronicle, a pagan lady called Hypatia was undergoing Christian instruction, and asking her instructor "How can I worship him, when He is not visible, and I cannot see Him?". She later found in her garden a painted image of Christ floating on water. When placed inside her head-dress for safekeeping it then created a second image onto the cloth, and then a third was painted. Hypatia duly converted and founded a church for the version of the image that remained in Camuliana. In the reign of Justinian I (527-565) the image is said to have been processed around cities in the region to protect them from barbarian attacks. This account differs from others but would be the earliest if it has not suffered from iconodule additions, as may be the case.

Please check:
The Camuliana Miracolous Image of Christ

In 1999, German Jesuit Heinnrich Pfeiffer, Professor of Art History at the Pontifical Gregorian University, announced at a press conference in Rome his discovery of the veil in the church of the Capuchin monastery, where it had been since 1660.

Pfeiffer had been promoting the image many years before, claiming is the Veronica, defying Holy see statements of centuries about it is kept in St Peters Cathedral.

The Veronica Veil is a legendary piece of cloth that is called in that way because it claims to have stamped through body fluids a kind of silhouette of the face of Christ, so it was named Vera Icona, that translates True Image of Christ.

A controversial claim, first because the story of the Veronica from the oral traditions of the Roman and Orthodox Churches, but is also referred in at least one Apocrypha gospel, establishes that it was a piece of cloth used to dry the face of Jesus from his body fluids when he was in the way to calvary, on the via dolorosa, carrying his cross.

This use of the cloth suggest it must be able to absorb the body transpiration, so must have a consistency of a small towel, Not a veil that can not be used to dry anything. Second, the so called cloth of Veronica, that as we have mentioned can not be really a veil but a towel, never entered in the tomb of Christ, it was kept by the woman that used it in that gesture of piety for many years.

If it was not in the tomb on the face of Jesus there is not clear reason it can have a miraculously stamped face of Jesus but more transpiration and wound marks of his face on it.

Pfeiffer suggests that it was stolen from the Vatican during rebuilding that took place in 1506, before the Sacking of Rome. He further suggests the cloth was placed over Jesus' face in the tomb and that the image was a by-product of the forces unleashed during Jesus' resurrection –forces also formed the image on the Shroud of Turin.

Some bits of glass embedded in the cloth suggest a connection with the former glass container of the Veronica in St. Peter's, reputed to have been smashed open when the cloth was stolen. Officially the Veronica Veil was returned to Rome by petition of the Pope to the German Emperor few months after the sack of Rome and still remains on St Peters Cathedral.

Pfeiffer's claims a purported impossibility of painting on byssus cloth, however, it is more precise to say that it is one of the most difficult materials to be imprinted or dyed at all, only great masters have been able to paint on it.

The gospel of John mentions that there were at least 2 burial cloths on the empty tomb of Christ, one used on his face, a Jewish burial veil, so even Not being the Veronica may be a Christ relic after all.


Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

99.9999999999% probably not though.

Pfeiffer's claims a purported impossibility of painting on byssus cloth, however, it is more precise to say that it is one of the most difficult materials to be imprinted or dyed at all, only great masters have been able to paint on it.

this could explain why the picture is so faint though. A very logical explanation. The proportions are all way off for it to be an actual person’s imprint, but it does match the art style of later holy relic forgeries.

There is only one small problem with this veil or any subsequent ones. Mr Pfeiffer's explanation of this veil is that it was placed on Jesus's face at the same time as the Shroud of Turin. But examining the two side by side the images do not in any way look alike so technically one of them or both of them are fakes. You choose, but you can't have both.

Yeah, well, when the supposed relics of divinity stop looking like third rate sketches, I'll be suitably impressed ... hopefully not impressed on a hanky after being tortured, tho.

Where are the photo real holograms casting light on surroundings? Melting snow and budding flowers? Proper perspective at the least?

originally posted by: crayzeed
There is only one small problem with this veil or any subsequent ones. Mr Pfeiffer's explanation of this veil is that it was placed on Jesus's face at the same time as the Shroud of Turin. But examining the two side by side the images do not in any way look alike so technically one of them or both of them are fakes. You choose, but you can't have both.

Quite right, which is why I respectfully disagree with Pfeiffer's explanation. However, the image may well be an accurate image of Christ's visage as captured by Veronica on the march to Calvary. You'll notice that the image is one of a very swollen face which I take to be evidence of Christ's failing health. Why failing health?

Failing health because the common Roman practice was to either "scourge and release" or to "crucify", not both. The scourging and the crowning with thorns (some medical experts believe Christ's skull was actually penetrated by some of the thorns) so greatly weakened Christ that taken with the carrying of the cross would have been sufficient as mortal wounding. That was precisely why the Roman soldiers, fearing he would expire before ever reaching Golgotha, pressed Simon into service to further carry the Cross. Furthermore, at the point of the Carrying of the Cross, Christ was likely past the 24 hour point without any water and the swelling of the face may well be indicative of early stage kidney failure.

The facial image on the Shroud is one of a thin face, one from which fluid, blood and swelling, has been drained and consistent with an image of someone who has died after having been hung upright on a cross for six hours and who's body was further exsanguated by the piercing with the soldiers lance.

Just a thought.

a reply to: TonyS

Well, I have to observe something important here:

Both faces, either in the Shroud of Turin or in Manoppello have evident assymetries that can be explained by swolen on one side of the face and a deviation, possibly a fracture, of the nose. Those injuries are perfectly consistent with the description of the different wounds, strokes and falls suffered by Jesus on his passion.

When we compare the two cloths it is very important to put both in the same relative position with respect to their axes of symmetry, that is the only way try to match them.

The swollen side must be exactly in the same side, either left or right for both, otherwise they are not going to get any matching at all, precisely due to the asymmetric configuration, but if we do so it is evident that there are my points of coincidence between them.

Unfortunately there are No close ups available of the Veronica Kept in St Peters Cathedral, since the cloth has been exhibited every Good Friday only from a very high level located balcony inside the Cathedral and in front of the main altar, hence there are only distant pictures of it.

We only have close ups of the famous official copies of the Veronica like the one stored in a museum at Vienna, Austria, the copy granted to the Austrian Emperor.

please check:
Certified official Copy of the Veronica in Vienna

That copy, as all the others, is framed in such a way that a metal cover surrounds completely the face oval and so it makes impossible to determine if it is any swollen on it.

The Angel of Lightness

Does anyone really think either this or the other shroud is real? I mean, seriously?!

This one is very obvious not an imprint of a face. Imprints don’t show the difference between the white and coloured part of your eyes, for a start.

Don’t believe me? Go get some paint and a sheet or towel. Paint face. Wrap face in towel. It’ll show you exactly what I mean.

If anyone really thinks this is real, well, you might need your own head seeing to.

Obvious painting is obvious.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Neither the Shroud of Turin nor the Manoppello Veil have been considered at all as imprints, the closest thing they can be are images that look like produced through some kind of radiation process.

The image in the Sindone is not painted at all, that was very soon confirmed by the STURP scientists in their spectroscopy analysis of 1978.

Now, the color on the eyes of this cloth could be not part of the original image at all, the one that is attributed to a miraculous or mysterious origin, can be a retouch done by an Artist after it arrived the Basilica in Manoppello.

That is the case of the cloth of Guadalupe in Mexico, that x rays carried out by NASA spectroscopy experts have determine is an image of unknown origin that was latterly retouched in multiple occasions by artists hired to help to preserve it.

The Angel of Lightness

I donno...he looks stoned, and not in that regular Middle Eastern way.

a reply to: The angel of light
This horse has been dead a very long time...

Why is it SO important that any of these "relics" be authentic? It's about the faith, not the evidence, because there isn't any.

a reply to: The angel of light

It did not look like the face on the shroud to me. However, the article says, "The Shroud of Turin has been well known and honored for a long time throughout the world; however, the Holy Face of Manoppello seems for some still to be something unheard of and new, which is not supported in the same way from the perception and tradition of the faith of the people of God. But it is not so in reality, as I have just called to mind. Between these two incomparable witnesses, there is not only no contradiction, but also they have even been proven for a long time to concur and correspond perfectly to one another. The Trappist sister Blandina Paschalis Schlömer has compellingly pointed out a variety of concurring points that show the extreme compatibility between the face on the Sindone (or Shroud) and the face on the Sudarium."

So, maybe.

a reply to: The angel of light

Neither the Shroud of Turin nor the Manoppello Veil have been considered at all as imprints, the closest thing they can be are images that look like produced through some kind of radiation process.

That’s why they look like paintings, show outlines, show eye colour, show individual hairs and look like they’ve been drawn and/or painted? Get real.

The image in the Sindone is not painted at all, that was very soon confirmed by the STURP scientists in their spectroscopy analysis of 1978.

So it was “confirmed” by religious people looking to confirm it? Shock.

What about all the times it’s been found to be a fake, including more recently than 40 years ago?

Now, the color on the eyes of this cloth could be not part of the original image at all, the one that is attributed to a miraculous or mysterious origin, can be a retouch done by an Artist after it arrived the Basilica in Manoppello.

So THAT bit might be fake, but the rest is real? Even though the other parts of it are done in the same style? Suuuuuuuuure.

Like I said, anyone who believes this is real, needs their heads seeing to.

Obvious painting is obvious.

a reply to: Klassified

Why is it SO important that any of these "relics" be authentic?

Because religious faith has turned from faith to idol worshipping. They don’t care if they’re obvious fakes, as long as their church tells them they’re real, they’ll believe them.

Just look at the supposed nails of the supposed crucifixion. More nails than possible, but their church tell them they’re all real, so they place them on display to be worshipped.

a reply to: TerryDon79

So do you just hate this cloth or are you against all religion in general? You sound like you hold religious people in disdain.

Second question. Even if you hate this, do you think you could permit people that are interested to discuss this to do so?

a reply to: toms54

So do you just hate this cloth or are you against all religion in general?

Because I called out a fake bit of cloth for being fake, I must hate something? Grow up.

Even if you hate this, do you think you could permit people that are interested to discuss this to do so?

I don’t have the power to stop anyone talking about paintings and drawings, so I have no idea what you’re on about.

If this Jesus guy was so great, you'd think his teachings would have caught on by now.

a reply to: toms54

Of course we don't need such a permission to continue on this so interesting discussion, please don't care about those meaningless remarks or replies.

A person that is even not aware of the last findings on the Shroud of Turin and continue using statements that are at least 30 year to 40 years obsolete, of aspects that have been longly debunked of the so called objections for its authenticity, it is clear that do not have any moral or intellectual authority to determine the importance of the topic.

No body can impose us his or her level of ignorance in the topic as a rule or research, that is absolutely absurd, no sense at all to consider such criteria as standard of nothing.

Notice that Terrydon does not provide any references, no links, no sources at all in each one of his remarks, absolutely nothing to support the bold claims he is trying to defend, there is too much lack of seriousness on his replies, no contribution at all really on the discussion.

What kind of substance exist on who is posting just personal opinions that he pretend to show as serious tests of hypotheses??.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

it is clear that do not have any moral or intellectual authority to determine the importance of the topic.

So you’re trying to decide who can/can’t talk about your drawings/paintings?

Such arrogance. I’m sure your god would be super proud.

Kids these days can draw better than that supposed image of your precious Jesus, but somehow it’s real because your church tells you so. LOL!

And don’t forget to worship those idols! Your lying church tells you to.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You are clearly trying to boycott the thread, attempting to kidnap it, and I am Not the only one has noticed it.

You can Not impose to us your prejudgements not really just on the topic, but on other aspects of paranormality your narrow mentality can Not grasp.

This veil no doubt is made from an animal of the sea, what need exist of painting to give to it color?

Have you ever seen a coral reef closely?

If there are brilliant and intense colors in nature are precisely on those environments.

Are the fishes, the algaes, corals or other alive beings of the bottom of the ocean painted by artists?

How can we assure that the combination of atmospheric factors and the same radiation that stamped the shroud didn't react chemically with this fine ocean silk to produce chromas, hues, tints and perhaps full colors on it?

Guadalupe cloth in Mexico was originally colored by a combination of look like radiation in reacting with the Chemistry of the ayate fibers and the pigments of the Roses Juan Diego was carrying on his tilma.

Many scientists suspect the Shroud of Turin is a kind of x or gamma rays image,

Why Manoppello as Guadalupe can Not be kinds of holograms?

Your own limitation of understanding is not necessarily the correct measure of the limits of how a supernatural event can behave.

Please check:

Hypothesis that Manoppello would be a Holographic image of Christ

Transparencies on the Manoppello veil suggest possible Holographic nature

Shroud of Turin & Manoppello Velo possible evidences of Christ Resurrection

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

You are clearly trying to boycott the thread, attempting to kidnap it, and I am Not the only one has noticed it.

Trying to kidnap a non physical thing? That would impress a lot of people.

But you could report me instead of moaning.

You can Not impose to us your prejudgements not really just on the topic, but on other aspects of paranormality your narrow mentality can Not grasp.

I can’t grasp that an obvious painting is obvious? Oh wait. That you.

Many scientists suspect the Shroud of Turin is a kind of x or gamma rays image, Why Manoppello as Guadalupe can Not be a kind of holograms

Every “scientist” who agrees it’s real is religious and works for the church. Bias is written all over it.

But like I said. Both this and the shroud of Turin are fakes, are OBVIOUS fakes and have been PROVEN fakes.

But keep on listening to your lying church.