The numbered claims/facts/absurdities (you decide) are taken directly from a featured, front page story on Catholic Net: The Tilma of Guadalupe by Joseph A’Hearn, LC.
The About page for Catholic net says:
In 2000, a partnership between Zenit news agency and several other Catholic organizations resulted on the creation of Catholic.net Spanish version as an outlet member of the RIIAL (Information Network of the Church in Latin America). . . . Catholic.net is committed to providing complete and accurate information on Catholicism, and in-depth education and personal guidance on any daily life subject through a Catholic perspective.
Currently Catholic.net is available on both English and Spanish with a database of more than 30 thousand articles and over a thousand alliances with other catholic sites and portals. Our visitors are more than three million a month and we have over a million subscribers to our mailing lists. (emphasis mine)
And here are the claims:
- NASA has stated that the image’s colors are not made from any material found on Earth. A laser that scanned the image even found that the colors float three tenths of a millimeter in front of the Tilma surface, without touching it.
- Microscopic analysis of the pupils of Our Lady of Guadalupe reveals what she must have seen in the instant her image appeared. She is surrounded by thirteen people. One of these is clearly identified as Bishop Juan de Zumárraga. Zooming in even more, to the point of examining the Bishop’s pupils, reveals the spectacle he saw: Juan Diego opening his garment in front of him.
- The Virgin exhibits qualities of a living person, too. Her eyes contract and dilate in response to light and darkness. The temperature of the Tilma remains stable at 98.6 degrees. A stethoscope has even measured the heartbeats of a baby in her womb.
NASA stated? What if there is a breeze? The pupil in the pupil? As I was reading the article I found myself saying, “Please don’t mention the shroud. We have enough problems with credibility.” But alas:
Science has no explanation for such phenomena. We are talking about something supernatural. Can the same be said about the Shroud of Turin? Whether the Shroud is an authentic miracle and portrays the image of Jesus Christ is a hot topic for debate. Even touching on all the points that science, art, and other disciplines have investigated about the Shroud surpasses the scope of this article. Let it suffice here to mention some inconsistencies of those who reject its authenticity. . . .
Read on, The Tilma of Guadalupe.
Like in the case of the Shroud, more data is needed, perhaps less in the case of the Tilma
Dan, if I may ask, what is Anglican theological opinion on the Our Lady of Guadalupe? I suppose it varies among Anglican Communion, but is there a fundamental necessity of opposition, or its potential genuineness is acceptable to some branches of Anglicanism?
Perhaps the first step for Anglicans on the way to Guadalupe lies in:
http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/welcome/index.htm
Thank you for sharing that. That is fascinating.
I know of no particular Anglican theological opinion on Our Lady of Guadalupe. Here is an interesting Wikipedia article about José S. Landaverde, an Anglican Catholic priest who opened a mission, the Our Lady of Guadalupe Anglican Catholic Church on Chicago’s South Side. As for theological opinion on the relic there would likely be none. Generally, on such matters, Anglicanism leaves this to the individual. Of course, there is still a lot of unwarranted prejudice against relics among Anglicans that goes all the way back to the reformation, that is unless they are English in which case it is okay for some reason.
I knew you would like that and you may have noticed that the photograph of the procession makes it difficult to distinguish between Anglican and Catholic. So we have two Walsinghams, one Catholic and the other Anglican, and that is a pity. Westminster Abbey now has some “Our Ladys with Child Jesus” and icons. The tomb of Saint Edward the Confessor, King of England, is the ” holy of holies” there, and reminds one of Catholic devotion to saints. The Church of England will have to come to terms with these “Our Ladys” and relics because they are also accepted in the Orthodox Church.
Catholicism also does not impose belief in relics and pilgrimages to shrines and we have had Pope John Paul II devoted to Fatima and, before him, Pope Paul VI believing that there was no revelation after the NT.
Like the Manappello cloth if it looks like a painting IT IS A PAINTING. I am disgusted that they even compare this to the Shroud of Turin
It is the image-formation process that is the mystery. The Manoppello cloth also has some pigments and how can more detailed research be done if the glass cannot be removed? See the interview with Professor Heinrich Pfeiffer, SJ on the Holy Shroud Guild website.
In my soul, as we try to delve into the Shroud of Christ and Tilma of Mary at what we call Guadalupe, I see the Holy Spirit talking to us. How are we dealing with our part of his conversation?
Dan, thank you for your answer. I though that greater problem is not the relic as a relic, but rather the claimed Marian apparition, with specific catholic symbolisms. We all know the protestant opposition to the veneration of Mary, less so Anglican.
Pope Paul VI believing that there was no revelation after the NT.
Louis, I would like to see the evidence for such statement.
Like the Manappello cloth if it looks like a painting IT IS A PAINTING.
Vincenzo: Manoppello is definetly not a painting (despite some touch ups), at least not any classical painting we know. Your look lead you astray.
O.K. Pope Paul VI : It was mentioned in 30 Giorni years ago. That’s correct, Manoppello has some touch ups and a lot more examination will be required.
Still I am not convinced that Paul VI didn’t believe in any private revelations after NT times (do not confuse with the public revelation which ended with the Book of Revelation), but leave it out. As to Manoppello, more unbiased examination is of course welcome.
The magazine meant that Paul VI was referring to revelation in general, however he did meet Sister Lucia Marto thrice and spoke to her privately on all three occasions. I went to Fatima when I was studying at university, but kept an open mind, and remember that the atmosphere in the region seemed to have been ideal for such revelations. Something strange had gone on there in 1917 and it doesn’t seem that the three Portuguese children were lying.
Regarding Manoppello, Benedict XVI went there and was received by Father Carmine Cucinelli, and he did not seem to have been impressed with the face.
Regarding Manoppello, Benedict XVI went there and was received by Father Carmine Cucinelli, and he did not seem to have been impressed with the face
I would put it in a different context, the fact that he went there, is rather notable gesture, given the fact that Vatican still maintains (contrary to Pfeiffer and his followers) that Veronica is still in Rome. It is however important to stress that Ratzinger is German, just like Pfeiffer, Badde and Paschalis-Schloemer, the biggest advocates of Manoppello.
Benedict XVI is Bavarian, a “tough German” and must have had some briefing before he went to Manoppello. The Veronica kept in Rome is said to be stored in one of the four pillars that support the dome of Saint Peter’s Basilica and there is no image on it. None of the top Shroudies I know (except Father Pfeiffer, who I interviewed) believe that Manoppello houses the Veronica. Father Pfeiffer was led to study the Manoppello image by Sister Blandina Paschalis Schlömer and Badde is a newcomer who also wrote a book on the topic. The Manoppello image does deserve further examination and the problem is the glass.
Please spare me the laughable reasoning,”the problem is the glass”regarding Manoppello,the problem is that when tested it will be what it is a painting of unknown origen. I have in depth photographic knowledge of all the relics in existance and have processed all of them. Pheiffer resoning that Manappello image miraculously appears on both sides is also ridiculous as if any artist paints on a silk it will be seen on both sides as silk and bysup is transparent. Unfortunately for Pheiffer he made his conclusions in the late 90s. My work and discovery on Vatican Veronica has debunked his theory. Once I set up my project team or some scientists decide to verify my findings, the Manoppello will be relegated to what it is a famous painting of unknown origen. The Guadalupe Mary if you study the history was created by an Aztec artist. It has survived 500 years because every few years it is painted over and over. There are only 2 miraculous cloths in existance, the Shroud and the Veronica Veil, The cloth of Olivedo in Spain is also authentic but does not have any encoded imagery
Vincenzo, this sort of arrogant comment along with claims of special knowledge from undocumented methods will get your comments bounced off of this blog in the future. You have not debunked anything until you show some results and explain how shooting pictures of a laptop screen shows anything other than distortions. You are way out of line.
This work is too amateurish to justify tall claims. As commented on this blog some months ago, I have in my possession a highly professional study, with excellent photographs, made by authorised and highly competent professionals, but have not made it available to anyone to keep my word. It is not a definitive study and mention was made that the glass does pose a problem sometimes.
Reading Dan’s comment below (#16), one wonders how long he will maintain his “nihil obstat”. It is obvious that he is being kind and is open-minded, but there are limits to patience.
Louis, Vincenzo, and everyone:
None of the top Shroudies I know (except Father Pfeiffer, who I interviewed) believe that Manoppello houses the Veronica.
Due to various reasons, mostly ignorance, prejudices, unbelief, the lack of trust in some sensational claims (understandable), favor of tradition maintaining Veronica in Vatican (Hesemann) and unjustified conviction that there could be only a single ‘miraculous’ cloth, that is the Shroud. In fact, the biggest fault is on the part of Ian Wilson, who in 1991 Holy Faces, Secret Places, after presenting several good arguments in favor of Manoppello, suddenly (and delibaretely -it was inconvenient for his Mandylion=Shroud theory, at least partially) rejected this identification based on relatively weak arguments.
If you want a proof that Manoppello=Veronica, see this 15th century painting:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CampinVeronica.jpg
O.K. You would gain more credibility if you change from O.K. to your full name and post some articles or papers on some Shroud website. I would hesitate to attack the works by Hesemann and Wilson, although I may not agree with everything that they state. “Holy Faces, Secret Places” is an excellent book and provides a clear picture about all these paintings, icons and so on, points to the fact that access is very difficult, if not impossible, and thus shows how there is much to be done.
Wikimedia is a basic tool for research, not an authoritative source, and the link did not tell me anything. Did you see the face clearly? What has it to do with the Manoppello image?
Louis, I could post some papers in the future under my full name, but currently I value my privacy, for some reasons.
“Holy Faces, Secret Places” is an excellent book, the problem is that it is a book with a priori thesis, thus Wilson discarded some facts inconvenient to his theory, mainly the Manoppello Cloth, virtually demolishing interest about it in anglosphere, for 20 years.
Hesemann’s “Die stummen zeugen von Golgatha” is also an excellent book, for me almost a Bible about the relics of Christ. One can even call Górny & Rosikoń “Witnesses”, illustrations to Hesemann. But it also is not inerrant, his (too) easy dismissal of the Manoppello is one of the errors present in this book.
As to the proof that Manoppello=Veronica, I sent it to Dan, I hope he will publish it soon.
O.K. The privacy is no problem and I respect that. You agree with me in the sense that there is no consensus and much remains to be done,so for now we will have to wait for Dan to post what you have to say about Manoppello=Veronica.
Vincenzo, can you find a local high school science teacher and meet with him or her to get some help explaining what you are doing? I’m not sure you are doing what you think you are doing.
definately not Catholic…we have the shroud and the image of guadalupe…also fatima