Our parish priest reflected on the meaning of Veronica’s presence and action,while the Lord was carrying the Cross.
But where can I find this encounter in the Bible?
(I see Veronica in the stations of the Cross).
Thank you
Short answer: Veronica is not in the Bible. At least not explicitly. 
So how or when did this beautiful account originate?
One theory is that the Shroud was folded into a square frame and displayed above the altar of a church. Since only the face was visible and the parishioners were aware that this was the True Image (Latin: Vera and Greek: Icon) of Jesus, they developed the legend about a woman who used her veil to wipe Jesus’ face during His Passion and how He returned the kindness with the image on the cloth. In this legend, they named the woman Veronica for the image.
Check out newadvent.org/cathen/15362a.htm
What I found most interesting in this explanation was that vera icon describing a “true image” of Christ, as many reports were sifted and verified in Latin, got mixed up with a popular devotional tale of uncertain origin (and which is not listed in any of the very early martyrologies) about the lady named “Veronica,” so that various mixed-up versions have had to be pruned out of various traditionary sources along the way.
We already have references in some recensions of the Acts of Pilate, aka the Gospel of Nicodemus (2nd-4th century AD) to the woman who touched Jesus’ garment as being named ‘Bernice’ or ‘Veronica’ (other versions do not give her a name): in the work, she testifies to Jesus’ innocence before Pilate by recounting how she was cured of her issue of blood.
And a certain woman named Bernice (Beronice Copt., Veronica Lat.) crying out from afar off said: I had an issue of blood and touched the hem of his garment, and the flowing of my blood was stayed which I had twelve years. The Jews say: We have a law that a woman shall not come to give testimony.
As time went on, Veronica - still sometimes identified as the woman who touched the hem of His garment - then came to be associated with an image of Jesus from life, reputed to be once owned by her, in the West. According to the earlier forms of the story, Veronica wished to have a portrait of Jesus and commissioned an artist for the job. Jesus, upon learning of her intentions, washed His face and then wiped it on the cloth intended for the painting - thereby miraculously imprinting His features onto the canvas. Around the Middle Ages, the location of this story was shifted to the Passion: Veronica now provides her veil for Jesus to wipe His blood-covered face on, as an act of kindness, which He still rewards by leaving an imprint of His visage.
It is a beautiful tradition to have “Veronica” in the Stations of the Cross, because it brings us to meditate on the compassion we should have for Jesus for his sufferings and Veronica stepped out and wiped his face.
This is a cue for us to ease the sufferings of others by being there for them when they need us. In so doing, we are wiping the face of Jesus in His sufferings.
So true.
I very much hope there were people along the path showing love and compassion to our Lord in his hour of suffering for our sake.
Isn’t Veronica’s Veil still existent at the Vatican? I recall that the Pope would bring it out on display on some special occasions, but its not done any more in order to preserve what’s left of the fragile artifact.
From what I know and understand - In Latin - Veronica means “True Image” … as possibly the face of Christ in the linen
Here is [yes - I know - take with a grain of salt] the Wikipedia on St Veronica:
There is still a cloth at St. Peter’s purported to be the Veronica, but whether it is the genuine article is somethhing that’s debated. Some claim that the actual Veronica venerated in the medieval period disappeared from St. Peter’s at some point and was either lost or turned up someplace else (Manoppello is one candidate).
Is Veronica Sacred Tradition and should be believed or is it not sacred Tradition and a Catholic has the option of whether to believe it or not?–In otheer words is the truth or non truth of Veronica and the veil on the level of a private revelation–say like Lourdes or Fatima?
Sacred Tradition refers to those tenets of the Catholic Faith that are not included in Scripture.
The account regarding Veronica falls more to the private revelation side.
But yet the Stations of the Cross is a part of Catholic Tradition, isn’t it?
The Stations are a pious tradition started in the Middle Ages (usually attributed to the Franciscans) when travel to the Holy Land became dangerous due to the Muslim takeover there. That should not be confused for Sacred Tradition handed down since the Apostles.
Here is a book recently written that is fascinating…it is about the Holy Face of Mannopello, and the image matches that of the face on the Shroud of Turin:
ignatius.com/promotions/faceofgod/
I haven’t done a search yet, but there may be some youtube shows telling about it.
The “veronica” as they call it in the book, (true image), went missing from the Vatican at some time in history, and then was left at Mannopello in Italy.
I think it falls more on the small-t tradition side. For instance, as I mentioned, Veronica and the Passion were only linked together in the West during the late Middle Ages, thereby producing the story we know today, for a start. The East doesn’t seem to have a tradition about Veronica’s image similar to the West, though they do have the Holy Mandylion of Edessa.
As SonCatcher said, the Via Crucis is a medieval devotion which had its origins in certain shrines in Europe which attempted to replicate the holy places in Palestine, which was for many people the preferred alternative over going to the actual shrines (after all travel to the real locations have become highly difficult and dangerous in those days). The idea of stopping by and visiting holy places - or in this case their surrogates - was amalgamated with devotions which focused on elements in Jesus’ Passion, such as His “seven falls,” thereby giving birth to a prototype of the devotion. Note though that the form of the Stations as we know it today only dates from 1714. Before that, there was no standard version; depending on the source, one could either have as few as 11 stations or as many as 37.
Sorry for me quoting myself quoting myself:
Just to add to what I’ve written earlier:
Until the later half of the medieval period (somewhere before the 15th century), the common practice for pilgrims in Jerusalem was to start at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre head for Pilate’s house. By the early part of the 16th century, however, the more reasonable way of traversing the route, by beginning at Pilate’s house and ending at Golgotha, had come to be regarded as more correct, and it became a special exercise of devotion complete in itself.
As mentioned, the Stations as we know it today developed not in Jerusalem itself, but in Europe. From the Catholic Encyclopedia article:
Inasmuch as the Way of the Cross, made in this way, constitutes a miniature pilgrimage to the holy places at Jerusalem, the origin of the devotion may be traced to the Holy Land. The Via Dolorosa at Jerusalem (though not called by that name before the sixteenth century) was reverently marked out from the earliest times and has been the goal of pious pilgrims ever since the days of Constantine. Tradition asserts that the Blessed Virgin used to visit daily the scenes of Christ’s Passion and St. Jerome speaks of the crowds of pilgrims from all countries who used to visit the holy places in his day. There is, however, no direct evidence as to the existence of any set form of the devotion at that early date, and it is noteworthy that St. Sylvia (c. 380) says nothing about it in her “Peregrinatio ad loca sancta”, although she describes minutely every other religious exercise that she saw practised there. A desire to reproduce the holy places in other lands, in order to satisfy the devotion of those who were hindered from making the actual pilgrimage, seems to have manifested itself at quite an early date. At the monastery of San Stefano at Bologna a group of connected chapels were constructed as early as the fifth century, by St. Petronius, Bishop of Bologna, which were intended to represent the more important shrines of Jerusalem, and in consequence, this monastery became familiarly known as “Hierusalem”. These may perhaps be regarded as the germ from which the Stations afterwards developed, though it is tolerably certain that nothing that we have before about the fifteenth century can strictly be called a Way of the Cross in the modern sense. Several travellers, it is true, who visited the Holy Land during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, mention a “Via Sacra”, i.e., a settled route along which pilgrims were conducted, but there is nothing in their accounts to identify this with the Via Crucis, as we understand it, including special stopping-places with indulgences attached, and such indulgenced Stations must, after all, be considered to be the true origin of the devotion as now practised. It cannot be said with any certainty when such indulgences began to be granted, but most probably they may be due to the Franciscans, to whom in 1342 the guardianship of the holy places was entrusted. Ferraris mentions the following as Stations to which indulgences were attached: the place where Christ met His Blessed Mother, where He spoke to the women of Jerusalem, where He met Simon of Cyrene, where the soldiers cast lots for His garment, where He was nailed to the cross, Pilate’s house, and the Holy Sepulchre. Analogous to this it may be mentioned that in 1520 Leo X granted an indulgence of a hundred days to each of a set of sculptured Stations, representing the Seven Dolours of Our Lady, in the cemetery of the Franciscan Friary at Antwerp, the devotion connected with them being a very popular one.