Would you be saying there is no paint on the telma? I believe there is. That does nothing against it being of a Divine origin. However, “sacred image” does seem to be a better choice of words.
Also as this article reads, the story is well known.
The story is well known.- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_12_38/ai_82803348/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
Thank you for your input.
Actually, I found an answer to my question and when we sometimes find an item we wonder about and it is then credibly answered, my faith at least is strengthened.
But to go right to the matter, from the book The wonder of Guadalupe, pages 68-71, excerpted:
“A number of the missionary friars in the country had earlier been infected by Luther’s misguided preaching against the so-called worship of images, and had convinced themselves that the passionate devotion of the natives to the sacred portrait at Tepeyac represented a perilous leaning in this direction....”
So, it’s really two pages long and the original wiki article mentioned said artist Cipo de Aquino but he is not mentioned in the book. It’s difficult to take quotes out of context, however
“Two days later, Montufar journeyed to the hermitage and told the newly baptised natives who were praying there “how they were to understand devotion to the sacred image of Our Lady, how they honoured not the tableau, nor the portrait, but Our Lady herself whose representation this was.” The response from his opponents was immediate and shattering.
Later that day, the Franciscan Provincial, Fray Bustamante (the reference point really and mentioned in my wikipedia quote), preached to a packed congregation at High Mass in the cathedral of Mexico City, fully aware that among his listeners were the Viceroy of the country and his magistrates. He openly lashed out at the cult of the sacred image because “it was very injurious to the natives since it fostered a belief that the picture, which was painted by an indian, worked miracles and was therefore a god.” (These were Fray Bustamante’s words) whereas “the missionaries had exerted every effort to make the natives understand that images were only things of wood and stone and they must not be adored...”
The Provincial’s words caused a widespread scandal, and the very next day the indignant Archbishop opened a juridical inquest into the unfortunate episode, during which nearly all the witnesses sided with him against Bustamante and his vociferous supporters. During the following weeks, acrimony between the two factions grew so fierce that the Viceroy was forced to intervene and counsel moderation (Hmmn, we saw that story of the Monks of Armenia and Greece getting into scuffles in Rome). Though Montufar was reluctant to initiate canonical proceedings against Bustamante, he withdrew the custody of the Tepeyac (which is really where Our Lady of Guadalupe was, Tepeyac hill) hermitage from the Franciscans, which was about the only effective action he could take in these trying circumstances.
This regrettable affair, although stimulating an even greater devotion to the sacred image, proved that Zumurraga’s (Zumurraga, I believe is the Bishop who received Juan Diego initially and received the cloak and the Castillian roses as tradition tells it) earlier prudence was the wiser counsel. As a result, a mantle of official silence descended on Guadalupe, imposed, it is believed, by Charles V in Spain. This in itself, would certainly account for the scarcity of documents on Guadalupe.
(finally, an interesting parallel here)
Perhaps it is more than coincidence that a similar fate overtook the Holy Shroud when Pierre d’Arcis denounced those who regarded the relic as genuince “when the said cloth had been cunningly painted.” Pope Clement VII felt oblged to intervene (in 1389) and enjoin silence on both factions in the dispute, while permitting devotion to the Shroud to continue on condition that it was considered a “representation” of the burial cloth of Christ. In consequence, the later transfer of the Shroud to the Charney family is still veiled in mystery.
But the Bustamante incident is important in one respect: the proven existence of his sermon confirms that the sacred image was already an object of widespread veneration at that time, and hence regarded as of miraculous origin, prior to 1556.”