Am I the only one who knows nothing about The Divinci code?

[DisneyGerry]

So you haven't actually read this book and yet you're against it?

Dont read Playboy as well since I know there is pornagraphy enclosed

 

[DisneyGerry]

EWTN? That's that channel where you can see a Mother Superior hawking tacky Jesus merchadise for money, right? They were already pushing a DVD of Pope John Paul II's funeral- the DAY AFTER he was buried. He wasn't even cold yet. They wasted no time, did they?

Where in the bible does Jesus say, "Thou shalt sell merchadise in my name." ??

Mother Angelica the founder of the network

Read the book she is an amazing woman who did amazing things

Other than there on-line catalog --never have seen 800 numbers pledging money

Gerry

 

[TheBellhop]

Dont read Playboy as well since I know there is pornagraphy enclosed

So the DaVinci Code, since you haven't took the time to read it...is ignorance bliss in your case?

 

[TheBellhop]

Why because it is true and faithful to the authority in Rome?

Nope, just because it got shoved down my throat when I was a child in religion classes. It doesn't exactly inspire people to think for themselves.

 

[LukenDC]

Why because it is true and faithful to the authority in Rome?

Were the atrocities of the Church-sanctioned Inquisition true and faithful to the authority of Rome?

Was the forced conversion and annihilation of native peoples in the Americas true and faithful to the authority of Rome?

What about the atrocities and corruption of the Borgias, including Pope Alexander VI? What moral authority did they hold?

The Vatican has held much authority over the centuries, but arguably much of it was far from moral.

 

[MzDiz]

Some are afraid to ever let themselves reach into their soul because they may fear an emptiness.

Wait. What?

 

[Saxsoon]

To tell you the truth, I read it when I was in seventh or eigth grade, and sadly it made me think about it. But I talked to some people who ran a youth group at my school who I would trust with my life, and several documentaries that comletely disproved the DC. These were secular networks like National Geographic and Discovery. But it didn't hurt my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. In fact, it strengthened my belief that I couldn't explain. It is a good book, and right now I am going to go read the other Dan Brown books, simply because he is a good author. Nothing more.

To the person who said that it should be enough to keep your faith to yourself if you believe in God, it flat out says in the Bible to spread His Word.

 

[MzDiz]

To tell you the truth, I read it when I was in seventh or eigth grade, and sadly it made me think about it. But I talked to some people who ran a youth group at my school who I would trust with my life, and several documentaries that comletely disproved the DC. These were secular networks like National Geographic and Discovery. But it didn't hurt my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. In fact, it strengthened my belief that I couldn't explain. It is a good book, and right now I am going to go read the other Dan Brown books, simply because he is a good author. Nothing more.

To the person who said that it should be enough to keep your faith to yourself if you believe in God, it flat out says in the Bible to spread His Word.

Maybe next, these people can start working on disproving Stephen King novels.
Oh, and I have a religion, thanks. No need to spread that stuff around my garden.

 

[sodaseller]

Why because it is true and faithful to the authority in Rome?

Mother Angelica is not actually obedient to Church authority. Witness her interaction with Cardinal Mahoney. That's just a bludgeon used to end debate, but it's not true

 

[DisneyGerry]

Mother Angelica is not actually obedient to Church authority. Witness her interaction with Cardinal Mahoney. That's just a bludgeon used to end debate, but it's not true

Mother Angelica's Orders reports directly to Rome. Cardinal Mahoney is not her superior. Where has she disobeyed the Papacy? In fact, both recent Pontiffs have supported Mother Angelica.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

Dont recall saying that

Just not happy about a blasphemous attack on Jesus and the Church.

Well since you've never read the book, one thing you should know.

Langdon, the Harvard Professor who goes on the seach for the Grail, states several times in the book that he believes the current "Vatican and Pope" are truly moral, just, and religious men who have nothing but pure intentions.

In fact, when others bring up the idea that the Pope or the Vatican might be behind the plot to destroy the Grail or the killings of the members of the Priory, he states that he doesn't think it is possible because he knows the current Pope would never allow it......

So --- maybe that "attack" on the Roman Catholic Church that your righteous friends are reporting to you isn't quite accurate.

 

[sodaseller]

She does? When was she given a personal prelature? Check your ecclesiology.

And she is not subject to Cardinal Mahoney, but she did tell those under his juridcal authority to give him no obedience, for which she was compelled to aplogize.



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060522fa_fact

Christian critics, meanwhile, had yet to come up with a unified, coherent strategy to protest the movie. On Palm Sunday, a powerful cardinal urged a boycott of the film, saying that the book was “full of calumnies, offenses, and historical and theological errors,” but there has been no official Church endorsement of his call. Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, and a usually reliable volunteer in the culture conflicts, decided early on that he was not going to participate in any boycott of the film. “First of all, it’s a useless exercise,” he says. “The movie’s going to be a box-office extravaganza the first weekend or two. After that, if it’s a good movie it’ll continue; if not, it’ll fail.” Donohue says that he is galled by Dan Brown’s insistence on the book’s factuality, and that he has asked Sony and Ron Howard to add a disclaimer to the film, labelling it as fiction. He says, “I have to be prudent. I want to win. This book has sold forty million copies. It’s got Tom Hanks, Sony behind it, Ron Howard. To the extent that we can get the word out—‘Look, go and be entertained, this is good fun, but this movie is a fable’—to that extent, that’s about as good as I can get.”

That ambivalence made Jonathan Bock’s job—framing the dispute over the film on Sony’s terms—much easier. In February, Bock launched The Da Vinci Dialogue, which contains some forty-five essays by religious leaders and Christian scholars questioning and correcting, in civil tones, various of Dan Brown’s assertions. Opus Dei declined to participate in the site, but evangelicals have been eager to be heard. Darrell Bock, perhaps preëminent among the “Da Vinci” debunkers, contributed two essays to the site, and says that the Christian participation in the project reflects the community’s growing sophistication in dealing with popular culture. “The Christian response this time around has been different,” Bock says. “Rather than simply whining and complaining, although there are still elements that do that, there is a substantial group that says, No, on this one we’re going to engage. So we’re not going to talk boycott. We’re not going to protest, we’re simply going to take the facts that were presented in this novel and we’re going to engage them, and we’re going to try to show people that there’s a good, substantive reply to what’s going on here.”

The theme of engagement has come to define the Christian response to “The Da Vinci Code” well beyond the Sony discourse. Ministers across the country have arranged discussion groups and courses of instruction tied to the questions raised by Brown’s work, and even Opus Dei leaders now speak of it as a “teaching moment.” Sony is undoubtedly pleased by this outcome. If Christian leaders are speaking of “dialogue” and “engagement,” they are not saying, “Don’t see this film.” In the realm of damage control, that may be a serviceable definition of controlling the controversy.

 

[IndianaDVCMember]

Why should the church be against a work of fiction that claims to be fiction? There are no claims that this book is an historical account about Jesus.

There are historical claims in the book's fact page which is supposed to be the basis for many of these theories. He states as "fact" that the Catholic church burned as many as 5,000,000 witches. The most liberal estimates most historians give is around 40,000 burnings, and most were not performed under church authority. On his fact page, he falsely states that Opus Dei performs corporal mortification. He claims that Constantine edited the Bible at the Council of Nicea, although New Testament Canon was established over a century before this event. He falsely stated that the Priority of Sion had Leonardo da Vinci as a member and is still in existance today (it was started in the 1950's by a French prankster and was disbanded in the 1990's when French authorities warned him to cease and desist). His historical errors always seem to be at the expense of Catholics, as can be noted on his false claim in "Angels and Demons" that Copernicus was murdered by Catholics.

In a recent interview, Brown said "The book is about big ideas. You can love them or hate them, but we are all talking about them and that's the point." Is the book fiction? Yes. Is it JUST fiction? Absolutely not. He has distorted history to make the Catholic church and Opus Dei the villains in the fictional novel. He has openly stated that these ideas should be discussed, so I am calling him out as an anti-Catholic bigot.

 

[IndianaDVCMember]

Were the atrocities of the Church-sanctioned Inquisition true and faithful to the authority of Rome?

No. The Spanish Inquisition was overseen by a Cardinal, but he was appointed by the state. The Catholic Church did not have any authority over this event.

 

[sodaseller]

I don't think the distinction is that great in this instance. Remember the timing of the Inquisition - the union of Ferdinand and Isabella under a Catholic monarchy and the Reconquista, resulting in many plenary dispensations, and why I always enjoyed pork on Christmas Eve (nochebuena. The Cross and the Crown which animates Opus Dei to this day. As to responsibility for the Inquisition. JPII "apologized" for the Sins of the Church's sons and daughters in that episode, so there has been no attempt by the Vatican that I know of, even with the recent "historical correction" as to numbers, to disavow Vatican responsibility for that dark episode from the past

 

[AllyandJack]

So what if Jesus did have a wife and children? It wouldn't make me think any less of him.

 

[IndianaDVCMember]

So what if Jesus did have a wife and children? It wouldn't make me think any less of him.

Biblical evidence suggests that He was not married, and there is no evidence that He was married other that it would be unusual for a Jewish man to be single in his 30's. This isn't the first time the topic has been explored.

What is much more disturbing and offensive is the claim that Constantine made up Christ's Divinity at the Council of Nicea. This is historically false regardless of your beliefs. Christ's Divinity is entire basis for Christianity. The issue of Arianism was addressed at the Council of Nicea. Arius was a priest who had the belief that Jesus was not Divine. The Council addressed Arius's ideas, and almost unanimously rejected them as heresy.

Only 1/4 of the world is Christian. We have the right to choose whichever religion we wish, but to falsely suggest that early Christians did not consider Jesus Christ to be Divine is offensive on every level.

 

[sodaseller]

Biblical evidence suggests that He was not married, and there is no evidence that He was married other that it would be unusual for a Jewish man to be single in his 30's. This isn't the first time the topic has been explored.

What is much more disturbing and offensive is the claim that Constantine made up Christ's Divinity at the Council of Nicea. This is historically false regardless of your beliefs. Christ's Divinity is entire basis for Christianity. The issue of Arianism was addressed at the Council of Nicea. Arius was a priest who had the belief that Jesus was not Divine. The Council addressed Arius's ideas, and almost unanimously rejected them as heresy.

Only 1/4 of the world is Christian. We have the right to choose whichever religion we wish, but to falsely suggest that early Christians did not consider Jesus Christ to be Divine is offensive on every level.

I will agree with you 100% on this post. Well said. I still think that we should use the movie as a teaching moment and that threatening suits or trying to urge boycotts gives the theme of suppresion unintended support

 

[DisneyGerry]

IT IS FICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not gospel of any sort. Why do people find that so hard to grasp?!?!?!? Why should the church be against a book that is fiction? Is faith so fragile that even fiction works threaten them? I honestly don't get this argument at all.

I saw an advertizement for this movie: SEEK THE TRUTH

Doesnt quite sound like they are selling fiction?

I see three Islamic countries have banned this story--where Jesus is one of the Islamic Prophets.

http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

It isn't a defense to say that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Fiction can't change the basic facts about major historical figures without being subject to criticism. People would be outraged if Doubleday printed a novel portraying Adolph Hitler in a positive light. Christians have a right to be outraged when the basic historical facts about Christ are falsified. The criticism will be even more intense when a publisher releases a book parodying the most sacred beliefs of others in this fashion.

Further, as we have seen in this special report, the book takes great pains to create the appearance of factuality, including placing the infamous "fact" page at the beginning of the novel. Brown has stressed the ostensible accuracy of the book on his web site and in interviews. This is not a case where an author and a publisher have produced an ordinary novel. They have gone to great lengths to mislead people into thinking that the novel has a historical basis. They deserve especially sharp criticism for this, and when criticism is made they cannot hypocritically hide behind the "It's just fiction" allegation after having made such extensive efforts to convince the reader that it is not "just fiction."

 

[DisneyGerry]

So what if Jesus did have a wife and children? It wouldn't make me think any less of him.

http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

How can I help others understand how offensive The Da Vinci Code is?

Point out the offensive claims made by the book, particularly the ones regarding Jesus and early Christianity. Point out that the claims are false-that Brown does not have the evidence to support them. The idea that Jesus had a wife is absurd. One of the major themes of the New Testament is that of the Church as the Bride of Christ. This theme would never have arisen in Christian circles if Jesus had a human wife. It was the fact that he was not married in the ordinary sense that led to the Church being described as his Bride. What Brown is doing amounts to smearing the most important and sacred beliefs of millions of people for the sake of getting his novel on the bestseller list.

To help others understand how offensive these are, encourage fans of the novel to imagine parallel situations involving other religions or groups of people. For example, a major publisher would never produce a novel that portrayed the Jewish faith as perpetrating a murderous, centuries-long, global conspiracy. Such a book would be met immediately with outraged protests and the author and publishers publicly branded as religious bigots. By producing this novel smearing Christianity, Brown and Doubleday show that they have a double standard and harbor anti-Catholic, anti-Christian prejudice.

There is even a fairly close parallel here: In spinning its conspiracy tale, The Da Vinci Code relies on information provided by documents that are established forgeries: Les Dossiers Secretes. Doubleday's release of the book is comparable to a major publisher releasing a novel based on anti-Jewish forgeries such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If the publisher would turn down an anti-Jewish conspiracy novel based on these documents, it should do the same with The Da Vinci Code. The fact that it did not do so reveals a double standard and bigotry toward Christianity on its part.