[Impariclainna]

I think father Raphael gets to a very good point in his last post.

None of us can be like the other in our approach to God. Indeed, Orthodoxy offers us One path, however that path offers us a variety of footing. Each of us goes along it at different speeds and inclines. In this way, Mathew will go to see Da Vinci, where as I will not. The path is still the same. St. Peter was not St. Paul.

Thank you father for your thoughts.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[wllsqyuipknczx]

This article by Steve Anagnostou adds
further to the the excellent comments already made in this thread, which I have been following with great interest:

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/main.htm

A commentary on the "Da Vinci Code"
THE DA VINCI LIE by Steve Anagnostou



As appealing as it may be, and as amazing a picture that it paints, there are fundamental historical errors in Dan Brown’s book, demonstrating that his scholarship is poor, his theories are not based on fact, and, in my opinion, his intention is to discredit Christianity by promoting goddess worship and paganism based on heretical texts. These kinds of flagrant attacks on our faith ought to be exposed.

Our advantage is that our own Orthodox faith is built on God’s Word and on Truth. We can depend on historical evidence. We don’t have to resort to lies, conspiracy theories, and revisionist history. The novel’s storyline is full of mystery, conspiracy and “revelation.” As a mystery/thriller, the book hooks the reader through suspenseful plot twists and turns - lies, deceit, conspiracy and murder - combined with an overall treasure hunt-like journey for the legendary “Holy Grail”.

Is there any truth in ANY of the following claims made in the book:

Jesus was married

Brown says of himself that he is a Christian, yet “a student of many religions”. From this alone, we can discern his motives. Brown’s only ‘source’ supposedly proving Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene is the Gnostic Gospel of Phillip, written sometime in the third century and proven to be fraudulent as well as incomplete.

Nag Hammadi/Dead Sea Scrolls/Q

Brown suggests that these are all alternate biblical sources with nothing secret about them. However the Dead Sea Scrolls are purely Old Testament, meaning pre-Jesus, Nag Hammadi is a third century Gnostic (heretic) document, and Q is a dubious book supposedly of Jesus’ sayings. So he has attempted to substitute the proven texts of the canonical bible that have come down to us from 2000 years ago for certain counterfeit texts that no real scholar would consider as authentic or even credible.

Nicea/Constantine

Well, this assertion by Brown is just plain rubbish, and his representation of Saint Constantine is flawed and blasphemous, to say the least. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicea was held in 325AD and attended by most bishops of Christendom at the time to discuss matters of faith and certain heresies that were forming at the time, not for the bible to be compiled, as claimed.

Priory of Sion

Far from being ‘the oldest known secret society in the world,’ as Brown incorrectly states through the character Langdon, it was actually an elaborate hoax set up in 1956 by a French conman, Pierre Plantard, to further his own nefarious agenda.

Leonardo and his works

Any serious scholar would NEVER refer to the historical Leonardo as ‘Da Vinci’, for that was merely the region he was from. Brown seems to mock even his protagonist by using this term rather that his correct name, Leonardo.

Wicca

Unlike Brown’s suggestions, WICCA is NOT an ancient pagan nature worshipping religion, which was replaced by this new Christianity, but rather a misogynistic hotch-potch of pseudo-satanism concocted during the Second World War, by one Gerald Gardner who merely used it to give spiritual credence to his adulterous proclivities. In order to draw in the highest number of female ‘initiates’ he added a few female deities to his God of Death deity and Wham Bam there you have it.

The Grail

The novel’s premise centres on the preposterous notion that there was no “HOLY GRAIL”, or cup of Christ, used in the last supper to inaugurate the first Holy Communion of the believers, merely because Leonardo chose not to depict one in his work, “The Last Supper”. So as a Christian, which he claims to be, he instead implies that the “Holy Grail” was Mary Magdalene’s womb, which carries the Holy Blood-Line of Christ, rather that the common cup of wine he gave His disciples to partake of during the actual Last supper.

Therefore if this foundation, which the whole novel is based on, is correct, and the Gospel accounts are ALL wrong, then we must assume that the Last Supper was an orgiastic event wherein which Jesus shared Mary Magdalene, sexually, with all of his disciples.



With the movie due to be released soon - having promotional material that states, “The greatest conspiracy of the past 2,000 years is about to unravel” - this confusion will surely increase. Brown plays on the fact that few people know much about Christianity and, given human nature, even fewer will bother to research any assertions he makes which he presents as "fact". You need not be one of those duped!

While it is true that the Roman Catholic Church continues to compromise to keep pace with the modern world, and while protestant sects continue to appear as if out of nowhere, ORTHODOXY is steadfast as Christ's one, true, undivided church, which has remained dogmatically unadulterated for over 2000 years.

[JessiPollo]

Given the dearth of things about, and people's apparent interest in them, I note also an article in today's BBC News on-line, regarding a 'team' set up by the Roman Catholic Chuch to combat the teachings of the book and film.

XB, Matthew

[eocavrWM]

We are all free.

If you have the 8 to 10 dollars to spend on the film in North America, go right ahead (don't forget the popcorn and coke beforehand). In Great Britain the cost of entry will be considerably higher, if your income allows you to indulge yourself.

Are you, though, completely free - is this the same freedom granted by the Incarnation? That the hypostatic nature of humankind, for the very first time, can attain theosis.

By buying into this media joke/ hoax/ fiction/ blasphemy /yet again 'simple fiction' - are you not implicitly stating something.

That you are free to add to the coffers of the already wealthy Dan Brown, the hardly penniless Tom Hanks, nor the director Tom Howard? That your very presence in the cinema might be a betrayal of yourself as an Orthodox Christian, and that you may give a shameless example to others you may know you.

There was some mention of 'fatwah'. As I recall, I was the one who brought this up. Not that I am in favour of Christianity stooping to such cruelty and bestiality. But what example do we give to Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, when we purchase over 40 million hardcover copies of this spurious book, and now in paperback alone in the U.S.A. it has sold a further 1.5 million? Ultimately the money is not the issue I am raising.

What I am saying is this: I, 'so and so', a known Orthodox Christian, go to the movie, (a legitimate right) regardless of the scandal it may cause to others, because it is my right, I earned the money, and I will do what I jolly well please, thank you very much.

So typically Western European. So Protestant in mentality, it is truly shocking.

Staretz Iustin of Petru Voda Monastery, spent 16 years underground in a Communist Prison in Romania - his sole crime - being an Orthodox priest monk.

A nun, now a hermitess in Alaska asked him his very worst memory. Somehow, I had the courage to ask him the same many years later.

According to Fr. Iustin, his worst sin, was when, to avoid a difficult work assignment he told a new guard that he was in prison because he was a peasant who refused to be re-located to the cities. IF he had told him the truth that he was imprisioned because he was a Christian and a Christian Priest, he would have been slammed against the wall and trampled to death.

Thus, Fr. Iustin, avoided death. He is now 88 years of age, but this betrayal, as he sees it, he will, he told me, carry to his grave.

Dan Brown, the Da Vinci Code, Hollywood - is that all it is....

I do not think so. I will not go to see the movie, I do not have the money any way. To indulge oneself in such a manner is a betrayal of Christ. It is nothing less.

[UKkoXJvF]

This is the first time in the past few years I can ever remember disagreeing with Matthew. Although I certainly do not condemn you, Matthew, I have to agree with those who are opposed to seeing the Da Vinci Code movie. I also have to confess that a friend and I discussed the Muslim reaction to the Mohammed cartoon(s). My friend, being Palestinian by birth, had some interesting insights. One of the things that I--and he--respect about Islam is that there is still something sacred. There is still something worth getting upset about when that sacred is abused or mistreated or misrepresented.

I wish that we, as Christians on the whole, had that sense of awe and majesty; that sense that is still very real during the liturgical services of our Church. Sure, there are still those that boycott movies and paintings and the like that misrepresent Christianity, but there are still a large number of nominal Christians that participate. How many nominal Muslims were OK with the Mohammed cartoons? Very few to my knowledge.

It seems to me that the Orthodox Fathers condemn quite explicitly the theatre. If one were to read their condemnations, they are equally as applicable, if not more applicable, to today's movie industry that, by and large, produces garbage. I would go a step further and say that we should consider not only skipping the Da Vinci Code, but all movies. I realize that this might not be feasible or understandable to everyone, but I think that we all could agree that there are better forms of entertainment (St. John Chrysostom would recommend for entertainment, reading the Psalms).

Regarding Matthew's most compelling point, that some should see this movie so that they may accurately and effectively respond to people's questions, I remain unconvinced (though sympathetic to his viewpoint). I do not understand the necessity of seeing the movie to be able to respond to people's questions. If people have questions, why can we not respond to them? Is it necessary for me to see the movie to respond to the notion of Jesus having a physical bloodline? If a priest, for example, were to accurately respond to a person's confession, must he participate in the same sin as them to understand? I don't think that is necessary.

Aaron

[f6HLLFcw]

This is quite an interesting topic that I have been glancing at every so often. In fact Aaron you raise some interesting points. On the issue of the Muslim cartoons (don't worry, I shall try my best to stay on-topic), it is true that it is good that they have something sacred still. However, it was perhaps going a bit far to engage in violence and death-threats to quite the extent that a number of Muslims did. Quite simply put, I would say that if you don't want to see something, then don't see it. I personally feel fairly secure in my acceptance of Christ's divinity/humanity etc. and so I don't see the problem in going to see the film, and it may even be enjoyable (as long as it is regarded merely on the level of an adventure film). As long as we are secure in our knowledge of Christianity, it surely can't challenge our beliefs (especially considering that the book was so rubbish).

As long as we voice our opposition to the beliefs expressed by the film, and as long as we are safe from being corrupted by it, then there should be no problem with allowing people to see the film.

As for the injunction not to visit the theatre, as I understand it there was a very good reason for this in the late Roman empire. I have seen from what I have read in my Classics course that theatre had become especially degenerate in this era, and that it had essentially sunk to the level of pornography (even Empress Theodora was known for having participated in the burlesque theatre displays). The theatre that they were condemning was thus not exactly the same as the sort of theatre that we are discussing.

I have to agree with Matthew actually - you can't prove someone wrong until you know what fallacy he or she is espousing. As Sun Tzu said, "Know your enemy and yourself, and you will not lose one out of a thousand battles."

[verybigf]

This movie is most likely going to be the typical Hollywood tripe, with poor dialogue, and a plot that consists mostly of people running around and "looking for clues". It will probably not be a quality movie, regardless of the content. One needs to ask themselves why they feel that they should go and see "this" movie, and not some other movie that will probably be a better movie. This movie sounds like a bunch of hype to me. People are going to flock to see it, only to be disappointed (especially if they have read the book).

Aside from the fact that the movie is both blasphemous AND historically shoddy (I have seen shows on TV where secular historians who are not Christian thoroughly debunk this story), one must realize that MOST hollywood movies are just not very good. It is easy to become addicted to the Hollywood formula movie, and watch one after another.

As a great sinner who has watched far too many movies in my life for my own good, I can easily dismiss this movie as "most likely" Hollywood rubbish without even seeing it. I would have to read both the critics and users reviews at Yahoo Movies before even considering spending my money on such a thing. Even if it was a "well made" movie, I would probably rent it on video instead of forking out a fortune to see it in the theatre.

Our society tries to condition us to run out and spend our money on all sorts of strange things. Advertizing is particularly misleading, and appeals to our sinful sensuality. Turning off the TV set is the best way to flee from this barrage of ungodliness.

I used to be a minister in an evangelical church that had rules against going to the theatre (the old 'don't drink, smoke, chew, or date the girls that do' mentality). I don't think we need rules like that. I do think that we need to realize that we must "redeem the time for the days are evil." Is there something better that you could be doing than going to see this movie that will most likely stink?

If we draw near to God, and begin to experience the utter joy of his presence, and are filled with a "foretaste of things to come", why would we even find such a movie interesting? Like the old protestant hymn goes:

"Turn your eyes upon Jesus. Look full in His wonderful face, and the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace."

In Christ,

Jim

[UKkoXJvF]

Dear Jim,

Christ is risen! Thank you for your kind response.

Regarding the Muslim cartoon issue, certainly I would never propose that Orthodox Christians, or anyone for that matter, should react the way some of the Muslims reacted. Regardless, what I respect is the fact that they actually cared. Many of us, on the other hand, are entertained by blasphemous and heretical portrayals of our God. ENTERTAINED!!! This is, in my opinion, the worst reason to see the Da Vinci Code. I can understand and respect Matthew's position, with which I disagree, but I cannot understand seeing the Da Vinci Code for entertainment. Whether or not it shakes someone's faith is irrelevant in this respect. What is saddening to me is that Christians are actually 'entertained' by this.

Regarding the Fathers and their condemnation of the theatre: as I said and as your post confirms, the Fathers' condemnation of the theatre is at least, if not more, applicable to today's theatre as it was in the Roman Empire. Not to mention the fact that other, more recent, fathers also condemned the theatre (e.g., St. John of Kronstadt). There is all sorts of nudity in today's films, not to mention the filthy language, the sexaul inuendos/improprieties, violence, etc.

Aaron

[Preorbtat]

Interesting news article...Children barred from watching "Da Vinci Code" in Singapore

In Hollywood, your vote is counted by the ticket you do or do not buy. Some people have suggested going to the movies on the opening weekend on Da Vinci Code, except, seeing another movie (Over the Hedge is coming out that night and is supposed to be a fun, lighthearted pixar animation movie). This is probably one of the best ways you can show where you stand on the issue and the only way Hollywood notices.