A Jew comments on The DaVinci Code

[Deacon_Ed]

Zippy:

Pope Gregory the Great in 591: “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark,” Do you need me to spell out the seve devils of which he refers?

Zippy,

Thanks for the clarification. Now we can address what you wrote. First, there are no homilies of Pope Gregory the Great that have been preserved. There are, however, epistles – including epistle 33. But the pope doesn’t even mention a “sinful woman” in that epistle, or, indeed, in any of his preserved epistles. There isn’t a single usage of the names John and Mary in any of his epistles. Here is the entirity of the Epistle 33:

EPISTLE XXXIII: TO ROMANUS, PATRICIAN, AND EXARCH OF ITALY.
Gregory to Romanus, &c.
Even though there were no immediate cause for writing to your Excellency, yet we ought to shew solicitude for your health and safety so as to learn through frequent intercommumcation what we desire to hear about you. Besides, it has come to our knowledge that Blandus, bishop of the city of Hortanum, has been detained now for a long time by your Excellency in the city of Ravenna. And the result is that the Church decays, being without a ruler, and the people as being without a shepherd; and infants there, for their sins, die without baptism. And again, since we do not believe that your Excellency has detained him except on the ground of some probable transgression, it is proper that a synod should be held to bring to light any crime that is charged against him. And, if such fault is found in him as to lead to his degradation from the priesthood, it is necessary that we should look out for another to be ordained, lest the Church of God should remain untended, and destitute in what the Christian religion does not allow it to be without. But, if your Excellency should perceive that the case is otherwise with him than it is said to be, allow him, I pray you, to return to his church, that he may fulfil his duty to the souls committed to his charge.
The month of March; the ninth Indiction.

Perhaps you had some other writing in mind?

BTW, Pope Gregory the Great’s writings that have been preserved are available at CCEL.

Deacon Ed

 

[Lorarose]

Thanks for the clarification. Now we can address what you wrote. First, there are no homilies of Pope Gregory the Great that have been preserved. There are, however, epistles – including epistle 33. But the pope doesn’t even mention a “sinful woman” in that epistle, or, indeed, in any of his preserved epistles. There isn’t a single usage of the names John and Mary in any of his epistles. Here is the entirity of the Epistle 33:

Very interesting Deacon Ed

 

[AsStAnselmPrays]

stillsmallvoice, I see where you come from. I read The Da Vinci Code and as I read it, I found tons of problems with it. At my Catholic high school, my class is studying the Hebrew Scriptures, and since the teacher (an OSB nun) has an Old Testament in Hebrew, we compare and contrast the versions and learn the words and all that.

I HAVE NEVER heard of Shekhina being a deity. I have always learned (from Protestants, Catholics, and Jews alike) that Shekhina was the glory of God.

AsStAnselmPrays

 

[Faustina]

Peace-bwu:

I studied Art History in college (art major) and religous art at this time used symbols and “types” to allow the viewer to understand the story. The young john has always been portrayed as the youngest of the apostles. He was portryed without a beard. Only a person uneducated in basic art history would say “Hey thats a woman” I have no doubt that Leonardo DaVinci was simply painting John according to his “symbolic type”

Some other examples of “types” to look for: John the Baptist is always pointing up,usually dressed like a wild man in animal skins, Mary Magdelene is usually portrayed as a beautiful, long haired minx, each of the Gospel writers has a type, look for a long second toe, that is symbolic for “wisdom” Portraits of Mary from this time period usually have a second toe that is longer than the big toe. There are hundreds of examples of these symbols, it makes art history fun! Look in any traditional book of saints, they usually have their identifying symbols with them. I would be willing to bet tha this is where we get the saying “a picture tells a thousand words!”

Thank You!!! I was also an art major in college and seem to recall this as well. One of the reasons I couldn’t believe Dan Brown or anyone for that matter, would use this as an argument.
Our Church as a beautiful wood carving of large than life, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John with Christ the King in the center. This was carved in the 1920’s, btw. Christ, Matthew, Mark and Luke are all represented with beards. John is not.

 

[MaggieOH]

Zippy:

The church clearly mis-portrayed Mary Magdalene for CENTURIES. What other reason would the church do this other than to undermine the status of women? BTW if memory serves me correctly the church retracted this lie after some 1400 years….so much for papal infallibility.

The church hated enlightened scientists, and any scientific facts that brought church teachings into question (see Galileo).

People ‘drink this stuff in’ because much of it is just as plausible as the church’s teachings…see above two examples for accuracy of church teachings.

Oh no a feminist who reads revisionist history and a hijacker to boot. :yawn:

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

AsStAnselmPrays:

stillsmallvoice, I see where you come from. I read The Da Vinci Code and as I read it, I found tons of problems with it. At my Catholic high school, my class is studying the Hebrew Scriptures, and since the teacher (an OSB nun) has an Old Testament in Hebrew, we compare and contrast the versions and learn the words and all that.

I HAVE NEVER heard of Shekhina being a deity. I have always learned (from Protestants, Catholics, and Jews alike) that Shekhina was the glory of God.

AsStAnselmPrays

I have only ever heard and understood the Shekinah as being the Glory of God.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

Ghosty:

Zippy: The definition of infallibility is very clear and not at all wishy-washy. Do us all a favor and look it up before continuing your arguments.

As for the prostitute argument, there is no evidence that the Pope made a mistake in the first place. He taught that Mary was a prostitute, others disagree which is their right to do. Both views are perfectly orthodox. There was no error to correct.

Well I did not read it in an epistle from a Pope, but I did read it in the Gospel of Luke. Mary of Magdala before her sins were forgiven when she came to Christ, was indeed the woman who had a certain unsavoury reputation. If you read the whole story in context, when the woman came to the house of Simon the Pharisee, there were those who silently protested because she was said to be a “known sinner”. The next scene, after the sins are forgiven it mentions Mary of Magdala as the woman out of whom seven devils were cast out. The Scripture does not say that she is a prostitute, but it seems that she spread her favours amongst the rich of Jerusalem before her conversion. The other woman who is confused with Mary of Magdala is the woman caught in the act of adultery. There is no link between the two women.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Zippy:

The church clearly mis-portrayed Mary Magdalene for CENTURIES. What other reason would the church do this other than to undermine the status of women? BTW if memory serves me correctly the church retracted this lie after some 1400 years….so much for papal infallibility.

The church hated enlightened scientists, and any scientific facts that brought church teachings into question (see Galileo).

People ‘drink this stuff in’ because much of it is just as plausible as the church’s teachings…see above two examples for accuracy of church teachings.

each and every point is unsubstantiated. There is nothing here that in any way tells us:

(a) the alleged “wrong” teaching;
(b) the correction of the teaching;

Instead what we have is an uneducated rant, based on what? A lack of understanding about Mary of Magdala.

It is the Scripture that tells us that Mary was more than likely a prostitute before she was brought to Jesus by Jesus and repented of her sin. Once she repented of that sin, and came to Jesus, she did not repeat the sin.

There is no substance at all in the allegation made by this rather ill-informed person.

Maggie

 

[jimmy]

Zippy:

Pope Gregory the Great in 591: “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark,”

Do you need me to spell out the seve devils of which he refers?

Zippy I have done a search for this, incase it was miss labeled as homily 33(there are no homilies from Gregory the Great). I have not found this statement anywhere except in papers that people have written where they make this quote of Gregory. I have not found it in anything from Gregory. Here are all passages in the writings of Gregory that use the word seven.

or that the seven

days sanctioned by the Lord’s command in the Law, during which only it is enjoined that the Lord’s Passover could lawfully be eaten (which are to be numbered from the 14th day of the moon to the 20th), should against law and right be exceeded? REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK IX Epistle CXXVII

For, if Easter is to be celebrated on the 21st or 22nd day, from the 14th to the 22nd nine days will be reckoned, that is, seven

ordered by God, and two added by men. Epistle REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK IX Epistle CXXVII

Which thing Paul insinuates well, when, manifesting the secret of his affection for us, he says, seven

as I please all men in all things (1 Cor. x. 33). **Books of Pastoral Rule of Gregory the Great Roman Pontiff to John Bishop of the City of Ravenna, Part II Chapter VIII **

Moreover, it is now even seven

years that we have been living in this city among the swords of the Lombards. REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK V Epistle XXI

He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven

years. REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK VII Epistle XL

Seeing, then, that those who hold the office of Guardians are known to labour in the causes of the Church and in the service of the pontiffs, we have thought fit that they should enjoy the following prerogatives, granted to them for recompense; – appointing that, as in the school (schola) of notaries and subdeacons, through the indulgence of pontiffs long ago, there have been constituted regionarii, so also among the Guardians seven

who may have commended themselves by proved utility shall be distinguished by the dignity of regionarii. REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK VIII **Epistle XIV **

That is all of the mentions of the word seven in Gregory’s writings. They do not use the number 7 unless the translator is referencing something.

I have found the quote that you have given, but it is in none of Gregorys writings. I have found it in articles written by people quoting Gregory.

 

[jimmy]

Zippy:

The church clearly mis-portrayed Mary Magdalene for CENTURIES. What other reason would the church do this other than to undermine the status of women? BTW if memory serves me correctly the church retracted this lie after some 1400 years….so much for papal infallibility.

The church hated enlightened scientists, and any scientific facts that brought church teachings into question (see Galileo).

People ‘drink this stuff in’ because much of it is just as plausible as the church’s teachings…see above two examples for accuracy of church teachings.

If you are going to be a feminist and hate the Church and act like you have been oppressed, that is your choice. But know that it is not based on anything from facts. The Church has never looked down upon women. Look at the way they look upon Mary the mother of Jesus. She is put above every human, man or woman. This has been since the first century. Look at the seventh ecumenical council and the fourth ecumenical councils to see how the Church views Mary.

Your claims are unfounded. Don’t slander the Church.

 

[Lorarose]

I’ve been searching too Jimmy and haven’t found a thing.

 

[jimmy]

Zippy:

It appears as though I have officially entered the SPIN ZONE…

The church writes it’s own history, and the followers ignore the facts.

Clearly you have not checked your proof with the sources because that has been debunked.

 

[jimmy]

Zippy:

Ahh but one of your popes preached it, and taught it, and it took the church nearly 1400 years to correct his error…I know, I know, you’ll defend his actions by twisting the truth, but the facts are the facts.​

The problem is that the catholic church invokes infallibility ONLY when it benefits the church, and poo poos it when it will expose the church’s mistakes…

I understand fully that infallibility is a concept that the catholic church picks and chooses when it will invoke, or skirt by saying that ‘a particular instance doesn’t fit into our twisted definition of infallibility’. It’s quite a slick control tool that the church uses VERY effectively.

Debunked

 

[Tallow]

Axion:

No. The book is more serious than that, and is in fact openly libellous of the Catholic faith, and Christianity in General.

It claims, and I have seen Brown claim, that all the historical, cultural and religious references are FACTS. And a lot of people clearly believe that. Look at many of the reader reviews on sites like Amazon.

In ract most of the historical and religious references are not only rubbish, but slanted rubbish, designed to make people hate the church.

Yes, I agree. I read the book at the urging of a man I work with who has always struck me as a reasonably orthodox Catholic. He and I share many likes and dislikes in the book world, and the basic idea of the book interested me.

But when I opened it I was appalled by the sophomoric writing. I mean, this is high school level writing, and I couldn’t understand my friend’s not having even mentioned that.

Then too, it’s an obvious propaganda piece; there’s an editorial comment in virtually every paragraph, urging the reader to adopt a certain point of view or to have a certain feeling or attitude towards the particular object of the author’s ire at the moment. My friend didn’t mention that either, and that puzzled me even more. He recommended it enthusiastically, and **believed **in it!

The historical errors are maybe not so much errors as deliberate distortions. Having seen him on TV and read a couple of interviews in print, I get the impression he actually did know the facts, but chose to distort them for the sake of ‘grabbing’ people. Grabbing their money, I suppose, but seeing him on TV made me wonder about that. I think maybe he (and his wife, whom I also saw on TV) are into witchcraft in a big way, and what they’re really interested in is converts. If so, they seem to be having as much success in that as in the financial area.