The Da Vinci Code and Mary Magdalene

[Antonio_B]

The book that I’m reading, The Da Vinci Hoax, states the following of The Da Vinci Code,

"In the course of its 454 pages, the novel asserts the following:

1. Mary Magdalene, not an inanimate chalice, is the Holy Grail (236-39;243-46;249;253) Jesus taught that Mary was the Holy Grail (242), and Leornardo da Vinci depicted her as such in The Last Supper (243). The quest for the Holy Grail is the search, not for the chalice used at the Last Supper, but for the resting place of Mary Magdalene (257).
2. The Catholic Church launched a “smear campaign” against Mary Magdalene at a very early date, slandered here name (244,249,254,261), and labeled her a prostitute out of spite (244) and “in order to erase evidence of her powerful family ties” (249). This secret campaign has included murder and violence (266). The Church’s opposition to the “truth” about Mary Magdalene continues today, although in a less violent manner (407).
3. Jesus and Mary were married, and this “fact” has been examined in detail and explored endlessly by historians (245,249). It is part of the “historical record” and is known through the gnostic gospels, including The Gospel of Philip (246) and *The Gospel of Mary Magdalene *(247). Jesus and Mary had children; after Jesus’ death, Mary fled to France, persecuted by the Catholic Church (255, 257).

(The Da Vinci Hoax by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, pp. 74-75)

Dear friends, I would like for you to react to these statements by demonstrating why they are false. Or, perhaps, you might think they are true, so, will you please, give me and others your evidence for such an assertion.

Antonio

 

[Tom]

The Di Vinci code places a lot of credence on the picture painted of the last supper. Some things to remember about that picture are 1. It was painted almost 1300 years after the last supper by someone who could have not really known what it “looked like”. So don’t put too much faith on the depiction as accurate, it’s a piece of art. 2. If you look at the portrait of St. John done by Michelangelo, you’ll notice he paints John with very fair features, you’ll also notice it’s the same person as the Last Supper. It is not Mary.
In the first few years of the Church, after His resurrection, it would have been totally impossible to hide the fact that He had a wife and a child. If they believed He was God, as they did, they would have also spoken much about His family “if” He had one. Keep in mind that the Church spread and stories about His family would have been well known and impossible to “cover up”. Scripturally: where His “family” is named Mk 6: 2 “And when the Sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him”
Notice they name the whole family (Joseph the carpenter was already dead) but no wife or child? Very strange to name your whole family and exclude the wife and child. Wouldn’t you consider this evidence He was not married? If not 1 cor 9,5 “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Paul names all of Jesus’ Apostles as having wives but excludes Jesus? Or Ephesians 5:31 – “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” You think Jesus left His Father to cling to His wife? How about Rev 21,9 “And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.” No, Jesus was not married, but it does make some good conspiracy theory doesn’t it?

 

[metal1633]

Antonio B:

The book that I’m reading, The Da Vinci Hoax, states the following of The Da Vinci Code,

"In the course of its 454 pages, the novel asserts the following:

1. Mary Magdalene, not an inanimate chalice, is the Holy Grail (236-39;243-46;249;253) Jesus taught that Mary was the Holy Grail (242), and Leornardo da Vinci depicted her as such in The Last Supper (243). The quest for the Holy Grail is the search, not for the chalice used at the Last Supper, but for the resting place of Mary Magdalene (257).
2. The Catholic Church launched a “smear campaign” against Mary Magdalene at a very early date, slandered here name (244,249,254,261), and labeled her a prostitute out of spite (244) and “in order to erase evidence of her powerful family ties” (249). This secret campaign has included murder and violence (266). The Church’s opposition to the “truth” about Mary Magdalene continues today, although in a less violent manner (407).
3. Jesus and Mary were married, and this “fact” has been examined in detail and explored endlessly by historians (245,249). It is part of the “historical record” and is known through the gnostic gospels, including The Gospel of Philip (246) and *The Gospel of Mary Magdalene *(247). Jesus and Mary had children; after Jesus’ death, Mary fled to France, persecuted by the Catholic Church (255, 257).

(The Da Vinci Hoax by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, pp. 74-75)

Dear friends, I would like for you to react to these statements by demonstrating why they are false. Or, perhaps, you might think they are true, so, will you please, give me and others your evidence for such an assertion.

Antonio

When the Apostles departed from Jerusalem for preaching to all the ends of the earth, with them also went Mary Magdalene to preach. She went beyond her native borders and set off to preach in pagan Rome.

Mary Magdalene continued her preaching in Italy and in the city of Rome itself. Evidently, the Apostle Paul has precisely her in view in Romans 16:6, where together with other ascetics of evangelic preaching he mentions Mary (Mariam), who as he expresses “has done much for us.” Evidently, she extensively served the Church, being exposed to dangers, and sharing with the Apostles the labours of preaching. She remained in Rome until the arrival of the Apostle Paul, and for two more years still, following his departure from Rome after the first court judgment upon him. From Rome, Saint Mary Magdalene, already bent with age, moved to Ephesus where she laboured with the Apostle John. There the saint finished her earthly life and was buried.

Her holy relics were transferred in the 9th Century to the capital of the Byzantine Empire – Constantinople, and placed in the monastery Church of Saint Lazarus. In the era of the Crusader campaigns they were transferred to Italy and placed at Rome under the altar of the Lateran Cathedral. Part of the relics of Mary Magdalene are located in France near Marseilles, where a splendid church (Saint Maximum’s bascilia) was built over them at the foot of a steep mountain in her honour.

So much for the “History” in the Da Vinci Code.

 

[JimG]

I haven’t read either book, but doesn’t “The DaVinci Hoax” answer all these questions about “The DaVinci Code?”

 

[hermit]

The Da Vinci code is a work of fiction, the author has never said it was anything but fiction, so why all the fuss?

 

[metal1633]

hermit:

The Da Vinci code is a work of fiction, the author has never said it was anything but fiction, so why all the fuss?

Actually the author states that all his historical referances are in fact true. And a large number of the readers take his word for it and assume the book is an accurate piece of Historical Fiction, which it is not.

 

[Annunciata]

metal1633:

Actually the author states that all his historical referances are in fact true. And a large number of the readers take his word for it and assume the book is an accurate piece of Historical Fiction, which it is not.

You’re correct!
On the inside page of this book called Fact, the author states:
“All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” This is why many an innocent soul has been deceived into thinking the whole of it is correct or truth.
Annunciata

 

[mark_a]

metal1633:

When the Apostles departed from Jerusalem for preaching to all the ends of the earth, with them also went Mary Magdalene to preach. She went beyond her native borders and set off to preach in pagan Rome.

Mary Magdalene continued her preaching in Italy and in the city of Rome itself. Evidently, the Apostle Paul has precisely her in view in Romans 16:6, where together with other ascetics of evangelic preaching he mentions Mary (Mariam), who as he expresses “has done much for us.” Evidently, she extensively served the Church, being exposed to dangers, and sharing with the Apostles the labours of preaching. She remained in Rome until the arrival of the Apostle Paul, and for two more years still, following his departure from Rome after the first court judgment upon him. From Rome, Saint Mary Magdalene, already bent with age, moved to Ephesus where she laboured with the Apostle John. There the saint finished her earthly life and was buried.

Her holy relics were transferred in the 9th Century to the capital of the Byzantine Empire – Constantinople, and placed in the monastery Church of Saint Lazarus. In the era of the Crusader campaigns they were transferred to Italy and placed at Rome under the altar of the Lateran Cathedral. Part of the relics of Mary Magdalene are located in France near Marseilles, where a splendid church (Saint Maximum’s bascilia) was built over them at the foot of a steep mountain in her honour.

So much for the “History” in the Da Vinci Code.

Could you give the scources for the info in your post? I am very interested in St. Mary Magdalene, and not necessarily for refuting “The DeVinci Code”.

The only book I read, “Saint Mary Magdalene: Her Life and Times, As Seen in the Gospels, History, & Tradition” by Edith Filliette, sure tells a different story.
Thanks.

 

[Annunciata]

mark a:

Could you give the scources for the info in your post? I am very interested in St. Mary Magdalene, and not necessarily for refuting “The DeVinci Code”.

The only book I read, “Saint Mary Magdalene: Her Life and Times, As Seen in the Gospels, History, & Tradition” by Edith Filliette, sure tells a different story.
Thanks.

Yes! Please…I was wonder the same thing. Annunciata

 

[Antonio_B]

JimG:

I haven’t read either book, but doesn’t “The DaVinci Hoax” answer all these questions about “The DaVinci Code?”

Yes, The Da Vinci Hoax, which is the book I’m presently reading, answers the colossal errors of The Da Vinci Code. Notice that in my initial thread I did not ask questions about what The Da Vinci Code says. Rather, I want people to react to what the book says. I just gave a copy of Mieles’s book to a student of mine who told me he had already read The Da Vinci Code and I wanted to make sure such reading would not poison his mind against the Church.

Antonio

 

[metal1633]

mark a:

Could you give the scources for the info in your post? I am very interested in St. Mary Magdalene, and not necessarily for refuting “The DeVinci Code”.

The only book I read, “Saint Mary Magdalene: Her Life and Times, As Seen in the Gospels, History, & Tradition” by Edith Filliette, sure tells a different story.
Thanks.

Gregory of Tours (De miraculis, I, xxx)

Although a French traditions states that right before her death she was translated to Aix by angels, to the Oratory of St Maximinus where she recieved last rites then died. For fear of the Sarcens her relics were hidden.

Currently only her skull resides in France in the Basillica at La Sainte-Baume, which agrees with Gregory of Tours who states it was brought from the East. The remainder of her relics are in Rome. And THAT is verifiable Empirical Evidence.

And on her Feast Day the Basillica of St Maximinus fills with the smell of myrrh. Thousands of Pilgrims go there yearly to honor her and “smell” the miracle.

 

[Antonio_B]

hermit:

The Da Vinci code is a work of fiction, the author has never said it was anything but fiction, so why all the fuss?

The answer is simple. Millions have read it and many of those millions are Catholics who have taken such trash as “historical” truth. This, at a time when we are utterly confused about our faith because of poor catechesis and because of a denial of objective truth in our society. While Brown claims that his work is fictional, he also claims that the background for his fiction is historical. Miesel and Olson, the authors of The Da Vinci Hoax state that "The Da Vinci Code “is nothing less than an attack on the very foundations of historical Christianity.”

The excerpts I quoted in my initial thread are not written by Brown as “fiction.”

Apparently Cardinal George and the authors of The Da Vinci Hoax share my concerns that too many Catholics and non-Catholic Christians might, and in fact are, believing much of “The Da Vinci Code.” Here is what Cardinal George said: “…those who have lost or do not know the faith are likely to believe anything” in his “introduction” to The Da Vinci Hoax.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

Annunciata:

You’re correct!
On the inside page of this book called Fact, the author states:
“All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” This is why many an innocent soul has been deceived into thinking the whole of it is correct or truth.
Annunciata

And this is one of the reasons I have quoted from The Da Vinci Hoax so folks inform themselves on the dangers of The Da Vinci Code.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

Annunciata:

Yes! Please…I was wonder the same thing. Annunciata

Another nice piece of information for those who follow The Da Vinci Code’s lies, is that we have, for seven centuries, said “St. Mary Magdalene, Pray for us.” in the Litany of the Rosary.

Antonio

 

[Ken]

Antonio B:

The answer is simple. Millions have read it and many of those millions are Catholics who have taken such trash as “historical” truth. This, at a time when we are utterly confused about our faith because of poor catechesis and because of a denial of objective truth in our society. While Brown claims that his work is fictional, he also claims that the background for his fiction is historical. Miesel and Olson, the authors of The Da Vinci Hoax state that "The Da Vinci Code “is nothing less than an attack on the very foundations of historical Christianity.”

The excerpts I quoted in my initial thread are not written by Brown as “fiction.”

Apparently Cardinal George and the authors of The Da Vinci Hoax share my concerns that too many Catholics and non-Catholic Christians might, and in fact are, believing much of “The Da Vinci Code.” Here is what Cardinal George said: “…those who have lost or do not know the faith are likely to believe anything” in his “introduction” to The Da Vinci Hoax.

Antonio

If Catholic doctrine is so weak that it can be successfully attacked by a mediocre popular novel, one might reasonably ask if it is just a house of cards waiting for a bit more breeze.

 

[mark_a]

Ken:

If Catholic doctrine is so weak that it can be successfully attacked by a mediocre popular novel, one might reasonably ask if it is just a house of cards waiting for a bit more breeze.

Are you “one”?

 

[Tom]

hermit:

The Da Vinci code is a work of fiction, the author has never said it was anything but fiction, so why all the fuss?

Because the author has indeed said it is factually inspired.

 

[Antonio_B]

Ken:

If Catholic doctrine is so weak that it can be successfully attacked by a mediocre popular novel, one might reasonably ask if it is just a house of cards waiting for a bit more breeze.

It’s not that Catholic doctrine is weak, what is weak is the type of catechesis offered by most parishes today. BTW, if the novel is so mediocre, why is it accepted as truth by millions? Just a thought!

Antonio