K
Ken
Guest
Let’s assume everything Brown says in DaVinci is true. How would that in any way change the message of Jesus?
- Status
F
Fortiterinre
Guest
Actually I’m not sure any effort fighting this Da Vinci Hoax is wasted. In my town a high ranking lay employee of a LARGE religious order was just profiled in the secular newspaper saying that it was her favorite book! It astonishes me how many “average Catholics” have been swept up in this business–I spend a ridiculous amount of time explaining why Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not “partnered” (BTW, what can we do to make the pseudo-word “partnering” never used again???)
K
Ken
Guest
Biologists use the term “pair-bonding.”
M
Mike_O
Guest
Much of what has been said on this thread seems a bit ridiculous, particularly the line of inquiry trying to place a gender to the Church.
The Church is a conglomeration of 1 billion Catholics, male and female. Why is this such a stumbling block?
That said, the above is somewhat said to read.
Jesus Christ would not b Jesus Christ had He done what Dan Brown said he did. If you missed this in the “Jesus and Mary Magdalene” thread, I will say it here again.
Firstly, although I do not at the moment have the exact verse, most will remember the point at which Christ teaches his disciples that celibacy is superior to marriage, for those who can accept the teaching (“He who can hear this let him hear”). Therefore, had the Lord married, He would have been a hypocrite. Perhaps there were many rabbis and men of the time who were hypocrites, but if you worship a hypocrite as the Son of God, he is not God. But the Lord Jesus Christ is, and is obviously NOT a hypocrite.
Second, and more importantly, it must be remembered that the Lord Jesus was fully human…and fully DIVINE.
Think of Christ for a moment only as God. Can you honestly say, as you did above, that everything would be the same if Almighty God became man AND HAD CARNAL RELATIONS WITH ONE OF HIS DISCIPLES?
This type of idiocy was bound to occur simply because Jesus had female followers. As with any great agent of change, the Son of God or not, scandals and steamy theories of sex will be built up. This is what sells.
But what sells is trash, and most importantly, WHAT SELLS IS FALSE.
Theologically, the theory is unworkable. Christ was One with His Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot have sexual relations with Mary Magdalene. God the Father cannot have sexual relations with Mary Magdalene. As it naturally follows, Jesus Christ cannot have sexual relations with Mary Magdalene.
Dan Brown will write his mind numbingly obvious attempts at scandal, but he cannot scandalize Who is pure in all things.
He has written an atrocious piece of trash that has sadly misled many, but I hope it will not mislead any more people on this board.
P
Pace
Guest
This is my argument against “The Passion” also. Both may be examples of having “itchy ears” just waiting to be scratched. This would have made the ‘sin’ occur with the picking up of the book and with the entering into the movie theater. There needn’t have been any words printed on the page or any light projected onto the movie screen after those initial choices were made. The choices themselves were enough of a mirror to show us to ourselves. But perhaps this is the case with any sin?
Y
yinekka
Guest
Two books that I know of which refute many of the inaccuracies in ‘that book’ 
are 1. The Da Vinci Hoax by Carl Olsen and Sandra Meisel and 2. De-coding Da Vinci by Amy Welborn. The Amy Welborn is perhaps the easier of the two to read.
I think that we need to be aware of the inaccuracies in the book so that we can have intelligent discussions with people who may be taken in by them.
are 1. The Da Vinci Hoax by Carl Olsen and Sandra Meisel and 2. De-coding Da Vinci by Amy Welborn. The Amy Welborn is perhaps the easier of the two to read.I think that we need to be aware of the inaccuracies in the book so that we can have intelligent discussions with people who may be taken in by them.
J
JimG
Guest
Apparently Dan Brown takes the gnostic gospels more seriously than anyone took them in their own time. They were the tabloids of the day, written much later than the orthodox gospesl, by people who were non-christians or phony christians. For anyone remotely tempted to take this whole thing seriously, I would strongly recommend the Carl Olsen and Amy Welborn books mentioned previously. In fact they are probably available right here at the Catholic Answers online catalog.
And yes, the Church has always been referred to in the female gender (Holy Mother the Church.)
JimG
And yes, the Church has always been referred to in the female gender (Holy Mother the Church.)
JimG
R
rfk
Guest
A ridiculous comparison.
“The Passion” as a proximate cause for the loss of faith? Get real.
There is far more in the book that is simply offensive and unacceptable than just the portrayal of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The consistent portrayal of the Catholic Church thoughout his specious history is overtly anti-Catholic. Looks how he portrays the Popes, for just one example.
One of the things that offends me about “The Davinci Code” is the contrast with how the media handles it versus “The Passion”.
Looking back to the time before “The Passion” was released, it was consistently bombarded from the secular world as being “Anti-Semitic”. Personally, I regard the gospels as presenting the truth that a historical Jesus existed and was executed. So Gibson fairly accurately depicts the truth, certainly within a reasonable artistic vision, and is assaulted as being a racist anti-semite.
In contrast, Dan Brown presents complete lies that are truly and factually Anti-Catholic, yet the secular world is nothing but praise.
P
Pace
Guest
Jesus did say something about many coming saying, “I am he, I am he.” He told us, “Do not believe them.” It’s possible, and some might even say probable, that “The Passion” fulfills this seemingly paradoxical scenario like nothing else could.
And it may revolve precisely around the question of “getting real”. It is somehow a great error to think that Jesus had to suffer the physical pains (the only things we really think of as real, materialists that we are) like no other had before or ever would in the future. There is a very strange philosophy that we have bought into (mainly due to watching movies, I believe): we somehow feel cheated, or vaguely feel somehow deprived of ‘the real’, when things are not brought to the extreme (we might call it ‘orgasm’, I suppose) of the physical possibilities. This may have begun with animation and Disney especially, where movie endings had to hang by an ever more bare of a thread, so to speak.
“The Passion” must be compared to “Mulholland Drive”, especially as that film fits into the larger picture of all of Lynch’s works.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Just one point from the book of many: If the divinity of Jesus was “invented” by Constantine through the Council of Nicea, as the characters in Brown’s novel state, then Jesus’ message is no better than any other man that ever lived, and his sacrifice for our sins has no power to save us, making it a futile, pathetic death. Sounds like it would change a lot, IMHO.
A
Authorkat
Guest
The male priesthood was a Jewish custom. Jesus chose twelve MEN to be His apostles. He could have chosen his own mother, but He didn’t. He could have done away with the Jewish custom of male priesthood if He had wanted to do so, but he didn’t. We are following the example set by Jesus Himself.
To read a more thorough explanation, check out the following:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0506-96/article4.html
God Bless!
Kathleen
K
Ken
Guest
**MikeO wrote:
Much of what has been said on this thread seems a bit ridiculous, particularly the line of inquiry trying to place a gender to the Church.**
I agree that the gender of the Church is rediculous. However, the claim is repeatedly made that Jesus is the bridegroom of the Church. Therefore, Jesus is married to the Church.
So, given that claim, it is reasonable to ask the gender of the Church.
Now, another often repeated claim is that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. I agree that Jesus was a man. But is the Church a woman? That is really a stretch. A human woman has many characteristice that the Church does not have. I’d say the basic nature and essence of a human woman does not match the Church. I’d have to say the Church is not a human woman.
So that makes this a marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Therefore marriage is not defined as being between one man and one woman.
Much of what has been said on this thread seems a bit ridiculous, particularly the line of inquiry trying to place a gender to the Church.**
I agree that the gender of the Church is rediculous. However, the claim is repeatedly made that Jesus is the bridegroom of the Church. Therefore, Jesus is married to the Church.
So, given that claim, it is reasonable to ask the gender of the Church.
Now, another often repeated claim is that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. I agree that Jesus was a man. But is the Church a woman? That is really a stretch. A human woman has many characteristice that the Church does not have. I’d say the basic nature and essence of a human woman does not match the Church. I’d have to say the Church is not a human woman.
So that makes this a marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Therefore marriage is not defined as being between one man and one woman.
I
IoA
Guest
There are many, but here are the big ones:
Jesus wouldn’t be divine**, and we wouldn’t worship a God as we know him. **He’d just be a prophet, not the Messiah, not the second part of the Holy Trinity. Dan Brown’s book supports goddess worship, not worship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Church is simply a means to cover up the whole Jesus-as-God conspiracy. Thus, the teachings of Christ as conveyed to the original apostles concerning the Church is null-and-void. Conspiracy theories are an effective tool in terms of covering Truth.
I
IoA
Guest
You’re making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be
. We know throughout history that the Church has been referred to as “She” or “Her” precisely because of the spiritual, Heavenly relationship between Christ and his “bride,” the Church. It’s a fine theological connection that has been drawn throughout the ages, and is recognized by scholars in all orthodox denominations. We prescribe the “Her” and “She” to the Church because of the spiritual relationship between Christ and the Church, as did St. Paul in the scripture passage quoted in a previous post.That’s not to say that they’ve entered in to a human marriage. Not in the least. This marriage is totally spiritual in nature, and has nothing to do with, say, conjugal love. Nor is this meant to say that the Church has all feminine characteristics (although they certainly are there).
This is essentially why it’s a good practice for priests to remain celibate. A priest’s primary role is to act in persona Christi, and as Christ was “married” spiritually to the Church, so too is the priest.
The Church is rich with connections of this sort. Why do we call priests “Father?” Only a few have ever been biological parents, after all. The answer is that they act as *spiritual *fathers to their charge, obviously aren’t meant to be seen as biological parents, and certainly not to be seen on par with the first person of the Trinity. Women who wish to lead celibate lives dedicated to Jesus often become “Brides of Christ” (sometimes before entering a convent of some sort), and I think it goes without saying that they aren’t entering a human marriage with Jesus.
K
Ken
Guest
Well, Jesus and the Church are either married or they are not. Which is it?You’re making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be
That’s not to say that they’ve entered in to a human marriage. Not in the least. This marriage is totally spiritual in nature, and has nothing to do with, say, conjugal love. Nor is this meant to say that the Church has all feminine characteristics (although they certainly are there).
This is essentially why it’s a good practice for priests to remain celibate. A priest’s primary role is to act in persona Christi, and as Christ was “married” spiritually to the Church, so too is the priest.
The Church is rich with connections of this sort. Why do we call priests “Father?” Only a few have ever been biological parents, after all. The answer is that they act as *spiritual *fathers to their charge, obviously aren’t meant to be seen as biological parents, and certainly not to be seen on par with the first person of the Trinity. Women who wish to lead celibate lives dedicated to Jesus often become “Brides of Christ” (sometimes before entering a convent of some sort), and I think it goes without saying that they aren’t entering a human marriage with Jesus.
A woman is a female human being. Is the Church a female human being?
If the Church is not a fremale human being, and the Church and Jesus are married, then it is a marrriage that does not fit the definition of being between one man and one woman.
A simple way to explain this is to say that marriage between Jesus and the Church is simply an analogy to help us understand the relationship. Is that the case?
I
IoA
Guest
Yes, they are married, but not in a human sense.
No, nor does She need to be.
Apples and oranges. We aren’t talking human marriage, and that’s what we need to hold on to here. The major reason the Church Fathers and the theologians that followed used the terms “She” and “Her” in relationship to the Church is because of the pre-existing notion of marriage between Christ and the Church. They simply prescribed the feminine words to round out the analogy.
I can’t disagree with that one bit. The extended metaphor helps to explain, in human terms, something that is divine. Jesus used parables to explain things, and so it only follows that we continue to draw connections through our own experience.
But it is a bit more complicated, and in-depth, than a simple metaphor. From the Catechism:
**789 **The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ.
Therefore, our sense of What the Church is, is largely dependent upon our understanding of this interaction.
L
lovethetruth
Guest
This article on
An Education in Being Human
By Christopher West
giftfoundation.org/totb_overview_article.htm
Eschatological Man
"Heaven is the eternal consummation of the marriage between Christ and the Church. “For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation. …Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, ‘the holy city’ of God, ‘the Bride, the wife of the Lamb’” (CCC, n. 1045). This is the union for which we’re ultimately created. And this is what the “one flesh” union points us to from the beginning (see Eph 5:31-32).
Hence, in the resurrection of the body we rediscover – in an eschatological dimension – the same nuptial meaning of the body in the meeting with the mystery of the living God face to face (see Dec 9, 1981). “This will be a completely new experience,” the Pope says, but “it will not be alienated in any way from what man took part in from ‘the beginning,’ nor from …the procreative meaning of the body and of sex” (Jan 13, 1982)."
Code:
The Theology Of The Body:By Christopher West
giftfoundation.org/totb_overview_article.htm
Eschatological Man
"Heaven is the eternal consummation of the marriage between Christ and the Church. “For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation. …Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, ‘the holy city’ of God, ‘the Bride, the wife of the Lamb’” (CCC, n. 1045). This is the union for which we’re ultimately created. And this is what the “one flesh” union points us to from the beginning (see Eph 5:31-32).
Hence, in the resurrection of the body we rediscover – in an eschatological dimension – the same nuptial meaning of the body in the meeting with the mystery of the living God face to face (see Dec 9, 1981). “This will be a completely new experience,” the Pope says, but “it will not be alienated in any way from what man took part in from ‘the beginning,’ nor from …the procreative meaning of the body and of sex” (Jan 13, 1982)."
- Status