Da Vinci Code is Rotten Food

March 16, 2005

Da Vinci Code is Rotten Food

VATICAN CITY – The cardinal leading the Vatican’s charge against The Da Vinci Code urged Catholics today to shun it like rotten food and branded the bestseller “a sack full of lies” insulting the Christian faith.

“I would ask the author of this book and similar ones to be more respectful because freedom of expression has limits when it does not respect others,” he said.

Bertone called it “the latest in a series of devastating attacks against Christianity” and that he believed that similar attacks on other religions would not have been tolerated.

Yeah. What he said. Undermining the central tenents of Christianity under the guise of fiction is despicable. And even though the author says on his own website that he is not anti-Christian, that’s exactly what this book is.

Rate this:

Faith

Christ, Christian, Christianity

Posted by:

Michael

Follower of Jesus, conservative, freedom-loving patriot.

57 responses to “Da Vinci Code is Rotten Food”

Jo

March 16, 2005 at 5:22 pm

Yeah, that whole freedom of speech thing sucks, doesn’t it?

My only problem with the Da Vinci Code was that it was poorly written and full of plot holes. If Christianity is so fragile that it can’t stand up to something as minor as this, The Da Vinci Code is the least of the Vatican’s worries.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

March 17, 2005 at 12:00 am

I don’t disagree they have a right to write and publish it. I’m saying it’s offensive, disrespectful, anti-Christian, complete rubbish, a sack full of lies, insulting, and I urge others to boycott it. That’s my freedom of speech.

Just because someone has the freedom to write offensive things doesn’t mean they should be written. If the book was racially offensive, everybody would shun it, but because it’s “only” offensive to Christians, somehow it’s ok.

My personal belief is that *every* attack on Christianity, no matter how minor, is the work of the devil himself, and should be resisted with all your heart and soul.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

March 17, 2005 at 1:06 am

I don’t drink arsenic, either, but I know it’s poisonous.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 17, 2005 at 12:27 am

I thought you hadn’t read it?

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 17, 2005 at 6:41 am

Not even close. “Offensive” is not the same thing as “Poisonous”.

I fail to see where the Da Vinci Code “undermines the central tenents of Christianity”. It might display the Catholic Church in a bad light, but the Catholic Church is a church, not Christianity. And it does have a less than stellar track record in some areas, so it’s not like the Catholic Church – which is after all a man-made organization and therefore subject to the foibles of man – is above reproach.

I find it especially amusing that the church is so vocal about this particular book, given that what they did to Mary Magdelene pales in comparison to simply suggesting that Jesus was married. They took a virtuous woman – the apostle to the apostle, Jesus’ “best beloved”, the person to whom he chose to first reveal his victory over death – and reduced her to a whore. And now, over 30 years after they admit they made it all up, if you ask anyone “What did MM do before she hung out with Jesus” you will overwhelmingly hear that she was either a prostitute or an adulterer. No wonder they don’t like this book.

And what’s wrong with being married, anyway? Is marriage unholy? Would having a wife make Jesus less the Son of God? Cheapen His sacrifice? Taint his message? This is not a “devastating attack” on Christianity. It’s not even in the ballpark.

And finally, I have no problem with the Church asking their members not to read the book. I don’t have a problem with them asking Catholic bookstores not to sell the book. I do have a problem with them telling people not to WRITE this book, or others like it.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

March 17, 2005 at 8:28 am

Arsenic = physical poison. Heretical fiction = spiritual poison.

I don’t agree with all the things the Catholics do, but they are fellow Christians. Christ is the head of the church; we are members of the body. Criticizing the Catholic Church when they do something right just because you feel they “have a less than stellar record” doesn’t negate that they’re trying to do something right now.

Nothing wrong with marriage, I didn’t say that. If Jesus was married, though, then His examples of how he led his life reflect how men should treat their spouses. Pretend they don’t exist? They should be silent or hidden?

*If* Jesus the Son of God had been married, He would have given us a shining example of how to live a married life, but the Da Vinci code denies Jesus was the Son of God, instead implying that He was a man, deified in the 4th century by the Romans, and the whole resurrection thing was a farce.

And while I didn’t say it was a “devastating” attack, I’ll say it’s heretical, sacrilegious, and that every attack on Christianity should be resisted. Are you arguing for acceptable levels of offensiveness to Christians? Acceptable levels of sacrilege? I don’t think any level should be readily accepted, and any piece of “art” that undermines the Christian message of love, truth, and salvation is a work of evil.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 17, 2005 at 8:57 am

“the Da Vinci code denies Jesus was the Son of God, instead implying that He was a man, deified in the 4th century by the Romans, and the whole resurrection thing was a farce.”

Are you sure about that? Or is that what someone told you it said?

You didn’t say it was a devastating attack, you said “what he said” agreeing with the person who said it was a devastating attack.

What I’m arguing is that this work isn’t offensive. To some, sure. To “Christians” – well, there are plenty of Christians who didn’t find it offensive, so that’s not a true statement. I can think for myself, I can read for myself, and I can certainly speak for myself, and I don’t appreciate someone else telling me that I *must* find something offensive simply because they do.

Faith isn’t faith until it’s tested. Christians don’t need to be wrapped in a bubble to have faith. Seems to me the Catholic Church is panicing a bit. What are they so afraid of? What are you so afraid of? Do you think if you read this book your faith would be harmed?

Moby Dick is a sack of lies. Tom Sawyer is a sack of lies. EVERY work of fiction is a sack of lies. You are free to pick and choose which sacks of lies you want to read, but don’t tell ME that I can’t be a good Christian and read this book.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 17, 2005 at 10:31 am

Oh-one-more-thing. You say “If Jesus was married, though, then His examples of how he led his life reflect how men should treat their spouses. Pretend they donâ€™t exist? They should be silent or hidden?”

Where did Jesus ever pretend MM didn’t exist? She was with him until the very end; she helped prepare His body for burial; she was the first to see Him after his resurrection.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

March 17, 2005 at 12:59 pm

I read that from a rebuttal from the Catholic Church and enough other sources to believe it to be true.

I do not understand how you can be a proponent of “art” that is offensive to Christianity. As Christians, we should be removing the stumbling blocks that are in the way of other’s salvation, not advocating that this or that stumbling block is mostly ok. It’s apparent to me that if even one person believes this rubbish, then that’s one less soul that is saved.

I am not afraid for me. My faith in the Lord is solid; Jesus is my savior. My life’s mission, given to all christians in the bible, is to share my faith and show that the peace I feel is a result of my faith. I pray and hope daily to be a positive influence on those seeking Christ.

I see this book trying to do the exact opposite. I see this book as evil.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 17, 2005 at 5:30 pm

Word of advice – don’t believe everything you read. I have a problem taking advice on what to read from people who apparently can’t.

People who read this book and lose faith never had it. People who think this book will be a stumbling block shouldn’t read it. People who don’t know the definition of fiction shouldn’t read it. People who are afraid to be challenged shouldn’t read it.

No one should tell anyone not to write it.

LikeLike

Reply
A.M.M.

March 17, 2005 at 7:20 pm

And those who defend something counter to the Christian cause yet claim to be Christian at the same time shouldn’t read it, either, Jo. While you may be able to think for yourself (due to the freewill God gave you), that doesn’t neccesarily mean that all your thoughts will be right. Your arguements are only valid on the legal grounds of this country (“which is after all a man-made organization and therefore subject to the foibles of man”), and not on moral and/or Christian grounds.

For someone who claims to be a Christian, I have to wonder if you truely recognize what you’re preaching. Your job, your soul’s mission in this world, is to help save others and direct them to our savior, and by promoting something anti-Christian you’re metaphorically falling asleep on the job.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 17, 2005 at 8:31 pm

I don’t think being dictatorial leads anyone anywhere. I lead my way, you are free to lead yours. You don’t want to draw a distinction between the Catholic church and Christianity itself, you don’t have to. You don’t want to make up your own mind about things, you don’t have to.

I don’t believe that simply being exposed to something is an attack on my faith. I can read a book of fiction and not be swayed for one second into thinking a single word of it is true. I don’t think the book is “counter to the Christian cause”. Then again, I’ve read it.

LikeLike

Reply
A.M.M.

March 17, 2005 at 10:22 pm

I don’t believe everything the Catholic church proclaims, either. As you’ve said, I don’t need to. However, while we’re allowed to forge our own paths through the woods, many won’t lead you out.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 18, 2005 at 6:41 am

And? I understand that YOU think this book is problematic. I also know that I have read it, and didn’t find it so. I would never recommend it to anyone because it’s trite, poorly written, full of plot holes, and completely implausible. But I wouldn’t tell anyone they are going to be led astray by it, unless I knew they had problems distinguishing fact from fiction.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

March 18, 2005 at 8:48 am

I based my opinion on 1 Corinthians 8:13, Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

I think a Christian can read this book with no weakening of their faith. You gave a list of people that shouldn’t read this book, and it is those very people I am thinking of. If even 1 person is kept from knowing Christ through this rubbish, then I will do my best to make sure my brother or sister doesn’t fall.

LikeLike

Reply
Sirc_Valence

March 18, 2005 at 9:14 am

Michael,

From the two posts that I’ve read by Jo since I found CTW yesterday,
I don’t think that Jo is very intellectually honest.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 18, 2005 at 9:56 am

Why? Because I see no harm in thinking for myself? Because I believe that it’s possible to be exposed to something and reject it? Because I believe that faith and organized religion are two different things? Because I believe that any organization run by men is subject to the weaknesses of man? Because I think that exploring things that might result in questioning faith makes it stronger, not weaker? Because I don’t think the in-your-face-you-are-going-to-burn approach to challenging people is particularly effective?

Or just because you disagree with me?

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

March 18, 2005 at 10:35 am

You don’t address the harm that comes to others. How to you address the concerns in 1 Corinthians 8:13? Why do you protect the stumbling block instead?

By the way, I consider myself a conservative Christian protestant. My position comes from what I’ve read in the Bible, not from any Catholic teachings. But I wouldn’t read or recommend a book that put fellow Christians in a bad light, even if they interpret the Bible differently than me. Nor would I write, read, nor recommend a book about Jo that contained a whole lot of personal facts sprinkled with insulting untruths. If I care that way about you, why in the world would I agree with you about an insulting book about the Son of God?

Jesus says to a) love God with all your heart, b) love your neighbor as yourself. But it sounds to me that you value freedom of the press above both of those. An insulting book about God trips up on Jesus’ first commandment, and misleading people about Jesus trips up on the second.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 18, 2005 at 11:07 am

We simply disagree, Michael. I find challenging and questioning faith to be a good thing, not a stumbling block. Many churches (even Catholic ones) have held discussion groups to explore and talk about the issues in the book, and that’s a very positive thing. This book is neither good nor bad, spiritually speaking. That people are “flocking” to the places in this book says nothing about their faith or their walk with God.

This book does not denigrate Jesus. You can disagree, but unless you’ve read the book, your opinion is simply an echo of someone else’s – someone who for reasons that have nothing to do with Jesus would have issues with this book.

The irony is, if the Church didn’t make such a big deal out of this book, it wouldn’t have garnered so much attention. It’s not a particularly good book; it’s not a compelling mystery or story and it’s not well written.

LikeLike

Reply
Sirc_Valence

March 18, 2005 at 12:25 pm

Jo- I based my opinion on what you say and the way that you manipulatively suggested that heresy can only occur within the context of Catholicism. You said that heresy is quote, “a Catholic concept dealing with the acceptance of the Catholic church’s teachings.”
https://chasingthewind.net/?p=686#comment-3591 when A.M.M. pointed out that as a Protestant you’re still obligated to believe the Word of God.

Catholics which established the University and was a cradle for rationalism and scholasticism in the West, would not say that you are a heretic merely for thinking, but for being a false preacher/teacher to people that may not know better when you speak.

What is honored is what is practiced, so your dishonor of organized religion is really a suggestion that Christianity dissolve.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 18, 2005 at 1:11 pm

That’s quite a stretch. I didn’t “manipulatively suggest” anything. I’m simply precise with words. I haven’t said I’m not obligated as a Christian to believe the Word, but I’m certainly not obligated as a non-Catholic to consider the Catholic church the authority on what the Word is.

Your last statement is simply illogical. I don’t believe Christianity should “dissolve”. I don’t think it *can* “dissolve”. I don’t even think the Catholic church should “dissolve” – if there are those who find Jesus through that channel, more power to them both.

And I still don’t think the book is problematic, and haven’t seen anything yet to change my opinion on that.

LikeLike

Reply
A.M.M.

March 18, 2005 at 2:28 pm

I doubt you ever will. You’ve closed your eyes and ears to all that proves otherwise. While I may not have read the book you’re standing up for, I *have* read another book that you seem to be ignoring.

Sirc’s comment was taken a bit out of context, Jo. The point was that you’re being so literal in your speech that you’re changing what not only other people have said, but what you have said as well just so you can make your next point.

While other people have pointed out things you claim to believe, if indirectly you ignore it and bring up the same defeated claims your already have.

My ultimatem, Jo, is for you to prove, through the Scripture you claim to believe, that writing and/or supporting any form of fiction about the Bible is ok. Until you do so, you have no ground to stand on. This whole arguement is based entirely within the Christian (not Catholic) context, along with the definitions for heresy, blasphemy, wrong, and sin. Since you’re a self-proclaimed believer, Jo, prove to me your faith allows you to take your position.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 18, 2005 at 3:07 pm

So if writing and/or supporting any form of fiction about the bible is wrong, how come the Church didn’t complain about The Ten Commandments? Jesus of Nazareth? The Robe? Two From Galilee? The Passion of the Christ?

Seems to me they only care if it’s “fictionalized” in a way they don’t like. My challenge to YOU is to show how this isn’t hypocritical. Either it’s a sin, or it’s not. Either the church is concerned about souls, or their image. Either you follow the Word, or you bend the interpretation of it to suit your desires.

My faith allows me to take my position because I believe intent matters (hmmm…this sounds familiar). It allows me to take this position because I’m not a literalist. It allows me to take this position because I believe there is a difference between facts and truth.

LikeLike

Reply
A.M.M.

March 18, 2005 at 4:06 pm

I can only answer on two out of those three, since I haven’t seen them all. The Ten Commandments and the Passion of the Christ were given exceptional detail to historical accuracy, and were portrayed in the same light the Bible gave those stories. It’s not fiction if it’s a historical reenactment. (I just want to note again, I’m only talking about the Ten Commandments and the Passion of the Christ. I have not seen/read the others and know nothing about them.)

As for taking your current position… “Iâ€™m simply precise with words”… “because Iâ€™m not a literalist”… “I believe there is a difference between facts and truth”… That’s scratching the surface. If you want to talk about hipocracy, let’s look at your writings.

I answered your challenge. Answer mine.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 18, 2005 at 4:20 pm

I already answered your challenge. You just didn’t like the answer. You want to talk about hypocricy in my writings, go for it. I’m consistent in my views. Hypocricy doesn’t mean “ideas I disagree with”. My responses may be at odds with your definitions and assertions, but I’ve never said I accept your definitions or assertions.

ALL of the works I listed are works of fiction. They added to the biblical accounts things that were not there. You say they are fine because they “portray in the same light”. I’ve read the Da Vinci code. I haven’t seen where in that book it portrays Jesus in a different light. Sorry, marriage doesn’t count, because there is nothing about marriage which detracts from Jesus’ divinity.

How are you comfortable claiming something is true about a book you haven’t read?

And as an aside, exactly which bible are you quoting? Hopefully nothing based on King James. (Still waiting to hear how it wasn’t a sin what he did to the bible)

LikeLike

Reply
A.M.M.

March 18, 2005 at 4:53 pm

Wait a moment… you answered, “through the Scripture you claim to believe, that writing and/or supporting any form of fiction about the Bible is ok”? I don’t see anywhere, in any form, a quote from the Bible in any of your posts, about anything, much less the challenge you supposedly answered.

Revelations 22: 18-19: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

Show me where in the Bible you believe it’s ok to write what you want. Click on the “Cracking the Da Vinci Code” link to see all the heresies you’re defending.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 18, 2005 at 6:58 pm

The challenge was to find scripture in the bible that says it’s OK to write fiction about the bible. The response is that there isn’t anything – but there isn’t anything forbidding it, either. I don’t think the bible says anything about writing fiction about things in the bible. I think it’s pretty clear on not adding or taking away anything FROM THE BIBLE. (Again, too bad for poor King James).

If you take that passage to mean that ANY fictionalization is a sin, then The Passion of the Christ and The Ten Commandments and a myriad of other movies and books are just as heretical (to use your terms) as The Da Vinci Code, because they most definitely add to the words in the bible. It’s an inconsistant position to claim one is bad and the other is not.

I haven’t “defended” the book; I’ve disagreed with the opinion of the Catholic church that it is a “devastating attack” on Christianty. I disagree with Michael that portraying any Christian ever in any negative way is an attack on Christianity.

As for the problems with the Da Vinci Code, I think I’ll wait and debate those with someone who has actually read the book.

LikeLike

Reply
A.M.M.

March 18, 2005 at 7:40 pm

Writing fiction about something and pretending it’s true is the same as adding. Lieing and omitting is the same as taking away.

And since you feel so strongly about it, let’s call all of them heretical works and be done with it. They weren’t really the subject of this debate anyways.

As for everything else you just said, I’m just going to sigh and shake my head. You’re obviously not going to listen to me or anyone else, regardless of what’s pointed out.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 18, 2005 at 8:27 pm

The book clearly states it is a work of fiction, so I have no clue what your first paragraph means. It isn’t claiming to be the bible, so your passage on “adding” and “taking away” doesn’t apply.

I’m not the one who feels strongly about fiction based on scripture being heresy. How could I, when I don’t believe it is? But if you don’t want to debate the point, that’s fine.

If by the “everything else” you mean me not caring to debate the content of a book with someone who has never read it, sigh away. Not sure what you think anyone here has “pointed out”. Maybe you can elaborate?

And so far, I can’t see any indication in your posts that you’ve listened to anything I’ve said. You asked me earlier if I recognize what I’m preaching. I think the problem is that you don’t. Let’s review my position:

1) The book is not a “devastating attack on Christianity”
2) I see no problem with the Catholic church telling its members not to read the book and Catholic bookstores not to sell it.
3) The Catholic Church and Christianity are not the same thing
4) The book does not portray Jesus as just a man

Points 1 and 4 you can’t address, since you haven’t read the book. You can keep telling me what other people say, but the link you indicated isn’t particularly accurate in stating what is in the book. Point 3 is simply a fact. Which leaves point 2. Debate away.

LikeLike

Reply
A.M.M.

March 18, 2005 at 9:03 pm

The only thing I’ve been debating this entire time is that the book *is* a heretical work. But for the fun of it…

Point 1: Any and all attacks on Christianity are not to be tolerated by Christians, regardless of degree.

Point 2: We agree on this point.

Point 3: We agree here as well.

Point 4: You’re right in as far as I can’t talk about this one, since I haven’t read the book.

The only thing we’ve really been arguing about stems from our Freedom of Speech. Legally, this book has every right to be on the shelf. However, (and this is what we’ve been debating, for the most part,) Christians should not read it without cause. (If you have a reason to, and it makes you a better Christian because of it, good for you.)

This is not because the faith is weak, and this is not because the Catholic Church has said so. It is simply that it contains lies about our Faith. Unless there is an active reason why you *should* do something, you don’t really *have* to do it. I don’t need to read this; I have no reason why I should.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 18, 2005 at 9:15 pm

Regarding point 1 – the book is not an attack on Christianity. Portraying the Catholic church in an unfavorable light is not an attack on Christianity.

“Christians should not read it without cause. (If you have a reason to, and it makes you a better Christian because of it, good for you.)”

Well, we haven’t been debating this point, because this is the first time you’ve ever stated it. The church’s position, which I orginally took exception with, was that the author should never have written it.

“It is simply that it contains lies about our Faith.”

Again, you can’t know this unless you’ve read the book.

LikeLike

Reply
Sean

March 19, 2005 at 12:17 pm

Children,

Go to bed.

Behave.

Love One Another.

😐

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 19, 2005 at 1:37 pm

Aw, man…do I gotta? (go to bed and behave, I mean; the other is a given)

LikeLike

Reply
Sean

March 19, 2005 at 1:44 pm

Real Question:

Where does this line of thinking come from?
Re: Catholic Church:

“given that what they did to Mary Magdelene pales in comparison to simply suggesting that Jesus was married”

– Curious

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

March 19, 2005 at 1:52 pm

Goodness. I went outside to play. Y’all erupted. 😛

Regarding point 1 – the book is not an attack on Christianity. Portraying the Catholic church in an unfavorable light is not an attack on Christianity.

This is the crux of our difference. I’m not as concerned about attacks on the Catholic Church; they’re grownups and can handle themselves. But I still contend the book is an attack on Christian faith. Any attempt to portray Jesus as less than the one true son of God and his death and resurrection as our path to salvation is heresy, blasphemy, rotten food.

The other fictional works you mentioned earlier do not do that, as far as I know.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 19, 2005 at 2:26 pm

Sean – I was referring to Pope Gregory deliberately identifying MM as the adulterous Woman at the Well even though they were two different people. The church recanted back in the 60’s but most people still believe she was either an adulterer or a whore.

Michael – this is exactly my point you can’t say the book is an “attempt to portray Jesus as less than the one true son of God and his death and resurrection as our path to salvation” unless you’ve read it.

LikeLike

Reply
Sean

March 19, 2005 at 6:26 pm

Hmmm. I hadn’t heard this one.

At the well? Hmmm. Don’t think that this was she, as she was Samaritan, if I remember, and not Jewish – that doesn’t make sense to me.

Again, curious. Where did you hear this?

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 19, 2005 at 9:58 pm

What didn’t you hear? That she was a prostitute, or that the Church admitted Gregory was wrong? Since the church recanted in the 60’s, you’re young enough to not have heard it in the church, but it’s certainly ingrained in popular culture. (For example, in the tv miniseries a few years ago, Debra Messing played her as a prostitute)I’m wondering how you missed it.

To be more accurate, Gregory didn’t name her as the woman at the well – that came into popular belief a bit later, based on the belief that she was a prostitute. Gregory did say she was a prostitute, which the Catholic church did recant in 1969.

LikeLike

Reply
Sean

March 20, 2005 at 8:54 am

Not to be a terrier with a rat, but:

Can you direct me to the recantation?

Sean.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 20, 2005 at 9:42 am

Does the church put them online? Retroactively? The church now recognizes three separate Marys (Eastern Orthodox always did, because they didn’t agree with Gregory combining them all). Prior to 1969, they didn’t. I’m not sure what you’re trying to dispute here – that the church combined the three Marys? That the church presented MM as a prostitute/sinner/fallen woman? That the church officially announced that Gregory was wrong and the three Marys are distinct personages?

Perhaps if you tell me what you’re questioning, I can give you more clarification.

LikeLike

Reply
Sean

March 21, 2005 at 12:52 am

Not trying to debate, just interested in the research.

Where can you direct me to find this recantation?

Where did you hear it?

Confirm St. Gregory I (that would be the correct timeline) there were about a dozen popes with that name.

LikeLike

Reply
Sean

March 21, 2005 at 1:49 am

Perhaps you are referring to this:

EPISTLE XXV. TO GREGORIA. Gregory to
Gregoria, Lady of the Bed-chamber (cubicularioe) to Augusta. I have
received the longed for letters of your Sweetness, in which you have
been at pains all through to accuse yourself of a multitude of sins:
but I know that you fervently love the Almighty Lord, and I trust in
His mercy that the sentence which was pronounced with regard to a
certain holy woman proceeds from the month of the Truth with regard
to you: Her sins, which are many, are forgiven her, for she loved
much (Luke vii. 47). And how they were forgiven is shewn also by
what follows afterwards; that she sat at the Lord’s feet, and heard
the word from His mouth (Luke x. 39). For, being rapt in the
contemplative, she had transcended the active life, which Martha her
sister still pursued (Ib. 40). She also sought earnestly her buried
Lord, and, stooping over the sepulchre, found not His body. But,
even when the disciples went away, she remained standing before the
door of the sepulchre, and whom she sought as dead, Him she was
counted worthy to see alive, and announced to the disciples that He
had risen again. And this was by the wonderful dispensation of the
loving-kindness of God, that life should be announced by a woman’s
mouth, because by a woman’s mouth had been the first taste of death
in Paradise. And at another time also, with another Mary, she saw
the Lord after His resurrection, and held His feet. Bring before
your eyes, I pray you, what hands held whose feet. That woman who
had been a sinner in the city, those hands which had been polluted
with iniquity, touched the feet of Him who sits at the right hand of
the Father above all the angels. Let us estimate, if we can, what
those bowels of heavenly loving-kindness are, that a woman who had
been plunged through sin into the whirlpool’s depth should be thus
lifted high on the wing of love through grace. It is fulfilled,
sweet daughter, it is fulfilled, what was promised to us by the
prophetic voice concerning this time of the holy Church: And in that
day the house of David shall be an open fountain for ablution of the
sinner and of her that is unclean (Zach. xiii. 1). For the house of
David is an open fountain for ablution to us sinners, because we are
washed from the filth of our iniquities by mercy now disclosed
through the son of David our Saviour. But as to what thy Sweetness
has added in thy letters, namely that thou wilt continue to be
urgent with me till I write that it has been revealed to me that thy
sins are forgiven, thou hast demanded a difficult, nay even an
unprofitable thing; difficult indeed, because I am unworthy of
having a revelation made to me; but unprofitable, because thou
oughtest not to become secure about thy sins, except when in the
last day of thy life thou shall be able no longer to bewail them.
But, until that day comes, thou oughtest, ever suspicious and ever
fearful, to be afraid of faults, and wash them with daily tears.
Assuredly the apostle Paul had already ascended into the third
heaven, had also been caught up into Paradise, and heard secret
words which it was not lawful for a man to speak (2 Cor. xii. 2,
&c.), and yet, still fearful, he said, I keep under my body, and
bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, while preaching to
others, I myself should become a castaway (1 Cor. ix. 27). One who
is caught up into heaven still fears; and shall one whose
conversation is still on earth desire already not to fear? Consider,
most sweet daughter, that security is wont to be the mother of
carelessness. Thou oughtest not, then, in this life to have
security, whereby thou mayest be rendered careless. For it is
written, Happy is the man that is always afraid (Pray. xxviii. 14).
And again it is written, Serve the Lord in fear, and rejoice unto
him with trembling (Ps. ii. 11). In short, then, it must needs be
that in the time of this life trembling possess your soul, to the
end that it may hereafter rejoice without end through the joy of
security. May Almighty God fill your soul with the grace of His Holy
Spirit, and, after the tears which you daily shed in prayer, bring
you to eternal joys.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 21, 2005 at 8:43 am

It was Gregory I.

I’m trying to find the text in whole, but here’s a snippet with some commentary:

In Homily 33, delivered probably in 591, Pope Gregory the Great took the step of identifying Luke’s unnamed sinner with Mary Magdalen:

“We believe that this woman [Mary Magdalen] is Luke’s female sinner, the woman John calls Mary, and that Mary from whom Mark says seven demons were cast out.”
(“Hanc vero quam Lucas peccatricem mulierem, Joannes Mariam nominat, illam esse Mariam credimus de qua Marcus septem dÃ¦monia ejecta fuisse testatur”)

The seven demons Gregory identified as “all the vices” (“Et quid per septem dÃ¦monia, nisi universa vitia designantur?”) by which he means the seven so-called cardinal sins (including lust, which was understood as inordinate or illicit sexual desire). The seven cardinal sins were first grouped as such by Gregory. The passages mentioning Christ’s casting out of the seven devils from Mary Magdalen are in Luke 8, 1-3, and Mark 16, 9.

Gregory then explained that the ointment used by Luke’s unnamed sinner, now Mary Magdalen, to anoint Christ’s feet had previously been used by her “to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.”
(“Liquet…quod illicitus actibus prius mulier intenta unguentum sibi pro odore suÃ¦ carnis adhibuit”)

It was Gregory who also associated her, again primarily through identification with Luke’s unnamed sinner, as a penitent when he explained that by immolating herself at the feet of Jesus, “she turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance.”
(“Convertit ad virtutum numerum criminum, ut totum serviret Deo in poenitentia”)

Homily 33 is recorded in Homiliarum in evangelia, Lib. II, Patrologia Latina, vol. 76 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844-1864), cols. 1238-1246

LikeLike

Reply
Sean

March 21, 2005 at 5:50 pm

Very impressive research. Let me chew on that……(munch).

Thank you.

LikeLike

Reply
Jo

March 21, 2005 at 5:57 pm

Don’t be too impressed. The commentary isn’t mine! 😆

LikeLike

Reply
ALEX

March 31, 2005 at 2:20 pm

It will all be revealed soon…I know of a greater book in the works that takes this to the next level, a level which will not simply brush the columns of the Vatican, but barge through them like thunder through the placid air.

1 year
2 months
1 day

…………………………………………………………………….

LikeLike

Reply
ALEX

March 31, 2005 at 2:39 pm

Oh and one more thing: Jo rocks in this discourse on questions raised from the Da Vinci Code. Hold strong Jo, the only thing stopping the rest of these so called “true Believers” from burning you at the stake like they did centuries ago is the Law!

-Alex

P.S: 1 year
2 months
1 day

LikeLike

Reply
Zachary

March 31, 2005 at 7:31 pm

I just happened to stumble upon this debate over the Da Vinci Code. I must say you guys are really good at bashing each other. I was kept transfixed to the argument reading the entire thing just as I would a good fiction Novel. And just like a good fiction Novel I was disappointed when it came to an end. Lol.
All of the arguments are strong and compelling. Whether or not this book is heresy is beyond me, you guys have expressed much more knowledge then I uphold on this subject. But since I have read the book, and know of deeply religious people who have read it, at least in regards to the argument whether or not the book is harmful to people of faith I must side with Jo. If you really truly have faith, then this book will not and cannot sway your previous beliefs.

LikeLike

Reply
A.M.M.

April 2, 2005 at 1:01 am

Alex, I hold nothing against Jo, who has proven to be quite knowledgable on this subject and has shown remarkable patience when it comes to some of my implied insults (I’m ashamed I wrote them, and no true offense was intended), but I do take offense to the whole “burning at the stake comment”.

Zachery, while I maintain my stance that it is heresy, I’ll also admit to the contention that true faith cannot by shaken by reading it. Both sides ran a little off the main topic at times, but all points were valid nontheless.

LikeLike

Reply
Zachary

April 5, 2005 at 8:38 pm

I must say that am rather surprised at how the church handled this situation. If you tell someone not to read the book you are inferring that you are afraid of what it has to say. Now am not saying that the church is afraid of this book, and am not saying it wasnâ€™t their right to declare the book heresy. If you tell someone not to read it, especially to the younger adolescent generation you are going to spur up curiosity, perhaps increasing the chance of someone, especially a child, of reading the book. Am entering this statement because I know some kids who read the book for that very reason, of course that may have been an isolated incident. I think it may have been better if the church had been non shalant about the book, by given the book serious attention youâ€™re just given more spotlight to the book increasing the sales. Now there is currently a production to make a movie out of the book. Would it have gone this far without the spotlight it received from the Churches outcry, I personality donâ€™t think so. Now that the book is going to be a movie more people are going to be exposed to it. People who donâ€™t think in depth of the churches true motives will believe some of the stuff that happens in the story even though itâ€™s fiction, just because the church seems so afraid of it, when in fact it dossen’t.

LikeLike

Reply
Maggie

April 18, 2005 at 7:07 pm

May I weigh in?? As a Christian who HAS read the book, I also believe it has the potential to persuade people who do not know Jesus to believe a very different story than the original. There is an incorrect “fact” page and, aside from the marriage issue (wouldn’t affect one’s faith), the DEITY issue is extremely important to Christianity. If Jesus wasn’t God – there’s no Christianity. The misquoted facts (Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain ANY New Testament writings, there were not THOUSANDS of gospels to choose from, the vote to recognize Jesus as God was not “close” – it was 298 to 2!!) are extremely misleading, although Dan Brown claims these things as facts, and also presents many “fictional” pieces through the eyes of a historian – hard to discount if you don’t have the background and energy to do your own research.

This story will never end, however, because evil and war against Christianity is as old as time and will not end in my lifetime. I do not expect anyone who is not of faith to understand this position, but I do pray that no one who read the book in search of a little inside info on the Lord, will be lost into Brown’s bizarre invention.

Did anyone else find this book BORING to read? It read a little like my high school history book – lots of recitation of “facts.”

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

April 19, 2005 at 6:54 am

Maggie, as you know, I agree with you. As I get older, I believe Christianity is a lot more attack than I thought when I was younger. Some is overt, some is subtle, but all attacks do more harm than good.

LikeLike

Reply
master

June 27, 2005 at 4:23 pm

there is something about the book that doesnt quite make sense.

Brown writes how Jesus is not the “Son of God” but then through the entire novel he talks about Mary Magdalena and about how holy she was. So if Jesus is not the son of god then why was Mary M. so holy and [censored] ????. It makes no sense. Ohh and then at the end Sophie’s grandmother seems not to take about her hudsband’s sex rituals. Crazy

LikeLike

Reply
azia

August 31, 2005 at 1:57 am

that’s what the da vinci code is all about… is brown somehow like da vinci? *you know those things..*

LikeLike

Reply
Rico

March 15, 2006 at 6:08 am

Does anyone have the complete form of Homily 33 from Gregory I in its original language?? I’ve searched all over the internet but find only little fragments… please I need it badly, or at least does anyone know where in the internet I can download or even buy it???

thanks 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
Nadia

August 12, 2006 at 9:51 am

Michael and Jo wonderful debate. Michael, your view, in which you stated: “This is the crux of our difference. Iâ€™m not as concerned about attacks on the Catholic Church; theyâ€™re grownups and can handle themselves. But I still contend the book is an attack on Christian faith. Any attempt to portray Jesus as less than the one true son of God and his death and resurrection as our path to salvation is heresy, blasphemy, rotten food.”

This similiar debate to place during the reign Emperor Constantine when he gathered 300 bishops to discuss to opposing views of Christianity; it’s know today at the Council of Nicea and the Arian Controversy. It’s the reason for the Nicean Creed…. “We believe in one God… begotten not made” It’s what established Jesus as a deity and not a man. The word ‘begotten’ was suggested by Emperor Constantine himself.

Information obtained from Columbia University, New York, library.

LikeLike

Reply
Michael

August 14, 2006 at 6:48 pm

Thank you, I agree with all that except the part where ou say, “Itâ€™s what established Jesus as a deity and not a man.” I’m pretty sure God did that. 🙂

LikeLike

Reply

About Me

Michael, a sinner saved by grace, sharing what the good Lord has shared with me.

Solomon, in the book of Ecclesiastes, said, “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.”

If you’re not living for the glory of God, then what you’re doing is meaningless, no matter what it is. Living for God gives life meaning, and enjoying a “chasing after the wind” is a gift from God. I’m doing what I can to enjoy this gift daily.

Got questions? I’m not surprised. If you have any questions about Chasing the Wind, you can email me at chasingthewind@outlook.com.

Chasing the Wind