Opus Dei and the Davinci Code

Issue Date: September 10, 2004

Opus Dei and The Da Vinci Code
Jesuit sees novel as 'junk food'

By NICOLE ZARAY

As The Da Vinci Code continues to maintain its perch at the top of national bestseller lists, a new round of books explaining and debunking some of the book�s �factual� claims is now hitting bookstores. In Secrets of the Code, editor Dan Burstein gathers together a number of scholars and experts to help readers better understand the remarkably popular novel. Included in the new book is a lengthy excerpt from a 1995 article written by Jesuit Fr. James Martin in America magazine about Opus Dei, one of the chief villains in Brown�s novel. In this wide-ranging interview, Martin, associate editor of America, discusses the facts and the fiction behind Opus Dei�s nefarious role in The Da Vinci Code.


for the full story see this link ncronline.org...

I just read 'The Davinci Hoax'. The Davinci Code is pure garbage
written by anti-Catholics who wanted to put junk out about the
Church and have it sprinkled with just enough truths to make the
garbage underneath believable.

I haven't read it, but I have heard it is a bunch of baloney, that some are taking literally as truth.

I don't endorse the Davinci Code, but this article is from the secular media, so isn't as biased towards one side or another..

and you would expect representitaves of the RCC to admit that they have
lied , edited , changed to fit their beliefs, things through history? Pulease
the albigensian crusade was for the sole purpose for wiping out an entire
people that had different beliefs.

remember the first rule of journalism, If you can't distort it , don't report it.

as for the 4 gospels they have, with the possible exception of John, whos
authorship is uncertain, little to do with "eye witness" accounts. all have a
decided pauline bent, and paul was the original heretic.

how are the lesson that Jesus taught changed in any way if he was married,
or if he was married and screwed like rabbits? it it any different than those
who "preach the word today?"

the only place it makes any difference is to the RCC and its Pro- testant off shoots, and the beliefs that stem from the council of bishops that voted
jesus to godhood.

I read the book and found it stupid. The author had no real knowledge of the history of Christianity. What is funny is that some protestants thought it was great that someone was bashing the Catholic church but did not realize that they too where being bashed. The guys next book is on Freemasonry.

Originally posted by chief_counsellor
The Da Vinci Code

I don't know whether to find it humourus or disturbing that a fiction book needs to be 'debunked'

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't know whether to find it humourus or disturbing that a fiction book needs to be 'debunked'

Well said!

I have never read the book, nor do I have any desire to. I just don't understand how people can get so over hyped-up about a fictional book. I really doubt the author put a disclaimer inside the book reading "This book is pure fact, and if you don't believe everything in it you have been fooled." I mean, c'mon, if this book were labeled under non-fiction then there would be a reason to debunk it, but as it stands all I see are some people writing books contrary to what the book is about, and in the process making money for themselves. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that people that buy books like "The Da Vinci Hoax" are being duped into buying something off of a new fad. All most authors are doing are trying to get their own profit off of a hugely popular book...essentially making money off Brown's work. Afterall, why would the be debunking a work of fiction? They never tried to with Grisham's books, Steinbeck, etc. or any other authors that write about things that are remotely based in reality.

Funny thing is...from what people have said about the book I really don't hear any new theories come from Dan Brown. In fact, most of his fictional ideas have been talked about by countless others, but no one ever complained about them before this book.

If you can't see that your just buying people's works that want to make a "quick buck" off the popularity of Brown's novel then I feel sad for you. If I were Brown I would be fuming! Only his hugely successful novel is being debunked when countless other novel's that display untruths are not.

Now, people should not take the DaVinci code as the new bible, and there is something called 'creative license' that authors use. HOw many times has times square been assaulted? Didn't Clancy destroy most of DC in a book?

If anything, read the book and walk away with your own thougths. I found it to be a good read. It simply pointed out that there is/could be a bloodline that can be traced back to Jesus and to the other kings and rulers in the early world. They used Opus Dei as a 'villian' in the book. If you take this as truth without researching a little bit and get into an arguement with someone over something you read in a 'fiction novel', I would think you might be proven quite ignorant.

as for the 4 gospels they have, with the possible exception of John, whos
authorship is uncertain, little to do with "eye witness" accounts. all have a
decided pauline bent, and paul was the original heretic.

. . .

the only place it makes any difference is to the RCC and its Pro- testant off shoots, and the beliefs that stem from the council of bishops that voted
jesus to godhood.

The four Gospels have a Pauline bent? Word-use studies don't support that claim at all; the theology of Romans or Corinthians stands at antipodes to the Markan account which contains no resurrection; John doesn't even include communion in the last supper. The world-view of Matthew assumes that Christians are a subset of Judaism---compare that with the letter to the Galatians.

Talk about your sweeping generalizations that fly in the face of anything but your own prejudice!

What "council of Bishops" ever "voted Jesus to Godhood"? Why would there be bishops, unless there were churches of people who had a prior belief in the divinity of Christ?


Dude. Just put the bong down for a little while. Go watch some TV and mellow out.

I find the Bible or Devinchi or other named codes intiguing but before I buy them I want the bottom line best not he said she said version so I can get an honest point of view. If someone knows something more beneficial than a book the denounces another as a primary focus please u2u cause I just want the bare bones book that gets to the real point so I can read it.



thx

What "council of Bishops" ever "voted Jesus to Godhood"? Why would there be bishops, unless there were churches of people who had a prior belief in the divinity of Christ?

that would be the council of Nicea as i recall where Jesus was elivated to the level of the other murdered and resurected Gods of the region ( there are at
least half a dozen ) .

not so much that a few believed he was devine but that may did not believe.
it was at this council that the first official bible was compiled at the order of Constantine, and the " rules that defined orthodox xtiaity were set down.



ya might want to put down the spoon and lighter and step away.

[edit on 22-9-2004 by stalkingwolf]

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

What "council of Bishops" ever "voted Jesus to Godhood"? Why would there be bishops, unless there were churches of people who had a prior belief in the divinity of Christ?

that would be the council of Nicea as i recall where Jesus was elivated to the level of the other murdered and resurected Gods of the region ( there are at
least half a dozen ) .

not so much that a few believed he was devine but that may did not believe.
it was at this council that the first official bible was compiled at the order of Constantine, and the " rules that defined orthodox xtiaity were set down.



ya might want to put down the spoon and lighter and step away.

[edit on 22-9-2004 by stalkingwolf]

Sorry not true. Half of it is Chickisum and the other half is false. The divinity of Jesus was believed even in the times of Paul of Tarsus in about 60 ad. What people dont understand is what came out of the council of Nicena is the Nicea Creed later called the apositles creed which in turn became the profession of faith which is not only practiced in the Catholic church but the orthodox and some protestant churches.

3000 years from now what if people find a abriged version of the book "Dianetics" in a vault somewhere after a holacaust type event. The survivors looking for something to believe in start to cling to the truth of what it holds within its pages. Did this really happen. Who knows/ So born is a religion...I mean, it could be that simple or remember, those who win the war write the history.

that would be the council of Nicea as i recall where Jesus was elivated to the level of the other murdered and resurected Gods of the region ( there are at
least half a dozen ) .

not so much that a few believed he was devine but that may did not believe.
it was at this council that the first official bible was compiled at the order of Constantine, and the " rules that defined orthodox xtiaity were set down.

[edit on 22-9-2004 by stalkingwolf]

Jesus wasn't "elevated" at the Council of Nicea. The purpose of the council was to refute the doctrine of Arius, who claimed that the Deity, i.e. "christ-nature" entered Jesus at his baptism. Arius and his followers definitely believed in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, and prayed to him as mediator for their sins, etc.

Your words "elivated to the level of the other . . . gods" makes it sound like the Christians of Asia minor accepted a number of pagan gods, which is not born out by the archaeological or literary evidence. Mithra was never particularly popular in Anatolia, and Dyonisius had become identified with the Roman state religion, and was popular with the military. But there was no time at which christians acknowledged "other murdered gods."

As far as "the rules that defined Orthodox Christianity" go, the ecumenical councils continued to meet until the 6th century. One could argue that the "rules of orthodoxy weren't finalized until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. One could even argue that they are still being hammered out to this day.

But that would take some analysis of the religion on its own terms, which was surely not your intent.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I just read 'The Davinci Hoax'. The Davinci Code is pure garbage
written by anti-Catholics who wanted to put junk out about the
Church and have it sprinkled with just enough truths to make the
garbage underneath believable.

Have you ever read The DaVinci Code? Or are you just going off of what the "debunker's" book told you?

I've read the DaVinci Code and I must say it's an excellent read. Very interesting, obviously not entirely true (hence FICTION) but it's like a Clancy or Chricton novel where there is truth behind the fiction. It is not "anti-Catholic" by any means. I'm a Catholic and I love the book. Is it any big surprise that the Church would have secrets hidden away? Perhaps the secrets that Brown talks about in his book aren't true (or are they?) but it doesn't matter because its a fictional novel. Why is it anti-Catholic? Because it says that the Bible was manipulated and politicized over time? Big friggin surprise there, lol.

Maybe it takes a big stab at Opus Dei, but maybe Opus Dei is really like that, behind the scenes. Obviously Opus Dei would release books or articles debunking whatever bad is said about them, because I would hope they'd be in the business of protecting themselves. It's like the masons, some people say they're bad and the good part is a coverup, and other people say they're all good. There's two sides to every story, read the damn book and enjoy the story that Brown portrays.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
that would be the council of Nicea as i recall where Jesus was elivated to the level of the other murdered and resurected Gods of the region ( there are at least half a dozen ) .

The council of nicea did nothing of the sort. I am curious as to why you think it did. I do recall that there were debates (but I don't know if the CoN had anythign to do with it) on the differences between the 'nature' of christ, the 'aspect' and other abstract concepts and which parts were human and which parts were supernatural and the like. I think part of the Great Schism was a result of disputes over this and the Orthodox faith continued debates on the subject for quite some time.

spoon and lighter

there is no spoon

esdad71
3000 years from now

'cept the main texts of the new testament were in existence less than 200 years after the event. A long time, to be sure, but not 3000. Also, I have heard, and I think its a relatively decent arguement, that none of the antichristians active in the early period used the 'non-existence' of jesus as a critique of the religion. One would expect that if there was widespread doubt that they would've mentioned it.

faisca
obviously not entirely true (hence FICTION) but it's like a Clancy or Chricton novel where there is truth behind the fiction

I'm a big fan of michael chricton. However, I would've use anything in his books for 'knowledge'.

that none of the antichristians active in the early period used the 'non-existence' of jesus as a critique of the religion.

i think the question of non-existance of jesus is a fairly recent thing. the Pauline
concept of Jesus as devine however is from the very beginning as is the removal
or supression of the female role in the church. Paul taught a different Jesus
than was taught by the original church. Paul had his revelation after being knocked or falling from a horse or donkey and getting knocked in the head.

there are several references from Paul after he was rebuked by James and the
church @ Jerusalem of Paul saying " there will be those that come after me
that preach a different Jesus" because James sent people out to refute what Paul was preaching.

as a side note James was the head of the Church after Jesus not Peter. It is
also a possibility that James & Mary Magdelene shared the role of leader, or
more correctly Priest & Priestess.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
the Pauline
concept of Jesus as devine however is from the very beginning as is the removal or supression of the female role in the church.

Technically, this sentence makes sense, since I know from the context that you are trying to say that people didn't originally beleive that jesus was divine, but really man, that sentence approached jibberish.

Paul taught a different Jesus than was taught by the original church.

Yeah, one that was less jewish than the other apostles made him out to be.

Paul had his revelation after being knocked or falling from a horse or donkey and getting knocked in the head.

Uhm, the only account is paul's, and he doesn't say that.

that James & Mary Magdelene shared the role of leader, or
more correctly Priest & Priestess.

Where is the information to suggest that Mary Magdelene did this? Wouldn't James have included this then?

the book was awful. the first quarter of the book sounds like a commercial for his previous book about the same guy. it's formulaic and poorly written. who cares if any of it was based on truth. it's crap.

for a more well written, more exciting story, read The Rule of Four. Better story, better writing.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf


as a side note James was the head of the Church after Jesus not Peter. It is
also a possibility that James & Mary Magdelene shared the role of leader, or
more correctly Priest & Priestess.

I'm guessing from this that you are a fan of Robert Eisenmann's writings?

www.christian-thinktank.com...

Or maybe you prefer HolyBlood/HolyGrail?