Da Code
So the Movie is about to come out. The Catholic Church is in full-swing damage control mode. http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/reflect-lit/davincicode.htm Sandra Miesel's thoughful article is heralded as a complete refutation of the nonsense of the novel -- pointing out glaring historical inaccuracies, falsehoods, etc.
What is remarkable to me is what she/they FAIL to refute: (1) that Christ may have been married; (2) that the Catholic Church may have voted Christ divine at the Council of Nicea in 325; (3) that the Gnostic gospels may be true, valid and insightful; (4) that the Knights Templar may have in fact had a Holy Grail to protect: and many other facts, (5) the Nature of the Opus Dei.
1. Mary Mag: This is what Miesel has to say ... "[w]hat these books neglect to mention (referring to various Gnostic analyses) is the infamous final verse of the Gospel of Thomas. When Peter sneers that "women are not worthy of Life," Jesus responds, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male.... For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." That's certainly an odd way to honor one's spouse or exalt the status of women." Uh, so because it was written in the Gospel of Thomas, its true? Is that a "my truth is better than your truth" argument because my truth is an orthodox Catholic truth and yours isn't? That's the killer blow? Come on, you can do better than that ... or can you?
2. Christ became divine in 325: Miesel states that Brown's reasoning that the Church (and Emperor)ordered all Gnostic text destroyed because they conflicted with divinity is flawed because the reliable historical analysis (who did it?) dates the orthodix gospels to the First Century AD. Huh? So he was divine because of First Century stated he was? She also debunks Brown's views of the Old Testament being false, because the Hebrew texts agree closely with the Dead Sea Scrolls? Who cares about them? Those are NOT the basis of Christianity -- Judaism maybe. So it comes back to the old argument: our belief is supported by our science and yours isn't ... supported by our science. So let's go back to 325 AD ... the Church says, "OK these gospels (which may or may not date to whenever) which show divinity are true and correct. Those ones are not."
"Analysis of textual families, comparison with fragments and quotations, plus historical correlations securely date the orthodox Gospels to the first century and indicate that they're earlier than the Gnostic forgeries. (The Epistles of St. Paul are, of course, even earlier than the Gospels." When you are trying to prove a case, and also place yourself in the position of power over a burgeoning religion, why would you even consider that which would refute your power base? Of course the Gnostic gospels HAD to be rejected, without the mystery of the resurrection, you have no Easter and no Christianity! And you are out of a job, Pope.
3. The validity of the Gnostic Gospels: really not even addressed, "[p]rimitive Church documents and the testimony of the ante-Nicean Fathers confirm that Christians have always believed Jesus to be Lord, God, and Savior — even when that faith meant death. The earliest partial canon of Scripture dates from the late second century and already rejected Gnostic writings." So you capitalize your "Scripture" and because it agrees with your orthodoxy, it is correct? Isn't it possible that even the earliest orthodox Church adherents understood the necessity of uniformity of belief to make the whole thing make sense? Note that the statement that the earliest partial canon from the late second century "already rejected Gnostic writings" ... well excuse me for noticing that this OF NECESSITY implies that the Gnostic writings PRE-DATE the accepted Church orthodoxy that can be dated. Note that in point (2) above, Miesel states that the orthodox Gospels pre-date the Gnostic Gospels -- not exactly stunning proof thereof, huh?
4. The Knights Templar: Miesel relates how the facts of the Templars in Brown's book a re all wrong ... and because it was the King of France and not Pope Clement who suppressed them , Brown must be wrong. A final stab is that Clement "a weak and sickly" Pope could not have scattered ashes on the Tiber, because he ruled from Avignon. GOOD POINT!!! Glad you brought that up. Because for a not inconsiderable length of time there was TWO POPES!!! Yup, how about that for orthodox? One in Rome (which Brown seems always to call the Vatican no matter what the year, but we get his point, it is a novel after all and not intended as historically accurate in all minutia -- that would get a little boring), and one in Avignon. The Church seems a little hesistant to delve into the question of how Christ could have two sole representatives on Earth. Both dispensing favors, both excommunicating souls, both presiding over trials of heresy, each in opposition to the other. Don't like the Avignon decision, appeal it to Rome! Better historians than Miesel draw a blank when it comes to the Knights Templar.
5. The Opus Dei!!! Lots of documentaries have come out recently about the Opus ... just Google and you will get your fill. Even Time had a big spread on Opus. And you know, the celice thing? Its true. So is corporal mortification. Yup, whipping when you pray -- although this is sloughed off as only applying to the hard core numeraries. http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm Check it out. But Miesel doesn't really excuse or refute the nature of Opus, all she does is to point out how a albino might have vision problems so the rest of Brown's facts must be bullshit. Well, Miesel, they are not. Sorry. In many instances Brown HAS got his facts straight.
We look at the Shiites in Iraq and Iran, cutting themselves, beating themselves senseless in religious fervor, we get squeamish. Who are these luntics? How can they do this to themselves? But our very own brand of religious zealots live right here amongst us and are "normal" in most ways, but adhere to a strict code that they live by: the strictures of Opus Dei.
Anecdotally, one reads of vast conspiracies in which Western European business is in fact controlled by Opus Members -- and that Membership provides closeness to the Church, Pope and God for the rich, an accusation often levelled at the Jesuits. But read the Time article -- how approaches are made to join, how selection is accomplished. You may start to wonder a little. Those schools, Universities, Business Schools, Law Schools reportedly run by Opus ... all true by their own admission. They are not answerable in the Church to anyone but the Pope -- sort of resembles a private army, doesn't it? So, in fact, an easy group to signal out as the "baddies" for the book by virtue of their secrecy and exclusivity. Given their fervor of belief and daily exercise of (what would seem to us outlandish) practices, would they hesistate to snuff a heresy that might actually prove that the whole Church gig is a falsehood? That's the crucial element in the book -- your call.
So Dan Brown plumbs history and the present, loosely, for baddies (Opus and the French), for the Goddess (is he some Goddess-freak?), for mystery (the Templars), for excitement (the chase), and bucks. Good old-fashioned fun then ... although I cannot see how the movie will do justice to the book.
What is remarkable to me is what she/they FAIL to refute: (1) that Christ may have been married; (2) that the Catholic Church may have voted Christ divine at the Council of Nicea in 325; (3) that the Gnostic gospels may be true, valid and insightful; (4) that the Knights Templar may have in fact had a Holy Grail to protect: and many other facts, (5) the Nature of the Opus Dei.
1. Mary Mag: This is what Miesel has to say ... "[w]hat these books neglect to mention (referring to various Gnostic analyses) is the infamous final verse of the Gospel of Thomas. When Peter sneers that "women are not worthy of Life," Jesus responds, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male.... For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." That's certainly an odd way to honor one's spouse or exalt the status of women." Uh, so because it was written in the Gospel of Thomas, its true? Is that a "my truth is better than your truth" argument because my truth is an orthodox Catholic truth and yours isn't? That's the killer blow? Come on, you can do better than that ... or can you?
2. Christ became divine in 325: Miesel states that Brown's reasoning that the Church (and Emperor)ordered all Gnostic text destroyed because they conflicted with divinity is flawed because the reliable historical analysis (who did it?) dates the orthodix gospels to the First Century AD. Huh? So he was divine because of First Century stated he was? She also debunks Brown's views of the Old Testament being false, because the Hebrew texts agree closely with the Dead Sea Scrolls? Who cares about them? Those are NOT the basis of Christianity -- Judaism maybe. So it comes back to the old argument: our belief is supported by our science and yours isn't ... supported by our science. So let's go back to 325 AD ... the Church says, "OK these gospels (which may or may not date to whenever) which show divinity are true and correct. Those ones are not."
"Analysis of textual families, comparison with fragments and quotations, plus historical correlations securely date the orthodox Gospels to the first century and indicate that they're earlier than the Gnostic forgeries. (The Epistles of St. Paul are, of course, even earlier than the Gospels." When you are trying to prove a case, and also place yourself in the position of power over a burgeoning religion, why would you even consider that which would refute your power base? Of course the Gnostic gospels HAD to be rejected, without the mystery of the resurrection, you have no Easter and no Christianity! And you are out of a job, Pope.
3. The validity of the Gnostic Gospels: really not even addressed, "[p]rimitive Church documents and the testimony of the ante-Nicean Fathers confirm that Christians have always believed Jesus to be Lord, God, and Savior — even when that faith meant death. The earliest partial canon of Scripture dates from the late second century and already rejected Gnostic writings." So you capitalize your "Scripture" and because it agrees with your orthodoxy, it is correct? Isn't it possible that even the earliest orthodox Church adherents understood the necessity of uniformity of belief to make the whole thing make sense? Note that the statement that the earliest partial canon from the late second century "already rejected Gnostic writings" ... well excuse me for noticing that this OF NECESSITY implies that the Gnostic writings PRE-DATE the accepted Church orthodoxy that can be dated. Note that in point (2) above, Miesel states that the orthodox Gospels pre-date the Gnostic Gospels -- not exactly stunning proof thereof, huh?
4. The Knights Templar: Miesel relates how the facts of the Templars in Brown's book a re all wrong ... and because it was the King of France and not Pope Clement who suppressed them , Brown must be wrong. A final stab is that Clement "a weak and sickly" Pope could not have scattered ashes on the Tiber, because he ruled from Avignon. GOOD POINT!!! Glad you brought that up. Because for a not inconsiderable length of time there was TWO POPES!!! Yup, how about that for orthodox? One in Rome (which Brown seems always to call the Vatican no matter what the year, but we get his point, it is a novel after all and not intended as historically accurate in all minutia -- that would get a little boring), and one in Avignon. The Church seems a little hesistant to delve into the question of how Christ could have two sole representatives on Earth. Both dispensing favors, both excommunicating souls, both presiding over trials of heresy, each in opposition to the other. Don't like the Avignon decision, appeal it to Rome! Better historians than Miesel draw a blank when it comes to the Knights Templar.
5. The Opus Dei!!! Lots of documentaries have come out recently about the Opus ... just Google and you will get your fill. Even Time had a big spread on Opus. And you know, the celice thing? Its true. So is corporal mortification. Yup, whipping when you pray -- although this is sloughed off as only applying to the hard core numeraries. http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm Check it out. But Miesel doesn't really excuse or refute the nature of Opus, all she does is to point out how a albino might have vision problems so the rest of Brown's facts must be bullshit. Well, Miesel, they are not. Sorry. In many instances Brown HAS got his facts straight.
We look at the Shiites in Iraq and Iran, cutting themselves, beating themselves senseless in religious fervor, we get squeamish. Who are these luntics? How can they do this to themselves? But our very own brand of religious zealots live right here amongst us and are "normal" in most ways, but adhere to a strict code that they live by: the strictures of Opus Dei.
Anecdotally, one reads of vast conspiracies in which Western European business is in fact controlled by Opus Members -- and that Membership provides closeness to the Church, Pope and God for the rich, an accusation often levelled at the Jesuits. But read the Time article -- how approaches are made to join, how selection is accomplished. You may start to wonder a little. Those schools, Universities, Business Schools, Law Schools reportedly run by Opus ... all true by their own admission. They are not answerable in the Church to anyone but the Pope -- sort of resembles a private army, doesn't it? So, in fact, an easy group to signal out as the "baddies" for the book by virtue of their secrecy and exclusivity. Given their fervor of belief and daily exercise of (what would seem to us outlandish) practices, would they hesistate to snuff a heresy that might actually prove that the whole Church gig is a falsehood? That's the crucial element in the book -- your call.
So Dan Brown plumbs history and the present, loosely, for baddies (Opus and the French), for the Goddess (is he some Goddess-freak?), for mystery (the Templars), for excitement (the chase), and bucks. Good old-fashioned fun then ... although I cannot see how the movie will do justice to the book.
posted by Zaphod at Friday, May 19, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home