Da Vinci Code Movie

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Community Members,

Be forwarned, we are approaching a moment in cinematic history that will leave the film adaptation of Kazanzakis' "Last Temptation of Christ" in the dust, even 'The Ten Commandments' with Charleton Heston will pale in comparison, simply due to Computer Graphics.

At the Cannes Festival will be screened, Dan Brown's film adaptation of his mega bestseller (+40 million copies in hardcover alone). Yes, Ladies and Gentleman, "The Da Vinci Code" produced by our lovable Opie, on the Andy Griffith Show, from the '50's.

But money is money, and in the West, money is the last god to show up in fashionalbe dress.

If he was Muslim, the former Ayatollah Khomeni would have put a stop to this nonsense very quickly.

Now, tragically, it only fuels the ideology of Osama bin Laden, that the 'Crusader' West is awash in pornography and blasphemy.

Certainly, the 'Da Vinci Code' is a page turner. But, it is not what Dan Brown claims - only a ficitonal account.

How Christianity is so tolerant, so long suffering!

The Islamic world turns into a hail storm over cartoons. Yet we sleep, as our Lord who died for you and me, is depicted as a fornicator, a revealer of the true gnosis to Judas (supported by the National Geographic) and we sit by, watching the multi-cultural video game unfold.

Did not blessed Father Seraphim (Rose) who reposed in 1982, say that the end is 'closer than you think'?

Stigmata, imagination...it all leads to the crossroad where the Devil trades in souls.

We stand in Judgement. I do not speak lightly. If Salman Rushdie's life has been forever altered due to a fatwah against a false prophet and a false revelation, what are we doing? Sitting aroung eating potato chips and doing our taxes?

No doubt, you have attemped during Holy Week to attend the 12 Gospels, you will do your best to honour the Fast of Holy and Great Friday...so soon the Fast will end, and we will go from the Triodion to the Pentecostarion.

What does it mean, finally now in April 2006, that an Assistant Priest of the Cathedral of the Annunciation, under the Omophorion of Bishop Seraphim, has published, without blessing, the 'most heretical book' that Father Thomas Hopko has ever read?

Does it matter, that Dan Brown is allowed to write and publish a book in which Jesus marries Mary Magdalene, and a Blood-line continues, crushed by the 'ever-evil Catholic Church'?

Is day-to-day life so sufficient, that we never reflect on the impression we give to others?

Mahatma Gandhi is quoted as saying, that he did not become Christian, because he had never met anyone who lived the Gospel.

In our multi-cultural delirium we so easily lose clarity. Christ is Love. Yet out of false shame we prefer to remain mute, when Christ is assaulted right, left and centre. If Muslims defend their Prophet, Christians are too busy finding their 'inner self'.

"...some one says, what's mine and someone else says, well, what is, and you say, oh my God, am I here all alone...'

Was Hemingway's the 'Lost Generation'? Perhaps, in a certain sense.

We are truly lost and not yet found, because our media opium is dominated by the witchcraft of Harry Potter and the deceptively demonic 'Da Vinci Code'.

Let the credits roll...we do not ascribe to Inquistions, but it seems we do ascribe to a complicite silent agreement. Let the kids watch Harry Potter, and after all, the 'Da Vinci Code' is only fiction.

'Lost Generation' that is 2006. For we are so afraid to stand up and say CHRIST IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE, all who came before Him (and after Him) are false Shephards.

Tomorrow is Great and Holy Friday. What does the death (and approaching Resurrection) of Christ truly mean? Furthermore, what does His death grant FINALLY to humankind? (Theosis).

Unique among all the world Religions, is the one embraced by poor fishermen from the Lake of Galilee, who left all, to follow Him, and in their earthly end to be crucified alike Him.

When Christ asks, "and you"...? what will be our response? "Yes..." or "first let me bury my dead"?

[Bogdan]

Very ponent post. I am actually telling everyone i know not to watch the movie. Not that that will deter them..we always want what we can't have. At least we are doing what we can.

Side note: Wasn't Tom Hanks married in an Orthodox church? I seem to remember him being married to a greek girl..

[Justin]

Yes, Tom Hanks is Greek Orthodox (http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/127/Hanks.htm).

[Bogdan]

no disrespect to the article or the faith of a man I know nothing of or have never met, but I can not bring myself to believe that a practicing Orthodox person would be involved in a film like this.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[M.C. Steenberg]

I don't at all mind saying that I intend to see the Da Vinci Code movie, and am curious how much like the book it is. There has been such hype about the book, it sometimes gets forgotten that the basic concept - that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and their blood-line continued in Europe - is ages old and certainly not the invention of Dan Brown (though neither is he a plagiarist; it was surely right that he won his recent London court case). What is particularly intriguing to me is the type of modern social commentary that he inserts into the old legend, and the kind of reception his text has had in society. It seems, for example, to have gained an immense following on account of dealing with 'the sacred feminine', though having twice read the book I have been unable to determine precisely what this means, even to Mr Brown; and as a larger concept, I actually find the myth itself, and the book's modernisation of it in particular, to demean the place of femininity and the role of women in the history of Christianity - precisely the opposite of the general 'great liberation' that it seems taken by so many to represent.

I really don't think Christians ought to get terribly worked up about the book, its ideas, or its popularity. Such stories are as old as the Church; even the book of Acts recounts individuals re-interpreting the story of Christ to their own ends and mythologies. And I certainly don't think urges for a Christian fatwah against the film are useful. Today's culture seems to work on flash-in-the-pan 'groundbreaking stories' as films and other events; they're rarely ever groundbreaking, they almost universally fade - and quickly.

The fact that the book has had such success is itself an interesting sociological meter. People seem intrigued by any notion of conspiracy, of the secret; as if Christianity is deficient precisely because it is so open about its truth and its heritage. Let it be.

INXC, Matthew

[Bogdan]

I will agree that this is nothing new and that perhaps getting worked up over it would be of no benefit. Especially since, as you put it, it will go away. I however do not find it so simply dismissable. I don't expect a Christian lifestyle to be easy; I don't remember a time where I have read about christians having it easy. The constant slander and attack is something that we must all get used to in one way or another; but I see no benefit in just "letting it be". Oh sure, turn the other cheek. Maybe it's just the balkan temper talking, but for some reason it seems that there is a fine line between faith filled acceptance of an attack, and foolish adherence to entertainments debauchery. Are we to never draw a line between good and bad entertainment? You are 100% right on the intrigue level of the Da Vinci Code. However with all due respect, I personally could not get through half of that filth. It is technically unsound, it's principles are baseless and in general I just think it's a horrible peace of writing. I think anyone that knows anything about literature can assume as much just from the first sentence. Now I'm to spend $10 to watch the movie? No thank you.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Regarding the "Da Vinci Code" movie, I also intend to see it, in much the same spirit as Matthew. The "sacred feminine" or "eternal" or "archetypal" feminine seems to crop up nowadays wherever there is talk of Sophia as God's feminine counterpart who together with Him brought about creation, and those who believe in it are very impressed by Roman Catholic statues of the "black Madonna" e.g. of Montserrat. I guess those who believe God the Father has a feminine counterpart or divine wife, would equally believe that Jesus married or had children by Mary Magdalene. All in the name of a more gender-balanced view of deity, I suppose, and it seems reasonable enough from a logical point of view - but that's probably where part of the problem in this kind of religious speculation lies: it is trying to make the Uncreated "make sense" in the categories of creation.

Incidentally, those who believe in a divine syzygy are probably less hostile to Christianity overall than those who detect, behind the figure of Sophia, the suppressed pre-Christian Mother Goddess whose worship was violently extinguinshed (supposedly) by the male-patriarchal followers of Yahweh.

I am curious, Matthew, where does this idea of a holy bloodline originate? You mention it has been around for some time...

One of the dangers I do sense regarding the book and probably the film also, is that people without strong convictions may be misled into taking these ideas seriously. On the other hand, perhaps a little thinking about "God, and all that" is better than none - wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said something along the lines of no publicity being worse than bad publicity? Again, although I'm glad Orthodox Christians aren't in the business of issuing fatwas even where they may seem well-deserved (but see Mt 7:1), I second Fr Seraphim's feelings that Dan Brown has done our faith an overall disservice and indeed committed blasphemy. Still, it is the blasphemy in my own life which causes me most concern. In Dan Brown's case, it is my personal hope that the Lord will once again use the actions of the enemy to serve the purposes of goodness, to the latter's eternal frustration.

In Christ
Byron

[Boulos]

And who wants to give the demons 10$? I can see it for free only :D

[Boulos]

Petition online against the heretical so called "da vincie code"is available http://www.tfp.org/php/action_form/davinci_code.php

Just Follow the instructions.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Let us not be afraid of heresy, let us simply face it. Let us be prepared at all times, as the Holy Apostle Paul teaches, to defend the hope that is in us, not with petitions or fatwas or suppression, but with Light and Truth and lives lived in Faith, renewed in Christ.

This petition thing is a reaction of fear. "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind." 2 Timothy 1:7

[Bogdan]

I agree 100% Herman. Great quote and post.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[Boulos]

Well, at that time, when that movie will be broad casted on airs and on all TVs in 2007, for small children that are not maturated spiritually yet, and inside our own houses, how can someone not be budged about such?

I don't see a harm to say simply: "NO, please stop that particular known heresy from entering our house", rather then be practically inactive, relying on our children immunity.

What Herman said is very true, but i don't agree 100%.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Here is a link to a very interesting critique of Elaine Pagels's The Gnostic Gospels

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43736

It was referred to us by a priest from another list.

[Bogdan]

you are right boulos,

it is important to make a separate case for people that might not be ready for the spiritual battle that comes with heresy. Dare I say none of us are truly ready for this battle? I know I probably am not. I will say though that I agree with the concept, as I stated in my last post. I also agree with your conclusion that it is not so bad to "just say no"

Whichever path we choose, let it be the correct one spiritually for us all.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[Antonios]

What follows is my opinion, and I hope not to offend many of you, but I can't keep this in any longer...

I think it is regrettable that people do not see the harm in heretical books/movies such as The Da Vinci Code. It is clearly the spirit of the antichrist which works such things, and I can't help but think Satan is smiling about the popularity of this story and laughing at the Christians who blindly believe this is not having any negative effect to those millions who have read it. I alone know about a dozen Christians who have changed their views on Christ simply by reading this book. I can't imagine how many other marginal believers this story has deluded and has caused them to question who Jesus Christ is. For shame to those who have read it and will go see it in the theaters.

I hope and pray the Vatican officially condemns it. Will it sell more books or cause it to be more popular? Maybe. But at least the rest of the world will know that Christians consider this book a lie. We should not fear heresies, but more importantly we should not fear condeming them. Its remarkable how cartoons of Mohammed can cause such an uprising, but a story which claims historical evidence that Jesus was not divine, that Him and Mary Magdalene deceived the world and had a child, and that the entire Church from the beginning was a complete lie and coverup ends up becoming a sensational hit, rakes in millions upon millions of dollars, and stands to make countless more in the future.

For shame to those who have read it. For shame to those who have enjoyed it and recommended it. And for shame to those who will go and see it at the movies. Perhaps by believing in their own strength of faith, which is obviously stronger than mine since I get repulsed just thinking about reading it and confusing my weak mind, they fail to see how many of their fellow Christians will come to doubt Christ and Him crucified by filling their eyes and their minds with Satan's entertainment and his seeds of doubt.

The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness. (Luke 11:34)

Forgive me for being so blunt, but I expected a different reaction on Monachos than what I have read.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Antonios,

Your thread is making me seriously reconsider my position on both the book and the movie. I should point out that I never claimed boycotting the entire "Da Vinci" market is not a viable and seriously respected Christian choice, perhaps the only viable Christian choice.

If my previous posts have led to the impression that I take this "impious book" (Sr Theopesta's words from an earlier thread) for "entertainment", then I have expressed myself badly. My thinking is that a Christian should either not read the book or see the film at all, or that both should be viewed in a deeply critical spirit, preparing to do battle intelligently and in an informed manner with the purveyors of this preposterous garbage. Sadly, there are many such, as you yourself have experienced. As Christians, we ought to know the 'facts and figures' the arguments in this book base themselves on - and claim as true - and we need to be able to show them up for their falsity. For example, the book claims as an actual fact that Jesus' divinity was only made official at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., giving the impression that Arianism was the mainstream Christian view before that! Arius' view however, as we know, was clearly a minority heretical one, and was never the majority view of the early Christians. I agree also that the Vatican should condemn this work, although no doubt that will add fuel to the fiery imaginanations of conspiracy theorists, who will probably see such condemnation as "proof" that the 'suppression of the truth by the Vatican' theory is correct.

You write
We should not fear heresies, but more importantly we should not fear condeming them. Its remarkable how cartoons of Mohammed can cause such an uprising, but a story which claims historical evidence that Jesus was not divine, that Him and Mary Magdalene deceived the world and had a child, and that the entire Church from the beginning was a complete lie and coverup ends up becoming a sensational hit, rakes in millions upon millions of dollars, and stands to make countless more in the future. The claims of this story are so ridiculous, that I find it difficult to believe even its supporters don't really know they are false, at least in the sense that they are not, and never have been, the story of Christianity. Behind the "Da Vinci" phenomenon is not really heresy, but a guilty atheism. It's not that anyone (given perhaps a few cranks) really believes the novel's claims; it's more that sadly, few modern people really believe in God or Christ as anything but mythology, our real modern deities being science, technology and human ingenuity - but at the same time the unconscious guilt this provokes is superficially "eased" by books like this, which really say: "relax, all that stuff about Christ and God was just made up anyway - it's all about human struggles over conflicting beliefs and political interests ultimately". In this sense, the Da Vinci Code is satanic, inasmuch as all worldly thinking that excludes God is inimical to Him; there is no real mystery, in the sense of mysterion in this book however. Its soiled pages can never ultimately touch the deeper, fathomless and spotless appeal of the Truth.

Of course, unconscious guilt cannot account entirely for the huge popularity of the book. Well, that thrown in with a bit of murder / mystery / thriller action, a crash course in half-digested "symbology made easy", and a few pretentious but authoritative-sounding reasons to be both feminist and carnal - well, that makes for quite a tempting modern brew, even if it is poison.

Would I let my children watch it or read it? Not until they are old enough to know better.

For those of us who wish to be "in the world, but not of it" there seems to me to be a necessary creative tension between the extirpation and the transformation of provocations such as this. Boycotting is a good option, but lays us open to being caught off-guard, especially if we are living in the world, i.e. not monastics. On the other hand, I can clearly see the even greater risk of uninformed exposure:
Perhaps by believing in their own strength of faith, which is obviously stronger than mine since I get repulsed just thinking about reading it and confusing my weak mind, they fail to see how many of their fellow Christians will come to doubt Christ and Him crucified by filling their eyes and their minds with Satan's entertainment and his seeds of doubt.
I know my faith is weak. I also know many brothers and sisters will be confused and misled by the trash being served up by this book. I am still wondering whether it's best to leave well alone, or prepare to do battle. My only hope is that our Lord and God Jesus Christ will help me ond others in my position make the right choices as we walk together through this valley of the shadow.

Many thanks for your thoughtful words of caution Antonios. Pray for me, a sinner.

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Byron and others,

There's been some interesting food-for-thought in this thread as of late. In particular to a few points you raised:


The "sacred feminine" or "eternal" or "archetypal" feminine seems to crop up nowadays wherever there is talk of Sophia as God's feminine counterpart who together with Him brought about creation, and those who believe in it are very impressed by Roman Catholic statues of the "black Madonna" e.g. of Montserrat. I guess those who believe God the Father has a feminine counterpart or divine wife, would equally believe that Jesus married or had children by Mary Magdalene. All in the name of a more gender-balanced view of deity, I suppose, and it seems reasonable enough from a logical point of view - but that's probably where part of the problem in this kind of religious speculation lies: it is trying to make the Uncreated "make sense" in the categories of creation.

One of the chief problems I see with the kind of motivation and response one encounters in the 'sacred feminine' of works like Mr Brown's Da Vinci Code, is that it's essentially an attempt to conjure up feminine significance in a particular 20th- and 21st-century form, as if only these are of authentic value to the place of women in society and religion. To make ancient Christianity palatable, to make it 'appreciate the sacred in the female', one has to re-define it along modern-day conceptions of what is sacred, what gives value, what is female. Such approaches tend to be open to a wide variety of 'new' hypotheses as to all manner of historical possibilities, except the possibility that there is a valuation of men and women as holy and spiritual, but one that is not in accordance with modern conceptions. That Mary Magdalen might have been a friend of the incarnate Son is sexist and oppresive; she must herself be some manner of equal, if not in her own right a deity. That she was once a prostitute is not a sign of a life transformed and transfigured; it is male domination and the desire to discredit any female influence of note. And on and on.

Women must become goddesses; beliefs and traditions with male centre-points must be re-envisaged with secret, hidden female dignitaries. In other words, history must be re-interpreted along modern beliefs of what constitues 'equality': namely, that unless women and men have exactly the same roles, then one is oppressor, one is oppressed. There is rarely, if ever, room in such schemes for the idea that value and true worth have less to do with gender and more with transfiguration in Christ - a transfiguration that brings out the full worth, value and beauty of all of creation and all humanity, male and female.

That's the point I always find so ironic about such attempts. In dismissing outright the possibility that Christianity might have something profound to say to the relations of men and women in the cosmos, 'new Christianities' are preached with a 'sacred feminine' that is essentially nothing more than a mythologised and romanticised version of the early feminism of Mary Wollstonecraft -- that if men and women all wear the same clothes, hold the same jobs and behave in the same manner, then they are 'equal'; only now we dress it up in a 'religious' context: only if one thrusts women and men into precisely the same historical religious roles, are they ever of equal value. One romanticises a kind of feminism that was abandoned - even by feminists - over a century ago, precisely because it ultimately fails to find real meaning and value in authentic personhood, male and female.


I am curious, Matthew, where does this idea of a holy bloodline originate? You mention it has been around for some time...

This is a hard question to pin down. There is some grounding for saying that they go back to the fourth and fifth centuries: texts such as the Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Judas (found in the Berlin Gnostic Codex and the Nag Hammadi Codices) present the basic pattern (and in fact both are called upon in Brown's book). Specific forms of the myth appear all over the Christian world, with variations based on locality, etc. But the basic idea is ages old. In a sense, it is even predicted or foretold in scripture: Pilate is concerned already at the crucifixion that the body of Jesus will be stolen away, and myths circulated of some miraculous power, etc. - hence the sealed tomb.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Antonios, I appreciate your recent post (#15 in this thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2613#post34121)), as well as Byron's response (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2613#post34123). I do not agree with some of it, mind you; but this is a matter much to the heart and mind (and needs and situation) of each. I do wish, though, to offer a few thoughts in reaction.

No one, I think, questions the fact that such a film can cause damage to certain individuals - those who are easily led astray by a good story or nice screen effects, etc. I do not think anyone in this community has suggested that this is not a possibility, nor a reality to be ignored. No one is suggesting that Christians should indescriminately flock to the cinemas to see the film version (Bogdan remarked specifically on this in his post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2613#post34120)). One must exercise discernment, in this as in all things.

Further, I don't see anyone arguing that heresy ought be called anything other than heresy, or stood up against when encountered.

What has happened on this thread is that certain people (certainly me, in my first reply (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2613#post34050)) have suggested that a blanket protest against the book and film, a kind of Christian 'fatwah', is not an appropriate globalised reaction for Christianity. As has been discussed many times in many contexts in this community, a blind shutting up of one's eyes and ears to the 'ways of the world' is not - at least it seems to me - sufficient to the pastoral responsibility of the Church in the world. Some Christian persons will require it, need it, no doubt; in some contexts it must be the norm. But the Church sojourns in the world, is the spiritual hospital to those of this world, who exercises her priestly office to humanity after the example of Christ who did not shun, yet did not succumb, to the degeneracy of the world around him. I cannot help but hear the voice of 'the scribes and pharisees' shouting 'He sits and eats with sinners!' when I hear what at times amounts nearly to a condemnation of any Christian who would read this book or see this film.

Christ entered into the world and into the context of the most appalling realities of what we now call - precisely because he entered into it - the 'first century'. He befriended and visited prostitutes, liars, thieves, heathen, pagans, adulterers, murderers, and, not least, those religious who perverted religion to their own ends. 'It is not those who are well who need a physician, but the sick'.

We live now in the twenty-first century. The world is still sick, and in many ways with the same illnesses Christ encountered in Galilee. There are still murderers, still adulterers. And there are still those who would pervert religion - even now Christ's own body - to their own ends, or to the ends of the social morays of the day. One of the great spiritual struggles of these decades in which we live is precisely the type of neo-gnosticism that inspired the film Stigmata, and now The Da Vinci Code. It's everywhere, all pervasive. The only reason Mr Brown's book has had such success is because it feeds directly into a kind of gnosticisation of popular 'religious' sentiment that's been at work at least since the 1960s.

One can react in any number of ways. Surely what is untrue should be condemned as untrue, and exposed for what it is. Of course. But standing on one's pulpit and shouting to the world, 'You brood of vipers' is only part of the Church's witness. John the Baptist spoke to mobs, to crowds; by and large, Christ spoke to persons. He spoke to what ailed the person before him, often to a degree far deeper than anything they had expected, but to them, of them. Christ spoke out against adultery ('He who lusts in his heart... has already committed adultery...'), but when it came to his response to the adulterous woman, engaged with her. He did not shame those who would engage with sinners; he shamed only those who would have prevented him from doing so.

Is our mission simply to tell the world how fallen and wrong it is? I see no precedent for this, in the life of Christ and the history of the Church, as a sole responsibility. We must never shirk it, but we must never think that shunning wrong and those who are touched by it is the fullness of Christian responsibility. The Church is the body of Christ to a sick and suffering world, and must be prepared to engage with that world in all its deficiencies and wrongs - precisely in its deficiencies and wrongs - if it is to fulfil its priestly and pastoral duty to offer the healing of Christ not simply to some generic concept of humanity, but to actual human persons, concrete people with concrete problems. We are called to be 'in the world, not of it'; it's not an either-or position from which one gets to choose.

I fully intend to see the film when it comes out next month. I fully intend to call heresy heresy (and have done so already on television and radio numerous times), but I intend to see it. I intend to see it precisely because I also, like you, know individuals who have been swayed by it's story; or if not its story precisely, the general religious ethos it perpetuates. I'll see it because seeing what it is that captures the hearts of a generation is a necessary part - part, not whole - of responding to those individuals whose hearts are so captured.

INXC, Matthew

[Antonios]

Thank you Matthew for your post. I appreciate your position, but I still, mind you, don't agree with its conclusion. I am a lay person and hold no degree in theology, and I am quite sure you are much more learned in Orthodoxy than I am and than most people in this forum for that matter. I deeply respect you from what I know about you and am grateful for this online community. (in other words, please don't be mad at me for disagreeing with you! :) )

I don't believe for one instance that a heretical story like this is going to sway your beliefs. I'm confident your convictions are strong and your faith is solid. However, that is not the case with many of your fellow Christians (or those who would become Christians). Perhaps I am one of those people, and shunning the book and movie is what is needful in my individual situation. However, when you say that "one must exercise discernment", this is hard enough for deeply spiritual people let alone for those who are confused and disillusioned. The reality is, this is the spiritual condition of many, if not most, people these days. One must also excercise discernment in what they are endorsing and propagating.

I cannot see how your example of Christ sitting with sinners or His saving work has anything to do with reading a deeply heretical book which has led many souls astray, endorsing it as a good read, and then supporting it by going to see it in the theaters. Are we to accept such actions as Christlike 'engagement with sinners'? Is this the way Christ led by example? He did not shun the sinner, as you mention, but He did shun the sin.

You stated that "He did not shame those who would engage with sinners; He shamed only those who would have prevented him from doing so." I submit to you that endorsing this movie is preventing Him from engaging the hearts of men, and this should resoundly be put to shame. It is true that this is an age-old heresy, and there may be some fascinating social dynamics involved with its popularity, but to just chalk this up to "a flash in the pan" story which will 'quickly and universally fade away' is, by all due respect, an insensitive and ignorant statement to make while millions of people are being disillusioned and falling away from the Truth.

I would like to end my post by trying to tie together two observations you have mentioned, namely that the the Church is a spiritual hospital and that as the Body of Christ, it must be prepared to engage with the sick world in all its deficiencies and wrongs.

In the event of a chemical or biological accident, whether from an industrial incident or a terrorist attack, the first order of business is to announce a disaster code and to shut all the entrances to the hospital, especially the ones to the emergency department. This is done to secure the premises and protect the integrity of the facility and the health of those people within, especially those already sick from various ailments, from being exposed and contaminated, as they are the most vulnerable to die from such a contamination. Such procedures act to prevent the spread of disease and allow the hospital to efficiently concentrate its resources and energy in treating the sick which will be arriving, rather than expending itself on self-decontamination.

A heresy is such an accident, and in this regard, a terrorist attack by Satan. If the Church is going to perform its priestly and pastoral duty of healing its spiritually sick members, it will do this much more effectively if it first condemns the heresy for what it is, protects its already vulnerable from such demonic influences, thereby creating a suitable environment to address those newly contaminated members arriving in the ambulance bay in a more personal and individual manner.

By setting the example of spending time, money, and energy engaged with this heresy, it makes the job of the hospital more difficult and the vulnerable more so.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I cannot see how your example of Christ sitting with sinners or His saving work has anything to do with reading a deeply heretical book which has led many souls astray, endorsing it as a good read, and then supporting it by going to see it in the theaters. Are we to accept such actions as Christlike 'engagement with sinners'? Is this the way Christ led by example? He did not shun the sinner, as you mention, but He did shun the sin.

There is a certain degree of round-and-round to which one will come in discussions like this. Setting that aside, since you make many good points, I'd simply say this: most people probably know what adultery is. Should someone approach who is engaged in adultery, genuinely seeking conversion and change, most people likely can respond, to some degree or another. Should an individual come, however, deeply engaged with and submersed in modern-day neo-gnosticism, what will your response be?

The example I see overwhelmingly in the fathers of the Church is to know the world - including the thought processes that are enshrined in the things that are popular for a time. Look at the actual content of the works of an Irenaeus, or an Epiphanius, or an Athanasius, or a Maximus. None ever suggests all their flock should go out and imbibe in the culture simply for its own sake; as before, the fact that some people are not in a position to encounter such material without it posing serious problems to their spiritual life, and who thus should not do so, has, I think, been a given from the beginning of this conversation - no one has ever suggested otherwise.

But to call down shame on people who do... this seems to step too far over the line.

INXC, Matthew

[Antonios]

Round and round we go! :;)


Should an individual come, however, deeply engaged with and submersed in modern-day neo-gnosticism, what will your response be?

Excellent question. My response to that person would be to first pray for them and then secondly to direct them to someone who has experience in dealing with such spiritual affairs, like for example a member of the clergy.


as before, the fact that some people are not in a position to encounter such material without it posing serious problems to their spiritual life, and who thus should not do so, has, I think, been a given from the beginning of this conversation - no one has ever suggested otherwise.

I guess my problem with this quote is that it may not be some people who may encounter serious problems with their spiritual life from reading this book, but many, if not, God forbid, most! The Arian heresy was what the majority believed in many regions for many years. Will The Da Vinci Code create such movement? I don't know. From a purely statistical and historical estimate, probably not. Then again, I'm sure many felt Arius' writings would also be a flash in a pan and quickly disappear. We cannot underestimate the impact such heresies have as a whole, to all humankind.

Benign neglect and passive denial is what often allows a small incidental mole to transform into an aggressive and metastatic cancer. As members of the Church and examples to our fellow Christians, we should act as diligent surveyors, ready to remove it with the first sign of malignancy, rather than study its in situ growth and patterns and distinguishing characteristics. Sure, such study could allow us to publish many papers, but it risks the health and life of the Body, which is the Church. Yes, there are fascinating components attributing to its phenomenal and staggering growth, but meanwhile, one by one, the Body's members are being attacked, being infiltrated with cancerous thoughts, and dying away from the Truth. There are people right now reading this book who will deny Jesus because of what they have read. I continue to hold my position. For shame to me if I should swerve because of social pressure and any false sense of spiritual security.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Speaking pastorally as a priest I have to say that I agree with Matthew. If a parishioner came to me about such things I would not counsel them against seeing the movie unless they were very weak in their faith. The irony here is that most likely the very people we would need to warn about the dangers of seeing this movie would go anyway.

[Antonios]

Father Raphael,

Thank you for your post. May I ask you if you have read the book or plan on seeing it in the theaters?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father Raphael,

Thank you for your post. May I ask you if you have read the book or plan on seeing it in the theaters?


It's not likely that I would either read the book or see the movie. But that's more to do with not having so much time when it comes to reading and having an aversion to religious movies. This aversion isn't 'doctrinal' though; it's more that I don't think the screen lends itself to conveying the real power of the Gospels in an accurate way. So I'm much more moved by a movie with good characterisation or good plot or just plain good sense that may seem outwardly secular in tone.

Recently we were the first place in Canada to get Turner Classic Movies on cable and there are many very pleasant surprises here. One thing is how much more carefully older movies are paced with a very sensitive portrayal of character. You have to slow down inside first of all just to watch these movies and there is quite often something good & moral about them even beyond the plot level. A few months ago they showed a version of David Copperfield from about 1935 with WC Fields as Micawber that was so moving I was reduced to tears. (Copperfield's aunt was also magnificent- don't know her real name- had the most interesting face I've ever seen and about 8ft tall it seemed). I think this movie would soften the heart of almost anyone.

Now pop in a video of The Passion or Da Vinci code and you'd not likely get much more than continual growling from me. :(

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

This is proving to be an interesting and exciting discussion, but I think much of it ultimately boils down to individual conscience. I know I could spend my $10 (8 Cyprus Pounds in my case) on charity instead of going to see the movie. I know I could be feeding my mind with much more healthy imagery and ideas. There are a lot of little "details" of my life that could benefit by a careful 'pruning' - small things perhaps, but troublesome and no doubt spiritually harmful habitual patterns of behaviour that amount to nothing less than indulgence of the lower self, the "mole growing into a cancer" as Antonios graphically describes it.

On the other hand, there is some substance also to the equally true assertion that we have a responsibility to others - as well as to ourselves - to be alert to the ways in which the Gospel is being corrupted by the moguls of popular culture, and to offer cogent and convincing responses to the arguments and casuistry with which our Orthodox faith is being undermined.

On a third level, I also think that Truth is Truth. The devil and his minions may try to twist it and conceal it through an infinite number of permutations, but ultimately they can only shatter their hideous faces against the rock of faith. Christ risen has nothing to fear from Hollywood or heretics, and true seekers eventually do come round to seeing this, however badly they've been misled - God makes sure they do. This doesn't mean those of us being saved by God shouldn't care; that's precisely why the point Matthew and I make about engaging secular culture on all levels, has substance. Ordinary Christian laypeople, whether they have academic credentials or not, cannot simply leave the intelligent response to the clergy. We must be ready to offer reasons for our faith - bright, convincing reasons - at ant moment we are called to do so. Of course, if we are unable to do this (we can hardly be expected to know an answer to everything!), then Antonios' suggestion of prayer and referral to an experienced member of the clergy is a good and viable response too (but will the doubter go?).

Fr Raphael, I like your light-hearted touch:
But that's more to do with not having so much time when it comes to reading and having an aversion to religious movies. This aversion isn't 'doctrinal' though; it's more that I don't think the screen lends itself to conveying the real power of the Gospels in an accurate way. So I'm much more moved by a movie with good characterisation or good plot or just plain good sense that may seem outwardly secular in tone. As a former movie enthusiast, I've seen miles of celluloid in my own time. As a child I was moved by films with Jesus in them (here in Cyprus they still show Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" every Easter), and - importantly perhaps - found these movies to be an important source of religious knowledge in the otherwise quite secular environment I was growing up in. I didn't show my family or friends that I felt for Jesus, not because anyone would have disapproved, but I may have been mildly teased or "brought down to earth" in a well-meaning way. So religious movies can be helpful, although I entirely agree that they cannot capture the power of the gospels. And all the quaint donkeys, sack-cloth, beards and wooden staffs do make the genre rather cliche, detracting from the naturalness and profound beauty of the message. As an adult, I do believe in "keeping it real", and that can mean seeing the face of God in ordinary life as well as in the emotionally more focused atmosphere of a film. Still, I'm grateful when films with religious themes are being made - even perhpas heretical ones - because I think indifference to God and the spiritual life is one of the adversary's most powerful weapons. The vast majority of films made seem to teach cynicism, materialism, self-indulgence or some form of "social" message by which traditional values and beliefs are demonised and turned on their heads. I guess that's what happens when you ask a lot of extrovert film and drama students to comment on life by making a film (or when four men come in carrying a heavy cheque with the express request from the top dogs to make a movie about their own pseudo-liberal, neo-fascist, neo-gnostic self-interests)! Panem et circenses, anyone?

In Christ,
Byron

[Antonios]

Thank you everyone for this interesting discussion. Matthew, Byron and Father Raphael all make such excellent points, that it is easy to see how such a discussion could go on and on. (Especially Father Raphael's comments about the Turner Classic Movie channel. I've already tracked it down on my cable provider!:) ) I also especially appreciate Byron stating that in the end much of this boils down to individual conscience. Perhaps I'm very overly (to a fault) conscientious about such things, which would explain why my response would be to pray for the person mentioned and direct them to someone more knowledgable than try to offer a second rate response to them about things I know little about. Is this a cop-out? I dont know.. Is this the only right way to witness to the world? No, it isn't, but it may be for me.

I am reminded of Jesus' words about being the light of the world. He did not say that we must learn and entertain the darkness so that we could be the light for others. My take on this is to shun any darkness as to try to be an example to others. But Jesus also said " use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings" (Luke 16:9). Maybe this is why there does need to be some people who must know and understand such heresies in order to clarify to others why they exist and why they are wrong.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone out there. Please forgive me. As for me, I still refuse to either buy or read the book and I will not see it in movie form. Is this helping others find Christ? Likely it wont make any measurable difference (outside of my family and closest friends who will also not see it). I guess, personally, I will at least sleep a little easier at night knowing I didn't contribute to its popularity, its financial success, and the damage it is doing to unknown amounts of people. This is my rational. This is why I shun it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thank you everyone for this interesting discussion. Matthew, Byron and Father Raphael all make such excellent points, that it is easy to see how such a discussion could go on and on. (Especially Father Raphael's comments about the Turner Classic Movie channel. I've already tracked it down on my cable provider!:) ) I also especially appreciate Byron stating that in the end much of this boils down to individual conscience. Perhaps I'm very overly (to a fault) conscientious about such things, which would explain why my response would be to pray for the person mentioned and direct them to someone more knowledgable than try to offer a second rate response to them about things I know little about. Is this a cop-out? I dont know.. Is this the only right way to witness to the world? No, it isn't, but it may be for me.

I am reminded of Jesus' words about being the light of the world. He did not say that we must learn and entertain the darkness so that we could be the light for others. My take on this is to shun any darkness as to try to be an example to others. But Jesus also said " use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings" (Luke 16:9). Maybe this is why there does need to be some people who must know and understand such heresies in order to clarify to others why they exist and why they are wrong.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone out there. Please forgive me. As for me, I still refuse to either buy or read the book and I will not see it in movie form. Is this helping others find Christ? Likely it wont make any measurable difference (outside of my family and closest friends who will also not see it). I guess, personally, I will at least sleep a little easier at night knowing I didn't contribute to its popularity, its financial success, and the damage it is doing to unknown amounts of people. This is my rational. This is why I shun it.

These posts have also given me a lot to think about. One thing is about Antonios' warnings about this movie using an analogy about Arius.


I have given this some thought but I think the difference is that Arianism was a conscious heresy, a conscious rejection of the Church's fundamental teachings and setting up of oneself as an alterrnative authority within the Church (remember it was the Church which ejected Arius from the Church not Arius himself). The da Vinci Code and such things however come from a space from without the Church. Not that they are not possibly just as heretical or harmful as Arianism- but there is something about this which is more a reflection of a contemporary cultural mind-set rather than the type of rebellion against the Church that Arianism was. (Maybe that's why pastorally we would still deal differently with a real Arian-if there were any left hiding out in the Egyptian deserts!- and a person who has trouble accepting Christ is really God and not just a very good man. And the latter is actually more technically heretical than what Arius believed).

I guess the best analogy to me for what I am trying to say would actually be the difference between involvement in Gnosticism and seeing the da Vinci Code. I'm pretty sure the former would bar one from partaking from the Cup short of open rejection of Gnostic teachings & involvement; but I'm inclined to think that if a parishioner wanted to partake after seeing the da Vinci code I wouldn't demand they come to confession first (Matthew Steenberg breathes a sigh of relief). So discernment and possibly spiritual advice would be needed in seeing or reading such things- but they're not the same as involvement in heresy unless one crosses a certain line onself.

It is in this way I think that we are quite justified as Orthodox Christians in wanting to understand the appeal and nature of movies and books like this (and how to understand this unless one either sees the movie or reads something trustworthy about it?) and even understanding how some of our own people may want to see this for entertainment purposes.

Thanks also to Byron for your kind comments. I often read your comments about film & sense you are getting into the subject of recreation and what is proper for an Orthodox Christian. To deny this need I think is simply wrong & even harmful. Of course we must take into account what is harmful or not and also how people change spiritually over the years. But this doesn't mean that most Orthodox including many monastics have to from time to time allow the bow to slacken a little (this theme actually is Patristic) in order that it not break. Straight-out denial of this common need tends to produce either a broken bow (often a hypocritical zeal beyond one's actual state leads to this) or worse (which is also quite common) a secret life-style behind one's grand words which is often worse than if one was open about what one was doing.

Anyway after all that hot air in my sails I have to say I still love film and when I want to rest my mind after a long & tiring day find nearly nothing so edifying as an old or new movie.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Raphael]

Yes, Tom Hanks is Greek Orthodox (http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/127/Hanks.htm).
I know I am replying to an old thread, but according to this:
http://yya.oca.org/youth/yomail/back-issues/2001-02-02.html#_An_Orthodox_Look:
Tom Hanks is not Orthodox. I suspect he attends with his wife and for doesn't deny the Orthodox rumors, but I can't find any solid proff that he is Orthodox.
If it matters...;)

Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Raphael,

The Wikipedia entry of Tom Hanks says he did join the Greek Orthodox Church see here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hanks)I wonder what Tom Hanks or his wife Rita Wilson (whose father is Greek-Pomak) bio here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Wilson) themselves think of the content of this book / movie? Perhaps if they had strong convictions regarding Christ's Divinity, they might have turned the offer down...but then again it's a matter of perspective.

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

It seems that Tom Hanks is on the talk show circuit at present probably in support of the movie. Considering how this works (I think the circuit may be part of the contract involved in an actor playing in a movie- maybe I'm wrong but I don't think these things are just spontaneous on the actor's part. When has it ever been seen that an actor got on one of the talk shows and said, "I just hated playing that role!" :confused: ) It has also been a long time since Hanks has not been able to choose the movies he would like to take part in. So I would guess that he supports the theme of the movie.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bogdan]

One can react in any number of ways. Surely what is untrue should be condemned as untrue, and exposed for what it is. Of course. But standing on one's pulpit and shouting to the world, 'You brood of vipers' is only part of the Church's witness. John the Baptist spoke to mobs, to crowds; by and large, Christ spoke to persons. He spoke to what ailed the person before him, often to a degree far deeper than anything they had expected, but to them, of them. Christ spoke out against adultery ('He who lusts in his heart... has already committed adultery...'), but when it came to his response to the adulterous woman, engaged with her. He did not shame those who would engage with sinners; he shamed only those who would have prevented him from doing so.

Is our mission simply to tell the world how fallen and wrong it is? I see no precedent for this, in the life of Christ and the history of the Church, as a sole responsibility. We must never shirk it, but we must never think that shunning wrong and those who are touched by it is the fullness of Christian responsibility. The Church is the body of Christ to a sick and suffering world, and must be prepared to engage with that world in all its deficiencies and wrongs - precisely in its deficiencies and wrongs - if it is to fulfil its priestly and pastoral duty to offer the healing of Christ not simply to some generic concept of humanity, but to actual human persons, concrete people with concrete problems. We are called to be 'in the world, not of it'; it's not an either-or position from which one gets to choose.


This discussion is definitely both interesting, and starting to repeat itself. I believe everyone's opinion is valid food for thought on this issue, and as I stated before, I hope that whatever choice we make, it will be for the betterment of our spiritual lives.

I do want to respond to this quote by Matthew. In your post, especially this excerpt, you seem to be saying that we should not just "tell the world it is fallen" but instead "heal it" by involving ourselves in it as John the baptist did. I however have a problem with correlating how John the baptist speaking in front of "angry mobs" and expressing his faith and therefore offering healing is in ANY way comparable with spending $10 and sitting in the back of a movie theatre. No voice is being raised and no angry mob is being challenged as far as I can see. Furthermore, I see no healing being offered by silently offering our SUPPORT to the very heresy we are trying to avert. If you could elaborate on exactly how you are offering the world spiritual healing by seing this movie, I would love to read about it!

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[M.C. Steenberg]

I think the point is not about contributing to the success of the film - of handing over one's £8 as it were - but of being prepared to answer the questions that people have, and will have, from it. My initial impulse to read the book (which I didn't do for a long, long time after its publication) was when individuals kept coming to me to ask what the Church thinks about x, or y, or z, as points that it had raised. Replying to the individual points is easy enough ('Did Constantine really do that?', etc.); but what became clearer over time was the fact that a general ethos was enshrined in the types of questions being asked - a kind of Gnosticising tendency of pseudo-historicism, etc. This was causing a much deeper kind of questioning and 'religious turmoil' in their minds, that gave rise to the specific questions of detail. To understand that, I had to read the book.

Again, I think there's a tendency to polarise comments. No one is suggesting it's the duty of every Christian to see the film for pastoral reasons. Nor, I think, should there be blanked condemnations of those who do.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think that Matthew's comments are pastorally correct. Nobody is forcing anyone to see this movie. And if they do see the movie it doesn't mean the acceptance of every premise of it. This obviously also goes for all we read or movies we see.

A good example of this is the addiction of pornography which is now reaching epidemic levels through the internet. Finding out about this through various studies and documentaries is extremely helpful for understanding what is behind this and then how to deal with the problem. This doesn't mean one has to become an addict to understand the problem (although speaking to such peolple is helpful) and studying the problem is not the same as being an addict.

The point here is that discernment and care is needed in every different situation.

This also brings up a related point I have been wanting to make for quite awhile now. It is striking how our thinking and actions are increasingly based on what is theoretical rather than the reality of the situations and people involved in them. This occurs I think from an increasing tendency in our society to not think personally but rather in splendid isolation to bounce our own ideas around our head as if this was reality. We don't [B]think, live & act[B] as personally as we used to so this allows us to see situations and people in much more theoretical way. And as this comes from within ourselves rather than being checked by the challenges of reality there is something cold and selfish about the results. It's hard to recognise this in ourselves because these are the unrecognised results of social values that appear proper. We're much more 'open' & expressive ('real' is how we think of ourselves) than previous generations so it's very difficult to see how the fruits could come from how we perceive the tree. Could it be that self-control is far more personal than we have been led to believe?

We need to be aware of this and be extremely cautious of applying this same way of thinking where the pastoral and personal is always supposed to enter strongly into the equation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Raphael]

Dear Raphael,

The Wikipedia entry of Tom Hanks says he did join the Greek Orthodox Church

As do many other sites, many repeating an article written by Judy West. In fact it's where wikipedia got its info. Let's just say there is room for doubt.

Raphael, the layman

[Antonios]

For those of you who have not read the book nor will go see the movie, (or if you have read the book and will go see the movie for that matter), this site (http://www.goarch.org/en/special/DaVinci/) pretty much covers alot of the controversial arguments. This is one way you can answer questions addressed to you about this story, without needing to financially contribute to it.

Matthew, I respectfully have a question. You stated that in order to understand the "much deeper kind of questioning and 'religious turmoil' in their minds" regarding the "kind of Gnosticising tendency of pseudo-historicism, etc", you had to read the book. Lets assume this is true and a valid reason to read it: why spend the money to see it in the theaters and publicly endorse it? I am sure you have many people/students/peers who value your judgement and opinions. How are you now benefitting them? Although you may feel that by watching it (which would also mean financially contributing it to it) you will somehow gain a deeper insight into modern pseudo-historicism and its current sensationalism, aren't you risking propagating pseudo-historism by endorsing the book, supporting it financially, and telling other you now plan on seeing the movie? Wasn't it enough to read the book and read the headlines to try to understand the "much deeper kind of questioning and 'religious turmoil' in their minds"

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I went to the goarch site and liked reading the article The X-files of Ancient Lies by Rev Dr Frank Marangos.

He writes : "The appearance of Gnostic creedal tenants such as: (a) the suspicion of authority, (b) private spirituality, (c) the rejection of external forms of worship, (d) the distortion of sexuality, (e) the rejection of bodily Incarnation of God, and (f) the refutation of absolute truths, attest to the Old Testament exhortation quoted above . . . indeed, “what has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)."

I also liked this "G. K. Chesterton one said that when people cease believing in Christianity, it is not that they will believe in nothing, but rather, they will believe in anything. "


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Antonios,

Thank you for the link. It seems the movie is making enough of an impact for the GO archdiocese to feel the need to respond, so it is definitely something of a problem. The number of people I've met who now claim Christianity was cooked up by the Emperor Constantine and 'his' bishops for purely political reasons, suggests to me we need to respond with more than monosyllabic answers. The temptation to believe Jesus was 'only a man' is enormous in this scientistic post-modern deconstructionist age. Although we should certainly be able to respond academically, I don't see how that can be done effectively unless we familiarise ourselves with the enemy, both as book and film. As Fr Raphael indicates, to study a subject does not necessarily mean to become involved in it personally. The 8 quid for watching the movie does trouble me, though, as does the money for buying the book (my wife has read it in Greek, but I'd prefer to read it in the original). I wonder if there is a legal way around that.

I also appreciate Fr Raphael's perceptive comments about our contemporary way of thinking:
This occurs I think from an increasing tendency in our society to not think personally but rather in splendid isolation to bounce our own ideas around our head as if this was reality. We don't [b]think, live & act[b] as personally as we used to so this allows us to see situations and people in much more theoretical way. And as this comes from within ourselves rather than being checked by the challenges of reality there is something cold and selfish about the results. It's hard to recognise this in ourselves because these are the unrecognised results of social values that appear proper. We're much more 'open' & expressive ('real' is how we think of ourselves) than previous generations so it's very difficult to see how the fruits could come from how we perceive the tree. Could it be that self-control is far more personal than we have been led to believe?
This suggests to me that knowledge (of another person or indeed of a system of ideas) is 'cold and selfish' when it is not personal in some way; yet paradoxically, the 'openness' and 'expressivity' of our generation, which prides itself on being more 'real' than its predecessors, may in fact be less truly personal than they were in the self-control which characterised their values and behaviour. This may be because apparent 'openness' and 'expressivity' can also be masks for a lack of genuine commitment. Also the perception of reality that "comes from within ourselves rather than being checked by the challenges of reality" makes me think of a point made by Christos Yiannaras at a talk of his I had the good fortune to attend; he pointed out that young children today do not learn to have a genuine relationship with reality, because everything is subject to control by buttons. If a child wants light in the room, it learns to press a buton; if it wants heat, the same, sound and image also. Is this the same as a child 100 years ago who had to learn to chop wood and start a fire, feel the resistance of the material he used? For entertainment, this child depended on his parents' and his own imagination and storytelling capacities - is this the same as having one's sounds and images served up? Perhaps a reality which offers us some resistance is also the foundation of a more personal way of being-in-the-world, just as thought, action and life which is characterised by self-control is more genuine and more personal than non-commital reportage.

In Christ
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

P.S. For the continuing debate, here is one contribution from Terry Mattingly, an Orthodox writer, on who Dan Brown is (http://www.thedavincidialogue.com/expert.cfm?e=195).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This suggests to me that knowledge (of another person or indeed of a system of ideas) is 'cold and selfish' when it is not personal in some way; yet paradoxically, the 'openness' and 'expressivity' of our generation, which prides itself on being more 'real' than its predecessors, may in fact be less truly personal than they were in the self-control which characterised their values and behaviour. This may be because apparent 'openness' and 'expressivity' can also be masks for a lack of genuine commitment. Also the perception of reality that "comes from within ourselves rather than being checked by the challenges of reality" makes me think of a point made by Christos Yiannaras at a talk of his I had the good fortune to attend; he pointed out that young children today do not learn to have a genuine relationship with reality, because everything is subject to control by buttons. If a child wants light in the room, it learns to press a buton; if it wants heat, the same, sound and image also. Is this the same as a child 100 years ago who had to learn to chop wood and start a fire, feel the resistance of the material he used? For entertainment, this child depended on his parents' and his own imagination and storytelling capacities - is this the same as having one's sounds and images served up? Perhaps a reality which offers us some resistance is also the foundation of a more personal way of being-in-the-world, just as thought, action and life which is characterised by self-control is more genuine and more personal than non-commital reportage.

In Christ
Byron

This theme seems to be a sub-thread through this entire conversation. How we are called to relate to what is problematic, broken or sinful around us? Indeed this seems to get to the point of how we are called to be pastoral- Matthew I think referred this as being 'priestly'. And in a related way Constantine B. Scouteris in a very nice book called Ecclesial Being says that as Orthodox Christians we are called to relate to the material creation in a liturgical way. I think this still very much applies to what is problematic and broken from sinfulness for it denotes a personal relationship and offering up of something to God. This is different from worldly relationship which denotes either full moral acceptance or rejection. There is something quite different in our relationship to what is around us so that we neither fall into the extremes of a compromise nor shunning but rather we allow Christ's healing Light into the situation. And this seems to always involve a death to ourselves in some way, fighting against the impulse to be selfishly involved in others' sinfulness or else disdaining them from a feeling of moral superiority.

Committment I think is also crucial in this type of relationship. In the self-sacrifice this involves there is always something long-term with no immediate answer. For the 'answer' is found through the committment to what is before us; ie it is not just an intellectual construct or emotion which is satisfied.

It's interesting Byron that you bring up "control by buttons" as an aspect of this. Not that we are dogmatically against technology but those who have fasted from such things soon notice the spiritual change in themselves. Watching 'reality shows' which involve returns to earlier ways of living one notices that the reality of that day was so much more hands on and in need of continual commitment. Most of the people go through a kind of nervous breakdown before they can really adjust. In the adjustment period one really sees just how selfish we have become. We are extremely demanding of other people and things.

This affects our life in the Church not only in the obvious problems we create for each other. There is also a similar undercurrent in the way we see and deal with 'problems' in the Church & the world around us nowadays.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

Thank you Byron and Father Raphael for the excellent posts. You have given me much to think about.

[Bogdan]

I think father Raphael gets to a very good point in his last post.

None of us can be like the other in our approach to God. Indeed, Orthodoxy offers us One path, however that path offers us a variety of footing. Each of us goes along it at different speeds and inclines. In this way, Mathew will go to see Da Vinci, where as I will not. The path is still the same. St. Peter was not St. Paul.

Thank you father for your thoughts.

Hristos Voskrese,
~Bogdan

[Peter]

This article by Steve Anagnostou adds
further to the the excellent comments already made in this thread, which I have been following with great interest:

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/main.htm

A commentary on the "Da Vinci Code"
THE DA VINCI LIE by Steve Anagnostou



As appealing as it may be, and as amazing a picture that it paints, there are fundamental historical errors in Dan Brown’s book, demonstrating that his scholarship is poor, his theories are not based on fact, and, in my opinion, his intention is to discredit Christianity by promoting goddess worship and paganism based on heretical texts. These kinds of flagrant attacks on our faith ought to be exposed.

Our advantage is that our own Orthodox faith is built on God’s Word and on Truth. We can depend on historical evidence. We don’t have to resort to lies, conspiracy theories, and revisionist history. The novel’s storyline is full of mystery, conspiracy and “revelation.” As a mystery/thriller, the book hooks the reader through suspenseful plot twists and turns - lies, deceit, conspiracy and murder - combined with an overall treasure hunt-like journey for the legendary “Holy Grail”.

Is there any truth in ANY of the following claims made in the book:

Jesus was married

Brown says of himself that he is a Christian, yet “a student of many religions”. From this alone, we can discern his motives. Brown’s only ‘source’ supposedly proving Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene is the Gnostic Gospel of Phillip, written sometime in the third century and proven to be fraudulent as well as incomplete.

Nag Hammadi/Dead Sea Scrolls/Q

Brown suggests that these are all alternate biblical sources with nothing secret about them. However the Dead Sea Scrolls are purely Old Testament, meaning pre-Jesus, Nag Hammadi is a third century Gnostic (heretic) document, and Q is a dubious book supposedly of Jesus’ sayings. So he has attempted to substitute the proven texts of the canonical bible that have come down to us from 2000 years ago for certain counterfeit texts that no real scholar would consider as authentic or even credible.

Nicea/Constantine

Well, this assertion by Brown is just plain rubbish, and his representation of Saint Constantine is flawed and blasphemous, to say the least. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicea was held in 325AD and attended by most bishops of Christendom at the time to discuss matters of faith and certain heresies that were forming at the time, not for the bible to be compiled, as claimed.

Priory of Sion

Far from being ‘the oldest known secret society in the world,’ as Brown incorrectly states through the character Langdon, it was actually an elaborate hoax set up in 1956 by a French conman, Pierre Plantard, to further his own nefarious agenda.

Leonardo and his works

Any serious scholar would NEVER refer to the historical Leonardo as ‘Da Vinci’, for that was merely the region he was from. Brown seems to mock even his protagonist by using this term rather that his correct name, Leonardo.

Wicca

Unlike Brown’s suggestions, WICCA is NOT an ancient pagan nature worshipping religion, which was replaced by this new Christianity, but rather a misogynistic hotch-potch of pseudo-satanism concocted during the Second World War, by one Gerald Gardner who merely used it to give spiritual credence to his adulterous proclivities. In order to draw in the highest number of female ‘initiates’ he added a few female deities to his God of Death deity and Wham Bam there you have it.

The Grail

The novel’s premise centres on the preposterous notion that there was no “HOLY GRAIL”, or cup of Christ, used in the last supper to inaugurate the first Holy Communion of the believers, merely because Leonardo chose not to depict one in his work, “The Last Supper”. So as a Christian, which he claims to be, he instead implies that the “Holy Grail” was Mary Magdalene’s womb, which carries the Holy Blood-Line of Christ, rather that the common cup of wine he gave His disciples to partake of during the actual Last supper.

Therefore if this foundation, which the whole novel is based on, is correct, and the Gospel accounts are ALL wrong, then we must assume that the Last Supper was an orgiastic event wherein which Jesus shared Mary Magdalene, sexually, with all of his disciples.



With the movie due to be released soon - having promotional material that states, “The greatest conspiracy of the past 2,000 years is about to unravel” - this confusion will surely increase. Brown plays on the fact that few people know much about Christianity and, given human nature, even fewer will bother to research any assertions he makes which he presents as "fact". You need not be one of those duped!

While it is true that the Roman Catholic Church continues to compromise to keep pace with the modern world, and while protestant sects continue to appear as if out of nowhere, ORTHODOXY is steadfast as Christ's one, true, undivided church, which has remained dogmatically unadulterated for over 2000 years.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Given the dearth of things about, and people's apparent interest in them, I note also an article in today's BBC News on-line (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4979942.stm), regarding a 'team' set up by the Roman Catholic Chuch to combat the teachings of the book and film.

XB, Matthew

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

We are all free.

If you have the 8 to 10 dollars to spend on the film in North America, go right ahead (don't forget the popcorn and coke beforehand). In Great Britain the cost of entry will be considerably higher, if your income allows you to indulge yourself.

Are you, though, completely free - is this the same freedom granted by the Incarnation? That the hypostatic nature of humankind, for the very first time, can attain theosis.

By buying into this media joke/ hoax/ fiction/ blasphemy /yet again 'simple fiction' - are you not implicitly stating something.

That you are free to add to the coffers of the already wealthy Dan Brown, the hardly penniless Tom Hanks, nor the director Tom Howard? That your very presence in the cinema might be a betrayal of yourself as an Orthodox Christian, and that you may give a shameless example to others you may know you.

There was some mention of 'fatwah'. As I recall, I was the one who brought this up. Not that I am in favour of Christianity stooping to such cruelty and bestiality. But what example do we give to Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, when we purchase over 40 million hardcover copies of this spurious book, and now in paperback alone in the U.S.A. it has sold a further 1.5 million? Ultimately the money is not the issue I am raising.

What I am saying is this: I, 'so and so', a known Orthodox Christian, go to the movie, (a legitimate right) regardless of the scandal it may cause to others, because it is my right, I earned the money, and I will do what I jolly well please, thank you very much.

So typically Western European. So Protestant in mentality, it is truly shocking.

Staretz Iustin of Petru Voda Monastery, spent 16 years underground in a Communist Prison in Romania - his sole crime - being an Orthodox priest monk.

A nun, now a hermitess in Alaska asked him his very worst memory. Somehow, I had the courage to ask him the same many years later.

According to Fr. Iustin, his worst sin, was when, to avoid a difficult work assignment he told a new guard that he was in prison because he was a peasant who refused to be re-located to the cities. IF he had told him the truth that he was imprisioned because he was a Christian and a Christian Priest, he would have been slammed against the wall and trampled to death.

Thus, Fr. Iustin, avoided death. He is now 88 years of age, but this betrayal, as he sees it, he will, he told me, carry to his grave.

Dan Brown, the Da Vinci Code, Hollywood - is that all it is....

I do not think so. I will not go to see the movie, I do not have the money any way. To indulge oneself in such a manner is a betrayal of Christ. It is nothing less.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

This is the first time in the past few years I can ever remember disagreeing with Matthew. Although I certainly do not condemn you, Matthew, I have to agree with those who are opposed to seeing the Da Vinci Code movie. I also have to confess that a friend and I discussed the Muslim reaction to the Mohammed cartoon(s). My friend, being Palestinian by birth, had some interesting insights. One of the things that I--and he--respect about Islam is that there is still something sacred. There is still something worth getting upset about when that sacred is abused or mistreated or misrepresented.

I wish that we, as Christians on the whole, had that sense of awe and majesty; that sense that is still very real during the liturgical services of our Church. Sure, there are still those that boycott movies and paintings and the like that misrepresent Christianity, but there are still a large number of nominal Christians that participate. How many nominal Muslims were OK with the Mohammed cartoons? Very few to my knowledge.

It seems to me that the Orthodox Fathers condemn quite explicitly the theatre. If one were to read their condemnations, they are equally as applicable, if not more applicable, to today's movie industry that, by and large, produces garbage. I would go a step further and say that we should consider not only skipping the Da Vinci Code, but all movies. I realize that this might not be feasible or understandable to everyone, but I think that we all could agree that there are better forms of entertainment (St. John Chrysostom would recommend for entertainment, reading the Psalms).

Regarding Matthew's most compelling point, that some should see this movie so that they may accurately and effectively respond to people's questions, I remain unconvinced (though sympathetic to his viewpoint). I do not understand the necessity of seeing the movie to be able to respond to people's questions. If people have questions, why can we not respond to them? Is it necessary for me to see the movie to respond to the notion of Jesus having a physical bloodline? If a priest, for example, were to accurately respond to a person's confession, must he participate in the same sin as them to understand? I don't think that is necessary.

Aaron

[James Morton]

This is quite an interesting topic that I have been glancing at every so often. In fact Aaron you raise some interesting points. On the issue of the Muslim cartoons (don't worry, I shall try my best to stay on-topic), it is true that it is good that they have something sacred still. However, it was perhaps going a bit far to engage in violence and death-threats to quite the extent that a number of Muslims did. Quite simply put, I would say that if you don't want to see something, then don't see it. I personally feel fairly secure in my acceptance of Christ's divinity/humanity etc. and so I don't see the problem in going to see the film, and it may even be enjoyable (as long as it is regarded merely on the level of an adventure film). As long as we are secure in our knowledge of Christianity, it surely can't challenge our beliefs (especially considering that the book was so rubbish).

As long as we voice our opposition to the beliefs expressed by the film, and as long as we are safe from being corrupted by it, then there should be no problem with allowing people to see the film.

As for the injunction not to visit the theatre, as I understand it there was a very good reason for this in the late Roman empire. I have seen from what I have read in my Classics course that theatre had become especially degenerate in this era, and that it had essentially sunk to the level of pornography (even Empress Theodora was known for having participated in the burlesque theatre displays). The theatre that they were condemning was thus not exactly the same as the sort of theatre that we are discussing.

I have to agree with Matthew actually - you can't prove someone wrong until you know what fallacy he or she is espousing. As Sun Tzu said, "Know your enemy and yourself, and you will not lose one out of a thousand battles."

[James Aubuchon]

This movie is most likely going to be the typical Hollywood tripe, with poor dialogue, and a plot that consists mostly of people running around and "looking for clues". It will probably not be a quality movie, regardless of the content. One needs to ask themselves why they feel that they should go and see "this" movie, and not some other movie that will probably be a better movie. This movie sounds like a bunch of hype to me. People are going to flock to see it, only to be disappointed (especially if they have read the book).

Aside from the fact that the movie is both blasphemous AND historically shoddy (I have seen shows on TV where secular historians who are not Christian thoroughly debunk this story), one must realize that MOST hollywood movies are just not very good. It is easy to become addicted to the Hollywood formula movie, and watch one after another.

As a great sinner who has watched far too many movies in my life for my own good, I can easily dismiss this movie as "most likely" Hollywood rubbish without even seeing it. I would have to read both the critics and users reviews at Yahoo Movies before even considering spending my money on such a thing. Even if it was a "well made" movie, I would probably rent it on video instead of forking out a fortune to see it in the theatre.

Our society tries to condition us to run out and spend our money on all sorts of strange things. Advertizing is particularly misleading, and appeals to our sinful sensuality. Turning off the TV set is the best way to flee from this barrage of ungodliness.

I used to be a minister in an evangelical church that had rules against going to the theatre (the old 'don't drink, smoke, chew, or date the girls that do' mentality). I don't think we need rules like that. I do think that we need to realize that we must "redeem the time for the days are evil." Is there something better that you could be doing than going to see this movie that will most likely stink?

If we draw near to God, and begin to experience the utter joy of his presence, and are filled with a "foretaste of things to come", why would we even find such a movie interesting? Like the old protestant hymn goes:

"Turn your eyes upon Jesus. Look full in His wonderful face, and the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace."

In Christ,

Jim

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Jim,

Christ is risen! Thank you for your kind response.

Regarding the Muslim cartoon issue, certainly I would never propose that Orthodox Christians, or anyone for that matter, should react the way some of the Muslims reacted. Regardless, what I respect is the fact that they actually cared. Many of us, on the other hand, are entertained by blasphemous and heretical portrayals of our God. ENTERTAINED!!! This is, in my opinion, the worst reason to see the Da Vinci Code. I can understand and respect Matthew's position, with which I disagree, but I cannot understand seeing the Da Vinci Code for entertainment. Whether or not it shakes someone's faith is irrelevant in this respect. What is saddening to me is that Christians are actually 'entertained' by this.

Regarding the Fathers and their condemnation of the theatre: as I said and as your post confirms, the Fathers' condemnation of the theatre is at least, if not more, applicable to today's theatre as it was in the Roman Empire. Not to mention the fact that other, more recent, fathers also condemned the theatre (e.g., St. John of Kronstadt). There is all sorts of nudity in today's films, not to mention the filthy language, the sexaul inuendos/improprieties, violence, etc.

Aaron

[Antonios]

Interesting news article...Children barred from watching "Da Vinci Code" in Singapore (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/09/060509150140.mo08el48.html)

In Hollywood, your vote is counted by the ticket you do or do not buy. Some people have suggested going to the movies on the opening weekend on Da Vinci Code, except, seeing another movie (Over the Hedge is coming out that night and is supposed to be a fun, lighthearted pixar animation movie). This is probably one of the best ways you can show where you stand on the issue and the only way Hollywood notices.

[Simon11]

I must confess that I am one of the few remaining English speakers in the world who has not got round to reading The Da Vinci Code. Parenthood has made me a very slow reader and the book is a long way down the pile "to read". A couple of things interest me though with the hype over this book:

1. About 14 years ago, I was accosted by a fellow student who saw that I was a Christian. "You can't trust everything you read" he said. "Why?" said I, "What makes you say that?" "Ah, I read it in 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' (the predecessor book for anyone who like me is late coming to this subject). "You must know an awful lot about Christianity then" said I. "Have you read any of the Bible?" "No". "I suppose you went to SUnday School as a child?" "No" Well I realised then that even 14 years ago, there was a generation who actually didn't even know a very little about Christianity and yet were sceptical on the basis of conspiracy-theory books. A couple of the people I know who read the Holy Blood Holy Grail book before the Gospels found the Gospels far more compelling and chose to start going to church instead.
2. I watched a more recent documentary about the Catholic organisation "Opus Dei" which is vilified (so I understand) in Mr. Brown's book. Apparently the book has helped Opus Dei enormously in its recruitment drive for new members - something Dan Brown intended of course...
3. At the moment in the UK there is a series of "documentaries" showing (allegedly) how threatened the church is by the new film (and the not so new book) of the Da Vinci Code. But really, since most of the audience don't know what the Church is and most of those in Church are not going to be thrown by this film, are we really under threat?

The biggest threat to Christianity in the West is not crazy movies but sheer complacence and an inability to integrate our religious faith into our daily lives. However, perhaps we could do well to follow Opus Dei's example on this occasion and turn the tables on the film makers by encouraging people to investigate what Christianity is really about?

If I see the book or DVD of the film in the library, I might finally get round to seeing what the fuss is about.

Ho Hum

Simon

[Owen Jones]

The real scandal is that Tom Hanks, who claims to be a Greek Orthodox Christian, stars in the film.

My wife read the book and she said it was very entertaining, a la Santa Claus. It came across as pure escapist fiction to her.

For me, the interesting fact is that it is based on the common misunderstanding of most "western catholics" that the Church is basically a medieval phenomenon. In a sense this is true, because the Catholic Church as it is presently constituted really began with Charlemagne.

[James Morton]

Tom Hanks is Greek Orthodox?

[Antonios]

Some more news... Greek Orthodox church slams Da Vinci Code (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/10/060510200707.8elxm53p.html)

Orthodox Church has its eye on ‘Da Vinci’ (http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100015_10/05/2006_69516)

[Trudy]

It is my understanding that Tom Hanks is Greek Orthodox by virtue of the fact that he converted when marrying his wife. It is also my understanding that his Orthodoxy only goes that far. But that is purely what I've read/heard and one cannot nor should they judge another. Thus I've already said too much and judged him. God forgive me.

In Christ, Athanasia

PS: I've read the book and found it a very entertaining mystery book. And that's all it is. There isn't a shred of Truth in it and no I'm not going to waste my money on the movie. I borrowed the book!

[Herman Blaydoe]

Seems Danny boy took promotion technique notes from that other heretical movie by Mel Gibson (The Passion of the Christ). Get the fundies all spun up. Lots of articles, lots of attention, all for free. No press is bad press. All the more people protest and make a fuss, all the more money Dan will make.

[James Aubuchon]

Herman,

I would be interested to know why you consider The Passion of the Christ to be heretical?

An Unworthy Servant,

Jim

[Herman Blaydoe]

At best, Gibson's opus is theologically flawed from an Orthodox perspective. See the following links:

Fr. Thomas Hopko (http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/Thomas-Hopko/Articles/melgibsonsmessiah.html)

Journal of Religion and Film (http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol8No2/herbelGibson.htm)

Orthodoxy Today (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/BouteneffPassion.php)

Khouria Frederica (BeliefNet) (http://lists.ctcnet.net/pipermail/frederica-l/2003-September/000097.html)

It is largely based on questionable "visions" from a very non-Orthodox source, 18th century Anne Catherine Emmerich.

I realize that not all Orthodox sources agree with my assessment, that's fine. I consider The Passion of the Christ to be just as fictional as The DaVinci Code. While Dan might believe what he wrote, he at least publically acknowledges it as fiction.

[Aikaterini]

Petition online against the heretical so called "da vincie code"is available http://www.tfp.org/php/action_form/davinci_code.php

Just Follow the instructions.

Dear Boulos: I agree with your intention petition the producers of The Da Vinci Code, but look carefully at the message sent by this website before you click "send." While it does denounce the film, it states that the sender "holds the Papacy sacred" and in general is written to express the opinion of "millions of Catholics."

As an alternative, you may wish to use the petition at the following website: http://www.movieguide.org/petition/, which is from a highly reputable Christian movie review and commentary website, movieguide.com. Again, you can just follow the instructions.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Looking at the new petition, which links to a DVD, looks like EVERYBODY is cashing in on Dan Brown's efforts. Seems like a "win-win" proposition!

Do people seriously believe that moviegoers are going to change their worldview because of one movie? Are Ron Howard and Dan Brown more powerful than the Holy Spirit? Are they a bigger threat than say, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggart?

Maybe it is just a movie. Maybe it is an opportunity to witness in a POSITIVE rather than negative manner. Rather than sign meaningless online petitions, why don't we simply follow the advice of the Holy Apostle, to just "be ready to defend the hope that is in us"?

Just a thought.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Fr Seraphim, bless! In your last post you write
I will not go to see the movie, I do not have the money any way. To indulge oneself in such a manner is a betrayal of Christ. It is nothing less.
This is a sobering thought. It seems the Church is not taking an official position on whether one should read the book or see the film, but all agree it is an inaccurate and misleading work. The newspaper article posted by Antonios says
Last week, the bishop of Thessaloniki, Anthimos, advised Greeks to avoid watching the film, which stars Tom Hanks, because it was inaccurate. But [Archbishop] Christodoulos warned his bishops and other clerics not to express their view on the film to reporters as they did not have the authority to present the Church’s official position.
Also the other article from the same post says
The Orthodox church, to which 97 percent of Greeks belong, "does not call on people either to see or not to see the film, or to read or not to read the book ... but it is sure that those who do will see the lies and reject its riduculous content."

Certainly there is nothing "entertaining" about blasphemy. I wonder however, if the sort of pulp fiction Dan Brown writes can really be taken so seriously. Popular culture produces all sorts of material which is irreverent, theologically unsound, anthropologically demeaning and, yes, sometimes even blasphemous. Are we really standing outside popular culture though? Are we really able to ignore it or to assume 'we' are not participating in it?

I agree with Aaron - and St John Chrysostom - that reading the Psalms is a much better form of 'entertainment' than anything on T.V. or at the cinema (I take it we are referring to the Greek word "psychagogia", loosely translated as 'entertainment', but in fact meaning "training of the soul"). Nevertheless, I wonder about a more general point: if we are going to be this 'strict' about a single movie we all disagree with anyway (none of us here actually supports the books' ridiculous claims, thank God), then shouldn't we really also be as strict regarding other more important aspects of our lives?

Do we all, for example, believe that the way we earn our living is truly beneficial to society and well-pleasing to the Lord? Do we all behave in a Christian manner in every aspect of our lives, and all of the time, towards family, friends and strangers? I'm not trying to excuse one sin by referring to others; what I'm saying is - is a betrayal of Christ, even a conscious one ('wittingly or unwittingly committed') such a rare event in the average Christian life? Here we are getting upset about one movie, but every morning we drive to work, pouring our poisonous exhaust fumes into His creation; we buy foods packaged in non-biodegradable plastic; we get angry with other drivers; we look at people of the opposite sex, our brothers and sisters in Christ, with inappropriate thoughts. We are model citizens of a society which has sin and injustice built into its very structure. And it isn't even 9am yet! I repeat, I'm not trying to say "hey, I betray the Lord all the time, what's wrong with once more?". I'm really thinking seriously about seeing this movie now I've heard quite a lot of well-informed opinion regarding it. But suggesting not going to the theatre at all as Aaron does, or singling out watching the 'Da Vinci Code' as a singular instance of betrayal of Christ (as opposed to all the other betrayals of Him going on in our lives all the time), while these may be correct and good suggestions, surely they belong in a much broader, more 'radical' context? For example, I would like to throw out my T.V. and stop going to the movies. I would also like to stop driving a car, live on a small farm, quit my meaningless job at the office, and focus on reading the Psalms to clear my head of the 'logismoi' constantly running through it. I would like to do all these things, but it seems a bit hypocritical to not do them and then delude myself into thinking that I'm not betraying Christ because I haven't been to see the 'Da Vinci Code'. Something is seriously wrong with the whole way we live, not just Hollywood. Hollywood movies are only dreams: the sort of dreams a society like ours is likely to have, fed on a diet of exploitation, consumerism, materialism and betrayal of the Lord.

Just a few thoughts. I look forward to hearing more from others, especially Fr Seraphim and Aaron.

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

I appreciated your comments, Byron.

It's precisely the degree of seriousness and radical protest with which so many Christians take The Da Vinci Code that gives it such significance in the popular forum. Walk into a room and shout out, 'Whatever you do, don't think about an apple', you can guarantee there is one thing every person in the room will be thinking about.

It's a book, and now it's a movie. 90% of books written are heretical, 95% of films. That's the way Hollywood seems to function; and it's the way Christian people understand that it functions. It's the effects of a radical secularisation, among Christians, that causes the outrage to be unleashed only when the films contain the actual person of Jesus on screen -- uproar in advance of The Passion of the Christ was just as notable in this Community as it is now. The fact is, the obvious nonsense of The Da Vinci Code is not nearly as insidious and spiritually dangerous as half the advertisements that will play on the screen before the film starts, but these likely won't warrant multiple on-line petitions and ecclesiastical 'response committees'.

The things that bother me about Mr Brown's book are not theological, but presentational. Quasi-history is not history, and while I agree that at times it can make for good fiction, the preface to The Da Vinci Code (the statement that everything in the book is accurate) attempts to side-step that distinction and becomes annoying (e.g. the usual distinction, 'Well, Constantine didn't really do that, but it's just a story' becomes 'Well, does Mr Brown think Constantine actually did that?'). The theological issues do not bother me, because it's not a theological book. Credibility is manufactured precisely when individuals start assigning it by their manner of response. John Paul II had it right when he commented, regarding Mr Gibson's Passion of the Christ, that it wasn't his church's place to comment on popular films.

There have always been, and there always will be, people who teach falsehood about Christianity. This happens on the small scale and also the large, in dramatic, bloody, persecutorial manners, and in light-hearted, jovial ways. So it has always been. The message of the triumphal hymn of Pascha is that these forces do not prevail. The best they can accomplish is death, and death has been overcome. And yet we never seem quite so cowardly and unconvinced of this as when an English teacher writes a storybook with a message we don't like.

XB, Matthew

[Antonios]

It's precisely the degree of seriousness and radical protest with which so many Christians take The Da Vinci Code that gives it such significance in the popular forum.

And if that degree of seriousness and radical protest helps to witness to the world where Dan Brown has lied and who we Christians believe Jesus Christ is, than I would like to shake Dan Brown's hand and thank him! He actually may have done a service to the world!

Some good things I have noticed about the worldwide reactionary response to this book/film is that it has been peaceful yet confrontational and has given marginal Christians food for thought in what the Christian faith is, the true history of the Church, and how no matter how much the gospel is attacked, it will always overcome through the grace of the Holy Spirit. While it is true that if you go into a room and yell out "Don't think of an apple", you can be sure people will be thinking about apples, this particular apple is one in which 40 million people have already bitten into, and now will get another chance to. What we need to be saying now is this apple is not a true apple even though it states to be in the first few pages of the book. We all know what happened to Adam the last time Eve brought him one.

On one of the city buses I saw yesterday, the advertisment for the movie writes in big red letters "Seek the Truth". My first reaction was nausea, my second reaction was anger, and my last reaction was hope that maybe people will do exactly that.

Byron, I unfortunately need to drive my car to work. Although I rather not, I buy food in non-biodegradable containers because of my budget. And, yes, my government is far from perfect, and it seems like every election I am voting for the lesser of two evils. I am sinner, the first of sinners, and I am constantly battling with my inequities, my passions, and by transgressions. Lord knows I have bigger problems than this book/movie. That being said, I will not read this book, nor see the movie. I have found plenty of sources to satisfy me in what the book espouses and the story it tells and I don't think I would find much enjoyment in it and my money would be better spent on other things.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Alas...

Yet again Hollywood seeks to reclaim dollar value at the cinema, which has tragically fallen in the last few years...

What better strategy than to film a book which alone in Hardcover has sold well over 40 million copies?

This is far above the figures Nikos Kazantzakis achieved. To compare 'The Last Temptation of Christ' more or less the script of Kazantakis book and it's paltry move-generated film.

Byron can correctly verify this: Kazantzaki refused an Orthodox burial. Not to mention that the Orthodox Church, judging by his last books would find such a Sacrament comprising.

Let us place our cards on the table.

The 'Da Vinci Code' MAY make a lot of people laugh all the way to the bank.

Why has the 'Da Vinci Code' sold in the millions? It is NOT, dear members, only because it is a 'page turner'?

On the very FACT page, it asserts:

i) The Priory of Sion...founded in 1099 (actually founded in 1956, in France, by a virulent Jew-hater, a fascist)...(need I go on)?

ii) Opus Dei (is accused) of brain-washing, coercion and a 'dangerous practce known as "corporal motification"....

ALL those who fasted, followed the 'Prayer of St. Ephaim'...kindly raise your hands.

iii) ALL (capitals are mine) - descriptions of artwook,architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel (read book) are accurate.

ALL 'FACTS' are FALSE.

I do not care if you are Protestant, Roman Catholic, or belonging to the One Church; in this concern: if you buy a ticket to this travesty, blasphemy, money-making machine - you have BETRAYED OUR LORD.

[Boulos]

Today i just tasted, bitterly, the first seeds planted among some people hearts by that movie, prematurely giving fruits among some faithful ...

Please, let all of us join prayers in the heart at that same day of the "heresy opening", for the protection of all youth.

[Tim Grass]

I do not care if you are Protestant, Roman Catholic, or belonging to the One Church; in this concern: if you buy a ticket to this travesty, blasphemy, money-making machine - you have BETRAYED OUR LORD. This is a good time to say that I've never liked Jesus's words the way they're usually translated..... let's agree to change them to, "Judge not, except when you really, really don't like what the other person's doing."


You don't have to like the movie, or the book...... You can think its blasphemy, and that it's sacrilage.... but the moment you go around condemning people who've seen it, then you don't need Dan Brown or his book in order to betray Christ.

--tim

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

by the way, i've read the book, the movie is not in my area, nor according to the release date, it is not in yours either

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

"This is a good time to say that I've never liked Jesus' words, the way they're translated....let's agree to change them to, 'Judge not, except when you really don't like what the other person's doing.'

You don't have to like the movie, or the book......You can think its (sic) blasphenmous, it's sacrilege....but the moment you go around condemning people...you don't need Dan Brown or his book to betray Christ." - Mr. Grass, May 12th, 2006.

Petru Voda wrote:


'I do not care if you are Protestant, Roman Catholic or belonging to the One Church (cf; Nicene Creed)...if you buy a ticket to this travesty, blasphemy, money-making machine you have BETRAYED OUR LORD.'

Did Petru Voda condemn?

The use of the word 'betrayed' was utilized only regarding 'Protestant, Roman Catholic, (or Orthodox).

On a cinematic note 'The Bonfire of the Vanities ' and 'Memoirs of a Geisha' were also filmed, yet the book success of each did not translate into movie profits.

On May 19th, we may very well witness the same.

[James Aubuchon]

for your enjoyment!

http://www.ericmetaxas.com/essay-screwtapedavinci.html

[Boulos]

An old wisdom says: If ure complaining about nightmares when u sleep, then why u voluntarily chooses to sleep next to the graveyards? ....
He replied cose i see others sleeping there.

We don't need to see that movie in order to describe and reply to its heresies, seeing it is like indirectly acknowledging it.
Paying for it is giving your money to Judas.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

It appears that, in a turn of events ironically parallel to the plot of the book, Opus Dei have asked Ron Howard to include a disclaimer at the beginning of the film stating that it is a work of fiction, but Howard has, to the displeasure of the RC organisation, declined to do so: see link here (http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/news/blog-060515.html). Tom Hanks is also defending the movie as entertainment.

The plot thickens...

In Christ
Byron

[Olga]

It is quite an achievement to see scholars and theologians from Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant backgrounds unanimous in their debunking of Dan Brown's book and its sloppy "scholarship". While Mr Brown's book has the words "a novel" in small letters on the cover, he has not ceased to promote the book as "fact", which is the real rub.

James, the screwtape link is a gem! Well-thought, well-expressed ridicule is indeed a potent antidote to stupidity. Think of mediaeval kings and their fools....

[Herman Blaydoe]

Discovery Channel has been all over this too, and the secular sources seem pretty unanimous as well in condemning the "scholarship" of Dan Brown. If anyone still actually believes anything in the book or movie is true they only have themselves to blame.

[Antonios]

Reading "Da Vinci Code" does alter beliefs: survey (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-16T141126Z_01_L16732669_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-DAVINCI-RELIGION.xml&archived=False&src=051606_1025_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters)

[Herman Blaydoe]

So, sounds like Brits can be gullible. Of course, a lot of Americans once thought the world was being invaded by Martians because of a radio show.

If people want to be stupid there is no way you can stop them.

[James Morton]

Oh well, if it's any consolation, the reviews that I've read all suggest that it was a complete flop as a film.

[Alec Lowly]

Oh well, if it's any consolation, the reviews that I've read all suggest that it was a complete flop as a film.

At coffee hour last Sunday I had a brother ask me, "If it turned out to be true that the Lord was married and had children, would you lose your faith?" I answered no, truthfully, but have since had reason to reflect. I would not lose my faith in Christ, no -- but my faith in the church and the tradition of the church would be gravely shaken. And then there would be the knotty theological problem of the offspring ...

I mention this just as an anecdote, to show the ramifications of this issue.

For the record: I credit just about nothing in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Da Vinci Code" as truth.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Oh well, if it's any consolation, the reviews that I've read all suggest that it was a complete flop as a film.
This seems to be the general consensus over here as well. I've read two or three reviews in the major broad sheets, all of them terrible.

XB, Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

At coffee hour last Sunday I had a brother ask me, "If it turned out to be true that the Lord was married and had children, would you lose your faith?" I answered no, truthfully, but have since had reason to reflect. I would not lose my faith in Christ, no -- but my faith in the church and the tradition of the church would be gravely shaken. And then there would be the knotty theological problem of the offspring ...

I mention this just as an anecdote, to show the ramifications of this issue.

For the record: I credit just about nothing in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Da Vinci Code" as truth.
And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:17-20 (New King James Version)

Happily for the Apostle and for us, this is not something we have to worry about. Truth is truth, and we must be ready to face it regardless of what it is, or we are simply living a lie.

[James Morton]

The issue here is this - there's no point in asking a question based on the hypothesis, "If turned out to be true that the Lord was married and had children..." The reason that this is pointless is that the Lord didn't marry, and He didn't have children.

The question might as well have been, "If you weren't Christian, would you be Christian?" It's just not logical.

At any rate, even though it's apparently not very good, I must say that I cannot see the film failing. The amount of hype attached to it will be enough to force through a profit anyway. Still, the important thing to remember, I think, is that Christian doctrine has suffered worse attacks than this in the past, and we've always seen them out. So it will be with the Da Vinci Code.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

I was tempted to go and see the movie, and in fact confess I planned to do so this weekend, but fortunately my wife preferred to stay at home and watch Eurovision (that's another story), so we did, and now I don't feel so tempted anymore, rather like the pique of appetite for a cheeseburger eventually disappears if you just sit it out.

Everyone in the Orthodox Church - and everyone a little familiar with church history regardless of their ideological commitments - knows the 'facts' presented by Dan Brown are high fiction, but sadly many people do not know much about either church history or Christian dogma, so they may be tempted into believing this hullaballoo. I am only tempted in the sense that films dealing explicitly with theological themes are so few and far between, that sometimes I'm willing to compromise and watch just about anything that deals with these questions even in an incidental way.

So congratulations to those who consciously boycotted the movie; I've decided I'm going to give it a miss too, after all. Haven't read the book, won't watch the movie. If anyone needs any clarification as to the "facts" presented in the movie, I feel confident that even where I can't answer their questions myself, serious academic sources can. Jesus did not marry, and did not have children with Mary Magdalene. Nor was she his wife, girlfriend or partner. Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and this is a rock on which the ship of Dan Brown's ideas will crash and sink eventually, just like the vessel of the Gnostics did 1800 years ago.

Nevertheless, it also remains true that Christians need to be ready to answer for their faith at any moment, so congratulations are also due to those who have a strong enough faith to have seen the movie and read the book with the express intention of intelligently demolishing the claims and images offered by both. The Church doesn't perhaps need to play "catch-up" to society, but many people, I among them, are grateful when topical issues are addressed in the mature manner of sober and non-fanatical Orthodox thought. And maybe - I put this forward as a question, not a statement - maybe the products of popular culture ought to be monitored prayerfully by vigilant Christian academics, so that our faith is given its full voice?

In Christ
Byron

[Antonios]

Well said, Byron, a beautiful post. I have come to many of the same conclusion as you. I would just add that unfortunately the vast majority of people who have paid and will pay to entertain themselves with this book/movie are not theologans or scholars, but rather people who want to see what all the hype is about and can't resist the temptation to bite into the apple. For them, as I'm sure you would agree, what is needed is prayer rather than congratulations.

What saddens me is when I hear people saying that the Church looks 'guilty' of something because many have confronted this story with such visible determination. I hear things like "if it wasn't true, than what are they so afraid of". This is such a misuderstanding of why people are vocally opposing this story. The Church will never fall and love will never fail and we already know how the story ends. Good will overtake evil. The strong opposition and call for boycott are not to 'save the Church' by any stretch of the imagination. It is to fight for the sheep who threaten becoming lost; to help our fellow brothers and sisters come to the Truth. To be as apostles for our Lord and fight the devil and the spirit of antichrist which grows stronger by the day.

I just read that the movie made $224 million US dollars (2nd all time ever opening weekend). The studio states that the early figures show that the the film is the No. 1 all-time opening weekend internationally, the #1 in predominantly Catholic countries Italy and Spain, and #1 or #2 in every South American territory. The Sony executives attribute the huge success to teen moviegoers globally. These are the sheep that we are fighting for!!! The young, naive, impressionable children of God who are being fed this garbage. It truly is sad.

And now the news coming out of Europe about the winner of the Eurovision contest...

Today, the skies are grey in my hometown, and its raining hard. Harder then I can remember.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Antonios,

In my last post I said that the Eurovision Song Contest is "another story", but I'm not sure it is entirely unrelated to the success of the Da Vinci scam. The words that went through my mind as I watched the Finnish entry were "well, at least these won't be winning". The fact that they did win depresses me, not because I was wrong, but because I'm trying to imagine what is going through the mind of a European when they vote for this song. I don't like making too much of what is ultimately nonsense, but I really wonder if it wasn't the same adolescent "lost sheep" who broke the box office for the DVC movie, who also voted for the Finnish entry.

What are young people thinking? I'd like to listen and learn.

In Christ
Byron

[Peter]

This morning at our son's school the community Priest led us for prayer, following which he spoke about the dvc movie. He correctly pointed out that such hereies are not something new, and they have existed for 2000 years. He also warned the students to stay focussed on Christ, who is the Truth and the Way. These same students no doubt saw the Eurovision song contest and heard these Fins spew their vile, aboninable lyrics (which are nothing short of blasphemous), and I wondered what thoughts were going through their minds. This is something that my family wll be discussing tonight, and I pray that my son choses his beliefs wisely. Ultimately each individual has to make up his mind in what to believe. Modern media seems determined to win over our hearts and minds to the dark side. I guess what I am trying to say is that this movie, and the eurovision winners are a reflection of what the masses feel within, and I am sad to say that they have struck a chord with many people.

Lord have mercy on us,

unworthy sinner Peter Stefanis

[Effie Ganatsios]

I haven’t seen the film but I have read the book and I wasn’t really impressed – I read a lot and am vain enough to say that I trust my instincts. Concerning the film – I will wait for the DVD and then see it in order to compare it to the book but also because Tom Hanks is in it. I enjoy his work. I don’t know why he decided to play in this film but I suppose he thought he had a good reason.

The public relations firm in charge of advertising this book and film is very, very good. But, I also think that in a couple of months all this fuss will be forgotten. I have heard people say the most fantastic things on TV about this subject and am convinced that most people have very little knowledge of anything historical. What is interesting is that the Gospel of Judas is in the news at the same time. Is this coincidence? In past posts I think I have mentioned that I don’t believe in coincidences – they are either man-made or from God.

Antonios post no. 15.

Antonios, It’s not a matter of who has the strongest faith and whether that person will or will not be affected by the film and book. We can’t wrap ourselves in cotton wool and not have an opinion based on our own experience. E.g. I love the works of Nikos Kazantsakis – the author of the Last Temptation - and consider him to be a very religious person ( Kazantsakis spent his whole life searching, finally returning to Christian Orthodoxy). I have to tell you that when I read the Last Temptation for the first time I felt a very strong empathy for the man Jesus Christ. I don’t agree with a lot of what is written in the book – Kazantsakis uses his dramatic license to the full – but he is a writer that I respect. Dan Brown on the other hand has used an old story – a myth if you prefer - and written a mystery novel around it with a disappointing ending. If I hadn’t read the book after hearing so much about it I would have felt as if I had missed something that might perhaps be important. After having read it, I feel like laughing. I do agree however that some people will be influenced negatively by this film, but these are the same people who are influenced or rather, who believe whatever they read or see on TV – mainly because they have no base of comparison.

Concerning the historical background of the book : There’s a convent a few kilometers from my house dedicated to Mary Magdalene. When visiting once I saw a large fresco of this saint in Caesar’s court or something. I asked a nun about it and she told me that this was a painting of Mary Magdalene in Rome being questioned by Caesar – I forget what the outcome of it all was – I dimly remember something about her execution but I’m not sure. I asked the nun on what it was based because I had never read anything like this in the bible, and she told me that it was based on “ancient papers” written about Mary Magdalene’s life. Apparently, there exists more than one version of what happened to this woman after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.



Concerning women in the church : In the early years of the Church women had a more significant role than they do today. One question (post no.17) : Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute? I thought she was the woman with 7 devils in her that Jesus cured.
That she was close to Jesus is certain. She traveled with Jesus from Galilee and when she saw him after he had arisen she went to hug him but he told her not to because “I have not yet ascended to the Father”. Jesus was close to both men and women - remember Mary and her sister Martha (this Mary was the woman who anointed Jesus’ head with expensive oil and wiped his feet with her hair).

There are some links to Dan Brown and the DaVinci code on this thread that I intend to explore later on. I haven’t read anything about the book or the film on the Internet because I wanted to be able to read the book and form my own impression (given above) without being influenced by the opinions of others.




Byron’s post no. 60. I agree with all that you say in this post.

What are we personally doing to offset all the rubbish that is being poured into our ears about this subject? Protesting outside a picture theatre that is playing The DaVinci Code while shouting and – I saw this on TV – physically attacking someone who disagrees with us is not relaying the message we want. Our lives should serve as an example of what Christianity is. (No-one hearing (*#@!!#) me when I’m driving would ever believe that I am an example of anything good - but that’s another story and one which involves a whole essay about the ART of driving in Greece……..)

Seraphim Black post no. 63

Nikos Kazantsakis was nearly excommunicated from the Orthodox Church because of his book Christ Re-crucified, The Church refused to allowed his body to lie in state in a church as is normal. He was, however, given a Christian burial in Crete.

One last thing : I feel that, if asked, we should be courageous enough to defend what we believe in. But, and a big but, we should study the subject carefully first. I trust completely in God and know that whatever happens is because he allows it to happen.

Christos Anesti
Effie

[Edward Henderson]

Last Friday, I saw the Da Vinci Code, having read the book about a month ago. Perhaps it was because I went to a later showing but I actually dozed off a few times. A few days before viewing the film, I saw a British documentary, which was quite objective, which pretty much refutted most of the "facts' in the book. Really, the only thing accurate are the descriptions of art and architecture. The book is certainly not high literature but rather a fairly simple detective story with what seems like borrowings from art books and travel guides.

One would really have to read this book exclusively and keep their heads burried in the sand to take Dan Brown's research seriously.

I really don't think we have much to worry about with this movie. Enough people have read the book now and the movie is being panned by critics. All fads fade away.

[Simon11]

In response to Effie's post, I would suggest 2 new threads for discussion:

Firstly (I joke of course) Driving in Greece (esp. Athens)

Secondly (and more seriously) writings of Nikos Kazantzakis - Whatever the Church of Greece's verdict on his works at the time, there is no doubt that his books are far more thought provoking and have more spiritual depth than anything that Dan Brown has produced.

Still waiting for the DVD of the Da Vinci Code to come out at a public library near me....

Simon

[Herman Blaydoe]

Concerning the historical background of the book: There’s a convent a few kilometers from my house dedicated to Mary Magdalene. When visiting once I saw a large fresco of this saint in Caesar’s court or something. I asked a nun about it and she told me that this was a painting of Mary Magdalene in Rome being questioned by Caesar – I forget what the outcome of it all was – I dimly remember something about her execution but I’m not sure. I asked the nun on what it was based because I had never read anything like this in the bible, and she told me that it was based on “ancient papers” written about Mary Magdalene’s life. Apparently, there exists more than one version of what happened to this woman after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.
The Church has a corporate memory. Many of the people in the Bible have stories outside the Bible. The Samaritan Woman (last Sunday), for example, is St. Photini, equal to the Apostles. St. Lazarus went on to become a bishop after he was raised from the dead. St. Mary did witness in front of Caesar, and this is why we have red eggs on Pascha. After the Ascension she journeyed to Rome where she was admitted to the court of Tiberius Caesar because of her high social standing. After describing how poorly Pilate had administered justice at Jesus’ trial, she told Caesar that Jesus had risen from the dead. To help explain His resurrection she picked up an egg from the dinner table. Caesar responded that a human being could no more rise from the dead than the egg in her hand turn red. The egg turned red immediately. Mary traveled the Mediterranean preaching the resurrection. Like Peter and Paul, she died a martyr.

One question (post no.17) : Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute? I thought she was the woman with 7 devils in her that Jesus cured.
No, the Orthodox Church has never taught that St. Mary was a prostitute. That was a case of mistaken identity and confusion by a Pope in the Catholic Church. Somewhat understandable, there are so many Marys in the Bible. She was the woman with 7 demons and as I said earlier was of high social standing, certainly NOT a prostitute.

[M.C. Steenberg]

In response to Effie's post, I would suggest 2 new threads for discussion [...] Secondly (and more seriously) writings of Nikos Kazantzakis - Whatever the Church of Greece's verdict on his works at the time, there is no doubt that his books are far more thought provoking and have more spiritual depth than anything that Dan Brown has produced.

I had thought we'd had a thread on this before, but I can't seem to find one in the archives, so my memory must be failing. There could be some interesting and fruitful discussion on this topic: feel free to start a thread for Kazantzakis in the In Depth: Specific Individuals (http://www.monachos.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=322) area.

XB, Matthew

[Eleftheria]

Christos Anesti!

With regard to the above posts on The Finnish group Lordi winning this year's Eurovision...

First, my children & I stayed up & watched until the end & I have to say that my children were far more disappointed than I would have expected. They were astonsihed & disappointed that a satanic song would , as they put it, "represent Europe". I finally understand what my spiritual father meant when he said,"foundation, foundation foundation" . It is crucial that without being overly enforced, a firm Christian foundation be established in the home & exemplified by a life in The Church. Living in Cyprus, this is of couse far easier for us than it was when we lived in the states, as the school calendar follows the Orthodox calendar.

Second, after the children went to back to school on Monday, they learned that Lordi won because they had specifically campaigned for adolescents & young adults to vote for them because it would mean that their votes were votes cast for rock music and against the pop music typically featured in Eurovision.

Finally, when one thinks about it, there is nothing "Euro" about Eurovision. Over 90% of the groups present their songs in English as opposed to their native tongues; & the groups that actually present something ethnic are few & far between.

Thank you all, by the way, for your wonderful & enlightenling & interesting posts.

Christ is Risen!
Eleftheria

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

On Sunday I saw an interview with Ron Howard which appeared on our national CBC network news. It was lengthy enough to get a fair sense of his character which seems affable enough with also a kind of modesty and low-keyed-ness. Kind of like the old characters he so often played as an actor.

He stated his intentions in making the movie Da Vinci Code which also seemed to be without malice. But one thing he stated which got me thinking was his statement to the effect that part of the reason he made the movie was to get people thinking about their faith and especially to question dogma.

To 'question dogma' indeed seemed to him a key idea behind his work on the movie and even an important idea in his own life. We often hear this also on the popular level of society and it made me wonder what this idea of 'questioning dogma' really means.

First off it astonished me that any would think that dogma came about or exists without questioning. Indeed it seems that dogma arises precisely through a certain kind of questioning and searching. And this same dogma up to our own time can only be partially understood by continuing to question and search. I guess on one level then we could say that Mr Howard shares a fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance about the Church that society often does. (As an aside I often wonder in movies where the researchers went- ever notice in Fiddler on the Roof how the cross on the Orthodox church is backwards? :o ).

Beyond this however there seems to be something more fundamental about society's unease with its idea of dogma which speaks as if there is faith- which is OK; and dogma- which isn't. Maybe what is at play here is a great unease with the idea that there is a truth higher than our idea of it. And that this kind of sovereign truth is the denial of our freedom.

Seen in this way The Da Vinci Code is a story about our struggle with God and of all the dark and secret things which scare us about Him.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Effie Ganatsios]

What is more disturbing, in my opinion, than the DaVinci book and film, is that a group such as this Finnish group could win the Eurovision contest. One of the reasons they won is that very young people who are more efficient with their mobile phones and SMS than you or I, voted. One young boy in Greece voted 10 times for this group (you are allowed to send 20 SMS messages) and was asked by his father why he voted for them and he replied because “they look like his toys”.

A couple of days ago we celebrated the Saints day of Helen and Constantine and my husband and I were with a group of people at a friend’s house. We were all shocked that Finland won and finally decided that a. the widespread use of mobile phones giving children the opportunity to vote and, more importantly, the destruction of traditional values and role models was responsible. It still seems unbelievable to me that a contest such as this – a contest that seems to be bringing countries in Europe closer together – would result in such a win. As a Greek I also feel distressed that such a wonderful opening ceremony – so beautiful and so expressive of the positive elements of our culture – would terminate in such an ignoble finish. It made me feel that “good” was losing the battle to “bad”. The shocked expressions on the faces of the presenters and others on the stage, besides being amusing, were also indicative of the feelings of everyone who watched the show (apart of course from those that voted in favour of this group). Another disturbing note is that I noticed that fans of this group raised their hands in the devil’s salute when their idols won.

What we should all be worried are the negative influences our children are exposed to daily, chiefly through the TV but also from other sources.

Christos Anesti
Effie

[Moses Anthony]

Dear All,

For some reason, going to the movie theater, has for years, not been something which I reagularly do. Therefore; a boycott of the movie adaptation of Dan Brown's book is not much of an issue for me. Neither has the negative publicity been a factor.

Just a few weeks before this release, the world was blessed with the news of the gnostic Judas Gospel, ahich itself received it's share of the obligatory news stories. Those who've read at least a little of religious history, know that as a belief system, gnostic gospels has been around for a long time; as has been mentioned of the idea of Mr. Brown's book.

The point which bothers me, is this: There has ben a wide spectrum of scholars who have de-bunked those things which Mr. Brown claims as fact in his fictional story. And yet, to this date (to my knowledge) there has been no recanting of the allegation that the facts as presented in the book are true. This reminds me of those news articles which defame celebrities -of one ilk or another- for which the paper is sued, the paper loses the lawsuit, but has the gall to say they stand by their story.

If however, I was one to regularly frequent the movie theater, I waould not give them and Mr. Brown my money . Why reward him for his obstinate refusal to be honest about the "facts"; but then, hey that's just me!

the sinful and unworthy servant

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Effie,

Alithos Anesti!

Grateful thanks for clarifying the repose of Nikos Kazantzakis. Though his burial site in Heraklion is notable by its 'aloneness' and is not situated in an Orthodox cemetery.

What is striking is his epitaph:

"Then elpizo tipota. The(n) phovamai tipota. Eimai lefteros."

"I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."

Hardly the epitaph of an Orthodox Christian.

I am not from Heraklion, but taking his later writings and his stature (for example, his nomination for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1957) I would hazard a guess the Church bowed to public sentiment.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Last night on Greek TV there was an English documentary about this book and the "facts" included in it. You have to wonder at the speed with which this was aired, taking into consideration that scenes from the film itself were included.

It was a "hotpotch" of fact, fiction, scenes from the film as I have already said, and theories. They also used scenes from a film with Jesus and Mary Magdalene (one that is unknown to me). Although they were careful to state that most of the "facts" presented could not be proven I noticed that what was written in the book itself was presented as if they were referring to a reliable source.

In my first message I wrote that I thought this would all be over in a couple of months, but something more serious seems to be evolving. When "they" whoever they are, take the trouble to produce documentaries on this subject and use the book itself as an authority, then something more seems to be behind it all.

I don't remember anything like this for films like The Last Temptation or The Passion.

Christos Anesti
Effie

[Antonios]

This letter (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/DemetriosCulture.php) is written by Archbishop Demetrios and summarizes some of the current themes in this thread...

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Raphael wrote:


To 'question dogma' indeed seemed to him a key idea behind his work on the movie and even an important idea in his own life. We often hear this also on the popular level of society and it made me wonder what this idea of 'questioning dogma' really means.

First off it astonished me that any would think that dogma came about or exists without questioning. Indeed it seems that dogma arises precisely through a certain kind of questioning and searching. And this same dogma up to our own time can only be partially understood by continuing to question and search. I guess on one level then we could say that Mr Howard shares a fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance about the Church that society often does.

Yes, but it is not just that there is questioning and searching in the formulation of dogma, but questioning and searching with a certain context. There is a questioning that is idle, that is simply ungrounded speculation (qualified there with 'ungrounded', since not all speculation is unhealthy); there is also questioning that rises out of challenge - whether imposed by conflict or rising out of personal contexts.

The main problem I see with the kind of 'questioning of dogma' that is popular in beat culture, is that it is not authentically questioning at all, but imposition. To question is to query a point, or a system of points; to raise an issue for review and further exploration / articulation. ('Are you sure apples fall down? I think perhaps they fall up. Here, I'll throw and apple and.... well, ok, I guess the do fall down'.) But by and large, this is not in fact the kind of questioning that is encouraged by the popular modes of society. These take 'questioning' to mean the challenge of anything received. To question the teachings of the Church, for example, by and large means not to allow genuine concerns and queries to arise out of experience, but to impose conflicts onto a situation based on a mistrust or dislike of received tradition. ('Did your parents beguile you into think apples only fall down? Rise up! Don't be burdened by such rules!', etc.)

The questioning that gave rise to the doctrine of the Church, however, and which still has a healthy place in the Church, is that which rises out of authentic situations, not those imposed by trend.

XB, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

To question the teachings of the Church, for example, by and large means not to allow genuine concerns and queries to arise out of experience, but to impose conflicts onto a situation based on a mistrust or dislike of received tradition. ('Did your parents beguile you into think apples only fall down? Rise up! Don't be burdened by such rules!', etc.)

The questioning that gave rise to the doctrine of the Church, however, and which still has a healthy place in the Church, is that which rises out of authentic situations, not those imposed by trend.

XB, Matthew

Dear Matthew,

I very much like the way that you phrased this: "to impose conflicts onto a situation based on a mistrust or dislike of received tradition."

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Last evening I went to see The Da Vinci Code with a small group of students. Having twice read the book and been several times interviewed about what I thought of it, and especially after the discussion in this thread, I was curious as to just what I was getting into. A couple of things stood out to me.

First was the fact that this is, even more on the screen than on the page, what I would call a 'religious-themed conspiracy thriller'. The phenomenon of documentaries, rebuff-books and detailed 'theological refutation' of the book, hugely misread the nature of the story, which is a profoundly simple code-caper that's run off the same basic premise as so many such stories: that 'the Church' (a loosely defined entity, generally implying the Roman Catholic Church) is hiding the 'real truth' from the world. As I say, this was the case with the book, and I've mentioned it before; but on the screen it was even more pronounced, more obvious - and I immediately found myself rather bored. It's hardly other than every other religious-themed conspiracy thriller that's ever graced the screens: Stigmata, The Seventh Sign, The Third Miracle, etc.

Second was the general response of the film-goers in the cinema. The film is so obviously an action adventure that takes a Church-based conspiracy for its base, that the seriousness with which the press has hyped it has hidden the fact that great swaths of it are just silly. When Tom Hanks turns to the French actress (whose name I forget) playing his co-star, and says to a swirl of intense music and dramatic camera panning, 'You are the last living descendant of Jesus Christ', most of the audience burst into laughter. It was at that stage, I think, that most members of the audience realised the 'religious nature' of The Da Vinci Code is but a slightly wittier version of the 'theology' of Poltergeist.

Third, I came away from the cinema feeling surer than ever I had before, that the common Christian response to this book and film has been radically counter-productive. Had Christians done to this book/film what the late Roman Catholic pope did to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ - namely, take an attitude of 'It's not the church's place to get worked up about Hollywood and ignore it - movie goers would have walked into a cinema to see a rather-dull, if not entirely bad, action drama that, like so many others, turns religion into a great conspiracy theory for the sake of its own plot line. It would have been taken as seriously as that. But this was not the response. Christian authors and scholars wrote a good 10 or 20 books 'refuting' the 'facts' of the book; churches established commissions and committees to combat its teachings; boycotts were held of publishers and producers. And the end result was that a book and a film that hardly deserve a rank beyond upper-B-grade fiction have been elevated to the centre of discussion for nearly a year; the 'teachings' that are part of the fictional plot-line have been given a kind of pseudo-credibility, not by the story or author nearly as much as by the host of enraged Christians demanding they be muffled or refuted.

This book, this film, is no more nor less 'dangerous' than anything else in popular culture today. I do not frequent the cinema often, but I can say that of the four or five films I've seen over the past year, The Da Vinci Code is the one that offended me the least - I find far more disturbing films that are about 'everyday life' and relationships, that distort these so strongly that it becomes hard to remember what real life and real relationships are. Wedding Crashers should be far more anathema than Mr Brown's work. We all expect Hollywood to distort religion. Were we to get half as worked up about the spiritual danger of real issues in modern society as we do the distortion of religious history in a storybook, we would make some useful headway in our mission in the world.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear all,

Last evening I went to see The Da Vinci Code with a small group of students. Having twice read the book and been several times interviewed about what I thought of it, and especially after the discussion in this thread, I was curious as to just what I was getting into. A couple of things stood out to me.

First was the fact that this is, even more on the screen than on the page, what I would call a 'religious-themed conspiracy thriller'. The phenomenon of documentaries, rebuff-books and detailed 'theological refutation' of the book, hugely misread the nature of the story, which is a profoundly simple code-caper that's run off the same basic premise as so many such stories: that 'the Church' (a loosely defined entity, generally implying the Roman Catholic Church) is hiding the 'real truth' from the world. As I say, this was the case with the book, and I've mentioned it before; but on the screen it was even more pronounced, more obvious - and I immediately found myself rather bored. It's hardly other than every other religious-themed conspiracy thriller that's ever graced the screens: Stigmata, The Seventh Sign, The Third Miracle, etc.

Second was the general response of the film-goers in the cinema. The film is so obviously an action adventure that takes a Church-based conspiracy for its base, that the seriousness with which the press has hyped it has hidden the fact that great swaths of it are just silly. When Tom Hanks turns to the French actress (whose name I forget) playing his co-star, and says to a swirl of intense music and dramatic camera panning, 'You are the last living descendant of Jesus Christ', most of the audience burst into laughter. It was at that stage, I think, that most members of the audience realised the 'religious nature' of The Da Vinci Code is but a slightly wittier version of the 'theology' of Poltergeist.

Third, I came away from the cinema feeling surer than ever I had before, that the common Christian response to this book and film has been radically counter-productive. Had Christians done to this book/film what the late Roman Catholic pope did to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ - namely, take an attitude of 'It's not the church's place to get worked up about Hollywood and ignore it - movie goers would have walked into a cinema to see a rather-dull, if not entirely bad, action drama that, like so many others, turns religion into a great conspiracy theory for the sake of its own plot line. It would have been taken as seriously as that. But this was not the response. Christian authors and scholars wrote a good 10 or 20 books 'refuting' the 'facts' of the book; churches established commissions and committees to combat its teachings; boycotts were held of publishers and producers. And the end result was that a book and a film that hardly deserve a rank beyond upper-B-grade fiction have been elevated to the centre of discussion for nearly a year; the 'teachings' that are part of the fictional plot-line have been given a kind of pseudo-credibility, not by the story or author nearly as much as by the host of enraged Christians demanding they be muffled or refuted.

This book, this film, is no more nor less 'dangerous' than anything else in popular culture today. I do not frequent the cinema often, but I can say that of the four or five films I've seen over the past year, The Da Vinci Code is the one that offended me the least - I find far more disturbing films that are about 'everyday life' and relationships, that distort these so strongly that it becomes hard to remember what real life and real relationships are. Wedding Crashers should be far more anathema than Mr Brown's work. We all expect Hollywood to distort religion. Were we to get half as worked up about the spiritual danger of real issues in modern society as we do the distortion of religious history in a storybook, we would make some useful headway in our mission in the world.

INXC, Matthew

Thanks for the commentary Mathew- it helps sort things out. I have to say that I also am as uneasy about the reactions of many Christians to such things as I am about society's direction which the media so accurately represents. I think this reaction should be a discussion in itself.

Beyond this however I can still see how the reaction of people to such movies or books be it based on lack of sobriety or on lack of real foundation on the Faith also needs to be taken into account by the Church. Many within and without the Church have reported that The Da Vinci Code led them to question their faith. I have no reason to doubt the truth of these reports even if I question the reasons for what caused such doubts to arise in the first place. Indeed what does cause so many to question their faith or The Faith (ie the Church) in the face of something that so obviously appears to be about as serious and credible as Star Wars?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theopesta]

Isn't Da Vinci code a new face of the arianism?!!!
I need correction

[M.C. Steenberg]

Isn't Da Vinci code a new face of the arianism?!!!
I need correction

Dear Theopesta,

Thank you for your note. I think the answer is, 'Not really'. Simply saying that Jesus Christ was only a man, and not divine God, is not itself a definition of 'Arianism', despite the fact that the title often gets used that way. There were (and are) many other groups and thought systems that denied the divinity of Christ apart from these.

Beyond that, Arius himself was not per se denying the divinity of the Son, but that he was divine in a certain way (i.e. that he was divine with the same divinity as that of the Father). This is probably the most common misconception of Arius himself, given that his whole argument seems to have been based on the idea that the Son is divine, but of a different category or type of divinity (a hugely problematic idea, still; yet not the one he's usually thought to have professed!). Arius appears to have argued this for soteriological reasons that are, for example, wholly absent in this book and film.

INXC, Matthew

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Fr Raphael wrote
Maybe what is at play here is a great unease with the idea that there is a truth higher than our idea of it. And that this kind of sovereign truth is the denial of our freedom.
This seems to point very succinctly to the source of many difficulties regarding the acceptance of religious dogma in the popular imagination. Dogma is not seen as an articulation and expression of the spiritual experience of the saints and the matters revealed to them, but is instead viewed through a 'political' lens, suspected of serving the interests of a dominant ideology at the expense of minority opinion. Noone seems to question the assumption that "all truth must be democratic". It's the same with the voting process; everyone feels entitled to an opinion, even if their reason for voting for a particular candidate extends no further than the fact that they like the colour of his tie!

I guess for me the problem is not so much that there exists a sovereign truth which is superior to the limitations of our intellect; obviously such a truth would then only be accessible through revelation. What is more difficult for me as a modern person to consent to, is that this particular truth, and not another, is the revealed, absolute truth. For those of us who, like myself, have no direct spiritual experience, being asked to take what the Gospel and the saints have said about God on trust is very difficult. This is not so much a result of pride perhaps, as it is about living in a culture which is based on a democratic model of truth. The cultural expectation that one has to keep one's mind "open" proscribes complete faith in anything, even holy Tradition (especially that!).

If dogma is the fruit of questioning, as Fr Raphael suggests, it is a questioning which is based on experience, and a kind of experience which is not open to a rationalistic one-vote-per-person method of formulation.

Just some thoughts inspired by Fr Raphael's excellent comments.

Regarding DVC, I haven't seen it yet. I feel bad about giving Hollywood and Dan Brown the money. However, Matthew raises the all-important point, it seems to me, that people tend to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. We rightly get upset when the articles of our faith get directly attacked, yet we blithely continue to live in and contribute to a culture which is antithetical in so many ways to everything we believe in. It's OK to talk about God when the topic of discussion is religion, yet schizophrenically it's not OK to mention Him anywhere else, without getting labelled a fundamentalist or religious maniac of some sort. God and religious knowledge are simply not viable propositions in a culture which cannot tolerate 'intolerance'. As long as He is confined to a topic of debate for specialists and fanatics, we can keep from including Him in our daily lives, He can just stay in His little compartment while we get on with 'real life'. Hence we laugh (I confess, I laughed) at films like The Wedding Crashers which not too subtly undermine Christian morality, but get very upset when a mediocre writer writes a pulp fiction novel about Jesus being an (extra)ordinary married man with children. Maybe Fr Elchaninov was correct that the real threat to Christianity is not atheism, but the indifference of believers.

In Christ
Byron

[Theopesta]

today in the morning,
reading about priory of sion in the wikipedia, I find that, under the head:
Alleged Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion:
the name of Dan Brown no. 29 after Pierre Plantard (1981-1984),
on the afternoon exactly at 2,20 o'clock I am not find his name!!!!
I do not understand what this mean

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dogma is not seen as an articulation and expression of the spiritual experience of the saints and the matters revealed to them, but is instead viewed through a 'political' lens, suspected of serving the interests of a dominant ideology at the expense of minority opinion.

I like the way this is put very much. It helps explain what is behind the statement heard very often in the church that "it's only political." I am never too sure what the point of these statements really is except that they are obviously negative. As you say this usually has to do with something that is seen as threatening to oneself within the Church, something which is, "suspected of serving the interests of a dominant ideology at the expense of minority opinion." If I could just add that usually those who serve the "interests of a dominant ideology" are often themselves decribed as if they are a minority within the Church- a kind of behind the scenes coven bent only on preserving their own power. Maybe this is at least partly what is behind the so often present 'conspiracy' aspect of these novels and movies which resonates so much with our present society.


For those of us who, like myself, have no direct spiritual experience, being asked to take what the Gospel and the saints have said about God on trust is very difficult. This is not so much a result of pride perhaps, as it is about living in a culture which is based on a democratic model of truth. The cultural expectation that one has to keep one's mind "open" proscribes complete faith in anything, even holy Tradition.

This I think shows precisely the contradiction in society's mistrust in a higher truth. The mistrust in this higher truth is usually portrayed as being open-minded; indeed the higher truth is described as being wrong because it is not open-minded. And yet this whole attitude towards a higher truth is so obviously close minded and contradictory to what experience would show about it. Here we could also say that we are not only talking about the higher truth of the Church- any truth in fact is also demanding in the sense that it asks a kind of obedience to itself, something apart from self-will which is what is largely at play in determining our choices in our modern society.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

Hence we laugh (I confess, I laughed) at films like The Wedding Crashers which not too subtly undermine Christian morality, but get very upset when a mediocre writer writes a pulp fiction novel about Jesus being an (extra)ordinary married man with children. Maybe Fr Elchaninov was correct that the real threat to Christianity is not atheism, but the indifference of believers.

I think this is very well said Byron. It is lukewarm Christianity which is one, if not the, greatest threat.

Revelations 3:14-16: "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.'"

I wonder what it would mean to be lukewarm in regards to the entire DVC phenomenon?

[Alec Lowly]

today in the morning,
reading about priory of sion in the wikipedia, I find that, under the head:
Alleged Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion:
the name of Dan Brown no. 29 after Pierre Plantard (1981-1984),
on the afternoon exactly at 2,20 o'clock I am not find his name!!!!
I do not understand what this mean

Dear Sister,

The Priory of Sion does not exist, it has never existed, it is a hoax perpetrated by Pierre Plantard, who admitted his deception shortly before he died. The Wikipedia entry that listed Dan Brown as "grand master" is without doubt somebody's idea of a joke, and so the entry was removed as soon as Wikipedia was informed.

In XC,
Alec Lowly

[Theopesta]

Mr. Alec many thanks but I wonder as I find this site:

http://priory-of-sion.com/

also what has been written on the wikipedia about its aims May be compatable to a great extent with what present in the novel, except, the claim of the presence of female principle in the divinty,

many thanks, for the clearification, IN ONE CHRIST, Theopesta

[M.C. Steenberg]

All this 'Priory of Sion' business is a classic example of how a single individual's pride can lead to incredible consequences -- given that the whole 'priory' was the self-serving invention of an individual who wanted fame and recognition in a society that (rather rightly, one feels) wasn't giving him any in other rights.

We often joked of something similar while undergraduates, especially at a place like Oxford -- that it would be no great difficulty to fabricate an ancient society with a thousand-year history, secret traditions and customs, that was secretly behind every aspect of Oxford life. All it would take would be one astute mind who could come up with a symbolism vaguely uniting various signs and symbols that happen to be around the university, one or two others to assist, and an initial invitation to some keen new arrivals, indicating that they'd been selected for induction into one of the great, ancient, secret societies of the Academy. Pull it off for the initial group, and it could go on forever.

This is essentially what Sauniere's 'Priory' is. The great irony is that certain scholars were taken in by it as well.

INXC, Matthew

[Theopesta]

Dr. Matthew, many thanks for this spritual comment.

I know how u all are very knowledgable but I find this link is very useful,
10 Clear Errors In The Davinci Code

http://singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2006/05/10-clear-errors-in-davinci-code.html

[Alec Lowly]

Mr. Alec many thanks but I wonder as I find this site:

http://priory-of-sion.com/

also what has been written on the wikipedia about its aims May be compatable to a great extent with what present in the novel, except, the claim of the presence of female principle in the divinty,

many thanks, for the clearification, IN ONE CHRIST, Theopesta

Dear Sister,

I visited the Web site you mention and I find that it exists to show that the Priory of Sion and the stories related to the Priory of Sion are all false. So this Web site is a good and useful one. Mr. Dan Brown, when he wrote his novel "The Da Vinci Code," was aware of two other books by other writers on the subject of the Priory of Sion and the supposed "marriage" of our Lord Jesus Christ and Saint Mary Magdalene. The Wikipedia information reflects the information contained in these other books. As you know, there is no truth in any of these things.

As you know also, I am sure, there is very little in holy tradition that suggests anything about a "female principle" in our God. In the Old Testament, the Book of Solomon's Proverbs speaks of the Wisdom of God as "she." This is a poetic expression that originates in the fact the noun "wisdom," in Hebrew, is feminine in gender. But some people have been led into serious error by their failure to understand that a poetic conception should not be understood as a dogmatic revelation.

With prayers for the well-being of all Christians in Egypt,

Alec, sinner

[Theopesta]

Mr. Alec many thanks

when I read carfully this Web site --Priory of Sion, i understand many things, but also, I think Pierre Plantard is a real person and secret societies is really exists.

the people --unchristian, here repeate what said about this movie whithout searching the truth, e.g the church prevent appearing of the dead sea scrols, I feel the people outside the middle east even the athists and agonistics know the truth more than the people here, because our weak education.

http://priory-of-sion.com/dvc/newage.html

If a New Age Version of Christianity does evolve out of The Da Vinci Code, it can only be a product of gross human ignorance and gullibility.

many thanks to you all, as I learn many things from this thread,

best regards to everyone, in one christ, one church, one faith,

[Theopesta]

dear all:

just I want to remmember u with this paragraph from Da Vinci Code


the star of david ... ... solomon's seal ... marking holy of holies, where the male and female dieties - Yahweha and Shekinah - were thought to dwell.

pagr 584 corgi etition published 2004, british version.

I want to put this link beside these words
http://northernway.org/mmag.html

[Olga]

Dear Alec

You are quite correct in pointing out that "feminine" wisdom is simply a matter of grammatical gender. In fact, the word "wisdom" is of the female gender in Greek, the Slavonic languages, Latin (and the other Romance languages), German, and very likely in most, if not all other languages, at least of the Indo-European group. It is also important to realise that the emergence of the word "wisdom" would predate the advent of Christianity.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

I've also heard talk of the Holy Spirit being feminine, partly based on the word for 'spirit' in Semitic languages being feminine. I wonder if someone could cast a little more light on this, as well as on why we refer to God as 'He'?

In Christ
Byron

[Olga]

In the New Testament, at least, God the Father is referred to by Jesus Christ Himself as "He", which is as good a reason as any.:D The word "Spirit" comes in a variety of grammatical genders, mainly masculine or neuter, as does "Word" (as in Word of God). I go into more detail in my post of May 23 under the thread of "Mystical Theology of Mary".

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear All,

I wonder if someone could cast a little more light on... why we refer to God as 'He'?

In Christ
Byron

Primarily this is because the first Person of the Holy Trinity is God the Father. Of course Christ Himself referred to God as His Father. But the Holy Fathers also explain the first Person of the Holy Trinity as God the Father in relation to the other Persons of the Holy Trinity and also in relation to the rest of creation.

God the Father is Father as Progenitor. Of course the manner in which He is this is beyond human manner so the word 'father' is not exact in reference to Him. But yet by analogy the word father does come closest to describing Who God the Father is. Some of the characteristics of God such as wisdom may be described as being feminine but when describing God as He is rather than only referring to His characteristics, the word' father' best describes this.

Connected to this is the fact that Christ is incarnate as male. In recent times it has been stressed that an essential aspect of Christ's mission is as pre-eternal priest for creation. His maleness is connected to how He serves creation. As with God the Father it is not that Christ cannot at all be described as 'mothering' at times with His love. But as with the Father this only refers to characteristics of Christ and not to Who He really is.

I think it is correct to see this as a dogmatic matter even if this is not stated openly in the Creed, etc. God as He has a specific meaning theologically which refers to Who He really is. We do not claim that these words capture the fullness of God but to use any other words for Who He is (we even have to be very careful when we say God is Love) is to distort our understanding of God and the Faith.

As we see with those who adopt these changes the results are a fundamental change in how God and the Church are perceived.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alec Lowly]

I think it is correct to see this as a dogmatic matter even if this is not stated openly in the Creed, etc. God as He has a specific meaning theologically which refers to Who He really is. We do not claim that these words capture the fullness of God but to use any other words for Who He is (we even have to be very careful when we say God is Love) is to distort our understanding of God and the Faith.

As we see with those who adopt these changes the results are a fundamental change in how God and the Church are perceived.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

"Our father among the saints" C.S. Lewis <grin> had this to say:

"Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman is like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother who art in Heaven' as to 'our Father.' Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church is the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does. Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should have embarked on a different religion."

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

"Our father among the saints" C.S. Lewis <grin> had this to say:

"Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman is like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother who art in Heaven' as to 'our Father.' Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church is the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does. Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should have embarked on a different religion."

That about sums it up!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

We should problably give some credit to Dan Brown for this one, as well!

Nearly half of Americans uncertain God exists: poll
(http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/31/061031235233.s0l4o4wy.html)

excerpt... "42 percent of US adults are not "absolutely certain" there is a God compared to 34 percent who felt that way when asked the same question three years ago."

[John Charmley]

We should problably give some credit to Dan Brown for this one, as well!

Nearly half of Americans uncertain God exists: poll
(http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/31/061031235233.s0l4o4wy.html)

excerpt... "42 percent of US adults are not "absolutely certain" there is a God compared to 34 percent who felt that way when asked the same question three years ago."

Fortunately, since He is the only just judge, we can rest secure in the hope that God is 100% certain that there are Americans!;)

INXC

John

[Byron Jack Gaist]

It sometimes seems as though our global culture is becoming increasingly secular. I say this as a person who watches T.V. and movies quite a lot (more than I ought to). Dan Brown is part of the whole process of secularisation, but the fact that no films are made about saints lives, the fact that characters in movies rarely have any religious or spiritual motives or experiences at all, and if they do have such motives and experiences, these will usually be of some heretical variety; all this creates a collective consciousness for which the word 'holy' has little if any meaning. Indeed, it is almost embarrassing to speak of holiness or God anymore. Plus we can't ignore the recent events, that we have terrorism in the name of God, so that also probably undermines religion greatly in people's minds.

Polls are interesting, but obviously they don't reveal the whole picture of what people think and feel. After all, spiritual certainty is a divine gift, so it's probably only a select few who can sincerely answer with a straight "yes" to the question of God's existence. I for one have mixed feelings (and hence sadly also divided loyalties) all the time, although fundamentally I do trust that He exists.

What annoys me is that belief in God is so often derided as intellectually inferior, as if it were due to some cognitive or emotional deficit. We've reached the crazy point in our culture, where maturity and self-reliance are so identified with each other, that belief in forces beyond our control is marked a sign of weakness or inadequacy. Hence perhaps it would be correct to say that we still live in a world which is as single-minded as it was in the Middle Ages, but where in medieval times the One ended up oppressing the Many, today the Many have ended up oppressing the One?

In Christ
Byron

[John Charmley]

It sometimes seems as though our global culture is becoming increasingly secular. I say this as a person who watches T.V. and movies quite a lot (more than I ought to).
.....
What annoys me is that belief in God is so often derided as intellectually inferior, as if it were due to some cognitive or emotional deficit. We've reached the crazy point in our culture, where maturity and self-reliance are so identified with each other, that belief in forces beyond our control is marked a sign of weakness or inadequacy. Hence perhaps it would be correct to say that we still live in a world which is as single-minded as it was in the Middle Ages, but where in medieval times the One ended up oppressing the Many, today the Many have ended up oppressing the One?

In Christ
Byron
Dear Byron,

What a thoughtful and thought-provoking set of comments.

In Tuesday's London Times there was a long piece by Richard Dawkins which actually equated religious belief with mental illness; the former was described as a popular delusion and therefore socially acceptable in a way in which thinking that one is Napoleon is not! So it is now quite acceptable to label us all as deluded at best and deluded fanatics at worst.

The DVC plays to these notions. The Albino Monk is a deranged, homicidal fanatic; the 'Church' has a dirty big secret and is involved in a conspiracy to cover it up, and to that extent religion is all a big con-trick. Just about sums up one extreme view in our society.

The question is how we, as individual Christians combat this? But you are so correct in what you write, and I wonder what others think?

In Christ

John

[Ryan]

I don't feel that the DVC is something to worry about. It's a current pop cultural phenomenon that will pass. If someone's faith was swayed by a pulp thriller, it's doubtful they had much to begin with. I think the poll that was cited simply indicates a shift of some nominal Christians to nominal agnostics. In either case I don't think these people have much interest in Christianity to begin with, aside from a passing fascination for certain sensationalist historical debates or Gnostic oddities.

I would be very much interested to see an Orthodox film on a life of a saint. I think such a project should be approached like an icon, as opposed to the realism and historicism which modern culture typically demands.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I'm glad you found my comments interesting, John.
Richard Dawkins is the author of "The Selfish Gene", isn't he? I vaguely recall seeing him on T.V. when I lived in the U.K., representing the agnostic or atheist side in a debate on religion. Admittedly, if one believes only in the evidence of the senses, Christianity and most other religious faiths would seem crazy. My question would then be, how sane is it to believe only in the evidence of the senses? How objective is it to dismiss the mystical experiences of the saints as mere neurological phenomena, or even paranoid delusions? In other words, what gives Richard Dawkins or Dan Brown the monopoly on epistemology? They have a right to express their opinions or elaborate on their fantasies respectively, but one crucial question for me seems to be: why is our contemporary culture so ready to hear and receive their messages, but has its ears so firmly shut against Christianity?

Hi Byron!

Well you probably remember my views or theory about this. That society understands that the essential message of the Church is selflessness. And society sees this a lot more clearly than we give them credit for. But as with each of us every day it's quite a struggle to accept this, so many ending up hating the Church for the same reason the Pharisees hated Christ. He was an implicit threat to their adopted way of life and they knew it.

Of course we don't help with our selfishness as Orthodox Christians. We need to take up the struggle against ourselves even though it is very difficult at times. We need to be able to show as in Apostolic times that essentially it's this way of life the Church is referring to & from our lives that Christ's resurrection shines through.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

I'm glad you found my comments interesting, John.

Richard Dawkins is the author of "The Selfish Gene", isn't he? I vaguely recall seeing him on T.V. when I lived in the U.K., representing the agnostic or atheist side in a debate on religion. Admittedly, if one believes only in the evidence of the senses, Christianity and most other religious faiths would seem crazy. My question would then be, how sane is it to believe only in the evidence of the senses? How objective is it to dismiss the mystical experiences of the saints as mere neurological phenomena, or even paranoid delusions? In other words, what gives Richard Dawkins or Dan Brown the monopoly on epistemology? They have a right to express their opinions or elaborate on their fantasies respectively, but one crucial question for me seems to be: why is our contemporary culture so ready to hear and receive their messages, but has its ears so firmly shut against Christianity?

Ryan writes:
I would be very much interested to see an Orthodox film on a life of a saint. I think such a project should be approached like an icon, as opposed to the realism and historicism which modern culture typically demands. If only such a film were made! There is so much art in film-making these days, but much of it seems to me to be wasted. I'm tired of serious film directors who "rebel" against social conventions, yet manage to conform perfectly with one another and with social expectations of what "rebellion" and "unconventionality" is about. Why isn't there a rebel out there making films about faith? We lost Kieslowski in the 90s, and he seems to have been agnostic anyway, according to his Wikipedia entry (the sort of "agnostic" I like, nevertheless!). Tarkovsky was also a good director. Where is their equivalent today?

In Christ
Byron

[Simon11]

"I would be very much interested to see an Orthodox film on a life of a saint. I think such a project should be approached like an icon, as opposed to the realism and historicism which modern culture typically demands"

I recently watched ROberto Rossellini's film about St Francis of Assisi, "Francesco Giullare di Dio". I found the whole film very moving, especially as the film had used non-professional actors to convey the life of St Francis. The story I guess was powerful enough without too much production because of the power of Francis' life. Perhaps this would be a good model for a film about an Orthodox saint.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you for the tip, Simon. I will look out for that film on St Francis.

Fr Raphael, once again you've reminded us of the hardest part of the Christian message: change must begin with ourselves. I can't imagine any of my non-Christian acquaintances feel challenged when they see my own self-indulgent way of life - except in the sense of rightly feeling the need to offer me guidance! It's so difficult to be "in the world, but not of it", but alas, that's the asking price. Why then does the Lord reassure us that His yoke is easy, His burden light?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thank you for the tip, Simon. I will look out for that film on St Francis.

Fr Raphael, once again you've reminded us of the hardest part of the Christian message: change must begin with ourselves. I can't imagine any of my non-Christian acquaintances feel challenged when they see my own self-indulgent way of life - except in the sense of rightly feeling the need to offer me guidance! It's so difficult to be "in the world, but not of it", but alas, that's the asking price. Why then does the Lord reassure us that His yoke is easy, His burden light?

In Christ
Byron

Yes at times this statement of Christ is incomprehensible to us. At other times however when the force of sin is crushing us and we wish to be free of it, then Christ's words speak to us more clearly. When we humble ourselves in relation to the sin we struggle with, then in Christ we can find His easy yoke.

There is a book I am beginning to read- Elder Joseph the Hesychast. It's really quite amazing.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

There is a book I am beginning to read- Elder Joseph the Hesychast. It's really quite amazing.
l

Dear Father,

Is this the same books as Monastic Wisdom: The Letters of Elder Joseph the Hesychast?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Father,

Is this the same books as Monastic Wisdom: The Letters of Elder Joseph the Hesychast?

No- the book I'm talking about is Elder Joseph the Hesychast; Struggles- Experiences- Teachings; by Elder Joseph; printed by Vatopaidi Monastery.

But thanks for mentioning Monastic Wisdom. I thought there was a book with only his letters but then couldn't remember.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

Thank you Father! I just ordered it!

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Yes at times this statement of Christ is incomprehensible to us. At other times however when the force of sin is crushing us and we wish to be free of it, then Christ's words speak to us more clearly. When we humble ourselves in relation to the sin we struggle with, then in Christ we can find His easy yoke. Thank you for the wise words, Fr Raphael. I wonder what it means, "to humble ourselves in relation to the sin we struggle with"? I'm thinking of those fearful words, "Go, and sin no more". It seems to me that to just confess we've sinned is not enough. Real humility involves the decision to change, and permanently desist from sinning with all one's might. Otherwise who are we kidding? This is currently why I'm finding it personally very difficult to be in the world but not of it - quite an unreachable fantasy at the moment in fact.

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thank you for the wise words, Fr Raphael. I wonder what it means, "to humble ourselves in relation to the sin we struggle with"? I'm thinking of those fearful words, "Go, and sin no more". It seems to me that to just confess we've sinned is not enough. Real humility involves the decision to change, and permanently desist from sinning with all one's might. Otherwise who are we kidding? This is currently why I'm finding it personally very difficult to be in the world but not of it - quite an unreachable fantasy at the moment in fact.

In Christ
Byron

This is why these books we have been providentially given us at this point are so important. Otherwise we would drift almost inevitably into considering that our life in Christ was one of doing 'good things', being moral, etc. etc.

Instead these books, like the one mentioned above, describe in a way we have scarcely know before, another world, to which we are called by among other things humbling ourselves in relation to the sin we struggle with.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

I will look out for the book on Elder Joseph, Fr Raphael. Although you are on the old calendar, may I wish you all the very best on your name day?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I will look out for the book on Elder Joseph, Fr Raphael. Although you are on the old calendar, may I wish you all the very best on your name day?

In Christ
Byron

Oh thanks!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

The media headlines here today are about the diocese of Rome refusing to allow filming of the DVC 'prequel', 'Angels and Demons', in two churches in Rome. It's odd that the film actor Tom Hanks, who plays leading roles in both films, is Greek Orthodox (or so I have read) and yet is willing to be in these films. I wonder what his parish priest makes of that.

[Alice]

The media headlines here today are about the diocese of Rome refusing to allow filming of the DVC 'prequel', 'Angels and Demons', in two churches in Rome. It's odd that the film actor Tom Hanks, who plays leading roles in both films, is Greek Orthodox (or so I have read) and yet is willing to be in these films. I wonder what his parish priest makes of that.

Yes, he is Greek Orthodox, but since it was a conversion for his wife's heritage, (and the Greek Church has more conversions due to marriage than anything else) I doubt that he is fanatic about it...and he certainly would not be that different from many American cradle Greek Orthodox in that regard. I am not judging...but stating a fact, having spent my whole life in the Greek Orthodox Church of America. The upside to his conversion is that I understand that he attends Sunday services with his wife and children, and that is commendable in a society where Sunday mornings for the affluent usually mean sleeping in, brunch, jogging, or golf.

I might also assume that Mr. Hanks, being richer than on can possible fathom being rich, donates large amounts of money to his parish...

I might also assume that acting in the movie, being his 'livelihood' -- as it were--might offer some rationale.

We live in a culture where the boundaries of moral and immoral, sinful and not sinful are often blurred.

For instance, iI have always wondered about when an actor or actress (and there are some who are serious Christians) kisses someone on screen who is not their spouse, is it considered sinning or not? Could it be that the sin would be in their intent (are they feeling the passion of lust or not) rather than the actual action?

Perhaps then, Mr. Hanks feels in his soul, or has shared with his priest, that his intent is not to undermine the Church, but rather to act in a fictional movie? Ofcourse this is all conjecture....

In Christ,
Alice

[Paul Cowan]

Perhaps someone could offer him an invitation to join us here and dispell our conceptions of him and that of his colleagues?

[Andreas Moran]

Alice's post raises the interesting relationship between secular occupation and one's being a practising Orthodox Christian. St Paul recommends converts staying as they are, but that could not apply to a casino owner or glamour model. As a lawer/teacher of law, I felt I could stay as I was (but I do think of the verse, 'Woe unto you, lawyers! Luke 11:52).