Top cardinal blasts di vinci code

Take a look at this.
This cardinal just goes on to say that everything in the di vinci code are perversions of history. Well first off he gives no factual basis to his arguement, just that the da vinci code is wrong.
The da vinci code is fiction book, if he didnt realize....that are based on some theories.
I would love this cardinal to come on here and try to argue his point.

I'll argue it for him. The Di Vinci Code is false, pure and simple. The Priory of Sion was a group of Nazi sympathizers not the guardians of the "holy grail" It's totally BS, and the worst part is that the author is actually claiming that his faulty research is legit. Sorry buddy.

If you'd like to read why the Code is a bunch of bull, pick up the Spring 1999 coppy of Gnosis magazine and read an article by Robert Richardson called "The Priory Of Sion Hoax" Or if you are so inclined and know French, find a copy of "Hérésie et Hérétiques" by Christine Thouzellier.

If you'd like me to expand on why the Code is wrong, please ask some more specific questions.

~Astral

Originally posted by The Astral City
I'll argue it for him. The Di Vinci Code is false, pure and simple. The Priory of Sion was a group of Nazi sympathizers not the guardians of the "holy grail" It's totally BS, and the worst part is that the author is actually claiming that his faulty research is legit. Sorry buddy.

If you'd like to read why the Code is a bunch of bull, pick up the Spring 1999 coppy of Gnosis magazine and read an article by Robert Richardson called "The Priory Of Sion Hoax" Or if you are so inclined and know French, find a copy of "Hérésie et Hérétiques" by Christine Thouzellier.

If you'd like me to expand on why the Code is wrong, please ask some more specific questions.

~Astral

How can one argue whether a work of fiction is false or not, by its very nature a novel is fiction. 'Priory of Sion', seems like a very odd name for a group of Nazi sympathizers, or at the very least ironic.
So are the Blair Witch Project, and The Celestine Prophecies wrong too?

Many will be sorely disappointed, though I am not one of them.

I don't read native French, I can almost fluently comprehend it.

The point that the book was trying to make is based on facts (in my opinion). I'm not exactly thrilled by all the fluff used as filler for the book, but it was a good read none the less.

Now what was the topic of this thread, oh yes, the cardinal. Of course he was going to speak out against the publication, who in their right mind that is trying to hide even a scrap of truth, would not make some kind of statement in protest.

This arguement would make a good ATS debate; is the story of Christ being married and living on, to have children based on fact or fiction.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by ADVISOR]

Originally posted by The Astral City
I'll argue it for him. The Di Vinci Code is false, pure and simple. The Priory of Sion was a group of Nazi sympathizers not the guardians of the "holy grail" It's totally BS, and the worst part is that the author is actually claiming that his faulty research is legit. Sorry buddy.

If you'd like to read why the Code is a bunch of bull, pick up the Spring 1999 coppy of Gnosis magazine and read an article by Robert Richardson called "The Priory Of Sion Hoax" Or if you are so inclined and know French, find a copy of "Hérésie et Hérétiques" by Christine Thouzellier.

If you'd like me to expand on why the Code is wrong, please ask some more specific questions.~Astral

I would question why one uses one author as proof, and decide that another is proven false.

Having said that, We actually know little about what transpired with the Templars, save to say the church decided to issue canons against same, without elucidation. Considering that in most cases from what I have read and gleaned from their denunciation of others, it was the atypical conceited mindset at play, I would not be so quick to condemn Brown therefore, on this basis.

But please do expound on why the code is "wrong." in a way that differentiates from my own synopsis of Brown's book, which is that he made a good case (climax) but failed miserably in closing the case (ending).

[edit on 3/15/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

My point to this thread was that this cardinal did what most christians do, disregard something without giving any explanation or factual basis.
He jsut went to claim that it was a perversion of history....well like the christians havent pervertd history...

The difference between using one author as fact to discount another is based upon the author's specialty and degree.

The authors, plural there, that I use to disprove the Code, are scholars, they have studied for years and are quite knowing about their subject matter.

As for the Author of the Code, well, he writes fiction, and while I am sure he did some of his own research, he is by no means qualified to make the claim that he does at the begining of his book.

If the author were to say that his fictional book was purely fiction, I'd have absolutely no problem with it, period. He claims though, that the Priory of Scion is real and is as he wrote in his novel. This is pure fantasy, and is disproven many times over. The question was actually settled long ago, in fact the question first came into the academic arena when the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was published. Ironically the author of Holy Blood is currently suing the author of the Code for intelectual property theft.

The problem is that a majority of the work done on the Priory is in French and thus is a bit hard to read for most English reading Americans.

In a much simplified form here's what the modern Priory of Scion was:

Started by a man named Pierre Plantard, the Priory Of Scion was a pro-Nazi organization around the time of World War Two in France. To legitimize themselves to the Nazis they did something that was truly genious: They fabricated a paper trail for their orgainzation and then planted the forged papers throughout France and Italy. One of these papers was a listing of "Past masters" and, again in an effort to make themselves seem much more importaint, there was signifigant name dropping involved. One of these names was, of course, Leo Di Vinci.

In another order to make their case, they tacked on an old legend from southern France that the bloodline of Christ lived through the local noblitiy. Now this legend, was created in order to give the French people something to hold on to during dark periods in their history as a matter of pride in their noblitiy and to help with divine right. The documentation that the legend is based upon is not cannonized by the Roman Catholic Church with good reason. The doc claims that the man who's land Jesus' tomb was on fled later to what is now France with the child of Jesus and Mary. It was not put in the bible because it could not be verified and was actually written many many years after the suppoesed subject had died.

~Astral

I think the Cardinal should be worrying a HELL of a lot more about fixing the priest man/boy love problem than a book.

The Catholic Church is completely ass-backwards. I should know, I was raised Catholic.

Also, while I don't pretend to (or wish to) talk for the Catholics, I really don't think that they should have to justify their words. As it was pointed out, the work is fiction, and why on earth would the largest religious organization on the planet, and the last direct vestage of the Roman Empire, have to defend itself against a work of fiction?

The Church will survive this, undoubtably, if they loose some of their more gullible followers, so be it. They have more than enough real problems (sex-scandals, pope's health, ect.) to deal with rather than ruffle themselves over one pot-boiler author.
~Astral

Bertone's comments were significant because until the Pope named him archbishop of Genoa in 2003 he was for years the number two man at the Vatican's most powerful department - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

If i recall correctly the Congregation ... is the current title for the Holy Office of the Inquisition.
i could be wrong.

Originally posted by ADVISOR

This arguement would make a good ATS debate; is the story of Christ being married and living on, to have children based on fact or fiction.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by ADVISOR]

When I read that the wedding at Canaa was suggested to be Jesus and Mary Magdalene's union, I very meticulously reread the account.
It is hard to refute that the most sensible and literal conclusion, requiring the least mental gymnastics, is that the wedding is His.
Of course many will point to John 2:3, which states Jesus and his disciples had also been invited.
So, if that is all you need to hear to discount the notion of it being His wedding, there is no use reading further........note that it is John who shares this.
To summarize my reasons for thinking Jesus and Mary Magdalene were betrothed:

1. Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it ran out, an odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so.
2. The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?
3. Jesus supplies the wine, and the mc praises the groom, thereby supporting the traditional responsibility is the groom's family.
John 2:11 states that this is the 1st miracle, reveals Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.
4. Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.
5. Three, not one or two, three times He is called Rabbi, a title which has as a firm prerequisite that the man be wedded.
6. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?
7. Jesus preached that marriage is good, and divorce is bad. In this case, we are asked to believe that He did not take His own advice,
on top of the half dozen previous suggestive points. I look at Him as a do as I do, not do as I say kind of teacher, how do you see Him?

8. At the empty tomb, who would you predict would arrive at the tomb first that morning? Those who were closest to Him would.
Luke 24:10 "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James........."
John 1:29 "Behold the lamb of God" This is John the Baptist being quoted, and the lamb of God he is referring to is Jesus.
Revelations 21:9, (note the similar verse numbers, considering both chapters are by John). "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the lamb's wife."

It is clear that Mary is very close to Him, and that John, the sole recorder of the Canaa wedding is also very close to Him.
Did you know that Giovanna is the feminine form of Giovanni? Iohannas is the feminine for Iohannes, and Joanna is the feminine form of John, all three are examples of the same name, John. Interestingly, Joan is not from John. Just the name Joanna.
John writes Revelations, John describes the crucifixion quite differently than the other 3 'synoptic?' gospels, (synoptic, of one eye....lol)
In the KJAV, Luke 3:27 which is Jesus' dad's lineage, (else why put it in there?), it reads...." Which was the son of Joanna, which was the SON of Rhesa."

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

Bertone's comments were significant because until the Pope named him archbishop of Genoa in 2003 he was for years the number two man at the Vatican's most powerful department - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

If i recall correctly the Congregation ... is the current title for the Holy Office of the Inquisition.
i could be wrong.

I think that you are correct, the department by the 'too long to type' name, used to be the Inquisition.

Well, the Brown book is fiction and so I'm not at all sure why it needs to be "defended" any more than "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". Obviously, it draws upon the same speculations and questionable "research" as "Holy Blood,Holy Grail". I've never understood why that book has been so heavily attacked, either. Those authors really don't make the claims that people accuse them of making. If you read HBHG, you'll find that everything in it has "qualifiers" on both ends of every "claim". (sorry for all the quotes)

I think if you took out all the instances of "if, then", "could be", "unverifiable but", "not able to prove either way", etc. from HBHG, the book would be about 100 pages shorter. So, even if I didn't believe one word of it, I wouldn't attack it. It's just interesting speculation.

Added later:
I don't mean to say that I think nothing in the HBHG and similar works has merit. But, having all those theories and speculations so heavily padded in disclaimers makes it a rather clumsy read. It's like saying "while there is no substantial evidence that I was able to uncover, it is possible that apples were once fish and, if they were fish, then...."

[edit on 16-3-2005 by Al Davison]

Originally posted by wang
He jsut went to claim that it was a perversion of history....

He was just doing his job .... which when I consider how few
Cardinals and Bishops are actually doing what they are supposed
to, I give him credit for doing so. He is supposed to shephard his
flock which includes keeping his sheep from wolves. And frankly,
this needs to be done. I was sitting with some other moms at
my daughter's swim team practice a few weeks ago and they all
had gotten The Davinci Code for Christmas. They (all Catholics)
were saying 'oh this could be right' or 'yes, that's true' and 'I never
knew that' ... all about a FICTIONAL book.

He doesn't have to prove that the DaVinci Code is made up since the
author of the DaVinci Code himself put FICTION down as the type of
book that it is. It would be up to the DaVinci Code author to prove
that his work was non-fiction, and even he knows it isn't so he put
it as FICTION.

I haven't read the responses but what else would you expect him to say!? You think he's going to come out and, "yes, there's some truth to it"!? Of course he is going to blast it The book is actually based on truth wrapped within a story line for interesting reading...my opinion of course.

Like i said elsewhere :

"It's all lies!"

Thats just the kind of ipso facto argument i'd expect from a domatic.

Top cardinal blasts di vinci code

Does this surprise anyone? The Cardinal is a Catholic. There's your answer. Do you expect him to go against everything he has learned and been teaching? And don't forget, he answers to Don John Paul II.....at the Vatican, the capitol of the Catholic mafia......

as soon as I saw this topic, my first reaction was "why?"

the more I read these posts, the more I keep coming back to that same question. Why would a "Top Cardinal" even bother with this?

Well, the Brown book is fiction and so I'm not at all sure why it needs to be "defended" any more than "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs".

many of these stories reflect the Grail and lost princess legends, just as many
faery tales like hey diddle diddle report pagan meetings.

Originally posted by The Astral City
The difference between using one author as fact to discount another is based upon the author's specialty and degree.

Perhaps so, what they are I do not know.

he authors, plural there, that I use to disprove the Code, are scholars, they have studied for years and are quite knowing about their subject matter.

From what I recall Brown claimed to have done years of research himself.

As for the Author of the Code, well, he writes fiction, and while I am sure he did some of his own research, he is by no means qualified to make the claim that he does at the begining of his book.

he obviously made it based on his research, that cannot be taken from him, no matter if his research proved faulty.

I can understand the Vatican trying to stop people from believing Brown's claim, since they should well know how gullibe some are. However, they are not one to be criticizing anyone since they have been preaching a story for 2,000 years based on no historic evidence of same and on some very conflicting accounts of said story, where no proof at all exists as to the authors' credibility or that they were even the authors as claimed. I have to agree with Blackguard's assessment.

In a much simplified form here's what the modern Priory of Scion was: And Robert Richardson's credentials are?

It seems he is being disputed for his information as well: priory-of-sion.com...

In another order to make their case, they tacked on an old legend from southern France that the bloodline of Christ lived through the local noblitiy.

Yes I am aware this is a legend because the Merovingians did not originate in france.