On the infamous DaVinci Code...
I never read the book. I went to see the film, opening day, with a non-Christian friend. I thought she might have questions. Turns out I did!!
Much of it didn't add up. One plus one equals 3. I think the kind of folks who would believe this obviously fictional story is real must also believe most of the stories in papers like the Star or National Enquirer.
We have, from the very beginnng of Christianity, had a woman of elivated status in the church. The Blessed Virgin. The idea that the church would be afraid of such a woman is laughable! Go open the yellow pages. Look up Catholic churches. Count how many begin with Our Lady...
The church teaches that The Blessed Mother is the new Ark of the Covenant - because she carried the Word Incarnate in her womb. Our Greek brethren gave her the title Theotokos which means Christ Bearer.
So much for the church divesting itself of the sacred feminine. BAAAHAHAHAHA!!!
For our Protestant cousins, it's a whole other story...
The church didn't demonize Mary Magdalen. Hollywood did. Hollywood portrays her as a prostitute. Not the Holy See. The church doesn't build basilica's for prostitutes. Her relics rest in a massive basilica in France. Yes, we actually know where her body is.
Magdalene, is a Hebrew term for an adulteress. She has regularly been thought of as "the woman caught in adultery" as portrayed in "The Passion of the Christ." If she was an adulteress, then she was already married and couldn't have married Jesus. Some believe she is called the Magdalen because she came from Magdala in Galilea. Some believe she was the Mary of the Lazarus story. Mary and Martha are the sisters of Lazarus.
We also have the "Holy Grail." The Santa Caliz is in a cathedral in Spain.
The church has always taught that Jesus is fully human and fully divine. How would his having children be problematic to these teachings?
How would testing the DNA of Mary Magdalen prove that these people were descendents of Jesus? It would only prove that they were HER descendents. The story would have been a lot more plausible if Brown had made mention of the Holy Blood in the cathedral in Bruges. Yes, Holy Blood that Mary Magdalen caught in a cup - maybe THE cup - I don't know - at the crucifixion. I believe the Knights Templar brought it to Bruges. Not certain though.
DaVinci's painting may be called The Last Supper. But it isn't a painting of The Last Supper. It is of a meal days before The Passion, wherein Jesus again tells the desciples one of them will "offer him up" (the Aramaic term which we translated into betray), Peter, pulls John (the beloved disciple) to one side and begs him to learn from Jesus who the betrayer will be.
Why use the name of a real lay-organization within the church to signify a false order of monks? That's just silly. And why put a Franciscan robe on a non-Franciscan?
How is it even remotely possible that these people so deeply devoted to Jesus that they would injure themselves in severe penances for their sins could kill his children? Such an act would permanently remove them from His beloved presense. As such it would be an incomprehensible act to them.
I did enjoy the film. Largely because Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen and Audrey Tautou are wonderful. In short, I really don't see what all the fuss is about.