I have never heard of the Vatican calling for a boycott of this movie,
nor of the book
(continued from a few posts up)
When news of the successful 'liberation' of Jerusalem in 1099
reached Europe, pious support for the eventual Latin Kingdom of
Jerusalem was guaranteed... for almost a century. So-called
'military orders' came into being, such as the Templars, the
Hospitallers (eventually 'miles'), and the Teutonic Knights.
However, even before the loss of Jerusalem in 1187 and subsequent
loss of all European territory in the Holy Lands, that support
had begun to dwindle --the existence of the Latin Kingdom of
Jerusalem was dependent on European money, and Europe was needing
more and more of all available cash for its own problems.
Dedicated to defending the Holy Land, the evicted Templars
naturally agitated for a new Crusade to reclaim it, and the
political support of monarchs and the pope was sought, over
many decades.
In the 1300's one of those courted by the Templars was King
Philip the Fair, and he promised his support in exchange for
loans he could not repay. Instead, he sought to cancel his
debt by obliterating his lenders the Templars (following the
Christian template of expelling Jews to whom outstanding amounts
were owed).
The Templars were charged with heresy, many of them arrested
and tortured to obtain the desired confessions. Never mind that
a Pope was kidnapped and eventually murdered as a mere sideshow
to this persecution, Philip got what he wanted.
Conspiracy-theorists got what they wanted too, in those
confessions obtained under torture.
One of them was supposed to be secret worship of an object/entity
called the 'Baphomet'. Nobody really knows what this was, but
Dr. Hugh Schonfield thought to apply an ancient Jewish decryption
tool, the Atbash cipher (which had been used to interpret portions
of the Dead Sea Scrolls). With that, 'Baphomet' can be intepreted
as 'Sophia' ---a Greek word for 'wisdom'.
Never mind that no other Templar trivia have yielded goodies via
this cipher, but this is where it gets REAL funky. A large number of
historical and invented 'mysteries' are linked together (only by
omitting much truth) to form the conspiracy that Dan Brown has been
only the most recent to promote.
'Sophia', as said, means wisdom or knowledge.
There was a heretical sect of Christians, from about 300 A.D.
onwards, called the Gnostics (the name alone suggests a worship
of knowledge and wisdom). They held, among other things, that
Judas was first among the Apostles for receiving specific, secret
instruction (knowledge) from Jesus (to betray the Son of Man, etc.).
A withered pamphlet (in Greek, not in Aramaic as Dan Bown claims)
of theirs describes Mary Magdalene as exceptionally devoted to Jesus,
and that the latter often kissed her on the... well, the word
is missing. Brown insists the missing word is 'lips', and that is
the basis for the claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers.
The idea, however sacrilegous, is not new. It has been around in
disguised form since at least the 800's.
Jesus kissed his other apostles as well, according to the Gnostic
texts, but then a kiss was a more common greeting back then,
than it is today (beso-beso notwithstanding).
If Jesus and Mary Magdalene had offspring, then a 'holy bloodline'
was out there for any wannabe monarch to lay claim to, pursuing
unasailable legitimacy of his authority and rule.
(Later European nobility was fond of providing falsified documents
attesting to their patrilineal descent from Julius Caesar, or from
Alexander the Great, from Moses, saints and apostles. Bloodline was
everything, and the kings of Europe couldn't very well fess up to
having descended from the slaves and mercenaries of the Romans, eh?)
So, first we are supposed to believe the Templars actually worshipped
a 'Baphomet', and then believe that the word really reads as 'Sophia',
and then accept that Gnostic heresy was truth, and then that the
Templars had such proof of its truth: that is to say, that Jesus
fathered children.
We are to believe that the wealth and existence of the Templars
is somehow different from that of the Hospitallers, that it was based
on blackmailing the Church with the proof of Jesus' offspring.
Worse still, we are to buy into the 1956 falsifications committed
(and later confessed to, in 1993!) by Pierre Plantard:
the so called Les Dossiers Secrets, which he had had inserted
surreptitiously into the archives of the French Bibliotheque
Nationale, identifying a fictitious 'Prieure du Sion' and
hilariously listing an impossible line of 'Grand Masters' for it,
including Leonardo da Vinci.
One only has to look at all the fake Hospitaller Orders, with their
fake documents and lucrative recruitment of gullible members-knights,
to understand one reason for falsifying some secret 'Pieure du Sion',
and again now, Plantard has already confessed to the falsification.
But wait, there's even more suspension of disbelief required!
This fictitious Prieure du Sion is supposed to be the heir to
Templar secrets! As one of its Grand Masters, Leonardo da Vinci
--by all accounts a devout Christian to his death-- is supposed
to have inserted Gnostic heresies into the 'Last Supper', a
tempera he rendered in the dining room of the Convent of
Santa Maria delle Grazie --to the specifications of his patron,
Ludovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan.
We are to believe that da Vinci's image of John actually
represents Mary Magdalene, the 'Holy Grail' that carries the
blood of Christ in her womb, all in the context of the very moment
the Lord consecrates 'His body and blood'.
A cursory study of Last Supper paintings by other artists of the
day, and their boyish, almost girlish, depictions of John, is
helpful. Furthermore, da Vinci's Last Supper doesn't depict the
consecration of 'Body and Blood' --it is the moment when Jesus
reveals that one of the apostles will betray Him! THAT's why
the apostles are so agitated in the painting. Further, we know
there were twelve apostles --if 'John' is actually the Magdalene,
where's John, then, 'ey?
I could go on and on... (you KNOW that I can
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!)
The Merovingians are another past interest of mine, and the
Carolingians as well, since their lessons apply to parts of the
dismal political landscape in the Philippines.
---
Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' is a lot like the TV series 24.
It creates tension by intoducing insinuations at a breakneck pace
but never really ties up all the loose ends satisfactorily. The sheer
volume and pace of such, distratcts the reader/viewer from noticing
many lapses. Bereft of these shock-value insinuations --which by
the way are largely borrowed (plagiarized, even) from suprisingly-
recent publications of wildly-varying quality (Baigent et al 1982,
etc.)-- Dan Brown's writing leaves me bored:
Check out his other novel 'Digital Fortess', which also dwells
on code-breaking. Without the Da Vinci Code's shock-value
allegations vs. the Church, it reads very badly. Cardboard
characters, weak grasp of mathematics involved in cryptology,
and a tin dialogue had me in a very irritable mood.
Perhaps that is NOT Dan Brown's fault.
He writes in a style that so very many have clearly enjoyed.
Perhaps it is my own shortcomings that prevent me from finding
such enjoyment through his work.
I did not 'boycott' the movie for any 'heresy', nor do I recall the
Church enjoining me to participate in a 'boycott'. If I did that sort
of thing in principle, I would boycott Sunday Mass first, as the
priests imposed on my congregation (SVD, Sacred Heart, QC) are
stupefyingly shallow in their presentations of Gospel and catechism,
and actually propose ignorant heresies in their sermons.
It is terribly hard work wading through all their bullshat to find
what I showed up for, but at least
they don't charge
for admission.
h.
