How do the Orthodox churches play into the Da Vinci Code?

[Bill McBlueState]

I haven't read the book, but I know the Da Vinci Code makes a lot of claims about secrets the Roman church has from the early days of Christianity. Is there anything in the book about how the Eastern Orthodox churches fit into this?

To my knowledge, the Roman church was not the most influential operation in the early days of Christianity, compared to the churches in Asia Minor and Greece. So any secrets from that era would have to be kept quiet not just by the Roman church, but by the whole of Eastern Christianity as well.

It's pretty typical for Americans not to be aware of church history, especially Eastern church history, so I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't really dealt with in the book.

[mmonk]

1. The Church was one.

So therefore, the Orthodox and the Catholic churches were the same in the early years up to the 1100's. However, we live in the west where Church history is not well known since Protestantism broke away in the middle ages. All the hoopla and misinformation mainly comes from a Western view as well as the Catholic Church being seen only in villianous roles..

[Bill McBlueState]

10. villainous roles

I think that's key -- the book's popularity is fueled by people wanting to implicate the Catholic church in all sorts of ancient conspiracies. But of course, that particular church isn't the only existing body dating back to the first millenium. The Orthodox churches would have to be "in on" any conspiracy as well.

[mmonk]

15. I think all the conspiracy thoughts

began with discovery of all the different writings all over the area of the ancient world by people during the middle ages. Since the church has split (in so many different ways), the different writings began to be interpreted with suspicion. There were the Gnostic writings with its influences from Docetism and Phantasiasm, Arianism, Manichaeism, Albigensianism, Neo-Platoism, etc. Many Councils through the ages decided what they would keep or not keep. The basic use of Feast Days, communion, altar, Liturgy, etc. is most common and close in uniformity between The Orthodox and Catholic Churches since they were one until the split or schism.

[Bridget Burke]

16. Odd that so many "ancient secrets"....

Have been well known for centuries.

How to access those arcane mysteries? Open a book! (Actually, quite a few books.)

[mmonk]

24. Yep. They've been there all along.

All anyone has to do is a little research.

[Bridget Burke]

26. At least the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail did some real research.

Even though they were hoaxed about the Priory of Sion. I didn't "believe" their book, but found it a fascinating intellectual game.

Unfortunately, Dan Brown just read HBHG.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. The schism between east and west is a huge topic

So I won't touch on it here :hi:

My understanding is that Orthodox churches are as upset about the story as the Catholic Church, but without the outrage being fueled by Opus Dei. Since very few in the United States are familiar with the Orthodoxy, their upset has been getting far, far less press than the Catholics.

[recoveringrepublican]

4. Married to an Orthodox man

his church has said nothing...they usually don't seem to care about such matters. At least the local Greek Church. Many of our Orthodox friends have read the book.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Most Catholic churches haven't said anything, either

And I know more than a few Catholics who have read and enjoyed the book. :hi:

The issue is with the leadership, not the rank-and-file. I recall reading (will try to find cites) that high members of the various Orthodox hierarchies have spoken out against the book and film. Orthodoxy doesn't have a unitary leader, but the general opinion among the patriarchs and metropolitans is much the same as it was against "The Last Temptation of Christ."

[recoveringrepublican]

17. I understand, but usually when they state something..that's it

no calls for boycotts, book burning, legislation. Usually its "we agree/disagree, take it for what you will" not "you will burn in hell if you read Dan "satan" Brown's work". I a Christian, but I don't believe in organized religion, but if I HAD to choose a Church, most likely I would become Orthodox.

[flyingfysh]

3. church history is rather tangled

To get up to speed, try "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrmann, or anything else by him. Christianity used to be a much more diverse movement, and only over time did the opinions of the Roman group come to be considered "orthodox".

Consider these possibilities:

Is there one God? Or 2? Or 30? or 365?

Is Jesus wholly human and not divine? Or wholly divine and not human? Or both, somehow? Was Jesus a human who was "adopted" by God?

Is salvation brought by Jesus' death, or by his teachings?

Was Jesus really crucified?

Should any of the Jewish writings be used at all?

Today, all Christian groups would give exactly the same answers to these questions. This was not always the case.

[myrna minx]

5. I hadn't heard of this book.

It sounds like a very interesting read. I presume this book delves into the Gnostics? I'll have to check it out. Thanks. I love that DU provides so much information as well as good book suggestions. :hi: I'm currently reading Desire of the Everlasting Hills : The World Before and After Jesus by Thomas Cahill.

[The Deacon]

6. Not all

flyingfysh - there still exist some small communities of Coptic and Maronite Christians in the world. Only in the West was the Council of Nicea entirely successful in wiping out "heresies."

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. Strictly speaking, the Catholic Church is itself heretical

The creed from the Council of Nicaea, as amended by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 and reconfirmed by the Council of Ephesus in 449, states that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father; with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified...." The Council of Ephesus also stated very bluntly that there was to be no more changes to the Creed, nor any other Creed accepted in its place, on pain of excommunication and anathema.

By stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (the so-called "filioque controversy", named because in Latin, the two words added to the orthodox creed are "et filioque") is in violation of the Council of Ephesus and, as a result, is excommunicate and anathema; ie, the Catholic and Protestant churches are all heretics. This practice started in 587 in Spain. At first, the Patriarchs of Rome vigorously opposed this as heresy: Pope Leo III had the orthodox creed inscribed on shields and displayed publicly in 800, vowing to excommunicate anyone who used the tainted version of the Creed.

The filioque continued to spread, though, and in 867 the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Nicholas I and all of his followers, ie the entire western church. The subsequent excommunication in 1054 by Pope Leo IX of all who rejected the filioque -- a direct act of heresy against the Creed and the Council of Ephesus -- is invalid because Pope Leo himself was excommunicate and therefore stripped of all authority to excommunicate anyone else.

So, strictly speaking, the Council of Nicaea was not only not successful in wiping out heresies in the west, it was itself replaced by heresy. :hi:

[Bill McBlueState]

14. I think it's pretty interesting, too

The way seemingly minor but irreconcilable disputes turned into huge schisms is fascinating.

Isn't the big difference between Roman and Eastern theology something about whether the holy spirit proceeds from the father or from both the father and the son?

[Bridget Burke]

20. The Eastern & Western Churches had several doctrinal differences.

Here's an interesting summary from the Ukrainian Orthodox viewpoint.
www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/orthodox-catholic.htm

Soldiers of the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in the 11th century. This event was the last straw for the Eastern Church. I can't really blame them.

[TexasProgresive]

7. Greek Orthodox church slams Da Vinci Code

May 10 4:07 PM US/Eastern


"The Greek Orthodox church reportedly criticised the best selling "Da Vinci Code" thriller, the film of which comes out in the coming days, as offensive and mistaken.

The semi-official Ana news agency said that a leaflet to be distributed to churchgoers at all Orthodox churches next Sunday states "From a religious and historical point of view the content of the book is wholly false."



"The work attacks and undermines in a treacherous manner religious knowledge," said the leaflet, produced by the church's supreme body, the holy synod."



http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/10/060510200707.8elxm53p.html

[recoveringrepublican]

19. oops guess I stand corrected nt

[Bill McBlueState]

8. thanks for the replies so far...

I have some knowledge of church history, but thanks for the sources.

What I want to know about the Da Vinci Code, though, is that for these secrets about Jesus to really be secrets, the Eastern churches would have to be "in on it" as well. Does that come up at all in the book?

[Inland]

9. Tom Hanks married in Greek church, gonna give it a pass.

[Caution]

11. it wasn't in the book. Probably because the book is fiction and it's

just a halfway decent story (the book is very and I do mean VERY poorly written. Full of plot holes, poor use of language, bad cliches and a ridiculously convoluted conspiracy theory. Entertaining though. Apparently the movie (according to Roger Ebert) is very close to the book so you can probably just go and see that.

[Bill McBlueState]

12. not surprised about that

My dad talked me into reading Angels and Demons, which had a very formulaic, predictable plot. I'm not surprised if Dan Brown's other books go the same way.

I originally wasn't going to see the movie, but all the controversy has me rethinking that decision.

[Caution]

18. i LOATHED Demons and Angels. The DaVinci Code is marginally

better. I'll see the movie once it makes DVD. If you havent read the book, I, personally, think you would be better off seeing the film since it'll cost about the same and you'll get the story which is the only decent part of the book. I think the movie will be a helluva lot better than the book was actually. As an atheist I get a kick out of the fact that this book has the more insecure Christians all in a lather. Those with a strong faith shouldn't be too threatened by what is clearly a somewhat clever story that turns some of the Christian mythos on its ear.

[Bridget Burke]

21. I saw part of a TV show on Angels & Demons last night.

It was 2 hours long, so I bailed. The "experts" were uniformly anti-Catholic & pretty clueless about history. Apparently the book is about the Illuminati--who have appeared in much more interesting novels.

Although I haven't read Dan Brown's works yet, I get the impression that there is NO humor or wit. Even Holy Blood, Holy Grail had a bit of a winking "this COULD be true" attitude.

[Caution]

23. No they are basically conspiracy thrillers, not much humor in them

if any. Demons and Angels drove me crazy for a number of reasons, one of which was the assumption made by many hard core religious wingnuts that all scientists are atheists and that they actuall see themselves to be at war with religion (patently untrue and absurd on the face of it). It was also extraordinarily inaccurate in purely scientific terms. If you are going to spend as much time researching the various conspiracy garbage that Brown obviously spends, a modicum of time should also be spent on the rest of the plot. I like fiction as much or more than the next guy, but Demons and Angels is written in such a way as to really insult scientists in general and physicists in particular.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. In the early days, they were the same church

they split, and thus you have the roman church and the orthodox churches.

That's it in a very small nutshell!