Is There a Difference Between How Orthodox and Catholics Treat Icons? | Jonathan Pageau

[@brotherbroseph1416]

I’m an Anglican that loves watching Jonathan’s videos. I agree with everything he says in his videos and wish the Anglicans would see our faith with such mystery and symbolism

[@MrWesford]

I don’t say this in a pushy way, but have you considered attending an Orthodox Church? You’d be entering into a tradition that has the view that Pageau does. I’m not even saying “HEY, Go convert!” You can attend without being Orthodox haha, I did for over a year before I joined the church.

[@universalflamethrower6342]

@@MrWesford maybe I will peak in that Orthodox Russian church in my city, good thing I did the Russian duo lingo course during Covid.

[@Bullheadrecords]

@@universalflamethrower6342 you should try western orthodoxy, it’s like Anglicanism but in communion with the Orthodox Church

[@TheFeralcatz]

Jonathan has been in the zone and really making waves recently.

[@tiberiumnp8030]

I'm not from either camp, but I just got passed an Orthodox icon. I'm thinking about hanging it to my home office.

[@thediesel3198]

What icon is it?

[@tiberiumnp8030]

@@thediesel3198 Madonna and Child

[@nuzzi6620]

@@tiberiumnp8030 Orthodox don’t use the term “Madonna”. The Virgin Mary is referred to as _Theotokos_ or _Mother of God_ - not to be a stickler for language or anything, but just because it is an Orthodox icon, and in case you speak to an Orthodox about it (who likely wouldn’t be familiar with that Western term). Also, your icon (if a true Orthodox icon) is a specific type of depiction of the Theotokos and has a specific name (regardless of the iconographer or school of iconography), which is probably what the first commenter was asking you for.

[@tiberiumnp8030]

@@nuzzi6620 I was simply going with what I gathered from Wikipedia would be a suitable catch-all term: "The Madonna and Child type is very prevalent in Christian iconography, divided into many traditional subtypes especially in Eastern Orthodox iconography". What are those "specific names" you're referring to, I'd like to find more information about them and figure out what the icon should be called.

[@tiberiumnp8030]

@Natalie Thanks, will do!

[@irodjetson]

Truth of the matter is, the Catholic Church contains also the oriental icons, it's a false premise to believe that eastern iconography is only part of the orthodox church and it is not present inside the catholic churches. Many oriental churches are in full communion with Rome, thus are catholic... We in the catholic church have eastern iconography, and also european iconography, and latin american iconography, etc... And there is a language that has developed inside certain traditions in all those areas, if you talk to any "imaginero" in Spain you would be surprise at understanding the reason of their images and how they interact with each other in Churches in thetown

[@irodjetson]

And in peoples personal life, you are just so embeded with the eastern tradition that you are not open to seeing the patterns developed in other areas

[@Bicicletasaladas]

On Jonathan's video on Halloween he referred to it as the last Carnival in the West (perhaps he could be ignorant of our long tradition of Carnavales in Latin America and Venice but won't he even consider the US's Mardi Gras??). I love Jonathan but he seems so matter-of-factly Anglocentric to a defect...having said that I do think he is right about Renaissance art being highly erotic and not much conducive to mysticism and prayer. I mean the stories about Renaissance male artists modeling Our Lord on their also male partners or relying on prostitutes and mistresses to model Our Lady point at something inherently wrong...or me estoy dejado escandalizar fácilmente como una señora chismosa? And also we give and unsatisfactory answer to the place of images in worship in most apologetic materials. If the icon is merely a dummy there to help me direct my prayers to the real target of worship why not ditch it altogether and direct prayers to said object directly? That explanation accommodates people who are uncatholicly averse to images but if images are actually a 《cross myself》window to Heaven 《cross myself again》as Orthodox imply, then their place in worship is more than clear

[@Bicicletasaladas]

Pero ya que estamos, ¿tienes alguna fuente donde pueda consultar los comentarios teológicos de los imagineros?

[@irodjetson]

@@Bicicletasaladas Well the issue I have with Jonathan (and by the way I love what he does, I follow him and learn a lot from him) it's that he seem to not understand fully the message of the Gospel and to the extend that it goes, God became HUMAN, it's him who allows that "humanization" of him, it's not a return to paganism, that's simply false, God has a condescending love and that Love goes towards US HUMANS. Modernists have always taken that movement of God in the world to advance their human atheistic agendas, but that doesn't mean God is doing it for us to become Godless humans but rather he infuses his Divinity in us thus elevates us through love, so we will see that movement more and more in the Church since God wants to touch every single person, every culture, every expression, he want's to redeem every aspect of us. If somebody sees a naked image of our Lord or a Saint or a "sexualized" image and can't pray in front of it because he focuses on the sexual aspect or the perversions that may come through a wicked soul, that speaks of the dirtiness of that persons soul, and not of God... It is true that more developed and ancient Christian image making traditions have understood how to keep the balance so not to infuse and be a cause of scandal, but it is also true that at some point every image making tradition has made a leap into showing something that wasn't present there before. The images used in the beginning were of a Fish, and a simple Cross, and that developed and ended up showing more and more every time, and at every moment it was scandalous for some people and hard to swallow... BUT C'MON! Isn't it hard to swallow that the Son of God became one of us, a human with all that it entails?

[@irodjetson]

​@@Bicicletasaladas Está incorporado en su tradición, que yo sepa nunca lo han explicado explícitamente en algún documento, pero si se enseña tradicionalmente, y de hecho la gente reconoce cuando una imagen o un retablo no sigue la linea tradicional cofrade, tienen códigos. En KZbin hay varios documentales de imagineros y algo explican de ciertas cosas, pero normalmente simplemente dicen cosas como "Esa imagen no puede llevar a nuestro Señor así, o esta imagen debe tener a la Santísima Virgen a este lado y no a este otro" lo entienden casi de manera orgánica, ya que es una tradición viva encarnada en esa cultura. De hecho lo que hace Jonathan de "explicar" y hacer explícitas estas cosas, no se hace en círculos tradicionales orientales, hay bases, pero esa explicación en profundidad no ocurre porque la gente que lo vive lo entiende de manera orgánica, de manera viva.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

Good point William. I would like to point out that one major objective of Vatican II was to make the Church more like mainstream Protestantism, especially the liturgy.

[@Thedisciplemike]

that's exactly right

[@fakename3208]

It could be seen as a smart move at the time but ultimately a mistake. The Church saw the tidal wave that was the sexual revolution on the horizon and tried to prepare for it. Unfortunately it was the wrong move. The Church should never try and conform to the ever changing culture.

[@DennisCNolasco]

This is a great talk for all Christians, including Protestants.

[@GV_777YT]

Lol Jonathan so calmly and carelessly tells it how it is to any catholic he is with, no matter how tense they might get lol 😆👌🏽

[@TheFeralcatz]

Yeah good on him for telling it like it is. The latins are so proud of that borderline pornographic sisteen chapel of theirs.

[@tr1084]

@@TheFeralcatz Yes.

[@cheheihei8386]

@@TheFeralcatz Oh that's rude. :)

[@angryguy2713]

@@TheFeralcatz actually no you idiot Catholic church wanted to destroy michelangelo creations They even tried to break david penis lol You don't know shit about latins Latins never liked naked god or naked david statue

[@KittSpiken]

@@angryguy2713 did they?

[@plantnovice]

4:30 I’ve never thought about this until Jonathan realized it. He’s adding nuance into the conversation. It’s easy to say “prots are stupid because they don’t like icons” but clearly there were reacting to problematic ways of thinking and depicting what is holy.

[@yannaras419]

The West swapped Icons for "Art".

[@eg4848]

Ok I mean not of every piece of art should he a 2d portrait of a saint or something

[@yannaras419]

@@eg4848 You misunderstand, Didier Maleuvre has a book, "The art of civilization", on how "art" is a bourgeois meme to further its ideology (urbanization, rationalization, & "demystification"). Rene Guénon, also stated that the doom of the West began at the Renaissance era, not the "enlightenment" as most propose. A final crucial thing is that there *was* no ‘art’ in our sense before the Reformation. Nearly all depicting was linked to religion. Protestant iconoclasm produced secular art as a consequence of de-"sacralising" the image. This eventually gave rise to ‘art’ as substitute religion. Thus post-reformation modern painting etc is ‘liberal’ after the quasi-sacred of the Roman Catholics Renaissance. An earlier linkage of all craft to the sacred (which sometimes led to theoretical breachings of the liberal/mechanical barrier) was lost. Since the post-WW2 abstract expressionist painting (Pollock, Rothko, etc) modern/contemporary ‘’art’’ is pretty much crap. But I believe it's the natural end of Western art since Renaissance perspectivism (=. human subjectivity.) Paintings are as it were *dead Icons*

[@eldermillennial8330]

Maybe a consequence of the West having had a cavalier attitude towards the 7th council was the subsequent failure to rigidly adhere to the canons defining an icon and NOT an icon. Western Iconography DID remain Orthodox in style into the 13th century but then slowly began to drift from this lack of restraint but also influenced from all the new artistic resources coming out of Kahn’s China via the newly expanded Silk Road. Biblical margin doodles seems to have been a fertile, if tiny, medium for diverse creativity during this transition. Tiny Knights attacking giant snails was a common one. Some think it represented monks’ struggles to protect their gardens from pesky Mollusks. They meant no harm in this, but Orthodox might argue that this was a very idle thing to do, and Beneath them. If it led to some of the problems with renascence art, than that may be true.

[@MrWesford]

@@yannaras419 This is fascinating, do you have any other resources on the subject?

[@MrWesford]

@@eg4848 I agree with you sort of. I’m only a catechumen, but I’ve never heard this particular perspective on art. I love many different art forms and mediums, but in my current halfway Protestant, halfway Orthodox brain is saying that Icons are a particular form and that form should be followed when making iconography. I haven’t put really any thought into the relationship between iconography and Art(with a big A).

[@brianjosephestanislao3511]

0:42 - what did Jonathan mean by “icons were never attacked in the West”? Didn’t Protestants attack what they perceived to be idols in the West? Isn’t that a form of iconoclasm, or does iconoclasm only pertain to flat images? I know Jonathan is an excellent historian so I’m sure I’ve missed a fundamental context here and would appreciate a clarification.

[@Thedisciplemike]

he's talking about during the 7th ecumenical council. During the reformation, Icons and the artwork were definitely attacked

[@BahamutZero09]

He's referring to the iconoclast crisis in the 7th century. It mainly affected Eastern Christendom but not the Latin West. Though you are right about the iconoclasm during the Protestant Reformation

[@pigetstuck]

I appreciate your sympathy for the historic protestant motives. In your reading, what books best represent historic protestantism (and not a modern expression or caricature)?

[@maryelizabethhuber]

Hahaha I never thought about it that way but Jonathan's description of Michelangelo's artwork was dead on! I think a lot of Catholics, my Italian mother included, are totally biased towards Michelangelo and regard him as a holy genius but I remember as a kid thinking that the David and creation of Adam seemed eroticized!

[@Thedisciplemike]

he was mainly just styling after the works of Greek art, with the idea of the perfect man as God's image, therefore every guy is muscular and perfectly proportionate

[@Undermarysmantleforever]

The best image/ icon to venerate is the Holy Face of Jesus, there is great power not only in the name of Jesus which both orthodox and catholic alike can agree on but also the image which was told by Jesus was to be venerated/ also Sacred Heart Of Jesus ( very powerful)Love This channel wish their was a catholic equivalent,still looking.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

Is the veneration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus widespread?

[@dylansaus]

Did you find anything?

[@OrthoNektarios]

Orthodox fundamentally disagree with the sacred heart doctrine and don’t venerate it. That’s a new western theology post-schism.

[@the1allahprays2]

​@@OrthoNektarioswestern rite can venerate sacred heart. It's In my orthodox prayer book.

[@OrthoNektarios]

@@the1allahprays2 dont know what "orthodox" prayer book your talking about. but their is not devotion to the sacred heart in the eastern side of christianity. this does not come until later after the schism and the roman catholics have admitted this because they get this devotion from one of their saints who was a nun who saw this vision of the scared heart. btw keep in the mind, this same nun would constantly carve into her chest with sharp objects the name "jesus christ". the sacred heart tradition, is no where to be found in our liturgics, no where as talked about as a specific devotion like the roman catholics do amongst the easter fathers, no where in the hesychastic tradition. and the theology surrounding is, is nestorian as well.

[@leonardobarbieri1292]

Yes.

[@sharoncbechtold9608]

Some art is not meant to be venerated but is more for instruction. The counter reformation art was created to visually emphasize Catholic teaching as a response to erroneous protestant propaganda aimed at the church. I will agree that the Catholic church needs better chatechesis in order to explain how to properly use icons and christian art for veneration, instruction and prayer.

[@Crisofora_]

The Catechism of The Catholic Church does explain exactly how and why we venerate images and how and why Worship only God. It also begins to explain who and how to determine canons for holy images which is further developed in magisterial documents and cannon law. Precisely it was the job of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to explain all of that criteria in a contemporary document and language. But yes, not having iconoclasm and the remnants of pagan roman politics in Church made the west pretty lazy in knowing their theology in general and had a serious problem with excess centralised power, until puritans came in spreading their errors everywhere and most people had zero arguments to counteract U.S. thinking in those regards.

[@sunnyroad5644]

I think he is right about the Protestant influence,but teachings by the Catholic Church on Icons etc is weak and not properly explained ..Iv'e learnt alot from Jonathon Pageau.

[@Srhyle]

Biblical or not, what I don't like about this is the multiple "versions" of Jesus. What's the deal with that? - Santo NiÑo - baby Jesus? - Black Nazarene - Infant Jesus of **** - too many to mention Is there really a difference?

[@plantnovice]

Hahaha. All the books behind Michael. The symbolism is that he is well read and comes into the conversation with not just his own knowledge but everything he’s read. Compare to Pageu that only has an icon or two and a few books. Not cluttered, not purely intellectual, not legalistic. Also notice the capitalization and formatting of the names. Symbolism happens.

[@noxot13]

intention matters, God judges the inner person of the heart.

[@Ettoredipugnar]

Monastery Icons are pop images . Not Icons .

[@AugustasKunc]

+

[@Chris-ki7rt]

Emperor palpatine on the top left there

[@mm-wm3jd]

'You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below' Jonathan bro, isn't iconography already a clear violation of this commandment? If you can explain please brother? 🤔 Thank you 🙏

[@cristianfernandez1874]

You need to see the plans for the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple. Look for a 3D in web and the verses associated, they were full of images and iconography. The commandment seems to be pointing to something much more profound.

[@mm-wm3jd]

@@cristianfernandez1874 Thank you Chris for the reply! But are you saying because of some people planning Solomon's Temple in a certain way the commandment becomes abrogated? The message in the text is unambiguous, what do you mean by it is profound?

[@cristianfernandez1874]

@@mm-wm3jd it took me a while to get it, you can investigate the topic by yourself

[@roberteisen6687]

@@cristianfernandez1874 that feels like a cop out. A plan for buildings is something entirely different from an icon that is venerated. Buildings are not kissed and prayed to or around. Anyone who does that stuff to buildings is way off into the sunset.

[@cristianfernandez1874]

@@roberteisen6687 Hey, I'm a protestant but I try to understand in love my fellow Christians and in some sense highly Catholic and Orthodox places have less problems with atheism and secularization than Protestant ones

[@tedclemens4093]

As Jesus demonstrated, any ceremony, statue or symbol is still a poor substitute for the person of God (Heb. 10.1)-a "shadow" and barrier to the desired one-to-one contact that is expressed throughout the Bible. Jesus used the imagery of eating him to picture the intimacy of placing his Spirit in us. It's a complete distraction to kiss an icon by comparison.

[@Bicicletasaladas]

and yet God time and time again instructs us to rely in material things and symbols all throughout the Old Testament and also hints at it in the New... yes we can say it is a mere crutch but if the Supreme Doctor prescribes a crutch perhaps declaring and decrying we don't need it is at best unwise, at worst a grave sin of pride.

[@eg4848]

@@Bicicletasaladas why would anyone need to kiss a painting. Funny you say its of pride that people dont want to it seems like ortho and cats are ultra proud of aesthetic things that at the end of the day are not that important

[@adolphCat]

@@eg4848 Are you implying that God doesn't care about beauty? Have you ever read the Old Testament and the enormous expense God ordered to be used in His worship? The exquisite workmanship of the Temple in Jerusalem and the priestly vestments etc. Why do you think God suddenly adapted Puritanical Protestant ways who in your opinion argued so well with God as to cause God to convert to a Puritanical Protestant perspective?

[@Bicicletasaladas]

@@eg4848 In my culture we kiss things we love, even our friends and relatives with kisses on the cheek (I'm from South America). Kisses mean love but also reverence. Why would anyone need to look at an (aesthetic) brasen fiery serpent to be healed from venomous serpent bites as God mandated in Numbers 21:6-8? Couldn't they just recognise in their heart of hearts that they had sinned, pray a prayer and be healed? Notice how Christ commanded us to repeat the Last Supper in His remembrance. Perhaps you find the doctrine of Christ's presence in the Eucharist not only hard to understand but abhorrent. Even in that case there is no escaping to the fact that Our Lord mandates a ritual, namely a meal in his remembrance. If relics, icons and rituals are just mere trappings of the weak-minded then we couldn't be blamed at all from falling into them, given that God seems to recommend them at every turn...

[@tedclemens4093]

@@Bicicletasaladas Indeed God does instruct Israel-not "us"- to rely on ceremony and procedures. The gentiles had their own laws. Israel's role was to present the icon, if you will, of the one true Law to the world-but even it was only a picture whose truth is revealed in Christ. This sparked Paul's admonition to the largely gentile Galatians who knew little about Israel's Law and tradition. The Law was only a tutorial (Gal. 3: 24) toward the reality of knowing Christ. With the Gospel, "the former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God" (Heb. 7). There is a huge difference between following regulation and "drawing near to God." The Law and everything associated with it are Icons that wonderfully tell the story. If that's all you have right now, hold onto them-as a crutch if you like. But "having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?" Paul asked the Galatians. With the Spirit, the training wheels come off.

[@orangemanbad]

Why are you having Michael Lofton on as the Catholic voice? He’s hardly accepted by most Catholics.

[@nickhanley5407]

A hyper realistic image is to far, but kissing, rubbing and praying towards/ to an image is just fine? How hypothetical!