Pornography VS Iconography w/ Jonathan Pageau

[@pintswithaquinas]

Timestamps: 0:00 Introductions 2:19 Interview Start 3:30 Thoughts on the lockdowns 12:07 How to stay sane right now as a Christian 15:47 Reviving The lost art of icon carving 22:43 What's it like talking to Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein about Faith 28:17 Iconography as the opposite of pornography 40:06 We argue about nudity in art 47:10 Why no modern iconographer depicts God the Father 54:57 Who is my audience? (Why I'm an Aquinas fanboy) 58:41 Asking Jon about anti-Catholicism in Orthodoxy (The state of the Church) 1:09:26 How the Avengers is Accidently Catholic (Thoughts on Theistic Apologetics) 1:16:44 Closing Thoughts

[@kevinalbright8576]

Matt, you have a lot of fans at Brew City Catholic Milwaukee, WI, hope you can come back for some great beer soon!

[@IloveSPIDERZ]

This helps, thank you!

[@maciejpieczula631]

1:04:06 Cardinal St.John Henry Newman anyone?

[@derAdler-iz5tj]

kzbin.info/door/ETffOeuG4h79BlNA5Jw29w

[@llamzrt]

0:00 talking about porn 10:00 talking about nakedness by way of porn 30:00 more nakedness and porn 45:00 christ as the uncreated logos and infinite source of being 46:00 back to nakedness and porn

[@renaud_gagne]

I'm with Pageau about the representation of God the Father as being problematic in Catholic art. The image(icon) of the invisible God is Christ.

[@Mustafo16]

Yeah, unfortunately the west just was a bit aloof from the major icon debates 1000 years ago so they didn’t really inherit the “7th council” like the east did.

[@philiphales2109]

@@Mustafo16 -Which is strange because the Triumph of the Icons (AD 787) was prior to the Great Schism (AD 1054).

[@masterchief8179]

@@philiphales2109 And it is a subsequent “act” that happened just after the heretical Council of Hieria, with almost 400 Eastern bishops, but without the participation of the pope, which makes arguments of that sort even more ironic. Then the pope is really be part of the 2o Ecumenical Council of Nicea (787) and the heretical council cannot be explained according to their own ecclesiology.

[@philiphales2109]

@@masterchief8179 -none of the 5 patriarchs were present if I remember correctly.

[@masterchief8179]

@@philiphales2109 We Catholics do not believe the Justinian concept of Pentarchy to be ecclesiological, rather than an administrative matter in the relation between Church and Byzantine Empire. But I sense the See of Constantinople was “sedevacante” due to the death of the Patriarch; at that time Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were supposedly invaded by the Muslims, but they were called and there isn’t any proof they did or didn’t sent legates. The interesting fact is that Rome was never even invited to participate in - and that fact is kind of undisputed. In a matter of fact, iconoclasm was officially recognized by the Hieria Council of 754, supported by Emperor Constantine V, and a Council that severely fought iconophiles, especially monks. The council did not have the participation of the Western Church and was disapproved by the popes, causing a new provisory schism. Later Empress Irene, widow of Leo IV, the Kazar, in 787, personally convened the Second Council of Nicaea, which approved the dogma of the veneration of icons and recovered the union with the Western Church as far as doctrinal divergences could go. During the Council of Florence, the one held in the perspective of reunification, all 5 Patriarchs were there. The Russian Orthodox Patriarch was there. They even signed the documents of agreement and later on they simply gave up. How would their ecclesiology explain Florence was not an Ecumenical Council? Because it was not called by the Byzantine Emperor? I am nor trying to be any sort of polemicist. I just find interesting any argument questioning the Second Council of Nicea and the Western Church as if it wasn’t pretty much for the Westerners that the iconoclastic heresy was condemned just a few years after it was simply affirmed by Easterners, to their own ecclesiological standards. And at that time all East was still Catholic, save those who split after Ephesus (431) and Chalcedor (451).

[@philiphales2109]

I am Catholic, and I love my Orthodox brethren. We have so much in common: we both have Apostolic succession and acknowledge the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[@MinosCheckpoint]

Matt's continued red pilling is an underrated subplot of this channel. He's getting further and further. It's beautiful.

[@strugglingathome]

Interesting to see what he does in Steubenville

[@Mateo-et3wl]

What does this comment mean?

[@knottedup3711]

@@Mateo-et3wl everything

[@strugglingathome]

@@servus_incognitus Matt is entertaining topics that lead to the Faith that established the Universe: Orthodoxy. Heresies be damned! Matt, if he is willing and continues in knowledge will find the True Faith. Glory to Christ!

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

@@servus_incognitus "Injected with Right-wing political ideals".

[@Arkangilos]

Also to that Pascal thing, I completely empathize with that. When I was converting, I didn’t believe everything that the Church says are true but I said I would live it. Within a few weeks it started to make sense and I was sold.

[@BowarePL]

The greatest crossover in the history of my subscribtion tab

[@rodguy35]

Saw this, made my week and I haven't even seen it yet

[@Mik3xcellence]

Great discussion, I’m actually glad I found you through Jonathan as I’m A catholic and I never knew about your channel. Great stuff. Subscribing

[@jeremydavie4484]

I never heard about Jonathan Pageau either, but I love his channel too! I subscribed to him

[@marianafaria6960]

My 94 years old aunt says she'd rather die than to be abandoned by her family as she has been.

[@Arkangilos]

I love that he said incubi and succubi are involved in porn, I’ve never heard that but it makes so much sense. Great video!

[@papsttreuerblog]

I just discovered this post - better late than never! What I love about podcasts is when you can watch the host think. Nothing is more boring than presenters who think they already know all the answers and only use their interviewees' answers as confirmation and conversation starters. Thanks Matt for letting people watch you think.

[@fintan254]

What I like about Johnathan is that he doesn't have that creepy fundamentalist vibe. He comes across as just a normal guy who happens to be passionate about his spiritual beliefs.

[@Teamfra]

This was awesome! What a blessed and holy artist...so inspiring and thought provoking!

[@HowdyHeyRadio]

This is refreshingly enlightening

[@LostArchivist]

With how damaged we have become by the degeneration of the dignity of the body, marriage, sex etc...even in cases where normally, it would not be sinful, nudity should be avoided I think. There is too much damage to safely have it. Too many who may be tempted, relapse or simply suffer from having to do battle with their passions from such things.

[@hawaiianlolo1066]

Fair point.

[@xaviorjimenez2227]

Jonathan is the first introduction I had into Orthodoxy. I am now Orthodox! Jonathan has a brilliant mind especially when it comes to symbolism. His interpretation on creation is pure genius.

[@johnnyGoosePGH]

Awesome interview, Matt. I’ve really enjoyed Jonathan with JBP, and it’s so cool to see you two connect-hope it’s the beginning of a new friendship and even a recurring crossover.

[@mjvictoriano]

What a great interview! Bravo! This doesn't have enough views!

[@calebmullins8827]

Great conversation! Matt, I am an ex-Anglican, and now Western Orthodox, and I think you should have Fr. Patrick Cardine on the show to discuss the subject. He's an outspoken Western Orthodox priest. Pax!

[@stevenyoung3752]

Great Convo, should have more podcasts with these two

[@so_she_said]

I enjoyed this conversation so much thank you guys.

[@g07denslicer]

I love how Matt subtly challenges the status quo. I think that’s why his channel is so popular among Catholics and non-Catholics.

[@BindingTheYoke]

I love Jonathan's disposition and demeanor.. such a good discussion. Best moment 29:49 ..tru story

[@kathryndavis5407]

I agree with Jonathan on the difficulty of the nude form in sacred art. I would not know how to paint Mary bare breasted without it seeming gratuitous. It seems we are inundiated with pornographic or sensual imagery that it's hard to not go there when looking at nudes in art.

[@pavelrazamazov2672]

Ever read the Song of Solomon?

[@strugglingathome]

@@pavelrazamazov2672 that’s a far cry from depicting Theotokos nude.

[@libertasinveritas3198]

The person who thinks of sexual immorality while seeing a mother breastfeeding is the problem, not the mother with a breast in her child's mouth.

[@strugglingathome]

@@libertasinveritas3198 Seeing a nude breast feeding mother is different than desiring to make a depiction of a nude breast feeding mother. As for Theotokos depicted nude, there is the Milk-giver Icon of the Theotokos. This is a canonical icon and anyone who looks upon it may see how dispassionate the portrayal is. As for Western forms... passionate is almost an understatement.

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

@@strugglingathome Evil here is in the eye of the beholder, St. Paul says that all is pure for the one who is pure. God made us naked, it is sin which pushes us to cover ourselves, for we are fallen and cannot control our passions for the most part. I've seen icons where our Mother's nipple can be seen through the dress, as she receives the message from St. Gabriel, artistically this makes sense since Gabriel came to bring her news of motherhood. I've also seen obviously erotic imagery of St. Mary Magdalene, in reference to her past as a prostitute, as if by love of Christ she now shares this love with God alone while retaining the same signature in bodily expression. Naked art, or erotic I suppose, should be handled very carefully and shouldn't become the norm although still I see we must accept them into our tradition as forshadowings of the perfection which awaits us.

[@loveoverfear20]

great conversation!!! my husband is all logic and I am all patterns, and beauty. I am thankful both exist

[@jeanlanz2344]

Wow. Such great insights by Jonathan...porn as idolatry and the "empty" image of the person in porn as an opening to demons; winning people to Christ thru beauty; the presence of Christianity in our culture and Christ's self-sacrifice to win life for the people, reflected in the Marvel comic movies. Matt's defense of the beauty of the human body in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel painting rings true...one reason I'm Catholic.

[@majanezic8896]

Certain interpretations of the teaching on the Theology of the Body (in the West) are overly focused on the naked body, so much so that the language is no longer veiled and it is graphic, just like secular culture. I really appreciate Jonathan's perspective on the secrecy of nakedness as reserved for the bridegroom, as in the Garden before the fall. I love this clarity. It is not Gnosticism. Best line "whenever you try to imitate the devil you always run out of breath... you can't compete!" (when referring to secular music in the liturgy).

[@angrypotato_fz]

Excellent guest!

[@meghanhargaden1199]

“The shape of the world is Christian and scripture describes how the world is.” JP

[@fidelisfaber4961]

Nice to have a talk about art. Thank you. As some others have said, to understand Western Christian art, you need to see it in the cultural context of the period. You spoke for example about the episode when St Francis threw his clothes back at his father. To Matt, this is 'not OK', but in St Francis's time public nudity was almost unavoidable, at a time when clothes and privacy were both in short supply, and the naked body didn't have the erotic qualities that we see in today's overly sexualised society. Similarly, there were a lot of hungry babies around and attitudes to breastfeeding were very different. With one or two notable exceptions, Virgo Lactans paintings would never have been seen as erotic or indecent, just an everyday domestic scene transfigured by the incarnate God. Also bear in mind that some of the artists you mention, such as Michelangelo and his pre-Tridentine contemporaries, were working for very refined elite patrons, and much of their work would not have been visible to the general public. They were using their art to push the boundaries of orthodoxy and explore aspects of theology; following the Council of Trent there was a definite pushback against some of the more extreme trends - Daniele da Volterra (NOT nuns as Pageau stated - nuns would never had got anywhere near the Sistine chapel) adding pants to the Sistine nudes being the most famous example. Apologies for the long comment, but I hope it helps.

[@flacat6437]

Such a great discussion!!! Loved every minute

[@mancipiachristi9032]

Pints with Aquinas and Palamas. ✝️🍻☦️

[@Xanaseb]

I'm Catholic and I side with Jonathan Pageau on the offness of nakedness in sacred art from the Renaissance. Too fleshy and indulgent, and could stray into unorthodoxy and materialism. The Baroque, however, wasn't always sexualised as Pageau briefly stated. A good deal of Baroque sacred imagery gets it right, is balanced and encourages deep devotion and contemplation. Having said that, much of it was over the top and warped...

[@abnd8025]

I agree even though I also understand Matt's argument. We're just too tainted by sin to not see the beauty without tings of that shame even when we know it should be good. That's the tragedy of it all.

[@maritheresereyes]

Same. Jonathan's points made me rethink regarding nudity in sacred art while also understanding Matt's side too.

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

I think we should have a norm of sober art, but still allow some erotic art in our tradition, as a matter of diversity (to not give the impression that we hate eroticism) and forshadowing (nakedness is the divine default). Keeping the norm because most of us are compromised way too much by sin, but keeping some exceptions for those who can tolerate it.

[@vngu99g]

Brilliant conversation :) Brilliant guest ! :):):) I love Eastern Orthodox ...

[@francovico5686]

Hello Matt... thank you for your work. I've been checking out the app you promote and it's great... Quick advice from a friend from Latin America here... If you really wanna make it grow, translate the app into spanish. Most of the catholics in the world right now live in spanish-speaking countries... Plus, there are a lot of great bilingual priests in Argentina and Mexico, like Fr. Javier Olivera Ravasi and Fr. Carlos Spahn who can help you out with that. Congrats and keep it up...

[@schmitzkaylee]

Great talk!

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

This is one of the most important discussions I have ever listened to. Every Christian artist should listen to this, and I think Christian parents should listen to this while they are trying to figure out how to raise children in a world permeated by pornography. You can't protect them from it forever, since it's all over the internet. So I think this discussion helps us figure out a healthy way to prepare them for when they do encounter it - by giving us a more holistic understanding of God, the body, and the image of God. Surprisingly, I agree with Matt Frad more than Jonathon Pageau - and it's because I interpret Genesis differently than he does. First - it isn't very interesting to me whether Genesis is a literal account or not; it doesn't change the meaning of the fig leaves. Whether they really sewed fig leaves or they were merely allegory, the truth of the story comes out all the same. Anyhow - they were told by God "the day you eat of it, you shall surely die". Christians commonly interpret this symbolically as "spiritual death". I am open to that interpretation, but it isn't enough! God really meant that they would physically die. And yet they didn't! Did God lie to them? No, and no more than God lied to Moses or to the prophets with the many threatened judgements he gave them, that he relented of (Exodus 32:14). No. But Adam and Eve sinned and became sinners -- they were ashamed and sewed flimsy, worthless coverings. All they could do would be insufficient, fragile, and vulgar. God found them, hiding in the garden, and called out to them. After he gives them a curse and a promises, he then gives them a blessing -- a covering of animals' skin. Where does God get the skin? He could certainly make it ex-nihilo, but this seems strange. Remember when God told them they would surely die? He took the life of an innocent animal and covered their shame with the skin of a sacrifice. Thus, the nakedness in Adam and Eve's story is symbolic of Christ's sacrificial atonement. It shows how his blood covers our sins and shame and gives us the ability to once again stand before a holy God without fear. For someone who loves symbolism as much as Jonathon Pageau, I am surprised he interprets this so literally! I don't think the Bible is telling us that sin-nature necessitates clothing. After all, it was something Adam and Eve did on their own - you might just as well say that sin nature means we should hide from God! No. Interpreting this story to say anything whatever about clothing, modesty, or the like, misses the point. And it's such a beautiful meaning when you get the whole picture! And to the point of the art- we only ever see Adam and Eve in fig leaves, or "conveniently" covered up. I think we need to show them in all three states. Nude and holy and unashamed, Sinful and fearful and covered in futile fig leaves, and then redeemed and covered in the sacrificial clothes given by God. This is the image we get in the Bible, and it tells us that God was planning to save us through His Son from the very start. His love was never insufficient. His mercy never failed the ones he had determined in advance to show his goodness to! And he wants to show his goodness to each one of us - so he has given us the opportunity to believe. And whoever should believe in him is given the right to become a son or daughter - an heir- of God! Let's make art that tells this wonderful true story!

[@andypresby6537]

Matt - Great talk! Maybe, in terms of nudity in church art, what Jon was trying to get at was the fact that, while God originally created everything good including the naked body, we need to pay more attention to our fallen state. Such that, for us, for now today, maybe we have something not quite wrong deep down inside that makes viewing nudity dangerous. Like carrying a Ring of Power (never to use it...of course not...except in the greatest need for the greatest good...of course...).

[@jeffthomas9768]

Around 42 minutes in, I totally agree with you guys. There's a lovely quilted banner at our church that, I believe, shows Mary breastfeeding baby Jesus, it's a little hard for me to tell cause it was knitted, but I have to look away from it because Mary's bare shoulder is too revealing for me and I don't want to look at our Heavenly Mother in a lustful way. And I recognize that that is something that I have to change about myself. that's nothing wrong with the tapestry, there's something wrong with my brain. In addition, I have been participating in the Strive 21 program and have gone to frequent confession and counseling and it has been helping immensely!

[@nortons7040]

There is nothing wrong with you if you recognize and condemn this feeling. But I'd questioned motives of the artist who chose to depict Mary in erotic way and church which allowed such pictures in sacred place.

[@jeffthomas9768]

@@nortons7040 well I actually looked at it again and it actually just shows Mary's dress hanging off her shoulder. there's nothing revealing, this just proves my mind still needs to be cleansed.

[@alexk48]

@@nortons7040 Is it erotic or do you see eroticism where it is not? Do you impose the eroticism? In some traditions a woman's elbow or ankle is immodest.

[@DebraR35789]

Great discussion.

[@windsongshf]

Lol! 43:45 Why am I suddenly thinking of that scene in Game of Thrones where Cersei is forced by the Sparrows (fictional religious movement) to walk naked through town as atonement. Yipes! Btw, nakedness, including the almost nakedness of Christ as depicted by some artists, doesn't just make me think of "the shame", but also the vulnerability of nakedness.

[@Portekberm]

great chat.. jonathan is cool af

[@azartist646]

What a great talk that was! Thank you both so much🙏🏻

[@MartinhoIsidroCorreia]

Great discussion. It certainly highlighted the difference in theology and philosophy that arose between the East and the West after the split. In the 13th C, as the West became the commercial and religious center of the Christian world, it’s artistic tradition developed separately from the East. Franciscan spirituality, humanistic philosophy, Thomastic theology, particularly his aesthetics, combined allowing artists to develop picture making in a way not possible in the East. It was the West that continued the Christian custom of investing new meaning into non-Christian artistic forms. In thirteenth century philosophy, the ultimate center of beauty was the human body. In the search for an artistic form expressing this beauty along with the ultimate truth and goodness of the human body, it was to Greek models that Christianity turned. Greek sculpture uses beautifully idealized human forms to express the real existence of the spirit. Christian art legitimizes the anthropomorphism found in Greek art through the truth of the Incarnation since “through the grandeur and beauty of the creatures we may, by analogy, contemplate their author.” (Wis 13,5). This development of corporality was taken further with the decrees of the Council of Trent and in particular the work of Caravaggio. Consider talking with a Catholic scared artist to get the Catholic response to some of the things Jonathon brought up. Anthony Visco or Dony MacManus would be great.

[@aadamy]

Seems like Matt thinks about each individual looking at porn or an icon and Jonathan is thinking more about the cultural conscious at the time.

[@mariojorge9529]

Thanks.

[@juliagrace2890]

Love to have Sam Shamoun on to discuss about the appearances of the preincarnate Jesus in the OT

[@bartoszulkowskitattoo]

I LOVE THIS MOMENT IF TEACHING WHEB YOU ASK JO TO SLOW DOWN FOR YOU!!! ❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@briandunleamusic]

Pageau is great. 🙏🏻☦️

[@lorrainelambert8327]

What a wonderful and thought- provoking interview. Thank you.

[@AbnRangerJoe]

Is it disrespectful or inappropriate to pray while nude? When I wake in the morning, I have made my way to my prayer bench without any clothes on then stopped asking myself, “What are you doing? Go put some clothes on!!” Or is this indicative of the shame I feel associated to my naked body? Should I feel comfortable praying in my nakedness?

[@MarcumDavid]

Put some clothes on, you're not in Eden. Show obedience. 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

[@briansardinas1359]

I sometimes break out into prayer mid shower and wonder about this too.

[@AbnRangerJoe]

@@briansardinas1359 That is true. I do that, too. I sometimes chant the morning Angelus prayer or Pater Noster. I might even chant the introductory rosary prayers before the Holy Mysteries. Perhaps someday with the help of our Blessed Mother and the grace of our Most Venerable Lord, Jesus Christ, I pray that my life may be a constant prayer. But until then, I pray when I can.

[@LostArchivist]

It mostly depends on motive and disposition. But it inadvisable to make a habit of it. The body is not inherently offensive but if you are feeling odd or uncomfortable or like you ought not be doing so, then do not do so. Use prudence and caution.

[@AbnRangerJoe]

The Archivist That is good, sound advice. Thank you.

[@austinpholt]

Can we see a debate on western Christian art being a "return to paganism" that seems problematic and would like to see a counter argument.

[@bradspitt3896]

The renaissance happened soon after Plato made its way into the church, via guys like Plethon. Funded by medici, who was influenced by mephistos(?) and neoplatonism. I'm not too good with names and I'm at work.

[@vituzui9070]

It was paganism but the council of Trent brought remedy to it, at least during a time and in a limited form. That's why a lot of baroque art is good. But Trent was more effective with music. Sacred music from Palestrina for example is far more beautiful than eastern sacred music. Baroque architecture also was very good, so much so that that orthodox churches adopted the style and even today you can see many baroque orthdox churches, not only catholic ones.

[@trnslash]

I’m preparation for your debate with Charlotte Rose please consider reading the book ‘Libido Dominandi : Sexual Liberation as Political Control’. It comes highly recommended by Fr. Ripperger

[@waygookcatholic]

I hope you begin spreading your videos on various other platforms. I've seen some of your videos on Bitchute, but I suspect it wasn't you that uploaded it. But as long as you can make money through patrons its good to get your videos out on other sites. Much more difficult to censor.

[@raquelnavarro3838]

Regarding the Father in iconography, please look Our Ladys Coronation by Velazquez, and by the way in Spain are a lot of Trinity representations.

[@chasemaston5546]

You're so right about Jordan Peterson being a gateway drug to Christ. He really inspired me to take my faith more seriously, and I know that my other family members like to listen to him and they go to church but I'm hoping they will start to take their faith more seriously soon too. We all have much to learn, please pray for us brothers.

[@rlpsychology]

We've seen nothing yet.

[@wiglafthegrnlander4757]

RUBEN painting? Every single time!!!

[@maciejpieczula631]

1:04:06 Cardinal St. John Henry Newman anyone?

[@W-G]

So good

[@jamesstavridis936]

What about El Greco? He depicted the naked body in a very spiritual and tragic way. Not erotically.

[@kplaci]

As far as I agree with most what Jonathan said about nudity in art, I don't think his interpretation on depicting God the Father is correct. He says that God from Sistine Chapel Frescoes is basically Zeus, which is not true. Depicting Father as the "old man" is scriptural and based on vision prophet Daniel had. Jonathan did mention this very vision but for some reason didn't connect this facts. What does Book of Daniel tell us then? "As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool" (Daniel 7, 9) As far as it is possible that Moses (or perhaps Abraham too) encountered Jesus, we know with high probability that Jesus wasn't white-haired. Therefore we can say that Daniel in his vision didn't see Christ but rather God the Father himself. Of course our Ortodox brothers may argue that it was indeed Jesus, but he had white hair during his Old Testament appearance. It surely is possible but it doesn't lead to conclusion that there's something wrong with the Frescoes rather gives us two possible interpretations of who is this particular person, who touches Adam's finger (in mentioned fresco) and both options seems to be two sides of the same coin because "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14, 9). Besides "God created man in his own image" (Genesis 1, 27) so depicting God in human-like form is reasonable. God bless

[@lukabarisic7080]

The image of God in which man was created is the image of Christ. And if we apply a christological reading of the OT it is to be assumed that it was indeed Christ who appeared to Daniel; the Book of Revelation makes that connection. Christ is identified with the vision of Daniel, while the Father is described as "someone", with no discernible human features. Of course the issue is far too complex for me to just straight out claim that what I proposed is the only possible interpretation; but even then, the visions of the glory of God as they are passed on to us, are trying to describe the indescribable with words. The white hair, for example, has such a dense symbolic meaning, that to treat it like an actual physical manifestation or "objective" description of what the prophet experienced, would be to miss the point. I cannot speak for Pageau, but this might give some insight into why we can't just make the jump from a vision to depicting God the Father in art. Also John 1,18 (No one has ever seen the Father) basically puts the argument to rest and renders what I just wrote pointless, but I'll keep it in anyway. Take care.

[@kplaci]

@@lukabarisic7080 Daniel 7, 9: “As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;" and further in Daniel 7, 13-14: “I saw in the night visions, (...) there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him;" Who is the "son of man" that "all peoples should serve" if the "Ancient of Days" is Christ? Because for me it looks like the Ancient of Days is the Father and the son of man is Jesus. I may be wrong though, but this is how I see it.

[@lukabarisic7080]

@@kplaci Yes, it is something worth considering. It is a point of contention that I should have brought up, but it only came to my mind after I wrote the comment. Now, the Son of Man in Daniel most likely refers to an angel, but since Jesus identifies himself with him we have to accept it. But he is also clearly depicted as both in Rev 1, where he has the title of the Son of Man, while his appearance matches the Ancient of Days. The writer of Rev seems to assume that both refer to Christ. But again, I wouldn't dare to presume it a fact until I learn more.

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

@@lukabarisic7080 It wasn't an angel, it was Jesus Christ, let's stop pretending. If he takes the same appearance later that simply implies all power has now been given him.

[@lukabarisic7080]

@@VirginMostPowerfull Idk man, it could have been Paul Bettany for all I know.

[@mjvictoriano]

I think it was in the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich about the Passion that recounts that it was (MAYBE, if I remember well) Nicodemus the one that got some clothing to avoid Our Lord the shame of being completely nude on the Cross... you might like to check it out. It doesn't mean its factual history but the visions happen to be quite astonishing in historical details, I believe they might be true.

[@angrypotato_fz]

47:02 Matt, you might want to take a look at the works of Polish artist Jerzy Duda-Gracz. His depiction of Crucifixion and his Golgotha series depict Jesus completely naked, although with a choice of angles that obscure His private regions. Nevertheless, it's a powerful depiction. Jerzy Duda-Gracz also involved a lot of Polish history symbolic in the crowd and environment around the Golgotha (for example Jesus accompanied by the victims of nazi concentration camps) Another thing, a thought to consider - from what we know historically about crucifixion, Jesus was probably crucified completely naked. However, if you read into the revelation of Anna Katharina Emmerick, there is a person covering Jesus' genitals with a piece of cloth a moment before crucifixion. Of course, it's just a revelation, outside the Bible - so it's up to you to believe it or not and it's can't be a solid statement. From what I know the Church and historians found nothing wrong (contradicting with the facts) in Emmerick's revelation and I feel it's very close to truth :)

[@johnmartin2813]

'Where but half-awakened Adam Can disturb globe-trotting madam And set her bowels in a heat'. Yeats, of the Sistine Chapel in 'Under Ben Bulben'.

[@doodguytheblank2403]

Jonathan PogU

[@MGabrielValles]

Great point about not representing God the Father, but how about the Holy Spirit? 🤔

[@sparkomatic]

47:49 Obviously

[@franciscafazzo3460]

Pray for my health

[@Popscotch328]

51:18: "That wasn't Christ though right because he wasn't incarnate yet?" My Orthodox jaw just dropped that someone could think that there was ever a time that Christ was not Incarnate. He is eternal without change became man, eternally begotten of the Father. There is no pre-incarnate Christ. We can say Logos to help us navigate this brain-frying reality?

[@brunot2481]

Very nice topic! 👏👏👏👏 I sincerely hope this Eastern Orthodox brother comes different from the extremely large majority of uncharitable Orthobros we find on the Internet spectrum (and, notice, not only on the laity, which is pretty lame).

[@noahjohnson2611]

Internet Orthodox trolls are not a Orthodox. They are anathema

[@TheBusttheboss]

I know of a lot of EO's that are very kind. The online trolls are not quite like the ones you meet in real life.

[@johnn633]

I want to recommend Bible Illustrated. He is a serbian orthodox KZbinr and really kind, cool, humble and open for respectful conversation. And his humor is without equal

[@brunot2481]

@@johnn633 Seems to be a very nice guy indeed! I liked him! Actually I first heard of him from “Gospel Simplicity”, a channel from a nice Evangelical guy., Austin! Great content on both channels!

[@VACatholic]

It's a great episode. You will highly enjoy it, and find it very edifying.

[@joskecollin]

Regarding Christ's nakedness on the Cross, here's an interesting perspective from Maria Valtorta's supposed vision in 1945: "The condemned men are ordered to undress. The two robbers do so without shame. On the contrary they amuse themselves making obscene gestures towards the crowd, and in particular towards a group of priests, who are all white in their linen garments, and who have gone back to the lower open space little by little, taking advantage of their caste to creep up there. The priests have been joined by two or three Pharisees and other overbearing personages, whom hatred has made friends. And I see people I know, such as the Pharisees Johanan and Ishmael, the scribes Sadoc and Eli of Capernaum... The executioners offer the condemned men three rags, so that they may tie them round their groins. The robbers take them uttering the most horrible curses. Jesus, Who strips Himself slowly because of the pangs of the wounds, refuses it. He perhaps thinks that He can keep on the short drawers, which He had on also during the flagellation. But when He is told to take them off as well, He stretches out His hand to beg for the rag of the executioners to conceal His nakedness. He is really the Annihilated One to the extent of having to ask a rag of criminals. But Mary has noticed everything and She has removed the long thin white veil covering Her head under Her dark mantle, and on which She has already shed so many tears. She removes it without letting Her mantle drop and gives it to John so that he may hand it to Longinus for Her Son. The centurion takes the veil without any objection and, when he sees that Jesus is about to strip Himself completely, facing the side where there are no people, and thus turning towards the crowd His back furrowed with bruises and blisters, and covered with sores and dark crusts that are bleeding again, he gives Him His Mother's linen veil. Jesus recognises it and wraps it round His pelvis several times, fastening it carefully so that it may not fall off... And on the linen veil, so far soaked only with tears, the first drops of blood begin to fall, because many of the wounds, just covered with blood-clots, have reopened again, as He stooped to take off His sandals and lay down His garments, and blood is streaming down again." See point number 2 of chapter 605. The Crucifixion on page 308 of Volume V on www.dmnx.eu/.

[@carlosvillarreal6743]

Matt, all the chat is great except the first comments on the lockdowns. My country has one of the highest death tolls on covid (I have many known people who have lost very close people) and I wish the government implemented a more strict lockdown.

[@windsongshf]

Awwwwkwaaard! Lol! 46:14 So when touring the Vatican about 8 years ago we saw a sculpture of a naked torso called "The Belvedere Torso". Genitals right there. Couldn't miss them! Doh! Fun fact: I learned that this particular sculpture inspired Michelangelo's depiction of Jesus's body (without showing genitals) in the Last Judgment scene in the Sistine chapel. You can totally see it! The torso is not the skinny body you normally see, it is strong looking and muscular.

[@majanezic8896]

SO awkward!

[@Ezekiel336-16]

We obey the state and other authorities when it is not sinful to do so! Not receiving the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord and not keeping the sabbath is sinful! We are obligated to obey Christ Jesus and not them on that! In Christ, Andrew

[@Oscar_Mendez]

50:00

[@maicaiustina2941]

Saint John of Damascus speek abaout icons

[@giannobong6778]

What Pageau is saying without explicitly saying it is that the incarnate Logos that would later be known as Jesus Christ was present at the creation of all things and it was through Him that all of creation became manifest and so there isn’t truly any such thing or time as “pre-incarnation”, that God was always incarnate in the Logos (the Son) even at the beginning and so every vision of God, even before the birth of Jesus Christ, was a vision of Jesus Christ. He has said this in other talks so I’m not putting words in his mouth or anything, he just sometimes, and I’ve noticed this before with other things, leaves certain details unsaid and I’m not sure if it’s because he doesn’t want to get into it in the moment or if it’s because he doesn’t realize that detail is not known by the person he’s talking to.

[@Drew-pw6nw]

Any image of the heavenly father is a false image, he has not form. God can reveal himself in a form, but God isn't the form. That said, the painting on the ceiling of the sistine chapel portrays a relationship with god that an empty white glow couldn't communicate, that should be the focus. Nudity in art should be avoided for the same reason people should dress modestly. Some people may view it in a lustful way, even if it's a minority of people. Thoughts?

[@Portekberm]

i wonder if jonathan was expecting all the porn talk??!! :D

[@mikebankowski821]

I’m just realizing that the classic Hollywood narrative is from the story of Jesus

[@franciscovasquez9417]

When the topic about the Theophanies in the Old Testament being the preincarnate Logos came up, seems like Matt disagrees with Jonathan. I wish Matt would elaborate why he believes it not to be the preincarnate Logos in the OT.

[@lukabarisic7080]

I have a feeling that he didn't think about the topic much until that point. Because, as far as I know, the fact that it was the Son who manifested himself in the OT is non controversial among both Catholics and the Orthodox.

[@Candy-qv9wc]

Pornography dirties sexuality. But doesn’t Catholicism do the same?

[@jadabraaksma6877]

How?

[@Candy-qv9wc]

@@jadabraaksma6877 They say it's sinful.

[@johnnyrivera7665]

In my opinion, I believe "Thor" the movie was blasphemous towards the message of christ. He is more like an ape of the church who mimics Christ. The way he was cast out, was similar to how Satan was cast out of heaven. Like lightning striking the earth.

[@joelmontero9439]

You should do an interview with Paul Joseph Watson, that could be great! God bless you brothers

[@AugustasKunc]

28

[@AugustasKunc]

+

[@NomenNescio99]

There's a website called libertarianchristians, google it if you are interested and just as disgusted as I am by the recent invasion of personal freedom by governments all over the world. When it's time to do your taxes, even the government likes to quote Romans 13 ... There's a lot of reading material regarding and exegesis wrt Romans 13 on that site.

[@silent_shout]

Matt Fradd googling Rubens is fucking embarrassing, ngl.

[@rc3088]

Its all Catholic 😁 orthodox did not call themselves orthodox back in the day😏

[@g07denslicer]

24:18 hmm Jonathan seems to imply that if you don’t believe in Christianity you don’t go to hell. Oh happy days! Then I can continue to disbelieve this b.s. without the threat of eternal damnation. Thanks!

[@leo-yd7cf]

This is not what he is talking about. He is talking about how Christianity is not JUST that. Pay attention

[@g07denslicer]

@@leo-yd7cf lol I think I was trying to be an asshole there.

[@PilgrimMission]

Guys , I truly love your conversation however you almost lost me when getting smug about Baptists. I forgive you. I am not a Baptist, by the way , very far from it. Try reading some of Spurgeons sermons before bashing Baptists and Evangelicals , specially these days when its a cool thing to do.