Looking Closer at the Pope's Satanic Throne [PST ©]

If you are new to the Band, this post is an introduction and overview of the point of this blog that needs updating. Occult posts - posts on the history and meaning of occult images - have their own menu page above. All  posts are in the archive on the right. 
Comments are welcome, but moderated for obvious reasons. If you don't see it right away, don't worry.


One of the Band's most popular posts took a look at the pope's serpentine audience hall and satanic throne. See Infogalactic on the Paul VI Audience Hall in the Vatican, and some photos. We didn't break any new information but observed how upside-down the symbolism was related to serpents in the Bible. Click for the post. Since then, we've come a long way in recognizing corruption and inversion in modern globalism and the underlying rejection of basic truths about reality. So the throne is worth a closer look - for that reason and because it remains mind-blowingly awful.

Just a refresher. Not only is this not "photoshopped", it's from an official US Government site.

U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta attends an audience with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican in Vatican City, Jan. 16, 2013. 


Start with what brought the Pope's Satanic Throne (PST ©) back to mind. We recently saw a link that highlighted something that we hadn't noticed when we first looked at this monstrosity.

Cut Fazzini's Resurrection in half, and replace the left half with the mirror image of the right. And it gets clear why the figure is so discomforting. 

Consider that it took Fazzini over a decade from the commission in 1965 and completion in 1977. The original was done in polystyrene and fumes from the burning plastic gave Fazzini a blood clot. The point is it wasn't something done spontaneously. It was carefully planned.

So there's that.

And this got us thinking more about the PST in particular, and not the whole hall.
















In the first post, we noted that the guy behind the commission seemed shady from what we could see on-line, but didn't find the sort of "proof" that could show sleepwalkers how fundamentally wrong this statue is. No talking head proclaiming it on the authorized nightly transmission, or a feature in the Times. Seeing the manipulation of the design got us thinking about the artist - who also has very little info available on him. So this is a good opportunity to show how to make connections and identify patterns of evil when there aren't t.v.-style "uncoverings" or smoking guns.

Look at patterns - how things play out or influence each other in similar or parallel ways. 

The way these all look different, but are all clearly chess. There are patterns that give it away.






















When it comes to spotting perverse or evil secrets - the occult in a modern world - look for the inversion of what is real in some way. Those moments when up is down or down is up. The coward or weakling is the hero and so forth. There are countless ways for this to happen on every level from basic observations to complex logic. Science got it's reputation by making observations then drawing conclusions. Science! inverts that by ignoring observations and making up fake narratives that serve globalist political aims. It's the complete opposite, but claims the same name and traditions. It happens over and over in venue after venue, but the inversion is consistent.

But what is constant is that when you see the truth being inverted - something pretending to be its opposite - you know immediately that this is "off". How or why is not always obvious, but you know to look again. And that's when the links appear.

Pericle Fazzini, Bronze Crucifix, 1974, 120 x 93 x 31 cm, bronze, Vatican Museums

A link like Pericle Fazzini, an Italian modernist of the post-World War 2 era and the sculptor strangely chosen to cast the PST. According to the Minnesota and North Dakota chapters of the Patrons of the Arts in the Vatican Museums who raised $14,850 to fund the the restoration of this hunk of crap, "this wonderful cross" was completed at the same time as the PST. It's a cross without Jesus battered by wind, but with the Shroud somehow on it. His inscription on the back reads: Always, the wind blows and slams against your embedded cross, dominating time in this land. The wind makes to beat and stagger it like a coat hanger." 

Not exactly a Christian message of reassurance and salvation. Though it's doubtful the people at the center were Christian either.




In this post, we will connect two things - the PST and the de-moralized modernism forced on post-World War Two "culture". This is a huge topic, so we're keeping it short by limiting it to the throne, and patterns we've already seen in older occult posts [but you can click for a reminder how connected the total social upheaval of the war and the degredation of culture were]. The point is to see the relationships in things around you that are made out to be random happenstance. Like how bringing in modern art like Fazzini's was not just a sign but a public admission that the impostors in the Church have inverted the it's basic fundamental values into something perverse and wicked. But that means connecting some patterns.

Start with a definition - in this case de-moralization. We have to come up with new terms because we are thinking in different ways and the terminology isn't always there. There are posts on de-moralization if you are interested, but it just means the loss of objective moral standards in society.

Aaron Douglas, Aspiration, 1936

In the West, the mix of Christian metaphysics and logic that allows us to make moral distinctions and avoid evil. We use the hyphen to distinguish it from the usual meaning of demoralization as loss of morale. The two are related - Logos-based morality keeps morale up - but the Band uses de-moralization specifically for the lack of moral principles in our materialist modern world. 

Like a celebration of "freedom" where the "city on the hill" is a factory and high-rises. It isn't a spiritual struggle at all, and the only moral principle is the pursuit of stuff. Maybe prestige too. 

David Ameil, An American Dream, collage on canvas 

Always wondered about those "aspirational" shots of distant, often Art Deco-y cities. What do you do when you get there? 

What makes piling up block-like structures appealing on a human level anyway? How do vague floodlight effects make it more so? And how does scrabbling in the shadows of huge soulless structures built by others connote personal achievement? 









This is a really important thing to keep note of. De-moralization is one of the main ways that this modern globalist beast system keeps you trapped and cut off from your higher spiritual nature. In a recent regular post, the Band was trying to describe a concept of history like the one in The Silmarillion - or the Bible for that matter - that moves through time, and crosses levels of reality. Call it complete history - one that considers the origins as well as counting years. We don't have this word because modern society is de-moralized - we don't even have the language to deal with the metaphysical aspects of history.

There has to be a metaphysical aspect to history because the physical has to start. 

Or else it's truly infinite, and infinity as a concept is essentially metaphysical. Turtles all the way down.











And somehow, this de-moralized reality manages to be occult too - lots of dark secrets, only they're presented as ok because they aren't "supernatural". When things like like creation ex nihilo or spirit possession are just wonders of Science! you can pretend that they don't raise metaphysical questions by necessity.

At which point it becomes obvious that the entire modern "system" - the whole fake, de-moralized, materialist web of literally impossible claims about the nature of reality - is itself the inversion. 

Since there obviously is an order or Logos to reality, there is also objective morality. It starts with aligning with what is. Truth on the most abstract level. Put in more practical terms - aligning with what is real. Make it personal - with what is true as we can know it as limited, time-bound creatures in a reality that is bigger than we are. The opposite is to pretend what we wish were true was. The way small children blur desire with reality.

Mick Porez, the american dream, collage
This is how we get to fake, de-moralized modern cultural inversion. Since it has turned its back on what is true, it can project any illusion that serves it's programmers. And we get the moronic web of media delusion that masquerades as something real and makes the protoplasm quiver. 


When will and desire replace logos and observation as the foundation of moral social order, we have that same basic satanic inversion - be your own god, do what thou wilt, its all relative - that keeps coming up. That we are somehow the authors of reality rather than figments of it. And the motivations are always the same - greed, vanity, prestige, stuff, twisted appetites, and power.

So what does the pattern of fake de-moralized mass culture have to do with the PST?

...besides the general problem with removing morality and metaphysics from a culture and society built on them. That should be obvious. 

This only becomes the "American Dream" when illusion has replaced reality. Self-pleasuring lack-jawed sleepwalkers aren't exactly models of spiritual discernment. 






There are at least two more specific connections - we will note them, then look at how they work together to lead to a conclusion.

1. The sculptor of the throne was an Italian modernist - basically an inverted, feral animal culturally, and a witless globalist tool politically.

Pericle Fazzini, Sibilla, 1947, bronze, version in Middelheim Museum and 1961 cast for Kiel, Germany

Sibyls were seers from ancient Greece - the Classical subject matter that 19th century academies loved. The distorted appearance - steatopygous proportions, deformed head, and lewd pose are direct attacks on beauty. Modern artists and institutional gatekeepers force demented ugliness into spaces most associated with cultural wisdom and beauty. 

Demented isn't just rhetoric. Look at the face. 

Modernism attacks culture through inversion. That's what reveals it as satanic. Things that are virtuous are debased, while the debased is elevated - all in the name of "freedom". Busting out of "the rules". A vicious infantile tantrum that was jacked and directed by the truly evil. 

If reason is a virtue, then madness is the modern inversion. When you think in terms of patterns - this is the same thing as Science! pushing the subconscious and psychoanalysis. It's all part of a larger attack on logic, Thar is, Logos. The connection between the human and truth.







2. The ultimate client is the Church - the piece is installed at the heart of the papacy. And the Church has always used art to express its identity - an identity based on mediating the Biblical promise of salvation according to it's own dogma. It's important to emphasize that this isn't our observation - it is the Church's own claim.

Eduard Burgauner, Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter, around 1899, Parish church of Kastelruth, Castelrotto, Italy 

The Catholic notion that the Church alone sets correct doctrine and holds the keys of salvation is a theological argument, and not one that the Band has the interest or expertise to wade into. The important thing is that the Church itself stakes its claim to religious authority on the dogma that it continues Jesus' mediation between earth and heaven. That is, the maintenance of God's word. 

It is understandable that superficials might change over time, but the entire purpose of the organization - by it's own dogma - is to maintain spiritual consistency beneath changing superficials. To resist moral and social entropy - the tendency for complex human systems to change and corrupt over time. 







This was always an ideal - historically impossible, but something to aspire to. At the very least, the Church was expected to at least try and align with fundamental Christian principles over the self-idolizing whims of vain and fallen creatures. We realize that that has not been the case for some time. But we are thinking in terms of general directions, and the big patterns tell us Modernism as a social movement is diametrically opposed to the Church's fundamental reason to exist.

Before we even consider a single detail, we can see that there is no possible common ground between de-moralized materialism and fake Progress! and spiritual custodianship  and fundamental truth. They are mutually exclusive. Modernism is by definition "not the Church". It defines itself as the rejection of spiritual or moral fundamentals - the very things the Church claims to exist to maintain. For the Church, "modernizing" is literally self-erasing - by it's own terms.

Frederick Wilson for Tiffany Studios, Angel of the Resurrection, 1903-1904, stained glass, lead, Indianapolis Museum of Art

We don't have to listen to a single rationalization or rhetorical appeal to know that "modernizing" the Church is impossible and that anyone proposing it is by necessity a liar. We can see it. 

Consider the angel - one of the most common subjects in the history of Western art. It has a lot of roles, but some sort of supernatural beauty, purity, holiness, goodness, or other sign of God's messenger is implied. 

Marina Petro, Angel, miniature oil painting

Nothing wrong with abstract angels - the're sort of abstract by nature. This simple figure blurs into the atmosphere around it like an impression. But the airy purity and inherent beauty and goodness still come through. 

Abstract art doesn't have to be twisted and inverted. It's just that modernism is inherently twisted and inverted and modern art exists to twist and invert tradition. The lesson, as always, is that intentions matter, and we will know these by their fruits. Petro's angel is abstract, but consistent with what angels are. 

Pericle Fazzini, Angelo, 1979, bronze, museo Torrione della Battaglia, Grottammare, Italy

And a Modern abstract angel by our pal Fazzini. It's typical of modern abstract art in the way it uses the simpler, less realistic form to debase rather than accentuate. The Pedro is simplified to show the luminous airy nature of a spiritual being. The Fazzini is twisted, deformed, almost demonic, with nothing heavenly or airy about it beyond the broken wings. It's inverted. 

"Abstract" is a cue to look closer. Then the intention becomes obvious. And the moral direction

You can see it.

To repeat: before we hear one rationalization or rhetorical pitch, we know that choosing a modernist artist to design the papal throne is diametrically opposed to the essence of the Church. Not to mention almost 2000 years of religious art in theory and practice. It is inversion. So when the form strikes us as monstrous and wrong, we are seeing something that is monstrous and wrong on the most simple basic levels of what Church and de-moralized modernism mean. We could joke about a severed goat's head on the pope's altar, but the truth isn't far off.

That mirrored image... Now with color highlights:

The mirroring and highlighting drives home the point. But it isn't as if the unmodified statue is particularly Christian. It looks even more sinister in a way.

For most of its history, the Church has been a major producer of arts and an important source of information for researchers. This is why the lack of detailed information about The Resurrection on the internet, and how vaguely misleading  what info there is, such a red flag.

Like describing this thing as"Christ rising from a tomb in the Garden of Olives, while the earth is shaken by an enormous storm." No mention of Jesus mind you, and no acknowledgment of Fazzini's own description of "the great" statue: ''Suddenly there came to me the idea of Christ preaching peace for 2,000 years, and the place where He prayed for the last time: the olive grove of Gethsemane... I had the idea of depicting Christ as if He were rising again from the explosion of this large olive grove, peaceful site of His last prayers. Christ rises from this crater torn open by a nuclear bomb; an atrocious explosion, a vortex of violence and energy.''




It's almost like it's embarrassing...

Pointing out that the Church has always been an art world leader is meaningless without context. And actively deceptive if the meaning of the art has inverted from what it was. It is true that the Church has produced spectacular works of art whenever it has had the security and resources to do so. We just need to consider the basic patterns.

Transfiguration of Jesus, 565, mosaic, Monastery of St. Catherine, Mt. Sinai

The point of traditional Church art is deceptively simple. To teach and inspire. Like this grand mosaic depicting Jesus' transfiguration in a way that explains what it is - the mandala shows his divine nature - in a format appropriate to the magnitude of the event. It can teach doctrine, and inspires with its size and appearance. 

Thomas Kinkade, The Forest Chapel, 1999, oil on canvas

But this covers an incredible range of possibilities. Kinkade captures the sense of spiritual community in this fantastical setting. The basic idea was to promote the Church and its theology by presenting it as a glimpse of heaven on earth. Material beauty and splendor as a foretaste of God's kingdom and the glory of salvation. 






Religious art also depicts suffering, but always as a way to guide and inspire the faithful. What you don't see is despair and degradation for its own sake. Even the most  gory crucifix is intended to remind you of what Jesus endured for you and fortify your own ability to use faith to get past the challenges of your own life.  And the idea of a church that is repellent, degenerate, or somehow ugly is completely opposite the basic purpose of church art.

Santa Maria Maggiore, 432-440, Rome
The Church always used the styles of the day - like an ancient Roman basilica - but for a positive message. The Church as the glorious gatekeeper between you and the glory of Jesus' sacrifice and salvation. It's an invitation to come in and connect to the path that has been opened to you.


The Church was the center of the art world for so long because it had the most prestigious appointments for the best artists. This is because in a reality-facing society, religious art is the most valued. Michelangelo was hired to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling because of his talents, but it was getting the Sistine Chapel and other major religious contracts that made him "Michelangelo". Traditionally, the fame, the talent, and the beauty and profundity of faith worked together. A logos-based economy.

Sistine Chapel interior by Michelangelo and other artists, 1482- 1540s.


The central place of religious subjects in the art world began to change in the Renaissance, though there was a last Baroque flowering of "historically significant" religious art.

Gianloranzo Bernini and others, decorations inside St. Peter's, 1620s-1660s. 


Different style, but still beauty, splendor and the light of divine salvation. But after this period we get Enlightenment and then Modernity, and religious art steadily drifts apart from the secular materialism that comes to dominate official art.

Hyacinthe Rigaud, Louis XIV, 1701, oil on canvas, 277 × 194 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris

By the time we get to the "Sun King" - seriously - in his red shoes, the "center of the art world" moved to Paris and its secular Academies.

The reality is that the idea of a center of the art world is retarded self-stroking by the parasites that make up institutional modern "culture". It's just influential,because it allows the narrative engineers to impose one story in history.  Search the internet for art timelines, and you learn that religious art disappears pretty much after the Baroque. 

The idea is to make you think that de-moralization is some kind of progress and to not consider your place in reality. It's not that the Church stopped using art. Protestant and Orthodox art become more common as well. It's that "official" art went in the Modern direction of de-moralization and cultural destruction and the Church preferred the spiritual message that its very existence was to maintain. 




Of course modern Art! and Church art move in separate directions. They had to. They're diametrically opposed.

Compare the great spaces up above to the Paul VI Audience Hall. The hall isn't a church, but it's tightly connected to one. Think about the fundamental moral direction implied in aesthetic. 
























Yeah. About that...


So what does the Church say about art? There's a long history - click for a nice summery of the Catholic position over the centuries. It's quite consistent, as you'd expect. Reading it, you'd think nothing really changed since since Michelangelo. Just look as some recent samples:

Here's a piece from the Roman Missal, printed in 2002. The missal is a collection of texts for the Mass, so it is written specifically for that context. The images it is referring to are on or around the altar of a church - where the Mass is performed. Fazzini's Resurrection isn't in a church, so focus on the general attitude to religious art. Quotes from the Missel in this font (emphasis ours).

Juan Carreño de Miranda, The Foundation Mass of the Trinitarian Order, 1666, oil on canvas, Louvre Museum 

"318. In the earthly Liturgy, the Church participates, by a foretaste, in that heavenly Liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which she journeys as a pilgrim, and where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God; and by venerating the memory of the Saints, she hopes one day to have some part and fellowship with them.

It starts with the relationship between the Liturgy - ritual communion with God - and God. This doesn't address art directly, but sets the table by asserting that the Church gives a hint of heaven to come. In plain English, the idea is that Church is morally aligned with God and heaven. 







Continuing to read, the Missel tells us that religious art is in keeping with tradition and provides assistance to devotion. Note the emphasis on accurately reflecting the "mysteries of faith" - that is, the body of doctrine and dogma that defines what the Church is:

Thus, images of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Saints, in accordance with the Church's most ancient tradition, should be displayed for veneration by the faithful in sacred buildings and should be arranged so as to usher the faithful toward the mysteries of faith celebrated there... Generally speaking, in the ornamentation and arrangement of a church as far as images are concerned, provision should be made for the devotion of the entire community as well as for the beauty and dignity of the images.

Giotto, The Resurrection and Noli me tangere, 1304-06, fresco, Cappella Scrovegni, Padua. 

Here's an old Resurrection painting that's consistent with the Bible story - angels and sleeping soldiers at the empty tomb, Jesus' meeting with Mary Magdalene - and there is a sense of miracle and triumph in the bright, clear arrangement. 

The liberties Giotto does take - combining the scenes into one, Jesus' little flag - are done to reinforce the  positive message of triumph over sin and death. You know, the "good news" that the Gospels are named for.

James R. C. Martin, Resurrection Morning, 2003, pastel

Perhaps your taste is more modern. James Martin's simple pastel also combines the Resurrection and meeting with the Magdalene, but in an abstract picture of limited colors. Note how the same sense of holiness and triumph over death comes through despite the radically different style.







Note the continued emphasis on devotion, and the idea that the images have beauty and dignity. Just a reminder: this is from their own Missel.

Of course, one might object, claiming that the Missel specifically liturgical and that an audience hall is intended for functions connected to the Church that aren't liturgical in nature.

Like the Vatican's annual "star-studded" Christmas concert.

At a certain point, commentary on these images becomes sort of pointless.











So what about the current Catechism? Or letters from beloved Pope John Paul II? Let's take a look with some other pictures of the Resurrection that turned up in a simple internet search of the Vatican's huge art collections.

The Catechism tells us plainly that Christian iconography expresses in images the same Gospel message that Scripture communicates by words. Image and word illuminate each other... In other words, religious art is consistent with the scriptural message. The themes are the same - what is different is the medium of communication.

Pinturicchio, The Resurrection, 1494, fresco, Palazzo Apostolico, Vatican 

Painted for a pope's private rooms - Alexander VI is shown kneeling to the left.  The artist makes it clear that this is a triumph over death from the tomb, and uses old symbols like the flag and mandorla. The message is clear.









The quote included in the Catechism from St. John Damascene - the 8th century Doctor of Christian Art - shows how traditional this attitude to imagery is.

Pietro Perugino, San Francesco al Prato Resurrection, 1499, oil on panel, Pinacoteca Vaticana, Rome

"The beauty of the images moves me to contemplation, as a meadow delights the eyes and subtly infuses the soul with the glory of God". Similarly, the contemplation of sacred icons, united with meditation on the Word of God and the singing of liturgical hymns, enters into the harmony of the signs of celebration so that the mystery celebrated is imprinted in the heart's memory and is then expressed in the new life of the faithful.

Familiar symbols and the intent to inspire. The perfect symmetry and Jesus' flawless body after the Passion capture the supernatural purity and holiness of the Resurrection.






Let's see what Pope John Paul II said in an Apostolic Letter:Veneration of Holy Images an Apostolic Letter.

"The believer of today, like the one yesterday, must be helped in his prayer and spiritual life by seeing works that attempt to express the mystery [of faith] and never hide it.... Authentic Christian art is that which, through sensible perception, gives the intuition that the Lord is present in his Church, that the events of salvation history give meaning and orientation to our life, that the glory that is promised us already transforms our existence. Sacred art must tend to offer us a visual synthesis of all dimensions of our faith". 

Raphael design, woven in Brussels, The Resurrection, unveiled 1519, tapestry, Vatican Museums Tapestries Gallery

It needs to be clear, morally and theologically accurate, and inspiring. Like the tapestries designed for the Sistine Chapel. It is obvious that Jesus is triumphant and purified. 

This was hung in the Sistine Chapel in 1531, and moved to the Tapestries Gallery in the 1830s





So when the Church is suddenly blathering about its traditional commitment to the arts to justify opening a modern gallery in the Vatican museums or installing a satanic monstrosity in the papal audience hall, you know they're lying somewhere. Because there is inversion.

Modern artists don't care about clarity, accuracy, or inspiration. Modern art tears down - deconstructs - traditions, standards, and ultimately reality in a giant blast of do what thou wilt. Church art tries to bring a timeless message of Logos to the present day - external references and responses that Modernism was based on removing from art altogether. It isn't necessarily deliberate, although is usually was. It is inherent in the basic patterns of form and materials over meaning and reference - beauty of any kind. They are opposite forces - modernism seeks to destroy the traditions that are definitional to the Church.

Emile Bernard, Résurrection, 1924-1925, oil on paper, Vatican Museum; Michelangelo, The Resurrection, between 1520 and 1525, black chalk, Windsor Castle  

Bernard was a French modernist that uncharacteristically turned to religious subjects late in life. Here he is reacting to a Michelangelo drawing. He isn't trying to be subversive - it's that Michelangelo's shadows and emotional force is more important than the meaning of the event. The Michelangelo drawing was a private meditation - never used for anything. Bernard turns the Resurrection as spiritual event into an opportunity to study personal feeling and artistic form. Also note how the figure of Jesus has lost the herculean power that he has in Michelangelo's personalized vision. Not to make too much of style - Michelangelo is clearly a more talented draftsman. 

Modern de-moralized solipsism and the attack on heroism in a nutshell. And Bernard appears to have been legitimately religious.





But the Bernard is much less disturbing than this:

Pericle Fazzini, detail of The Resurrection, Nervi Hall, Vatican

This is the head of Jesus for a Resurrection . What can this teach or inspire? 

• usher the faithful toward the mysteries of faith?
• provision for the beauty and dignity of the images?
• infuse the soul with the glory of God?
• express the mystery [of faith] and never hide it?
• the intuition that the Lord is present in his Church

If this inverted modern garbage actually is being used in the "traditional" way, that means it is intended to teach and inspire. Consider the whats for a moment. This isn't us making something up. It's simply the objective pattern. Church art has an observable historical purpose and message, modernism is defined by a set of contrary principles, and the two are mutually exclusive. That's it.  The rest is details.

So who is Fazzini? The short answer is a typical post-World War Two modernist. He was born in Grottamare in 1913, won national recognition at the Roman Quadrennial Exposition of 1935 and joined the modernist group Fronte nuovo delle arti at their first exhibition in Milan in 1947. It is important to realize that the post-War decades played out differently in Europe than in America. First, the raging prosperity of the cathode generation didn't hit in the same way. Italy was far less affluent and consumer-driven in the 40's and 50's than America.

AA.VV., Il fronte Nuovo delle Arti, Nascita di una avanguardia, Venice, 1997

And the Fronte nuovo delle arti. 

This doesn't scream the timeless spiritual message of the Church. 

What we get in Italian modernism is an emphasis on "fixing" society - basically total commitment to de-moralized left-wing "humanitarian" politics and one-world globalism. The larger idea is that the War was so morally abhorrent that the only way to escape the burden of collective guilt is to strive to create a utopia on earth. And then we are right into Secular Transcendence - that luciferian belief that our will can supersede reality. 

That is, Progress! 







So for anyone claiming to be modern, progressive, sophisticated, intellectual, cultured, forward-thinking, all the rest had two choices. Marxism or "freedom" - meaning atheist progressive utopia just without the Marxist politics. What is forbidden is anything connected to truth, beauty, or historical identity.

The Rock'em Sock'em Robots of mid-20th century collective delusion:

Just as distracting and equally real. 













Fazzini was the on the Starfleet non-Communist side of utopianism. From the Fronte nuovo delle arti manifesto of 1946: "to give their observations and their separate creations in the world of the imagination a basis of moral necessity and to bring them together as expressions of life." This notion of moral necessity is not the morality of the Church. It is the luciferian master of reality morality of the "well-meaning" utopian. These incoherent clowns moved in different directions, but they were generally motivated by their commitment to the inverted nonsense principles of the pre-War modernisms.

Auguste Rodin, The Thinker, modeled 1880, cast 1910, bronze, Metropolitan Museum of Art. 

Fazzini's big inspirations are Rodin and Picasso. 

Rodin was a modernist darling for emphasizing the material of his sculpture over the illusion of reality. This is the "truth to materials" idiocy that generations of modern artists repeated like a lobotomized mantra. 

The difference is that Rodin was also an excellent sculptor. His forms can be strained and twisted, but there is skill there.

Pablo Picasso, Seated Woman, 1929, bronze; Head of a Woman, 1932, plaster; Man with Lamb, 1943, bronze, MOMA, New York

If you like word magic, think how "Picasso" became synonymous with artist. Like "Einstein" and genius. 

Here's some genius that Fazzini was looking at. 








Now you can start to see why Modernism and religious art can't be brought together in a way that is respectful to the meaning of both. Again - we don't have to consider any details or specific arguments to know that Modern Art and the art of the Church are mutually contradicting. The patterns leave no other alternative. Modern church art is a contradiction. Materialism with no path to transcendence.

The model for Fazzini's statue looks less openly Satanic, but utterly fails in terms of clarity, accuracy, or inspiration.

The Resurrection in a cloud of nuclear destruction is the opposite message to the clear triumph over death that is the Christian significance. And why is the Resurrected Jesus maimed and twisted? More like the suffering of a Gothic crucifix than the immaculate purity risen Son. 

The image is ugly and undignified, shows no evidence of the glory of God in the soul, the Church, or the world, and distorts the central mystery of the faith into an ambiguous vision of pain, chaos, and horror. 

Then somewhere between this model and the finished work, the Baphomet head appeared. 

And while the Band is clearer on the difference between Baphomet and Satan than most "followers" of either, it is irrelevant for judging a piece of Christian art in a papal hall. Like Modernism as a movement, it symbolizes appetite and desire over truth and is diametrically opposed to Christian metaphysics. 










So why is it there? The answer is beyond the Band's reach. Sources are predictably hard to find online and we have no access to material that isn't already posted. It is worth noting that Paul VI has been referred to as an anti-pope by opponents for his Vatican II Council and New Mass/Novus Ordo. These were developments that happened around the same time as the PST and were equally opposed to Chruch tradition and theology. We will link to one very critical site to give a sense of the criticisms.

Paul VI in a wicker tiara from The Guardian Dec. 12, 1963  (where it's mislabeled a mitre)

This quote stands out. 

"Your vocation is to bring not just some people, but all people together as brothers. Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a ‘world authority’ capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political plane. Delegates to international organization, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators, all of you, must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a New World Order."





The same de-moralized, luciferian culture of inversion that every globalist mouthpiece spews. In other words, it's not only not "Catholic", it's not Christian.

Just as Fazzini's monstrosity indicates.

And that's how paying attention to basic patterns short-circuits a lot of wasted rationalizations and debate. Understand what Christianity, Church art, Modernism, and Fazzini's Resurrection are - even in the most general sense - and the only conclusion is that there is something knowingly and fundamentally un-Christian about the piece.

Here's a recent Resurrection. You'll see that the message is diametrically opposite Fazzini's and consistent with the age-old message of the Damascene. 

What you do with that information

is up to you.