By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Feb. 8, 2022 Anno Domini
The “pope” many call a Saint requested that a Soviet artist and prominent Russian Orthodox iconographer create a mosaic for the papal chapel.
If that weren’t bad enough, apparent Soviet subverter Oleg Germanovich Ulyanov placed a heretic alongside the likes of the most revered Saints of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine, an accepted heretic within the walls of the Vatican sitting beside Saint Thomas Aquinas—thanks in large part to “Saint Pope John Paul II” (Karol Wojtyla).
In the 1996 papal mosaic dubbed “the new Sistine Chapel of the 21st century” and dedicated to the Virgin Mary, Cappella Redemptoris Mater (Mother of the Redeemer) depicts the Virgin and our Lord Jesus as an infant as well as many Saints of the Catholic Church within the walls of New Jerusalem. Not only is the entire chapel’s art in the Byzantine tradition, one can find a depiction of heretic Gregory Palamas, a doctor of the Eastern Orthodox Church, next to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Also in the depiction are other Eastern Orthodox saints not recognized by the Catholic Church as such.
Palamas is known for establishing mystical teaching within Eastern Orthodoxy, specifically “hesychasm”, which seems to bear more resemblance to Yoga and the Kabbalah than anything a Catholic would expect to see of a worshipper of the Almighty God. Palmas is no Saint; should not be revered by lay Catholics, let alone the Vatican; and his teaching and legitimacy is disputed even within Eastern Orthodoxy itself (see Barlaam Seminara).
Given that Ulyanov is considered an Eastern Orthodox iconographer and the entire depiction is in Byzantine tradition, it would seem that the adaptation of Andrei Rublev’s Holy Trinity icon (located at the top, above the Virgin Mary) somehow represents a non-Filioque Trinity, that is, one that strips the Holy Spirit from Christ. What may be an indication of this heretical concept are the blue shoulders depicted only on God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (assuming that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, which would put him at the very left of the icon). Our Lord is not represented with this blue distinction. If true, this is outrageous, blasphemous, and must be remedied immediately by the Vatican. It’s another, if not the most important, reason that the entire mosaic must be destroyed or painted over with a truly Roman Catholic Mosaic, not some Eastern Orthodox schismatic impostor.
The official reason from the John Paul II papacy is that the mosaic is to foster unity between East and West—a typical humanist mask for ongoing Second Vatican Council subversion of the traditional Roman Catholic Church since 1958.
“He (John Paul II) likewise desired that the new chapel include the presence of Oriental tradition, which is of important ecumenical value. Thus it has become a visible sign of communion between the Eastern and Western Churches,” the Vatican states.
What’s more likely is that the mosaic represents ongoing anti-Christ subversion of God’s Holy Church through the push for one-world syncretic, Noahidic religious rule, and subjugation to the leading church in the world communist conspiracy—the Eastern Orthodox Church, specifically the Moscow Patriarchate or Russian Orthodox Church.
Keep in mind here that John Paul II, originally from Soviet-occupied Poland, is suspected of having been a Communist and/or Freemason and Judaizer, among other anti-Catholic things. If true, his reverence for Russian Orthodox heretics, teaching, and orientalism begins to make more sense. Wojtyla’s reasoning for the Soviet mosaic presumes that the Roman Catholic Church is somehow lacking unity (with the non-Catholic world). But how can light have any part in darkness, as the Bible rhetorically asks? Pope Leo XIII brings clarity in Satis Cognitum: “Jesus did not found a Church that embraces a plurality of communities which are generically similar, but distinct and not bound by ties forming only one Church.”
When we consider the Roman Catholic teaching of the Filioque (the concept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son—not just from the Father, as is taught in Eastern Orthodoxy), it was the Mother of Russian Orthodoxy, the great kingdom of Byzantium, that fell to the Islamists on the very day of Pentecost (when Christ sent His Spirit out onto the world) in 1453 while Rome stood unmolested and the Catholic faith spread to every corner of the world. It’s difficult to interpret this historical event as mere coincidence. It seems more likely that it was God’s punishment on the heretical Byzantine theocracy, which then relocated its base of operations north to what became Russia and the Soviet Union (this transfer of Eastern Orthodox power seems to have been aided by the Jewish kingdom of Khazaria, but more on that for another article).
The writers of a 1988 EIR special report drew an interesting conclusion on rejection of the Filioque, the Soviet system, and centuries of Russian imperialism:
“Denial of the Filioque leads to the doctrine that Stalin is always right (the Logos proceeding only from the Father), and that all individuals must be directed in all their actions by an omniscient state planning authority like the Gosplan or the Oprichina of Ivan the Terrible. The alternative is the Western system, seen in the Prussian Auftragsprinzip or assignment principle, in which the individual is given a large area of initiative to solve problems that emerge in the course of carrying out overall policies with which the individual politically agrees.
“Thus, the Filioque creates the concept of the individual, who in turn participates in both freedom and necessity, and must accept responsibility for both. This idea of the exercise of individual reason has always excited the hatred of Byzantium and its successors. It is the key to the fight between Western freedom and Soviet totalitarianism today.”
As we can see, the rejection of the Filioque is no trivial manner and certainly not one that the so called Popes at the Vatican should be embracing for the so called sake of unity with schismatics.
Let’s let a true Saint, Thomas Aquinas, put the controversy to rest.
“It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him…. The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other….”
- The Redemptoris Mater Chapel – Spirituality and Brief History of the Chapel, Vatican – https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/vatican/virtualtour/redemptorismater/index-en.html ↑
- EIR Task Force, Global Showdown – The Russian Imperial War Plan for 1988, Executive Intelligence Review, July 24, 1985 ↑
- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, q. 36 Art. 2, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2 ↑