Monday, July 24, 2017

The Real Change You Can Believe In

 I have often expressed my disdain for those who preoccupy their time with strange topics rather than applying real Catholic principles to our extraordinary times. One such example is the fascination with UFOs. Fred and Bobby Dimond, the wannabe "monks" of Most Holy Family Monastery (sic), want to sell you DVDs on the subject, and Francis actually claimed in 2014 that he would "baptize Martians if they asked for the sacrament." ( See This is most interesting coming from a man who claims atheists can go to Heaven! So we have both ends of the spectrum, false Traditionalists (the Dimonds) and Modernists in the extreme (Bergoglio), talking about UFOs.

 There's a real danger to dwelling on such subjects. In 1968, Eric Von Daniken wrote a runaway bestseller entitled Chariots of the Gods. It sold more than seven million copies worldwide and was made into a movie of the same name in 1970. The thesis of the book is that extraterrestrials came to Earth and are the basis of religion. For example, the angels of the Bible were really aliens in spacesuits, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was by an alien nuclear weapon. These aliens also allegedly explain the pyramids of Egypt and Stonehenge which were built by them. (For a great debunking of Von Daniken, See Crash Go The Chariots by Clifford Wilson).

  There is a quasi-religious and "scientific" movement called Raelianism or the Raelian Movement. It was founded by Claude Maurice Marcel Vorilhon (b. 1946), a sports car journalist who changed his name to "Rael" after an alleged encounter with a UFO in 1973. He met a being which he blasphemously claimed was called Yahweh. Rael wrote a book which states that advanced alien scientists from another planet with 25,000 years of scientific advances created all life on Earth through DNA manipulation.These scientists, Raël said, were originally called Elohim or "those who came from the sky." Rael claims on October 7, 1975 an alien spacecraft took him to their planet where he met Buddha, Mohammed, Moses and Jesus Christ, all of whom were presumably aliens, the same as those he met.

 At this point you're probably wondering why I'm writing on this subject. Obviously, Vorilhon ("Rael") and his followers are either (a) psychotic, (b) liars looking for notoriety, no matter how weird, (c) deceived by demons, or (d) any combination of a,b,c. True enough, and I'm not going to talk about sensationalist end times scenarios either. What got me angry was an article published by "Raelian scientists"  Damien Marsic, PhD and Mehran Sam, PhD. There is no indication as to which discipline(s) they received their doctorates, or from what accredited institute(s) of higher learning. I suspect they are "trained scientists" as much as the Dimond brothers are "trained theologians."

Marsic and Sam have claimed to have "scientifically proven false" the dogma of Transubstantiation! The purpose of my post shall therefore be to give the correct understanding of this most magnificent truth of the Faith, and to show the pathetic deficiencies in the arguments of "Raelian scientists" and others who dare to assail it.

The Dogma of Transubstantiation

 The Council of Trent infallibly declared, "And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation."

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

Transubstantiation Attacked "Scientifically"

 In an article entitled DNA Analysis of Consecrated Sacramental Bread Refutes Catholic Transubstantiation Claim (See, Sam and Marsic state, like atheists, that they want to "debunk" the dogma to "...encourage others to engage in similar studies and help religious organizations rid themselves of superstition and irrational beliefs, thus contributing to elevate fellow human beings." (Please remember these "champions of rationality" follow a guy who takes trips in UFOs that no one else sees and without any tangible proof other than his own ipse dixit). 

 To attack Transubstantiation as "irrational" is not new. Sam Harris (b. 1967), one of the so-called "New Atheists," is fond of calling those who believe in it "mentally ill." He has said, "If your neighbor were to claim that every morning he mumbled some words in Latin over his pancakes and they became the body and blood of Elvis Presley, we would say he is mentally ill, and seek to have him committed. However, if it's a priest who mumbles the words over  bread and wine claiming they are now the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, for some reason he's considered sane." 

 Harris was raised in a non-religious home by a Quaker father and Jewish mother. Interestingly, he talks about Latin being mumbled even though too young to have been exposed to the True Church, and the Vatican II sect doesn't use Latin or the secret voice in the Novus Bogus "mass." Satan has a way of getting his pot shots at the True Religion, even by one such as Harris. Where his analogy to the crazy neighbor breaks down, is that Elvis Presley never claimed to be God, wrought miracles, or rose from the dead. We have good reasons to believe that Our Lord is True God and True Man, and what He told us about the Eucharist is true. That's the huge difference Harris' slipshod analogy fails to grasp. 

 The "scientific article" attacks Transubstantiation from a new (and woefully ignorant) angle; to test for human DNA within a "consecrated" host at a Vatican II sect church. To quote the article:
Consecrated hosts (sic) were collected during communion in 5 different Catholic churches in the United States and Canada and immediately placed into clean plastic bags to avoid contamination. A sample of cultured HEK-293 cells was used as the human control. Unconsecrated altar bread purchased from a church supply store was used as the wheat control.

This is both a stinging indictment against "communion in the hand" and proof that the Vatican II sect only gives lip service to belief in the Real Presence. Two pseudo-scientists have their followers take hosts from Vatican II "masses" to be profaned. Communion in the hand made it easy, and the cavalier way they handle their wafers is a systematic and tacit denial of the Real Presence. Thank God the hosts were not validly consecrated! How did Sam and Marsic justify this unethical confiscation? 

"This study could be criticized on ethical grounds for using deception to collect samples. Indeed, the individuals who provided us with the consecrated hosts obtained them during communion, pretending to be believers, and transferred them discretely into plastic bags instead of ingesting them. However, these individuals were all former Catholics who had felt victimized by the Church's dogmatic teachings and saw this action as contributing to their recovery. The moral dilemma of obtaining samples through deception is to be contrasted with the ethics of enrolling non-consenting newborns into a religious organization, endoctrinating children with unquestionable dogmas and instilling fear, guilt and shame in them with long-lasting consequences for their psychological well-being. Anyway, in agreement with our results, we are confident that no sentient being was physically harmed in the course of this study."

In other words, stealing wafers is justified because raising a child to believe in religion is a form of "child abuse." (However, allowing a child to be raised by two sodomites who commit acts contrary to nature is considered in our sick society to be "in the best interest of the child."). Why is Transubstantiation "false"? In their words, "As believers themselves agree that the appearance, taste and texture of sacramental bread are retained after consecration, it is unclear what the 'substance' that is allegedly transformed could be. If the host still looks like bread and tastes like bread after having been consecrated, the molecules responsible for the taste and texture can not have been affected. This leaves DNA as the most probable candidate. Indeed, if wheat DNA in a piece of bread could be replaced by human DNA, the change would not affect the bread's texture or taste." So unless the consecrated Host contains Christ's human DNA, no change must have occurred.  

Why Substance Matters--and Why Matter Isn't Substance

The whole attack on Transubstantiation revolves around ignorance regarding the philosophical term "substance." When I was a NYC science teacher, I would tell my class things like "water is a substance comprised of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen expressed as H2O." These two pseudo-scientists assume that the substance which changes in the bread must be at the molecular or atomic level; in this case DNA. 

 In Neo-Scholastic Thomistic philosophy, we distinguish between substance and accidents in all beings which exist. According to Thomistic philosopher Fr. Daniel J. Sullivan, "...all being is either being that exists on its own...or in another, in such a way that it has no existence apart from the other. The first way of being is found in such things as a maple tree, a robin, a race horse, a human being---independent centers of existence and activity, beings that go on being what they are behind the restless face of everyday change...we may define substance as a being whose nature it is to exist in itself." (See An Introduction To Philosophy, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, [1957], pg. 221; Emphasis in original.) Accidents are a being whose nature it is to exist in another, like the green of a leaf, or the movements of a bird in flight. Something needs to be green, and the movements of the bird are real but not the bird itself.

Can we subject substances to the scientific method? No. According to Fr. Sullivan, "Substance as such cannot be perceived by our senses: we cannot see it , touch it, imagine it. Our senses do indeed perceive beings which are substances, but it is the color, the shape, the taste of the thing that is known by our senses, not its being or substance. The existence of substance is known only by an insight of the intellect, which sees that behind the becoming of sense phenomena there exists the substance which is the subject of the change." (Ibid, pg. 223). Substance is therefore metaphysical--or "beyond the physical"--the very ground of existence. It is not molecules and DNA. Even had they gotten (God forbid!) a True Host at a Traditional Mass, they could not detect that which is not subject to sensory perception; with or without the use of scientific equipment. They sought to disprove a philosophical concept by equating it with matter. Pure ignorance. 


 Transubstantiation is the change by which one substance (bread or wine) becomes another substance (Christ) with only the accidents (sensible attributes) of bread and wine remaining. It gives us Traditionalists something the Vatican II sect no longer has--the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. It is imperative that we know the Faith. Don't waste your time dwelling on subjects not directly the objects of our Holy Religion. You see the sheer absurdity which results when people don't know the Faith, and attack a dogma on grounds they don't understand (or perhaps willfully misrepresent to lead whom they can astray). 

Leave speculation about UFOs and extraterrestrials to the likes of the Dimond brothers and Bergoglio.  Pick up a book by an approved pre-Vatican II theologian and grow deeper in the Faith; the truth is in there. 


  1. So, what was this time reason that you mentioned 'wannabe monks' Dimonds?
    Take this advice - study Church's teaching about predestination which was promulgated on Church's Councils in Carthage and Orange and which is based on st.Augustine's teachings, and then you will not have need to mention them in your articles.
    Probably Dimonds do not believe in the predestination dogma as well, so it is same advice for them.
    B.o.D. is irrelevant if you believe in predestination dogma, because God is omnipotent and nobody could die without baptism if he is elected to salvation.
    And yes, you can not stand Dimonds because of B.o.D. and you called them feeneyites although Church's doctrine of predestination is more than thousand years older then rev.Feeney and Dimonds.
    God bless.

    1. I mentioned the Dimonds because they lead many people astray as some kind of "Magisterium," which must be obeyed. See my article of May 15, 2017, "Do It Youself Theology" for more.

      Predestination is not the same as BOD. The former explains THAT you were chosen, the latter explains HOW you were chosen. I also did a post on predestination (See "The Elect" of April 17, 2017).

      The Feeneyite heresy is named after Fr Leonard Feeney who denied BOD and BOB not your false notion of predestination.


    2. No, it is not true.
      Predestination is not explaining that we are chosen.
      Protestant heretics believe that they are chosen, catholics hope that they are chosen.
      That is big difference as between truth and lie.
      And B.O.D. is no way to explaining how we are chosen.
      St.Augustine wrote that nobody can't know why God had some people elected, and others rejected.
      B.O.D. is false doctrine which denies God's omnipotence, because God reveals to us in John's Gospel that nobody could be saved if he was not born again in water and spirit (i.e. baptism), and B.O.D. is saying that sometimes God can not provide to His elects water and other person for baptism so it is enough to have only desire for baptism.
      Many modern catholics like to believe in that heresy because they have many relatives, friends and ancestors who are not baptised.

      God bless.

    3. Yes, it is true that there is a Catholic doctrine of predestination which was made corrupt by heretics. That fact that we have no certainty is but ONE factor. You obviously didn't read the post I directed you to above.

      The Church has ALWAYS taught through Her Universal and Ordinary Magisterium that BOD and BOB are substitutes for Baptism of water in God's plan. Could God have chosen differently (only save with water)? Yes, but he didn't as the Church teaches. Why? Know one knows the mind of God.


    4. Doctrine of predestination can not be corrupt by heretics as any truth can not be corrupt by any lie.
      There is none dogma about B.o.D., tell me who, when and how promulgated that man could be saved only by desiring baptism?
      As I wrote before, B.o.D. is mocking God's omnipotence and election of saints, and make also God liar because He said in John's Gospel that nobody can enter in the Kingdom of God if he is not born again in water and spirit, i.e. baptised in water and have desire to be baptised which comes from God's grace to his chosen people - saints.
      And nobody is also saved to whom God also doesn't give His mercy after baptism to preserve faith during life till death.
      Anybody who teach otherwise is pelagian or semi-pelagian heretic.
      Unfortunately the most of traditional catholics including sedevacantists do not believe in Church's dogma of predestination, and main reason is that they believe that everything before John XXIII was orthodox in Rome.

    5. You shouldn't generalize an entire group of adults and children.
      Our chapel ignores every change after 1950.
      We don't believe "everything before John 23rd" was Orthodox.

    6. Like a typical Feeneyite, you reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (which is infallible according to the First Vatican Council) and its teaching on BOD and BOB. You substitute it with your own private interpretation of what you THINK teachings mean.

      For example, the Church teaches that the portion of the Gospel of St John you quote is talking about the MATTER of the sacrament. You must be baptized with water not milk or beer as Martin Luther taught.

      The Church also venerates St Victor as a martyr, even though he clearly died as a catechumen without Baptism. He was saved by BOB. God is not limited to His Sacraments.

      Finally, Canon 1239, section 2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law declares, "Catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized."

      Why?? According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death United to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (See "The Sacred Canons" Volume II).

      The 1917 Code was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV, and the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws, such as the Code of Canon Law. BOD is therefore taught by the Church, and to deny it makes YOU a heretic. Please don't respond UNLESS you read my post I already referenced "Do It Yourself Theology" from this May. You will see how you reject the Church in this post and hopefully repent.


    7. As to "everything being orthodox before John XXIII," it was, although Modernism had crept into high office waiting to strike. The Chapel that refuses the changes of Pope Pius XII, does so because of the noxious effects to which it gave rise. This is the reason the SSPV does the same. The changes cannot be heretical in and of themselves because the Church cannot give evil. You would be declaring Pope Pius XII a false pope by profession of heresy. I'm sure if the commenter above asked the priest at his chapel he would get the same answer--like the SSPV. Modernism was on the rise, but there were not errors until Roncalli. Feeneyites need a fallible "Church" to maintain their heresy.


    8. So you are citing Code od Canon Low from 1917. as something it should be dogmatic and the truth of the all times.
      Don't you know that Church before that forbade to said the Holy Mass from any man, adult or infant, who died without baptism, and the same could not be burried in catholic cemetery?
      That what you have cited is new teaching, and there is no such novel teaching in the Church.
      For sure, John XXIII was not the first antipope in the modern times.

      God bless.

    9. Please cite the pre-1917 papal decree that forbade the granting of Christian burial to catechumens. If what the Code declared was novel teaching St Victor wouldn't be venerated as a Saint for centuries before the 1917 Code.

      Roncalli wasn't the first antipope? You might want to join Richard Ibranyi and his cult in New Mexico. According to him there hasn't been a pope since 1130 AD. What you propose is lunacy not Catholicism.


    10. Of course Pio XII was not pope, because he wrote in 'Humani Generis' that theory of evolution could be true. He also said to Italian's midwifes that NFP could be justified.
      And Benedict XV in 'Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum' wrote heresy that all men are God's children.
      Do you Introibo believe that the Pope could write document which containes heresy, and still to remaine as the Pope?

    11. No, I don't believe that a pope can teach heresy. The problem (with your thesis) is that what they wrote ISN'T heresy. Evolution of the body is possible. Pope St Pius X taught that the universe might be very old and that it does not contradict the Bible. Of course, he's not really a Saint for you because Pope Pius XII canonized him. The Assumption is not dogma either because Pius XII proclaimed it. There's nothing wrong with NFP when used in accordance with Church teaching and not simply to avoid children in marriage.

      We are "all God's children" taken in the context written simply means we are all created by God and He desires our salvation. However, you do not read what the Church teaches through Her approved theologians. Was Pope Pius X (not a Saint for you) a real pope, or did your private reading of something he wrote push the last pope back to Leo XIII? Again, this is private interpretation run amok not Catholicism.


    12. What is evolution of the body?
      How can the Pope wrote that Book of Genesis could be wrong, and perhaps God put soul of Adam to the body of some monkey?
      It is heresy and I don't doubt that every true Pope would condemned Pio XII.
      And of course it is heresy that all mankind are children of God.
      Don't you know that adoption of God's children is the true effect and the meaning of baptism?
      If someone is God's son or daughter he can not end in the Hell, because God will not allow it.
      Bur we again by sin lost that sanctifying grace and become again God's children by the sacrament of confession.
      If every man is God's child there is no need for baptism, confession and the Church.
      You mentioned that God desire is to save all mankind. That is root for rejecting dogma of predestination, and st.Augustine teach us that God wills that all people, from all races and nations, from both sexes and from all positions within society be saved who are His chosen for salvation.
      How can God desire something which will not happened - heresy of universal salvation?
      I did not mention without reason that you, and many traditional catholics and sedevacantists should find out Church's dogma of predestination and many things will become clear then.

      God bless.

    13. Wow. That is loaded with misconceptions. Evolution of the body is not about "monkeys." See my post "Monkey Business About Creation"

      For the Church's teaching on predestination read my post "The Elect"

      You ask, "How can God desire something that will not happen?"
      Easy answer: "Free Will." You desire that your children grow up and become God fearing adults; however they have free will and might not. God will not desire something so as to override our free will. That is Calvinism.

      I urge you to learn the faith. May I suggest "Fundamentals if Catholic Dogma" by theologian Ott. You can by it used off Once you understand the Faith properly you will reject your errors.

      God bless,


    14. No, it is nor calvinism or jansenism, it is official doctrine of the Church promulgated on Councils in Carthage and Orange.
      God is not imposing by force his will on man, but His grace is acting on human as the most desirable good which is more atractive then any creature for which man has concupiscence.
      Man's heart is always turning where he see greater good for him, and nobody will turns to less good.
      If that is not true, then Mary could resist to God's proposal, and even Jesus human nature and His human will could oppose God's will and there will be no salvation at all.
      That god whose grace is not stronger than man's concupiscence can not be true God.
      Also, if God's grace is not superior to everything else, then angels and saints could rebel against God in eternity.
      And that is impossible as it was impossible for Mary to reject to be Theotokos, and as it was impossible for Jesus human nature and will to reject God's will to go on the Cross.
      Most of modern catholics are in this in pelagian's error.

    15. You did not read the post with the teaching of the Church. If God's grace is only acting on some and not on others, the fault would lie with God, not the free will of people. The Irresistible grace doctrine is Calvinist not Catholic.
      Read the theologians who explain Church teaching.


    16. No, it is not calvinism, but the teaching of st.Augustine which is accepted as Church's teaching (but which was rejected in modern times from jesuits as jansenism or calvinism since they have not guts to condemn great Church's father st.Augustine).
      And there is no unjustice if God elects some people for salvation, and others rejects.
      Because every man is sinner before God, even infants.
      It is similar as King could give mercy for someone who deserve capital punishment, and does not give mercy to other criminals.
      I repeat, if God's grace is not irresistible them Mary could reject to be Mother of God, Jesus human will could refuse to go on Cross, and angels and saints will for sure rebel against God, because eternity is big enough that every little possibility for rebelion will take place.
      That is impossible, because God is God, nobody can resist Him, or resist His grace.
      How could God even made the world if there is possibility that every angel and man will rebel against Him?
      God is not playing with probabilities, He is almighty God.
      And st.Augustine answer to pelagian's objection to God's supreme grace and will is: if you are looking for rewards, you will find only punishments.
      Yes, pelagians like to say that they could resist God's grace, so they want have rewards from God for not rejecting His grace.
      St.Augustine answered them (in my interpretation) - you will have punishments because you don't know and don't have faith in true God who is Almighty.
      St.Paul said that God is not only make us capable to do good, but also to will us to do good.
      So, nobody is good by himself, but by God's grace which change the heart of sinner to the heart of saint. Mary is not by herself the most blesses creature, but by plentitude of God's grace.
      And I repeat, if Mary could reject God's grace, there will be no Jesus Christ and our salvation.
      And you think that God will take that risk and throw the dice?

    17. The part where you say, "In my interpretation" says it all! Not the Church, but Emil. God knows who's going to reject and accept Grace because he knows the future. Mary could have rejected God's grace but she chose not to, and God foresaw this about her. In similar fashion, if I were on the roof and observe two cars speeding towards each other I would know they will crash beforehand, but it was the free will of the drivers that caused the accident not me.
      All the pre-Vatican II theologians agree that God sincerely desires the salvation of all people and does not positively predestine anyone to Hell. Anyone who is damned stands condemned by the misuse of their free will. The decision of Christ at the Last Judgement manifestly supposes that the reprobate are to be condemned only because of their evil works, not because of the arbitrary Will of God or because of Original Sin. For thus will Christ address the damned, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire...for I was hungry and you gave me not to eat...(St. Matthew 25). God's salvific will is seen in 1 Timothy 2: 3-4, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."


    18. You don't understand what I was writing, i.e. you don't understand st.Augustine teaching about predestination, God's grace and the original sin.
      Man's will after original sin is to be voluntary slave to Satan, and original sin is real sin, not something imaginary sin. Church in Council in Carthage anathemize anyone who is saying that unbaptised infants go to some middle place between Heaven and Hell. So punishemnts for original sin is Hell, it is real sin. How can it be, if it is sin of Adam? It is traducianism, but that is another subject.
      I know that modernist theologians teach that God wills salvation of all mankind, but that is not teaching of st.Augustine and some other Church's fathers regarding st.Paul sentence to Timothy.
      Human's free will is not same as before Adam's sin. We are slave of Satan, and without God's grace we can not do any good. Please read canons of Council in Orange (A.D.529).

      I will not write anymore as I repeat myself.

    19. You interpret those Councils to YOUR LIKING EMIL! St Augustine is not the only theologian and the Church must decide what Her teaching means through the unanimous consent of Her theologians. There were many that disagreed with St. Augustine. You repeat yourself because you have nothing to say in response to my pointing out how you have repeatedly twisted the meaning of the Gospel of St John regarding water Baptism, etc.

      Emil has set himself up, in typical Feeneyite fashion, as his own Magisterium. That places you outside the Church where there is no salvation.

      I'll be praying for your conversion Emil.


    20. I assume the commenter above, although anonymous is Emil !


    21. Introibo, you wrote: "Pope St Pius X taught that the universe might be very old and that it does not contradict the Bible." When and where did Pius X teach this?

    22. George,
      The Pontifical Biblical Commission was asked the following:

      "Whether in the designation and distinction of six days with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word 'DAY' can be assumed either in its proper sense of a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among the exegetes?"

      On June 30, 1909, the Commission (with full approval from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X) responded:

      "IN THE AFFIRMATIVE." This means that the "days" of creation need not be actual periods of twenty-four hours each. This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."


  2. They're (subjects of this post) laying the groundwork for the Antichrist system.

  3. I think the following is within the range of the topic. The Sam Harris' horrible quote reminded me of a thought I have not asked in public, and perhaps this is a good place to do so.

    I used to like Pink Floyd, many years ago.

    On their 1973 album The Dark Side of the Moon, there is a cryptic lyric which I never had any idea what it meant, until I went to the traditional Mass. I have wondered what anyone else thinks it might mean.

    "Far away, across the field

    The tolling of the iron bell

    Calls the faithful to their knees

    To hear the softly-spoken magic spell"

    The lyric writer was Roger Waters, who fancies himself as a cynical, nihilistic intellectual. Is this a blasphemous and contemptuous reference to the Mass? I think it might be, but have wondered what others may think.

    1. Mike,
      Without a doubt Pink Floyd, like most contemporary rock and pop music glamorizes the occult, drug abuse, and rebellion against God.

      In their song "Sheep" from their album entitled "Animals," contains lyrics that are a blasphemous perversion of Psalm 23. They compare God to a butcher Whose job is to kill the sheep (believers in Christ). It then calls God a "bugger" (in England at that time, it meant a sodomite) and calls on us to overthrow God from our lives!!

      Here are the lyrics copied verbatim:
      "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
      He makes me down to lie
      Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by
      With bright knives He releaseth my soul
      He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places
      He converteth me to lamb cutlets
      For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger
      When cometh the day we lowly ones
      Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
      Master the art of karate
      Lo, we shall rise up
      And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water"

      Yes, the lyrics you mention Mike are another blasphemy against God mocking the Mass. The devil HATES the True Mass. The term "hocus pocus" used in magic tricks for kids has an anti-Catholic origin as well. The words of Consecration over the bread are "Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum." The so-called Protestant "Reformers" claimed it was "pope-ish magic, turning bread into Christ; "Hoc Est, Poc Est." This was corrupted to "hocus pocus."

      The world has always been in rebellion against God since the Fall of our First Parents. It has only gotten worse during the Great Apostasy and bands like Pink Floyd.

      God bless you Mike!


    2. Wow never knew Pink Floyd was so Antichrist!

    3. Back in the early 1990s I did a study (spread out over 5 years, as I am a lawyer with a full-time job) on rock and pop music from circa 1964 onwards. You wouldn't believe the extent of the Satanic influence in music; including some deemed "wholesome"!


    4. If you ever win the lottery you should do an expose!
      I have seen documentaries about pop music satanism and you're right,its shocking.

    5. If I win the lottery it will definitely be on my "To Do List"!

      God bless,


    6. Baba O'Reilly by the Who
      "The Exodus is here,I don't need forgiveness"
      That may be a veiled reference to 32,000 priests being released from their vows in the late 60's and the new doubtful "rite of reconciliation" which was only required once a year.(that's not taking into account the "new formula of reconciliation")

    7. Oh yes! Pete Townsend of The Who, claimed to have deep "spirituality." The band was into Eastern Mysticism, and he allowed the song "The Seeker" to be used by atheist scum Bill Maher for his film "Religulous" ---a neologism combining the words "Religion" and "ridiculous."

      Townsend is quoted as saying, "Bill Maher is a comedian. I am a songwriter... I have faith in what I would call God, but I am not a religious man. I don't want to press my views on other people."

      "What I would call God" and "I am not a religious man." Need more be said?


    8. I thought that the "Sheep" lyrics were describing the lot of animals going to their end in the abbatoir, and one day hoping to rebel against the slaughterman. But that Roger Waters character is a clever fellow and using the Psalm is quite blasphemous. I hope for their sakes it isn't as bad as that, but with rock music, anything is possible.

      1964. The Beatles? When my dad first saw them on television, he can still describe the immediate horror and dread he felt when they appeared on the screen, with their funny haircuts and that they "looked like girls".

      He truly and without exaggeration thought that it was a sign that the Antichrist must be about to appear in the world.

    9. Your dad could spot what was wrong when most people couldn't. It was the beginning of the Great Apostasy, leading us, perhaps, to the Man of Sin in the not too distant future.


    10. Intro,

      Can you print the music study you did years ago? I am interested in reading it or make it an upcoming article?

    11. I have read southern protestant preachers were saying late 50's rock n roll was a sign of the Antichrist system being on the horizon.
      They could see it happening in 1957.
      The much maligned Archbishop Sheen (he did accept the new order regrettably) was saying psychology was replacing the confessional in 1953.As a result,he feared society was heading in a Godless direction.
      Some men were smart enough to see what was happening in the 1950's.

    12. True. Regrettably, Abp. Sheen fell victim to Modernism. He admired the heretic Teilhard de Chardin. He played with fire and got burned. I hope he repented before he died.


    13. David,
      My study is long and consists of an analysis of many singers and bands. It relates the evil influences in each one. It would take many, many posts to cover the information (not to mention a lot of editing; I did not have time to thoroughly check my work).

      I would not be adverse to making a post focusing on one or two bands every couple of months if this is something my readers would want.

      So let me know, David and the rest of you. Send a comment if you want me to do that.

      God bless,


    14. Introibo - Great idea about doing posts on the bands! Would be very interesting.

      The bands of the 1960's certainly had much influence on the degenerative decline of the times, but so did Freud. He became the "Pope" of psychoanalysis with his psychologist "Priests" replacing the confessional and then followed by Prozac, a pill to swallow, as food for the soul. Fake "Pope", fake "Priests and fake "Communion", just like today with Francis the fake, his fake Priests and fake Communion. History certainly does repeat itself.

    15. Indeed it does Joann! Thanks for your input also re: posts on music groups.


    16. Yes, that would a great monthly rotating post topic.

    17. Thanks David! I think I'll put out the first post next month, and if the reception is positive, I will keep it as a series of posts (one per month).


  4. I'd enjoy reading your study on pop music.

  5. I too would benefit from your study on rock and pop music.

    1. Thank you! I will run a first installment next month. If the reaction is positive in both feedback and traffic to this blog, I will continue it as a once per month series!


  6. Hi, I made this comment earlier but either you did not approve of it or it never got through.


    You should stop criticize the Dimonds on their UFO research, since it makes you look like a fool -- and you may perhaps even be committing a mortal sin. Have you even read the material they produced on the topic? If I recall correctly, you said you have not in another post/comment (but I may be mistaken). If true, Do you not fear God?

    Also, why you compare or lump together MHFM's UFO research with individuals as those you listed in this post -- that spoke in favor of them (as if UFOs are something else than demonic) -- is also impossible to understand. MHFM exposes the UFO/Alien phenomenon as demonic, and they do it in a very good way. That you actually complain about this, when tens of millions believe in UFOs -- and perhaps billions more in other civilizations in our universe (which is also refuted by them) -- only makes you look like a fool, since you obviously have no understanding of this issue or the real ramifications of it.

    To learn that the UFO/Alien phenomenon is demonic (and nothing but demonic without exception) is very important to know about today -- and especially more so since the media indoctrinates people into believing in other civilizations in our universe; and unless people actually are taught this (that Aliens/UFOs are demonic and that only Earth is habitable, or created as God's purpose for humankind to live on before the judgment), people -- even those calling themselves christian -- may instead get the impression that they could be some advanced civilization, or something more “mysterious”, which may make them fascinated into learning of the “secrets” behind this phenomenon and delve into the occult, so to speak. Since most non-christians probably will not want to believe this phenomenon is demonic, people like Eric Von Daniken and even Francis (whom you criticized) is to be excepted.

    The only part about their UFO book I did not like was the second part* -- but that was only because they made many bold assumptions about the motives of why people did this or that (such as they lied etc.) but which, of course, they cannot know is true. But overlooking this, part 2 also refuted some of the more well known “proofs” of the existence of ufos and aliens and debunked them.

    *Part 1 was actually really good at exposing ufos as a completely non-physical manifestation (demonic) in the cases it could be determined the phenomenon was not natural (aircraft, weather balloon, secret technology etc.) with the observations from the top ufo experts in the world themselves. Examples demonstrating this: a physical object can't make a 180 degree turn in a split second, but these ufos are known to make such movies frequently; neither can a physical object fly through objects, or merge together or separate themselves again into several ufos.

    1. Once I learned about St.Victor & St.Emmerentiana,the Dimond Bros look foolish.

    2. The Dimonds make EVERYTHING look foolish. They are not real Benedictines, and while I agree some UFO activity is demonic, the fact they are talking about it makes people less likely to believe them. With all that's wrong in the world, UFOs are not at the top of the list, and if not spoken of correctly makes you appear strange.