Epochal History: Faithful Deliver Charge of Heresy against Francis, Bishop of Rome September 25, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, cultural marxism, different religion, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, manhood, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
I’m sure all readers are already well aware of the unprecedented submittal to Pope Francis of a letter of Filial Correction against heresy from several dozen people, clerical and lay, this past weekend. I say the letter is unprecedented, because while, once, in the long history of the Church, a living pope has been formally corrected by his subordinates on a matter related to faith or morals, that was on one, very specific, and rather detailed, matter. The correction of John XXII (and thus it was 645 years before that name was taken by a sovereign pontiff again, and isn’t THAT revealing) had to deal with whether the saints in Heaven partake of the Beatific Vision at death, or only at the last judgment (John XXII erroneously believed the latter). This was not heavy, vital to the every day life of the Church kind of stuff.
No, the matter with Francis is entirely different. He is accused of promoting errors which, if allowed to stand and metastasize as they inevitably must, will, with shocking speed, result in the destruction of the entire moral edifice of the Faith. Francis intends a revolution so radical that, as his closest allies contend, no roll back will be possible. He intends to change how the Church believes and practices, root and branch. That some people still do not see this, still refuse to see this, shows just how deeply the papalotry has become.
Several specific errors were challenged in the letter called Correctio Filialis. I will not go into those in detail, but they all revolve around the entirely novel, and erroneous, contentions put forward in Amoris Laetitia that people in the manifest state of mortal sin through adultery (aka attempted bigamy) may receive the Blessed Sacrament as if they were in the state of grace. That this destructive proposition is Francis’ intent with the document is amply supported by his direct intervention with two episcopal conferences -those of Argentina and Malta – directing them, when asked whether to implement Amoris Laetitia (AL) in line with the constant belief and practice of the Faith – that is, to continue denying the Blessed Sacrament to public adulterers – or to allow these adulterers to receive, as they read AL to mean, Francis both times answered that the adulterers were to be allowed to receive. Thus Henry VIII becomes a “saint” in the new church of Francis?
The authors of the correction further note that Francis, in AL and in many other regards, appears to operate under the influence of two condemned heresies – modernism and Lutheranism. This is, from all the available evidence, an extremely difficult accusation for Francis to disprove, as are the detailed points of accusation regarding AL.
So, Francis has chosen to respond as he usually does to those questioning his authority and his doctrinal integrity, with personal silence (for over a month since the letter was first delivered) and an orchestrated campaign of character assassination by his allies, within and without the Church, against his “enemies” (enemies who are striving with great might to inspire him to convert and, almost certainly, save his soul). However, that campaign is being conducted, thus far, almost entirely by “inside baseball” publications, websites, and social media networks. The leftist state media have chosen to almost wholly embargo this massively important development, the first time a reigning Bishop of Rome has been formally accused of error amounting to heresy in nearly 700 years (actually, that was the case until just an hour or two ago, when a rash of articles appeared). Time will tell how this will play out, but, so far, the media is largely presenting this correction as coming from a kooky fringe, invoking quotes from the usual sources, but never, in the slightest, actually attempting to argue against what the letter of correction actually claims.
A further note regarding the letter of correction: it is claimed that no (save one) bishops or cardinals signed the letter of correction because they were not asked. That would be a fine and possibly sensible response, but why, then, did Bishop Fellay sign? He was invited to sign, but no others were? The first line of attack by the leftists against this correction is that it comes from a tiny element with no influence in the Church and no support from any bishops or cardinals – to this absence may lessen its influence. Similarly interesting – one might say concerning, even frustrating – to me, was the fact that no priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter signed. I know that this is an extremely difficult issue for the, the Fraternity’s very founding was based at least in part on a perceived need to be “more” obedient or submissive to the Holy See than those in the SSPX, but I also know there are a number of priests in the FSSP who are as aghast at and opposed to the errors emanating from this pontificate as anyone. Perhaps no one in the FSSP was asked, then, either. Some diocesan priests were, as were a number of theologians. Good on you, Philip Blosser. I pray this doesn’t cost you your job at Sacred Heart seminary in Detroit.
I pray we will see many more signatories in the days to come (In fact, we have. The wonderful Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi has signed. This is a great credit to this steadfast bishop and friend of Tradition, but it does also indicate that, while bishops perhaps were not asked in advance to sign the Correctio, basically none so far have volunteered to do so). I know of at least one wonderful, traditional priest who has submitted his name for inclusion. I pray some bishops do wind up signing, but I’m sure the vast majority will sit tight and see which way the wind blows. True heirs of St. Paul. Not.
The question is being asked by some: is this a big deal? Will this have any real effect? The answer to the former is, yes, it is a YUGE deal for all kinds of reasons. It is huge historically. It is huge doctrinally and ecclesiastically. It is hugely significant as a sign of formal, PUBLIC resistance to the revolutionary leftist agenda in the Church, something that was notably absent during the first outbreak of full-on revolution in the period 1958-78. Thousands of people attempted private interventions with Pope Paul VI, and hundreds or thousands have done so with Francis, but these private interventions have had no effect. Cardinals have publicly questioned the pope’s doctrine – the next step was for a group of laity to do so in an even more detailed manner. If there is no adequate response or change in behavior, the step after this is, given Francis’ response to the Dubia and his seeming total resistance to the effect of prayer and sacrifice on the part of so many, for cardinals to move from question to accusation (probably using this Correctio Filialis for support), and from accusation to judgment. I am certain Cardinal Burke is striving to find collaborators in this process right now, and I pray he has the health and faith to continue on with formal opposition to Francischurch. To the extent he succeeds or fails will determine whether this interim step of filial correction will have any real effect on the life of the Church.
And that, I think, will very much depend on priests but, particularly, bishops and cardinals to be willing to man up and add their name to the Correctio. However, recent history, where over a thousand priests worldwide publicly proclaimed that they would not administer the Blessed Sacrament in accordance with Amoral Laetitia had no apparent effect on Francis, does not make me sanguine at the possibilities. Furthermore, I doubt a single further American bishop signs, and I will be surprised if more than a handful worldwide do. Perhaps there will be several hundred priests sign, but that is unlikely to have much effect.
It is opposition from bishops that is most key. We’re 4 1/2 years into this pontificate, with Francis’ appointments growing always in numbers, and there has yet to have been any significant public opposition from the episcopate to Francis and his revolution. Even privately, during the sin-nods, opposition was wholly insufficient (it should have been practically unanimous). I am not certain what we as laity can do to inspire bishops to start defending the Faith (for some, for the first time in their lives) beyond always trying to increase prayer and sacrifice. I’m all for cutting off funds in a very public and concerted way, but tying cutting off the local bishop to lack of opposition to Francis would be a really far stretch for a lot of people.
There are some easy things you can do, right now, to witness to your own appreciation of the Faith, to indicate your solidarity with the Correctio, and to hopefully inspire more priests and some bishops to do the same: you can sign the petition supporting the Correctio here. You can follow who has signed the letter at this site here.
Beyond that, I think far more Catholics need to start publicly voicing their opposition to Francis and his pontificate. Refusing to give to Peter’s Pence is one thing, but getting active on social media or out in the real world with activities to support and defend the Faith while politely noting opposition to the revolutionary direction emanating from Rome is something more people should consider getting behind – and I don’t mean just leaving comments on blogs like this one. Heck, start your own. Send a polite letter to your bishop. Ask your priest to unequivocally address this crisis – at our local parish, little has been said of late, sadly.
Make your own suggestions in the comments. I have spent much of the afternoon on this post and I’m out of time. Man do I love Bishop Gracida, though. Since our local ordinaries have never seen fit to offer Confirmation at our TLM parish, maybe we should extend an invitation to Bishop Gracida? I have no idea if he would come, but he’s a rock and deserves our support, prayers, and love, as do all those who are willing to take the most uncomfortable step, for any Catholic, of accusing their very father, their spiritual father, of error amounting to the horror of heresy. What a tragic time we live in.
I Don’t Lose a Wink of Sleep over North Korea September 25, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, foolishness, It's all about the $$$, rank stupidity, self-serving, silliness, Society, technology.comments closed
Several people have asked me what I think of North Korea and all these threats emanating from Kim Jong Un. What I think is………don’t fund their weapons development, otherwise, just totally ignore them and encourage every possible economic sanction. They are a one trick pony. All they have is threats. If they ever act on those threats, their one trump card is gone and they are utterly destroyed. So, it is best to just ignore them.
But we, the US, have paid for their atomic weapons and ballistic missile development efforts. In 1994 Kim Il Sung precipitated a fake “crisis” over a nuclear weapons program that resulted in a total cave from Billy Boy Clinton and North Korea receiving several billion dollars in US aid, upon the false promise that the Norks would stop their nuclear weapons development program. Lo and behold, 12 years later North Korea explodes a low tech, low yield fission implosion device (similar to Little Boy of Hiroshima), and Bush ’43 rewards them with more US aid for another totally empty promise. Several billion dollars later and the Norks have at least IRBMs and now, it seems, a thermonuclear device. Now they are out of development funds, I surmise, again, and so are rattling their sabers to complete their weapon miniaturization and RV development efforts (with massive aid from Iran, who Obama showered with tens of billions of dollars in unfrozen Iranian assets all for a totally empty promise that they won’t further develop the nukes they already surely have) and so are looking for another 5 or 8 or 10 billion US dollars to help them complete their fully operational nuclear deterrent force, which we have, in all likelihood, already funded to its present state of completion.
What they are already doing is ALL they can do. They have one play and one play alone: the crazy man saber rattle bluff. The last 3 US presidents have fallen for it. Don’t let Trump be the fourth, and, thank God, I don’t think he will.
Look, North Korea can inflict grievous harm on the US with either an EMP -which I doubt they have the capability to execute, it’s much trickier than it’s made out to be – or with a strike on any US targets within their missile range (which is quite unclear at present). But US strategic nuclear forces were designed to ride out an attack 100s of times more massive than anything the NorKs can do and hit back with enough force to effectively decapitate and devastate another superpower, let alone a broken peasant state with entirely centralized command and control. And the NorKs know this. They attack, they die.
Sure they can engage in various levels of malfeasance short of nuclear warfare that may deserve varying levels of responses, but the one response you don’t do is to give into their shakedown tactics yet again. If they stage another commando raid on the South, as they have done many times in the past, you respond in kind or let the RoK do so (people forget, Korea, Republic of, has an extremely capable and highly motivated military). Let the RoK and/or Japan start staging “accidental” penetrations of North Korean airspace by armed tactical aircraft. There are myriad things to do, short of all out war.
So let them keep flapping their gums and staging whatever missile flights they can, but don’t let it bother you any more than any test flight of a Russian or Chinese ICBM, which occurs almost monthly, as well, and to no great fanfare. Communicate in no uncertain terms that THIS administration will not be shaken down by a bully, and this will all quickly pass. In the meantime finally get serious about continental missile defense and start deploying far more X-band tracking radars and GMD interceptors. The fact that we still only have about 40 interceptors deployed, enough to have a 99% assurance of taking out 10 RVs, after 10 years in service is criminal negligence.
Unfortunately Trump’s only response will probably some angry tweets with no actual policy follow-up. Even this is forgivable if he just won’t cave into this shakedown racket.
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System deployment to cover CONUS could emulate proposed Sentinel system of late 1960s. Relocate West coast sites 500 miles to the east just for spite – say, northern Idaho, central NV, and AZ-CA border. Add a site to the MS-TN-AL border triangle.
Approximate defended area for a single Sentinel site. GMD sites can actually defend a much wider area as they have higher-performing missiles. Nevertheless when it comes to strategic defense overlap is GOOD.
Today’s strategic interceptors are designed to work on a shoot-shoot watch shoot-shoot basis. That is, each inbound gets 4 interceptors nominally assigned. Since RVs will be coming in along a generally restricted corridor missiles can be reassigned to new targets as targets are destroyed. Unfortunately the current command and control infrastructure is only set up to handle one off or very limited attacks. To provide continental coverage and deal with much more massive raids the C2 infrastructure would have to be significantly beefed up if not totally redesigned from the ground up.
Of course the Russians and Chinese would lose their minds if we pursued this objective but defense is inherently moral while relying on threatening the deaths of tens of millions of innocents in retaliation is inherently immoral. That is to say, money spent pursuing missile defense is an objective good, while that spent on offensive retaliatory systems is much more morally problematic. You cannot uninvent nuclear weapons or wish them away. They are, in fact, proliferating far more rapidly now than at any time since their invention, along with the means to deliver them.
And yes of course there are other means of delivery but do we send men into combat without body armor because the other side has guns? Of course not. There are defenses against the other means of delivery AND there are huge problems with things like “sticking a nuke on a container ship” and sailing it into Los Angeles harbor. How does the bad guy know the ship will wind up in Los Angeles, and not, say, the harbor of one of his friends? Or his own? The fact that people make frequent recourse to these rhetorical red herrings when arguing against missile defense – THE primary means of delivering nuclear weapons today and for the foreseeable future – says to me that they know missile defense is extremely effective, but they, for reasons known only to God, deny to see their own nation defended from this threat.
At any rate I’ll get to the stuff you really care about next, God willing.
850 ton Active Electronically Scanned Array Sea Based X-Band Radar. Reputed to be able to track a baseball off the coast of San Francisco while floating in the Chesapeake Sound, a distance of over 2900 miles.
Flightline Friday Extra: More Than Everything You Could Possibly Want to Know about APR-25/6 September 25, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Flightline Friday, foolishness, fun, history, non squitur, silliness, Society, technology.comments closed
Early in the Vietnam War, partly due to amazingly poor planning, but even more due to unbelievably onerous targeting restrictions, US tactical aircraft started racking up heavy losses to North Vietnamese Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs). The SAM in question was the SA-2, which had been known about half a decade at that point, the SA-2 having played a role in the shoot down of Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 in 1960.
Since the rules of engagement imposed by the Johnson-McNamara Administration forbade attacks on SAM sites under construction, or even possibly under construction, for fear of “accidentally” killing any Soviet “advisors” present and thus potentially escalating the war, US airmen had to wait until positive proof that a SAM site was operational before they could attack it. The only positive proof accepted was their being attacked by that very SAM site. Obviously this gave enormous initiative to the enemy, and made attacking SAM sites when they were most vulnerable impossible.
Defensive measures were needed, and needed quickly. But how to defend against a radar guided flying robot whose only purpose in life was the kill you? Fortunately, the problem was well understood. Indeed, specialist aircraft like intelligence gathering types had been equipped with limited numbers of what were then called radar homing and warning receivers (RHAW) for years. SAC’s big bombers also carried radar warning and electronic countermeasures (ECM) gear of varying degrees of effectiveness, but much of this was far too large and heavy to fit into a tactical aircraft.
Fortunately, a small company in northern California, Applied Technologies, Inc, later part of Litton, now part of Northrop Grumman, came rushing to the rescue, in late 1965, with their “Vector IV” product. Consisting of 4 roughly equally spaced radio frequency receivers and some very basic analog processing equipment, Vector IV entered service as the AN/APR-25/6. This equipment was first fitted to specialist “Wild Weasel” SAM hunter aircraft, and later, to almost every tactical aircraft in theater – certainly, every one that went up North. It was fairly effective, but became much more so when coupled with the North American “SEE SAMS” (clever) system, which added capability to discriminate targeting and launch radar signals from regular radar tracking signals.
The equipment worked pretty well, and losses were reduced. The seesaw battle of the electronic wizards on both defense and offense continues to this day, but, generally speaking, since the APR-25/6, the US has held the upper hand (we think/hope – we haven’t been seriously tested in 25 years).
The video below is an actual training film for USAF aircrew in APR-25/6 operation and tactics. It gets way down into the nitty gritty, discussing import of length and intensity of strobe, billboard notifications and their meaning, and the varying sounds the equipment picks up when illuminated by various kinds of search, tracking, and fire control radars (a radar is like any other radio frequency device, and thus its signals can be interpreted as a sound). Techniques used to spoof APR-25/6 are also discussed. Very interesting if you are a slavishly devoted geek like me, all others will probably find it mind-numbingly boring.
I post this mostly to keep a record of this highly esoteric material since this video was posted once before but pulled because someone asserted the data therein was still classified. Of course, it is not.
A picture of what modern radar warning receiver (today’s term) displays looks like. Gone is the analog signal intensity reading and guessing, replaced by digitally processed symbology indicating the type of threat, distance and bearing, with priority ranking, etc:
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 