• The Davos Agenda virtual event will take place 17-21 January 2022.
  
• It will feature heads of state and government, CEOs and other leaders to address critical challenges.
  
• Discover more on the event page here.
  

• Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India
  
• Kishida Fumio, Prime Minister of Japan
  
• António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations
  
• Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission
  
• Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia
  
• Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia
  
• Naftali Bennett, Prime Minister of Israel
  
• Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
  
• Yemi Osinbajo, Vice-President of Nigeria
  
• Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China
  
• Olaf Scholz, Federal Chancellor of Germany
  

• Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO)
  
• Fatih Birol, Executive Director, International Energy Agency
  
• José Pedro Castillo Terrones, President of Peru
  
• Ivan Duque, President of Colombia
  
• Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health of the United States of America
  
• Yasmine Fouad, Minister of Environment of Egypt
  
• Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
  
• Alejandro Giammattei, President of Guatemala
  
• Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001) and Chairman and Co-Founder, Generation Investment Management
  
• Paulo Guedes, Minister of Economy of Brazil
  
• Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information Communication Technology and Innovation of Rwanda
  
• Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda
  
• John F. Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate of the United States of America
  
• Christine Lagarde, President, European Central Bank
  
• Guillermo Lasso, President of Ecuador
  
• Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General, World Trade Organization (WTO)
  
• Abdulaziz Bin Salman Bin AbdulazizAl Saud, Minister of Energy of Saudi Arabia
  
• Nicolas Schmit, Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights, European Commission
  
• François Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Central Bank of France
  
• Sarah bint Yousif Al-Amiri, Minister of State for Advanced Technology, Ministry of Industry and Advanced Technology of the United Arab Emirates
  
• Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President of Costa Rica, Office of the President of Costa Rica
  

Top 10 risks by severity

• Navigating the Energy Transition (19 January 13:00 - 13:45 CET)
  
• https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos...e2f6e3e3e6 (19 January 17:45 - 18:30 CET)
  
• Accelerating a Nature-Positive Economy for People and Planet (21 January 16:30 - 17:15 CET)
  

• COVID-19: What’s Next? (17 January 13:00 – 13:45 CET)
  
• Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Equity (18 January 14:30 -15:15 CET)
  

• Renewing a Global Social Contract (18 January 13:15 – 14:00 CET)
  
• ESG Metrics for a Sustainable Future (20 January 13:30 – 14:15 CET)
  
• Global Economic Outlook (21 January 13:30 – 14:15 CET)
  

• Technology Cooperation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (17 January 14:30 – 15:15 CET)
  
• Restoring Trust in Global Trade and Supply Chains (20 January 16:30 – 17:15 CET)
  
• Building Future Preparedness (21 January 15:00 - 15:45 CET)
  

This is a rather good article. It is important to note however that in his conclusion Mr. Jackson, similar to the Ecclesia Dei, Indult, and the conciliar-SSPX communities, focuses first and foremost on the Latin Mass. But the True Mass is the perfect expression of the true Faith and it is for this reason it has been mercilessly attacked many times. Fr. Hewko reminded us of this important distinction in his latest newsletter when he quotes Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quote:...That’s what makes our opposition [ to current Rome ], and that’s why we cannot get along. This is not primarily the issue of the Mass, because the Mass is just one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. The real fundamental opposition is the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ! “Oportet Illum regnare,” St. Paul tells us, “He must Reign!” They say: “No!” We say: “Yes!” with all the Popes! ( Abp. Lefebvre, “Fideliter” p. 70, 1993).

TRADITIONIS CUSTODES: What We Can Learn from English Catholic Resistance

Quote:In the first year the Privy Council, ruling in the name of the king, altered the ordinary liturgical and devotional life of Englishmen more than Henry had ever done or permitted. Injunctions, largely brand new, accompanied a royal visitation of the kingdom. These introduced a series of reforms which prescribed a greater use of English scripture in church services and ordered the destruction of images which gave occasion to ‘idolatry’. The following year the Council used the difficulty of determining such images as an excuse for ordering wholesale iconoclasm...

At the behest of the government, Parliament passed a bill ordering holy communion to be given in two kinds. In implementing the act, the Council took the opportunity to introduce into the Latin Mass the 1548 ‘Order o£ Communion’, a series of vernacular devotions which later became an integral part of the Prayer Book Eucharist... The first Prayer Book of 1549 reformed the traditional services by replacing Latin with English, by eliminating many old ceremonies, and by changing certain theological emphases of the rites... The Elizabethan bishop Richard Cox had been one of Cranmer’s assistants in drafting the book.

Quote:Less than nine months before Edward VI died, Englishmen heard a new revision of their vernacular liturgy read in their churches. To the 1549 rites, Cranmer added didactic exhortations, simplified ceremonies and vestments, and rearranged the Eucharist to move the English Lord’s Supper a further step away from the Latin Mass.

Quote:Cranmer stubbornly refused a last-minute Council request to eliminate kneeling to receive communion, but he did agree to an added rubric in black print which declared that kneeling implied no ‘real or essential presence’ of Christ in the eucharistic elements.

Quote:The ‘Six articles’ would have required that ‘in all parish churches the minister in common prayer turn his face towards the people; and there distinctly read the divine service appointed, where all the people assembled may hear and be edified’. This would have been an explicit interpretation of the rubric in the 1552 Prayer Book, dropped in 1559, which had ordered the officiant at the office to be in such place and ‘so turn him as the people may best hear’. A little more vaguely, the ‘Seven articles’ directed the minister to stand ‘in such convenient place of the church, as all may hear and be edified’. The Elizabethan Book had rather directed the minister to be in the ‘accustomed place’, unless the bishop ordered otherwise. The characteristic Reformation stress on edification underlay the request —a stress that was often insensitive to the advantage of an architectural setting that suggested the mutual participation of officiant and congregation in an act of praise directed toward God. To many of the precisians, any focusing of congregational attention on the holy table was suspect because it recalled the idolatry which they believed had been practised before images and the reserved sacrament.

Quote:Another set of proposed alterations in the Prayer Book are found only in the documents prepared during the course of Convocation itself. Kneeling at communion had been unpopular with the more militant reformers ever since John Knox had preached against it before the king in 1553. Both the ‘Seven articles’ and the more widely supported ‘Six articles’ would have left kneeling at communion to the discretion of the ordinary. Although the ‘ Six articles’ mentioned ‘age, sickness, and sundry other infirmities’ as the reasons for introducing an option to receive without kneeling, it was obviously horror at those who ‘superstitiously both kneel and knock’ which led them to make the demands. As if any priest with die slightest sense of his pastoral responsibilities has ever refused to communicate a parishioner physically incapable of kneeling! The discretion left to the ordinaries would have probably meant that the majority of bishops would have gladly granted the option and that the others would have been under importunate pressure from zealous reformers in their dioceses to do likewise. The precisians knew that it would not take too long to turn the option into a prohibition of kneeling.

Quote:The second distinctive proposal of the ‘Twenty-one articles’ would have required all those who did not intend to receive communion to leave the church before the general confession. By not permitting non-communicating attendance at the Supper itself, the proposal stressed the importance of full participation in the sacramental rite—a stress shared by all sixteenth-century reformers, but not expressed by all in such a regulation.

Quote:They asked that the thirty-fourth Article of Religion, on traditions of the church, be changed to mitigate the section which states that those who break traditions and ceremonies of the church ‘ought to be rebuked openly...as one that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren’. On principle, the precisians would have disliked the inclusion of any such defence of ceremonies in a formal confession of doctrine, but their protest here seems much more practical. Even assuming that the ‘Seven articles’ were adopted as they hoped, apparently even these modifications of the Prayer Book would not have satisfied many of them, and they wanted to be assured that they might change or omit rubrical ceremonies without danger of violating the official doctrinal articles. In effect, these clergy wanted to retain the right of conscientious disobedience to the prescribed liturgy without jeopardizing their ministries in the church. They dared not ask for more sweeping changes in the liturgy than the relatively few points they proposed, but they served notice that even these proposals would not satisfy tender consciences that the Church of England really had returned to ‘the godly purity and simplicity used in the primitive church’.

Quote:Just as English envoys abroad were instructed to attend Latin rites while refraining from active participation or sacramental communion, apparently Elizabeth and her government thought that the bishops ought to be willing to attend the Prayer Book offices. Officials were not prepared at the beginning of 1561 to release the bishops without a demonstrable act of obedience. According to Sander, when Heath had been offered liberty in exchange for mere attendance at service, the former archbishop replied,

“In principle it is the same to be schismatic in one point as to be schismatic in all, and therefore he was minded to countenance none of these doings either by word or deed, nor to suffer his back to be seen where none could read his heart.”

Quote:Secret Latin Masses had continued in the homes of some of the gentry, and the first major attack on the practice came in April 1561 when Cecil ordered the arrest of almost two dozen ‘mass-mongers’ including two of Queen Mary’s councillors.

Quote:The precisians, moreover, wrote into their prospectus, ‘General notes’, two items which the Lower House picked up in ‘ Articles for government’ almost without change and these were specifically directed at Roman Catholics:

Whosoever shall at any time hereafter say mass, or procure mass to be said, or willingly suffer it to be said in his house, and.. .be lawfully convicted. . .within 2 years.. .shall be judged in law a felon and shall suffer the pains of death and forfeiture of goods...

Whoever shall hear mass and be.. .convicted.. .within 2 years... shall forfeit for every mass that they shall hear 100 marks, if they be worth so much, and if they be not, then they shall forfeit all their goods and chattels...

Quote:Many Englishmen loyal to the papacy thought they might, without offence, obey the provisions of the Uniformity Act requiring them to attend church. In the summer of 1562 some of them requested de Quadra to obtain an authoritative Vatican judgment. The Spanish bishop himself clearly argued in favour of a qualified permission:

“What.. .has to be considered.. .is the great unusualness and novelty of the case,.. .it being here prohibited by law to be a Catholic and capital punishment assigned to anyone here who will not live as a heretic.... That .. .which they call Common Prayer.. .contains no false doctrine or anything profane, because it is entirely Scripture or prayers taken from the Catholic Church (although from some of them everything has been omitted that mentions the merits and intercession of the Saints), so much so that leaving aside the sin of dissimulation and the harm that would accrue from the example, the act of taking part in this [worship] is not in its nature evil. The Communion is not before us now. They only ask if they can attend this service of Common Prayer which I have mentioned.”

He also asked for terms of absolution for those who repented of their conformity to the established religion.

At the same time the Portuguese ambassador asked for a similar decision at the Council of Trent. The Office of the Inquisition and the Council’s committee which had been assigned the inquiry both gave the same answer: under no conditions might the faithful attend the Prayer Book offices. The resolute stand of the imprisoned bishops was vindicated by the highest councils of the Roman Church.

Quote:By 1560 the Roman Catholic authorities actively began to persuade their English adherents not to compromise with the independent national church. Their task was formidable, for it was not, by and large, respect for papal authority which led men and women to reject the national church and her new ways. Rather, they loved the familiar pattern of church life: the Latin Mass, the regular shriving, the invocation of favourite saints, the anointing on the death-bed, the liturgical petitions for family and friends who had died. To them, these things, with the teachings that underlay them, belonged to the heart of the Christian faith, and they would not give them up.

Biden Admin Compiling Database Of Religious Objectors To Vaccine Within Obscure Agency

Quote:"The primary purpose of the secured electronic file repository is to collect, maintain, use, and—to the extent appropriate and necessary—disseminate employee religious exception request information collected by the Agency in the context of the federally mandated COVID-19 vaccination requirement," according to the Federal Register.

The announcement does not explain why the agency needs to create this list except to say that it will “assist the Agency in the collecting, storing, dissemination, and disposal of employee religious exemption request information collected and maintained by the Agency.” In other words, the list will help the agency make a list.

The announcement also does not say what the agency will do with this information after it has decided an employee’s religious accommodation request.

And neither does the announcement explain why the Biden administration chose to test this policy in an agency with a majority-black staff, who are both more religious and less vaccinated than other groups. So much for the president’s commitment to “racial equity.” -Daily Signal

NB: The following is a transcription done by a professional transcribing service of Fr. Pagliarani's recent conference (published January 5, 2022) on the subject of the vaccines. I have not double-checked the accuracy of the transcription word for word. Please do keep in mind too that English is not Fr. Pagliarani's native tongue.

As an aside, the SSPX missed the irony in entitling this Conference by Fr. Pagliarani, "The Superior General of the SSPX Clarifies the Vaccine Debate" because in reality, the SG did nothing of the kind. He simply stated repeatedly that the SSPX makes no stand on the topic. The comments to the video are rather interesting too...

Senate Bill Would Force States To Pair Voter ID With Vaccine Passports

Quote:The legislation is the idea of Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota who says if a state forces people to prove their vaccination status, they should also have to prove who they are when they go to vote.

Sen. Cramer says he wants to point out the hypocrisy in Democrats who support vaccine passports but oppose voter ID -Fox5