Father Calvin Robinson declares war on feminism as the enemy's tool, condemning Archbishop Sarah Mullany's promotion and Pope Leo XIV's meeting as heresy that invalidates Anglican orders. He alleges the Southern Poverty Law Center funds white supremacy for fundraising and fears mandatory car kill switches will enable Democratic tyranny. Joining Don Keith and John Henry Weston, Robinson discusses the SSPX's upcoming bishop consecration, which threatens a Catholic schism, while arguing Rome tolerates Chinese Communist Party heretics to eliminate the Latin Mass. Ultimately, he frames these events as part of a coordinated effort to destroy traditional Christendom. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
War For The Soul Of Mankind00:14:29
I do not seek glory.
I do not fight for honor.
I fight because it must be done.
This is not a war for trophies or banners.
This is a war for the soul of mankind.
Because even should I fall, even should the blood stop flowing and my breath fade, even in death, I crusade.
Hello and welcome to The Next Crusade with me, Father Calvin Robinson, here on NXR Studios.
This, of course, is the show where we address current events from a Christian perspective.
We'll talk about the most important topics the mainstream media does not want to touch with a 10 foot barge pole.
Coming up on today's show, we've got Don Keith from Urban Scoop, we've got John Henry Weston from Life Sight News, and we're going to be addressing the SSPX situation.
Will the SSPX consecrate bishops?
Will that result in an excommunication from the Catholic Church?
Why does the Catholic Church look to excommunicate Orthodox traditionalist Catholics when it doesn't seem to want to do the same with people in China andor Anglicans in England?
We're going to address very shortly the meeting between the Pope and Dame Sarah Mullally.
We'll get to that very shortly.
But before we do, we've got the kill switches situation too.
The US government, thanks to Democrats and Republicans working together, has now dictated that going forward all new cars will have to have kill switches installed.
Which means the government can have control over your car and your car can have control over you.
That should concern anyone who believes in civil liberties.
We'll get to those stories very soon.
But before we do, let's have a look at what's been going on with Dame Sarah Mullally.
Now, those of you who do not know, I have a history with Dame Sarah.
She and I were friends back in London.
She is the woman and the reason that I am not a member of the Church of England.
It just so happens that she was the Bishop of London when I was in seminary at the University of Oxford.
At the end of my time in Oxford, I was going to be sent back to London, not under the Bishop of London, because I've never believed in women's orders, but under the Bishop of Fulham, who is the traditionalist bishop in London.
However, within the Church of England, she is still the highest ranking member of the clergy in London.
And in fact, she was at the time the third highest ranking member of the clergy in the country.
And so she still had a say on what happens within her diocese, even if we are not under her jurisdiction directly, because the Church of England is a broken communion, as you may or may not know.
And so, my bishop, the Bishop of Fulham, said to me, There's something going on, Calvin.
I'm going to have you back, though.
Don't worry.
And so I said, Okay, thank you, Your Grace.
I trust you.
And little did I know that he didn't exactly mean what he said.
And the Bishop of London made it clear to both of us that someone like me would not serve in London unless we capitulated to wokeness.
There's a whole conversation about this recorded online on my YouTube channel already, which is at Common Sense Crusade.
But essentially, she said to me, Look, The church is institutionally racist, and you will have to affirm that if you're going to become a priest in my diocese.
And I said, The church is not racist.
The church cannot be racist.
People can be racist, and racism is a sin that people must repent of.
But the moment that you say that it's the institution that's racist, you take that opportunity for repentance away from the individual.
You pass it on to the corporate body, and that is neglect.
That is spiritual neglect.
And I said, Look, I don't feel like, as a mixed race person, I have been oppressed under the church.
In fact, I feel like I've been thriving so far up until this point.
What I didn't say is, this is the only point that my race has ever been an issue with you.
And she said to me as she put her hand on my knee, I can tell you, Calvin, as a white woman, the church is racist.
What I didn't realize at the time was that was clearly an admission of guilt, and she is probably the racist.
Because the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, stood up in General Synod and said, the church is systematically racist and we must repent.
The Bishop of London in the Church of England affirmed that teaching.
And so we had two open heretics.
Preaching on DEI and critical race theory.
And so I was waking up to the fact that just because I'd come from an Anglo Catholic bubble in North London doesn't mean that that was what the rest of the church looked like.
And it became clear to me that I was not going to be serving in London.
But the rest, as they say, is history.
What I want to talk about now is Bishop Dame Sarah Mullaney herself and this meeting with the Holy Father.
Because after recently being installed as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, which Should be a problem to any Catholic minded individual anyway, because a woman cannot become a deacon, priest, or bishop, and certainly not an archbishop.
And people will make arguments back.
I can already see the comments coming saying, but what about deaconesses in the Bible?
A deaconess is a lay ministry, it is not in the threefold order of bishop, priest, and deacon, which are ontological changes.
A deaconess is not, it's a different role entirely, because men and women have different roles, and a woman cannot become a deacon, priest, or bishop.
Any more than a man can become a mother.
These are biological and ontological facts.
Anyway, the Bishop of London was promoted to the Archbishop of Canterbury within the Church of England structure because of DEI, because they wanted a woman in that position to show how progressive they are.
Now, the church should not try to be progressive.
The church should try to be true, beautiful, and good.
The church should try to be transcendental.
The church should try to adhere to the sacred tradition of the church and not try to adhere to the new tradition of the world.
And so, when they installed her, we knew it was going to be a problem, not just for the people in the Church of England, because some of them believe in women's orders, some of them don't.
And what are they going to do if they're in a church that is broken communion?
But also for the rest of Christians around the world, because the Church of England does have an impact on Christianity in a wider field than just within the realm of England.
And so, when she meets with the Pope as the representative of the people, the Christian people of England, that's going to be an interest for all of us.
And what happened was, if you can see by this tweet here, Pope Leo XIV meets with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the quote is When Archbishop Michael Ramsay and St. Pope Paul VI announced the first theological dialogue between Anglicans and Catholics in 1966, they spoke of seeking the restoration of complete communion in faith and sacramental life.
Certainly, this ecumenical journey has been complex.
And now, what this is saying is quite clearly that there was a conversation, an ongoing conversation with the Pope.
And the Church of England with the broken church, because of course, a very brief history.
The Church of England was, of course, part of the one true Holy Catholic Apostolic Church before the English Reformation.
And there's been dialogue in recent years with recent popes and recent archbishops.
And it seemed when Michael Ramsay was the archbishop and Pope Paul VI was the pope that there may be a chance of reunion.
No one knows how that would look.
Would that mean that Anglicans suddenly fall under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome?
Would it mean that they have their own kind of ordinariat?
What would it look like?
We don't know.
But the conversations were serious through Archic and they were getting very close.
And now it's my theory that the enemy hated that because the enemy wants a divided church and the enemy wants Christians fighting each other rather than fighting together against him and his armies.
And so what happened was this is around the same time the Church of England decided that it had the unilateral authority.
To change church teaching.
Up until this point, it had been the teaching of the Church of England that the Church of England has no doctrine of her own and that it was still professing to be Catholic.
However, having no Pope within the Church of England, having no magisterium within the Church of England, the Synod of the Church of England voted in favour of women's orders.
And from that point on, there can be no argument of validity of Anglican orders because there had been an argument prior to that.
And you may or may not know that there was a papal declaration.
Apostolicae Curae, which issued that Anglican orders are absolutely null and utterly void.
And this was in a papal bull, so it was official church teaching.
And this was due to a defect of form and intention.
Now, since that bull, there have been lots of ongoing conversations.
And it seemed that some Anglican orders may be valid while some may not.
So it was on a case by case basis.
There have been Anglican priests who have entered the Catholic Church and they have done the research into their orders, and the church has looked into their orders and given them a Conditional ordination rather than reordaining them, which clearly says that they have been ordained but they're just covering their tracks.
So, on a case by case basis, because of the Dutch touch, some people in the Church of England received old Catholic orders at some point.
However, you can't have that argument anymore.
You can't go on a case by case basis anymore.
You can't have the conversation of, well, actually, what this papal bull was referring to was the missile at the time and the missile language has been altered since and it now is sacrificial, sacramental language.
We can't have any of that because now going forward, the Church of England has a woman in the highest position in the Church of England.
And so there is no question about it.
There is no legitimacy there because women cannot become deacons, priests, bishops.
And so what that's meant is that the conversation is no longer progressive or progressing, it's going nowhere.
So we have to ask the question at what point should this dialogue end?
Why is the Pope still meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Because it's dangerous to do so.
And let's talk about why it may be dangerous.
Because as you can see from this tweet, the Archbishop of Canterbury came away from that meeting and said, This was a meeting of two pastors.
That is heresy.
She is not a pastor.
He is a pastor.
He does not recognize her as a pastor.
Now, the Pope may have been playing nice and polite.
He may have been being friendly towards Dame Sarah Mullaney.
But he would not have recognized her as a priest or a deacon or a bishop or an archbishop.
That is an impossibility for him.
But just meeting gives the argument legitimacy.
It almost affirms her in her error.
Just as when you meet someone who is trans and you call them by their preferred pronouns, you are affirming them in their error.
The loving thing is actually to say, no, I recognize that you are a man.
I recognize that you are a woman.
And I cannot lie.
I will not lie.
That is not loving.
And it's the same in this situation, too.
In a way, the Archbishop of Canterbury is trans, she is playing the role of a man.
She's wearing men's clothing, which the Bible teaches us against.
And she's fulfilling a male role, which also the Bible teaches us against.
So that is heresy.
And she's dragging the Church of England into apostasy.
But the problem isn't just the Church of England, it's how the Catholic Church interacts with the Church of England.
And so my point is that women's orders reinforce and compound the problem that arose in Apostolic A Cure.
And so the situation now is worse than it was in 1896, not better, unfortunately.
And if we look at how this came about, how did it actually happen?
Because as with anything liberal and progressive and faking gay, it doesn't happen overnight, it doesn't happen all at once.
It's the boiling of the frog in the ever heated up water.
In this case, they boiled the frog in the water of heresy and apostasy.
So, prior to 1987, in the Church of England, women could become deaconesses.
And as we've discussed, deaconesses are lay ministers, they are not ordained deacons.
It's not a feminine word of the same role as deacon.
So, a deacon is a deacon, and a deaconess is something entirely different.
So, prior to 1987, women could fulfill that role.
So, there was a role for women in the Church of England.
There is also the role of nun.
And so the Church of England does have sisters.
There are religious orders in the Church of England for men and women.
And so there are active roles for women in the church.
But we must always remember when we're asking the question, what role is there for women in the church?
That the church isn't just a clerical position.
The church is the great body of Christ.
And so we are all, through our baptism, members of the church.
And that means that the greatest role for women in the church is motherhood.
Right, it's becoming a wife, becoming a mother, becoming a homekeeper, and becoming a caregiver.
They are the great roles for women.
They don't need to be seen within the sanctuary.
That's not the sanctuary, it isn't a place of authority and power.
The sanctuary is a place of worship.
And Christ has outlined how we should worship, and that men have a role in the sanctuary, standing in the place of Christ, and that women have a role in providing recreation, not recreation, procreation for our very existence.
And so that's in 1987.
Prior to that, women could become deaconesses.
So, when did it start to go wrong?
A couple of years prior, 1985.
So, 40 years ago, the General Synod voted to allow women to become deacons.
So, for anyone that argues that deacons and deaconesses are the same thing, the Church of England clearly didn't think so because they passed legislation in the Synod that said that women could now become deacons, but they could already become deaconesses.
So, why would they need that if they're the same role?
They explicitly stated at this time, That they wouldn't become priests and they wouldn't become bishops, but they could become deacons.
When Women Became Deacons00:09:46
You're seeing where I'm going with this slippery slide, right?
In 1992, they voted to allow women to become priests, Kelsapri.
It didn't stay at just deacons, they also went on to become priests.
The slippery slope continues.
In 2014, legislation was passed to allow women to become bishops, one step further.
And then, of course, in 2026, they elected their first female.
Archbishop, and so one thing leads to another, leads to another, you know, almost a decade later each time.
And so, because if from day one in 1985, they said, Look, we want women to become archbishops, everyone would be like, No, that's preposterous, we can't serve under a lady bishop when we don't recognize women's orders, etc.
And so, they had to do it piece by piece.
Well, what does it matter if some women are deacons?
They won't be a deacon in my parish, etc. etc.
That's where it starts.
Then it ends with, Okay, your boss is now a woman, what are you going to do about that?
There's nothing you can do, and part of the reason is because.
The Church of England has a general synod.
Synods are dangerous.
And so people who are looking on the synod of synodality should be looking at it with suspicion because synods are not the way the church runs.
The church runs in a clear hierarchy.
And this modern idea of synods is post concilia and not good for the church.
And where does it all come from?
Where does any of this come from?
One of the enemy's greatest tools is feminism.
Most Christians take on board, I would say.
I would honestly gather a guess that most Christians, most conservatives, most people who think they are sound or based would be feminists, really and truly, if you push them hard enough on the relevant questions.
Because most people take on board an element of egalitarianism that came about only in the last hundred years, really and truly, and is a tool of Satan, because egalitarianism is fake and gay.
Heaven has a hierarchy the principalities, the powers, the dominions.
This creation has a hierarchy.
Human beings are to steward creation, and animals are there for us, for our benefit.
And so everything good has a hierarchy.
God himself is our patriarch, he is the ultimate father figure.
And so he teaches us, not just through his being, but through the scriptures.
Of how to organize and order our families in the male headship.
The man is the, as the husband and the father, is the leader of the household.
The woman submits to the husband and the father.
The children submit to the mother and the wife.
And this is good order.
But egalitarianism says, no, no, no, no, they're both equal.
And that's a twist of the enemy because, yes, they're both equal.
We're all equal in the eyes of God in terms of dignity and worth, but we're not equal in our roles.
And that changes from minute to minute, from hour to hour in whatever we're doing.
And it can be the most stupid small thing in the world.
Like, I was just, I just came from the supermarket.
There was no equality there when I could reach the things on the top shelf.
The person next to me couldn't, right?
There are many ways in which our immutable characteristics affect us as we go through life.
And the left have tried to turn it into language of privilege, as if like your skin color gives you a certain privilege or other immutable characteristics give you a certain privilege, where they may do in certain circumstances, but it's not universal.
But the point being that neither is egalitarianism.
We are none of us equal, really and truly.
On a day to day level.
But that's the lie of the enemy that wants us all to be equal because he wanted to be equal with God.
And from the first moment of history in the Garden of Eden, he's convincing us that we can also be equal with God.
We can have that knowledge of good and evil.
We can eat from the tree of the fruit.
We can eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
That is a lie of Satan from the beginning, and we're still hearing it today.
And it is feminism.
It was feminism in the Garden of Eden, and it's feminism today.
The idea that woman and man can be interchangeable.
When the Bible tells us very clearly that God made man, From the dirt, from creation.
And he made woman from man to be his helper, his helpmate.
Now, that language is offensive, not just to most feminists, but to most people who consider themselves Christians and conservatives.
And if it's offensive to you, that's because you've fallen foul of feminism.
A woman is to be a man's helper, his helpmate.
And that is good and ordered.
It's not even complementary, it is just hierarchical.
It is that the man leads the household and the woman supports him.
Now, that's not to say he lords it over her.
That's not to say he is a tyrant.
He is to love and serve her.
And Christ teaches us this too that to be a good leader is to be a servant.
To be a servant leader is the appropriate way to lead anybody, including your wife and your children.
And again, that's not to say you should become subservient to them, which is a different thing.
There is a nuance in this that the feminists don't like to use because nuance rids them of their binary argument.
But the point here is that reunification was genuinely possible at one point, and actually, I would say, considered probable between Catholics and Anglians.
But the enemy didn't like it.
And the enemy infiltrated, as he does with most things.
And he asked the question of General Synod Did God really say, which is the same question the enemy asked in the Garden of Eden?
Did God really say, you cannot eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Did God really say that women cannot become priests, deacons, and bishops?
The answer is yes.
Yes, he did.
And he makes these things very clear to us.
So the priesthood is a role for men, just as motherhood is a role for women.
They're not the only roles.
Not all women are blessed with the gift of childbirth, but all women are called to be a caregiver in some way, shape, or form.
Just as all men are called to be fathers in some way, shape, or form, not all men may be gifted with children, but he is to become a father to his community or to his parish, just as a woman is to become a mother to her community or her parish.
These are good things.
This is good order for our lives.
And so we need to learn these lessons because there is nothing new under the sun.
And again, that is scriptural.
But this became ambiguous when the Pope gifted the Archbishop an Episcopal ring.
Many decades ago now.
And so people just assumed that that was a sign of authority.
And a lot of this comes from the Second Vatican Council.
And people would be saying, no, the Second Vatican Council is very sound.
How can you say that?
Lots of the writings are sound.
Some of them aren't.
But it's the spirits that came about from Vatican II.
It's how Vatican II was followed that has led to the problem of this false ecumenism, which looks to the outside world like pluralism, like there are multiple ways of being true, multiple truths.
When the Catholic Church has always taught there is one truth, one universal truth.
He has a name, it's Jesus Christ, but also it's a faith not just of the book.
And people, you know, Mohammedans use that word, we're a faith of the book, and Jews often use that word, but Christians aren't a faith of the book.
We're a faith with a book, but we're a faith of sacred scripture and sacred tradition.
And it's important that we don't take one without the other because sacred scripture came from sacred tradition.
And without it, it doesn't make sense because it comes down to each individual's interpretation.
The sacred scriptures should be looked at through the lens of sacred tradition, and sacred tradition dictates that.
Men can become priests, deacons, or bishops.
Women cannot.
Elders, presbyters in the Bible are men.
And so this was a problem.
And we've seen this week that it's been made worse, unfortunately.
Over those last couple of weeks, it's been made worse.
But I put a post out about this on social media, as I often do.
And a fairly decent woman in the Church of England by the name of Angela Tilby commented, Calvin, this is pure misogyny.
And she goes on to say about the case I just mentioned Archbishop Michael Ramsay was given an Episcopal ring by.
Paul VI, how dare you distort history and the true relationship between Anglicans and Catholics?
You see what they did?
It's very clever, isn't it?
It's always that very emotive language, first and foremost, which is probably one of the reasons that women are not supposed to become leaders.
But also, secondly, it's pure misogyny.
Like it's an ad hominem.
You're doing a bad thing.
You're a bad person.
Not, I disagree with you based on this scripture.
But no, you are wrong.
You are wrong because you're bad.
Right?
There's nothing misogynistic about it.
Men and women are equal in dignity and worth.
Women should be treasured absolutely.
But women cannot lead men in this regard.
And that's 2,000 years of church teaching.
And the Church of England has always said it has no authority of its own to change church teaching.
And therefore, the Church of England is in error and should be called to rebuke because this is apostasy.
And it's not good for the people in the Church of England because they will be led astray.
And so I think the Pope is at fault here.
And I'm not trying to be too harsh, but I think he's at fault here for affirming.
This lady in her error and in her heresy and in her potential apostasy.
And so I would hope that the next meeting between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, if there is to be another one, he would call her to repentance and tell her to become a Catholic, which is what every Catholic should be doing to everyone that is not yet Catholic.
Trust me, if you see my comments, some of them do, and that is a good thing.
We should always, if we believe there is one universal objective truth, we should be convincing everyone of that truth.
That is what we're called to do.
Love God first and foremost, and then love your neighbor as yourself.
If you truly love your neighbour, you want your neighbour to go to heaven.
If you want your neighbour to go to heaven, you want them to be repenting of their sins and baptised in the Spirit, in water and the Spirit.
And that means becoming a Christian.
And to have the fullness of that is to become a Catholic and have access to the sacraments.
Funding Neo-Nazis And Enemies00:06:23
Now, that's the mess of the papacy and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But before we get on to our guests today, I'd like to take a brief look at the mess that's been happening over here with the Southern Poverty Law Centre.
Before we do, let's take a prayer break.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.
Now, you may have heard of the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, but you may not have heard that they're being charged with funding white supremacy, which is kind of ironic because they set themselves up as these.
Social justice warriors who are going to challenge all the far right and bring down the racists and the neo Nazis.
And it turns out they've been funding the neo Nazis.
Interesting, isn't it, how that works?
The SPLC has been charged with six counts of wire fraud, four counts of bank fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
And of course, these are all what they're being charged with.
And so we have to be careful.
We don't want to say they are guilty yet.
But the indictment from the Department of Justice alleges that the SPLC paid millions.
Of dollars to people associated with neo Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan.
The SPLC is funding neo Nazis and the KKK.
Make it make sense.
So, what it seems that they were doing is they were trying to be their own kind of FBI, right?
They wanted to be feds and have informants.
So, they were paying people who were members of the KKK and groups like them.
Excuse me.
They were paying members of the KKK and groups like them.
And essentially, Sending members into meetings and encouraging them to report back.
But what that means in practice is that their money went to membership fees and their money went to sponsorships, their money went to these groups.
And so, in trying to look into these groups, they ended up funding them.
But I think it's deeper than that.
I think it's darker than that.
I think it's the fact that these hard left groups, these radical extremist leftists, cannot exist unless there's a far right to fight against.
And they can call me and you far right all day, every day, but we're not.
We're just right so far.
We are not the genuine far right.
We are just conservatives from five minutes ago.
We are traditionalists.
We're Christians and Catholics.
We are not far right.
That idea is ludicrous.
But they want an actual enemy to fight against.
They need an enemy to fight against because they are raising a lot of money.
They cannot continue to raise that money if there's nothing to fight against.
And so, to some degree, they need an enemy to exist.
And so, they're funding their enemy for the purposes of funding themselves.
They cannot continue to take millions of dollars of donations if there's nothing for them to do.
And that is for every kind of nonprofit institution.
Anyone that sets up an organization to change something, you should be suspicious of the fact of what are they fighting against?
Will it always exist?
So look at the civil rights movement.
Look at Black Lives Matter, right?
Black Lives Matter, another instance of money laundering, the group that was set up to fight so called white supremacy.
Like, what is their exit criteria?
When have they won?
The same with the feminists the first wave, the second wave, the third wave, the fourth wave.
Are we in the fifth now?
I'm not even sure anymore.
When have they won?
When have they won their equality?
There is no longer a pay gap.
There are no differences between men and women under the law.
Women can do everything men can do in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of God, but in the secular law, they can do.
And so, what are they fighting for anymore?
Who knows?
The same with gay rights.
The gays have the right to get married, for goodness sake, which makes no sense because marriage is a word and words mean something, and marriage is a lifelong indissoluble union between one man and one woman, blessed under the eyes of God.
But even regardless of that, they have the rights to everything.
No one can discriminate against you because you're gay anymore.
Whether you should be able to or not is a different argument entirely.
But my point is that these civil rights movements and these leftist organizations don't have any terms of success.
So they never meet that success, which means they continue to crowdfund, to continue to raise money.
And therefore they have to perpetually perpetuate an enemy.
They have to make something up.
They invent a boogeyman or they fund a boogeyman.
I genuinely didn't know the KKK still existed.
I'm quite surprised that it does, but I'm not surprised by the fact that the SPLC is funding them and they're getting money.
From far left organizations.
That should tell you everything you need to know about them.
Never fund far left organizations.
Never fund far right organizations either.
You know, fund Christian organizations solely.
Now, as a reminder, coming up in the rest of the show, we've got a conversation with Don Keith from Urban Scoop and John Henry Weston from Life Site News on the kill switches, which are becoming mandatory in cars going forward from this year, and the SSPX consecrations, which may result in the first excommunication, the first schism in the Catholic Church since the Avignon.
Which is, of course, something that the president brought up recently.
Well, not the president, but the president's administration brought up recently when there was this veiled threat against the Vatican and a reminder that at one time the power of the Vatican was under threat and the Pope, his seat was essentially taken in a coup to France, to Avignon.
And it took many, many years to fight back for Rome to become the center of the church again.
And there was that veiled threat from the US administration when they said, look, we are the most Powerful military in the world, you should do what we say, you should want to be on our side.
When the church's response, I hope, was we don't care about worldly power, we are on the side of the ultimate power, which is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and who sits on the throne.
However, we'll get to those topics very shortly.
Before we do, let's have a prayer break.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with us all evermore.
Amen.
Before we begin, I want to point you to something important.
Prayer Break Before Politics00:02:37
NXR has launched its store, and one of its pieces available is this Diversity for Israel shirt.
It's obviously not overly serious, it's just a bit of well placed humour in the middle of an otherwise serious conversation.
If you want to wear something that actually means something, head on over to shop.newchristianright.com.
You'll find the link below.
And I'd also like to encourage you to pre order my new book, The Silent Jihad.
This book exposes the growing influence of Islamic immigration in the West, something many are hesitant to discuss, but something we need to understand clearly.
You can pre order your copy today at newchristianright.com forward slash jihad.
That's newchristianright.com forward slash jihad.
We've all just accepted this idea that basic hygiene has to come from a lab.
If it's going to make my body clean, then it has to be synthetic, it has to be artificial, it needs to be constructed.
in a lab with guys in white coats and goggles and test tubes.
But that's not true.
See, most oral care products are built on that premise.
But VanMan, our sponsor, does something different.
They're using real mineral source from grass-fed cattle, which means this.
It's going to carry the full mineral profile that your body actually recognizes and can use to clean your teeth and support tooth structure.
And really, that's the big idea.
There's a lot of health companies that are selling to the crunchy right or the hippie tree-hugging left saying, our product is the superior product.
Why?
Because it's not bad for you.
You'll live and die at 85 years old instead of dying at 83 years old.
But here's a question.
For the 50 years in between now and death, when I'm playing on the floor with my kids, are they going to look at me and say, Daddy, your teeth stink, right?
I use organic, you know, perfectly natural deodorant.
Yeah, I know, bro.
You stink.
So the question is not just, is it healthy?
The question is, is it a good product?
If you're selling toothpaste, does it clean your teeth?
I can tell you from personal experience, This product does.
So go to vanman.shop forward slash NXR.
Use our code NXR for 15% off of your first purchase.
Again, it's vanman.shop forward slash NXR.
Use NXR for 15% off.
Vanman, real ingredients, no exceptions.
Joining me right now is my good friend Don Keith, who is the host of The Real Beef with Don Keith.
And he's also a contributor to Urban Scoop.
Unintended Consequences Of Smart Cars00:13:29
So a bit of US politics, a bit of UK politics, dabbling in both ends of the big pool.
Keith, what's going on?
With your country at the moment and the lack of civil liberties.
What is going on with this idea of putting a switch, a kill switch, in every single car?
Well, you know, that created quite a stir.
You know, we Americans, we like our individual liberty.
Unfortunately, the Democrats don't agree with us all the time.
So you always get something like this that comes along and tries to control us a little bit more.
But what they're calling a kill switch, it doesn't actually say kill switch in the language of the law.
Now, what this is is section 24220, I believe, which comes from the larger bipartisan infrastructure.
And the Investment and Jobs Act that was passed in 2021.
And it was passed overwhelmingly by Democrats, but it was bipartisan in that about 19 Republican senators voted with the Democrats, and I think it was about 13 House Republicans voted for this bill.
And what it basically is, is it's a section in the law that would require what they call the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration here, which is kind of in charge of the official.
Administration in charge of highway safety here in the United States.
And what they did was that the Congress directed them to require all new passenger motor vehicles to be equipped with what they call an advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.
Now, it sounds really good on its face.
Like everything the Democrats do or the liberals do when they present it to us, it always seems like this amazing thing that's going to be great for humanity.
And on its face, it is.
And if I could guarantee that.
This thing was just going to simply be able to detect Trump driving from here to eternity.
I would be fine with it.
But we know from history, if we look at things like, you know, if you give Democrats an inch, they take them off.
You look at anything they've done in the past where we've sort of given them a little bit of leeway.
If you look at gay marriage or affirmative action, you see what they want to do with the central bank digital currency now or digital IDs, gun control, FISA courts.
They always take that little inch and they, Use it for power and control and try to manipulate and terrorize conservatives in our country who believe in individual liberty.
So, my fear of this mechanism is that it would be implemented under the guise of good.
And years from now, or another administration that's more tyrannical, say like Biden on steroids, years from now would take that and say, hey, we've already got this technology in our vehicles.
Why don't we tweak it a little bit to say, okay, this guy, he's already driven his allotted mileage for the week.
I think we need to shut his vehicle down.
Right.
Which is what it is.
Zero emissions.
Exactly.
If you want to pursue that green agenda, we can just use this, what was created to shut the vehicles down for impaired drivers.
We'll now do it to make sure our green agenda is just like we want.
We'll shut them down if they drive too far.
If we don't like something they said on social media, maybe we shut them down.
You just never know the direction of the country, how tyrannical things can be.
If we lose our Supreme Court advantage, if we lose Congress to the Democrats, we lose the presidency, I could see this being implemented by a Democratic controlled government.
In the future.
That's why I'm a no on it.
Like I said, if it were created just for the reasons they say, I would be for it because it does seem like a good thing.
But I can just see the Democrats running with this and using it for evil, basically.
It's interesting to me that a number of Republicans have voted for this against the House in favor of the Democrats.
That's problematic because which party is supposed to be looking after the freedoms and the civil liberties of the people?
There is one Republican, though, who always seems to stand up on these issues.
That's Republican Thomas Massey.
Let's have a look at what he had to say.
But there is a law that states that every vehicle manufactured is going to have to have a kill switch in it.
The car itself will monitor your driving.
And if the car thinks that you're not doing a good job driving, it will disable itself.
So the car dashboard becomes your judge, your jury, and your executioner.
Now, the words that stood out to me there were if the car thinks, I don't want my car to think, I don't want my car to have an opinion on my driving.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And the other thing there is, What if you have a health condition or a medical emergency that mimics the signs of impairment and you need to get someone in an emergency situation and your car says, No, I think he's drunk.
I'm going to shut it down.
You just can't depend on technology all the time.
There's, you know, even there are designing.
I think that's a key point because I'm reading the information here.
Apparently, it monitors a driver's performance to identify impairment of the driver, it passively detects a blood alcohol level equal to or exceeding 0.08 blood alcohol content.
And detects impairment and prevents or limits vehicle operation.
Those three clauses are problematic for the reasons you've laid out, but what if the reason that your performance is seen as impaired by the car isn't actually because you're impaired?
What if it's something else?
I don't know if you had a chance to see this parody clip.
I've forgotten the woman's name, but she does so many social media parodies these days.
She's hilarious.
Have a little look at this.
That ain't looking good.
Granny, we gotta go.
You think?
Let's go!
Come on, come on, come on!
Due to elevated heart rate, high stress levels, and panic indicators, you're not fit to operate this vehicle.
What?
There's a tornado!
Have you tried calming down?
Daryl!
It's getting bigger!
Start the truck!
Let's begin a breathing exercise.
Inhale, exhale.
I'm not breathing right now!
Daryl!
Do something!
I'm trying!
Analyzing driver condition, I've determined you.
I know what you've determined, but you're wrong!
I am never wrong.
Whose right idea was this?
Your government.
Granny, I have a feeling we're not in America anymore.
You could pause that there.
I mean, first of all, I love this woman.
She pops up on my Instagram all the time.
But secondly, she's straight to the point.
Make sense comment again is what her shirt says.
That's what we need.
Like, who is dictating that this happens?
Well, your government.
Your government is surely there to safeguard you in the very minimal way to get out of your way to let you live your free life.
I am not a fan of giving the government more control than they need.
And this is far more control than any government needs.
I don't even think China has this kind of control over their citizens' vehicles.
Like, if I'm going to buy a car, I want to buy that to get from A to B.
And I don't want anyone knowing where A or B is.
I don't want them monitoring where I'm going.
I don't want knowing how fast I'm going, how slow I'm going, if I'm swerving, if I'm driving perfectly straight.
That's on me.
I want an element of trust from the rest of my fellow citizens and from my government.
I don't want to have to report back to anybody.
Now, is that too much to ask?
No, I agree with you there.
I've never seen this woman before.
That's pretty funny.
I might have to look her up because that was good.
But yeah, that just goes to show you what I was talking about.
Either a situation like that or an emergency health situation where you have something that mimics impairment.
Now, imagine what else they can detect if they can come up with sensors for air cabin pressure in your vehicle.
What other technology are they going to try to foist upon us to control us down the road?
So, I want the basics.
I want to get from A to B. I'd like to have my radio, my talk radio, I can listen to my air conditioning.
And I like the power windows and door locks, but I don't want Uncle Sam driving my vehicle for me and controlling.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, there's a fine line, isn't there?
I tend to buy secondhand vehicles, and I don't want something that's got a great big iPad screen with too much.
I don't want too much tech.
I want the bare minimum tech so I can have good quality cool or hot air, depending on the weather.
You know, as you say, windows that you don't have to manually wind down.
But apart from that, and maybe a radio, but apart from that, I don't want too much tech in my vehicle because, you know, the vehicles that we drive in, for example, in Greece, if there's an EMP, they're going to, the vehicles are going to last forever.
If there's a VIP here right now, most of the vehicles are going to be gone.
We're going to be stuck.
Yeah, that reminds me of the movie, was it World of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, when the EMP went over the globe and shut all the cars down?
He had the one with the carburetor and he had the only car that would run.
I think maybe in the future that we may want to think all these electronic controlled vehicles and go back to carburetors.
I absolutely agree with that.
I've got one more video to show you, Don.
This is what you've been talking about of the consequences, the potential consequences of the actions of this policy.
You've got to understand the unintended consequences of this paragraph.
Or could be severe.
It was sold to the public or to Congress as a drunk driver initiative.
But look, what about a woman fleeing an attacker or stalker?
Her pupils are going to be dilated.
She's going to be breathing hard.
She's going to be alert.
What if it says, no, you're impaired.
You can't drive your car to escape from an attacker?
This could be unintended consequences that we.
Now, what concerns me about this is the unintended consequences.
So, you've obviously heard about the 15 minute cities that are coming to play in Oxford in the United Kingdom.
And want to design a way that you can't leave your direct vicinity.
Like you have to stay within your 15 minute block.
And if you go outside of it, then there'll be consequences.
That's all published around the idea of climate crisis and net zero and all of that.
But of course, it's tyrannous, it's dictatorial.
And so, what if they paired this up with your kill switch?
What if they said, look, if you drive 15 minutes away more than five times a week, your car will not function?
You know, if you drive to certain places where we know they're selling red meat, Your car will not function.
They can dictate whatever they want.
Once this is in play, there's not much we can do about it.
Well, that's exactly right.
And then you pair all of those things with the central banking digital currency or the digital ID and the other, what you're giving the government is multiple upon multiple ways to track you and control you and do your bidding and submit to their will.
And, you know, it's very Orwellian.
I know people always talk about 1984 and Orwell, but if you've read that book, that's the way the Democrats want to go.
And, you know, really reality has mimicked that fiction for some time now under liberal governments really across the globe.
Who've tried to implement these things like 15 minute cities and things like that with their hoaxy, fake green agenda?
It's all based on lies and it's all about power and control and money.
If you look at the billions that have been made from these companies that were spawned by this entire green energy movement and how many billions of dollars these companies are worth, this industry is worth, you can see exactly why the ruse is afoot because it's all power play and it's all about money.
I want to keep my liberty.
I want to keep my country free.
And I don't want to submit to any of this government overreach in my devices, my vehicles, my identity, my 15 minute cities.
I don't want any part of any of it.
I'm into that.
Don Keith, where can people find you?
At RealDonKeith on X and Instagram, TheRealBeefWithDonKeith on YouTube.
Do you have that saying in America then?
I thought that was just a British thing, the beef.
Yeah, yeah.
Like I have a beef with.
My show started.
Because I like how to beef with the government.
So every episode was like, man, I've got a real beef with this thing.
So the show was called The Real Beef.
Plus, it rhymes with Don Keith.
So that's why it became The Real Beef with Don Keith.
Well, I love it.
Keep up the good work.
Send my love to Judy.
God bless you.
I will.
Thank you for having me on.
Great to see you, man.
Take care.
Warning this product contains nicotine.
Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
All right, guys, you know the drill.
This is our favorite sponsor, Knickknack, Pollywhack, Give a Dog a Bone.
These are knickknacks and.
They're America First, manufacturing the product in America.
They're Christ is King, maxing.
You've got the foot of our Lord and Savior crushing the head of the serpent right there on the can.
They're Christians.
We know the guys.
They support us.
We need you to support them.
If you don't use nicotine, you can just skip this commercial.
If you do use nicotine, I'm not asking you to start a new habit.
You can spend money on the thing you're already buying, but actually spend less because I'm going to give you a deep discount here in just a second.
And you'll be supporting an America First Christian company that also supports us over here at NXR Studios.
So you can buy it online.
You go to nicknack.com.
Use our promo code, all caps, J O E L 20!
That's Joel 20!
And you're going to get 20% off.
That's if you buy it online, knickknack.com.
But now you can also buy knickknack in the store.
If you go in the store and use our code, the link in the description below, then you'll actually get paid to try out their product.
You'll get $3 back when you buy your first can, then you'll get $1 back when you buy can number two, three, and four, and then another $3 back when you buy your fifth.
Can.
Buying Knickknacks With Promo Codes00:15:10
It's pretty simple.
You just upload your receipt and they'll send you the cash back.
So go to knickknack.com if you want to buy it online, Joel20! or use our code in the description below if you're buying it in the store.
I am now pleased to be joined by my friend John Henry Weston, the founder and CEO and top dog over at Life Site News.
John Henry, thanks for joining us.
Good to be here, Calvin.
Thank you so very much for having me.
Not at all.
The church is a mess, and I thought, who can I get to talk to me about this and talk to my audience through this?
It seems like the church may be about to enter schism or produce a schism for the first time since the Avignon mess.
Now, this is foundational.
For people who don't know the situation, what is going to happen with the SSPX in June?
So, on July 1st, the SSPX, which is the priestly society of St. Pius X, and basically they are sort of the guardians, if you will, of the traditional Latin Mass, and they are going to make new bishops.
They're going to do bishop consecrations or ordinations, if you will, because they are a Latin Mass society that serves.
Hundreds of thousands of faithful around the world.
And as you know, to do confirmations, you need bishops.
A bishop has to do a confirmation, especially in the traditional rite.
And there's only two of them.
So they need to ordain more bishops or consecrate more bishops.
And of course, the relations with Rome are really rough.
When you have modernist popes, as we've had now for 14 years, first Francis and then Leo, it's going to create a situation that's going to be next to impossible.
Francis had a very clear agenda to eliminate the traditional Latin Mass.
That became very, very clear because at first it was thought, oh, we just want it to be part of, but not the exclusive part of.
And we want to make sure that there's still no, no, no, no.
It became really clear.
The head of the congregation that deals with worship made it absolutely clear that the process, this is a process for elimination.
And that's never going to happen because that is the mass of ages.
That's the mass handed down by our Lord to his apostles.
And it's never going to change.
And so we're in a kind of a pickle, a battle, if you will.
And the society basically says okay, well, in order to obey Rome, we're going to do that by refusing to listen to what Leo, Francis, et cetera, have told us.
Because if we obey what they're saying, we are then going to harm the faith and harm the faithful, and in fact, harm these men who are claiming to be the representative of the Catholic Church.
It would be a massive harm to the church if we basically folded up shop and were no longer able to provide the traditional mass, the traditional sacraments for the faithful, hundreds of thousands of whom attend SSPX churches and masses all around the world.
So that's what's going on.
On the other side of the equation, Rome has threatened excommunication.
I don't know if you want me to go into the past of how that happened.
Let's get to that because there are two bishops, you say, within the SSPX.
And as you rightly point out, you need a bishop in order to confirm somebody, to receive the full gifts of the Holy Spirit, and fully become a member of the church.
And so there's a necessity for more bishops.
Now, people may not know that in order to consecrate new bishops, and these bishops within the SSPX have full apostolic succession, they have full authority from Christ passed down through the apostles.
They are bishops in the church.
However, in order to consecrate a new bishop, you need something called a papal mandate, which is essentially permission from the Vatican to say you can consecrate new bishops.
Now, Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is they have not received a papal mandate and they're going to go ahead with a consecration anyway, which would probably mean they're de facto excommunicating themselves.
But it seems that Rome may issue an excommunication and they've explicitly said they may do so.
Is that right?
So, what the Pope grants is jurisdiction.
And the bishops there are not going to be claiming jurisdiction at all.
In other words, what they're doing is they're saying they're consecrating bishops in order to.
Do the sacraments for the faithful.
And they're not giving themselves jurisdiction.
So when the.
So just to clarify that, they won't have a diocese.
They'll be kind of like auxiliary bishops.
That's right.
And so they will be bishops because what it takes, if you will, to make a bishop is, as we know from the scriptures, it's the laying on of hands.
And if you go back to the original days in the church, there was no permission from Peter to, let's say, Timothy to go and obey another bishop because the bishop is still there.
So historically, we don't have that.
It's developed with time, rightfully so.
I'm not saying that that's wrong, but the whole point is the.
SSPX are not claiming to do that.
They're not claiming a mandate per se.
So they think, I believe, they've developed a pathway where they don't feel they are transgressing the law such that they'd be automatically excommunicated.
Rome, however, is saying they're going to do this.
And it's interesting to me because this is part two, if you will, of this move.
What happened first with the Second Vatican Council, and then after the Council, The obliteration of the Latin Mass.
And that's where Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, one of the fathers of the Council, wanted to say, Whoa, whoa, whoa, we need to preserve the Mass of ages.
This traditional Mass has been with us since time immemorial.
In fact, the Church had forbade any other Mass other than ones that were already over 200 years old back at the time in the 1500s.
And so you have this perennial Mass forever that Lefebvre said, We have to preserve.
We have to just do this.
So they were doing that.
And it got to a point in 1988 where those four bishops said, There's not, well, actually, it was him saying, I have to make new bishops because if I die, then what?
So he wanted to make bishops.
And John Paul II actually agreed to let him make one.
And there was a kerfuffle back and forth.
And he said, Look, I've got to make four.
Interestingly, the cardinal from the Vatican who visited Lefebvre at the time was a cardinal Gagnon.
And one of his disciples was a good friend of mine, Father Charles Murr, who many of you viewers might know from his.
He appears on Faith and Reason with me every week.
He's also a prolific author, one of his most famous works, Murder in the 33rd Degree.
Anyway, he, being a disciple of, or one of the students of, Cardinal Gagnon, is interesting.
He's able to relate what happened.
When Gagnon went to visit Lefebvre, and Lefebvre told him, Yeah, I know, the Holy Father said, one, we got to do four.
Why?
Well, frankly, because I don't trust Rome.
Gagnon's response I agree with you.
And so it's like, whoa.
So you're getting, even at that time in Rome, because in 1988, it's John Paul II.
Everybody thinks, oh, wow, awesome, St. John Paul II.
It is true.
But he was surrounded by vipers.
To give you an example, Cardinal Walter Casper, the same guy we know now as the guy who basically gave us Amoris Laetitia, this heretical thing, which Allows for Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics.
He at the time was the head of John Paul II's outreach to interreligious outreach.
And he said famously, We shouldn't try and convert the Jews, which anybody who knows anything about the faith will tell you.
And I like to quote Mother Miriam, who is a former Jew who then became a Catholic and now a nun.
She basically said, The worst form of anti Semitism is keeping Jesus from the Jews.
And that's exactly what Walter Casper, and he was there advising John Paul in a top Position.
So he was surrounded by snakes, the same snakes who, by the way, wouldn't let him make the consecration of Russia back in 84.
But nonetheless, that's where this came from.
So Lefebvre does this in 88 and he's excommunicated with the other bishops who he consecrated.
And then what happens?
Fast forward in history to Benedict.
Benedict lifts the excommunications, but interestingly, without the SSPX ever recanting or saying we did wrong or repenting.
No, nothing.
So that's very interesting.
So, normally when you're excommunicated, you have to come back and ask for reinstatement.
Well, if you're reinstated without repenting, in fact, with continuing in the same vein, it's the authority acknowledging, yeah, something went wrong over there, and we're undoing this.
Okay, so it's undone.
And there was this amazing flowering of the Latin Mass under Benedict.
He did something giving a document for the whole church.
Telling because he knew he knew that there's these leftist bishops who really hate the Latin Mass, and so he said to the priests of the world, Look, this is the Mass of the ages, and you're allowed to celebrate it, and your bishop actually can't forbid you.
That's been the teaching of the church forever.
And so, Benedict's not even changing anything, he's acknowledging something that's been there for centuries already, and so that's what it was.
And there was this huge flowering of the Latin Mass, you had these massive Latin Mass communities.
Churches packed with young people, young families.
And this started to freak out many of these baby boomer bishops.
For them, I think, and it's a postulation of mine, it's a hypothesis of mine, their stamp, their contribution, if you might say, to the church was exactly eliminating the Latin Mass, to making it new.
That's what they, that was going to be their signature move.
There's multi layers to this.
I do want to get to the Latin Mass.
Part of it, but I'm stuck on the excommunication side just for a moment because it seems almost pharisaical to me.
And maybe you can help me out with this because the whole point of Christianity as opposed to Judaism is that we're supposed to follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law.
And as I understand it, pontifical mandates have only been necessary since 1917.
But there has been a practice of it further back than that.
But the point is that for the first 11 centuries, bishops just consecrated new bishops.
The reason they brought in this idea of checking in with the Pope first was because they wanted to avoid secular interference.
And of course, throughout much of Christendom, which was most of Europe at the time, kings were having a say on who bishops consecrated.
And so there were political interferences that they wanted to avoid within the church.
So it's the separation of church and state, essentially, in the true sense.
And so the church said, before we consecrate new bishops, we're going to check in with the top bishop first.
But that was the point of that law.
So it wasn't about stopping other bishops consecrating other bishops if you don't like the form of liturgy that they celebrate or that they're too traditional.
It seems to me that we're not following the spirit of this law, which is again a very new kind of law from 1917, and it seems we're leaning on the letter of the law instead.
Is that not Pharisaical?
Well, it's Pharisaical, especially in this sense.
So, unfortunately, there's so much politics in the church today, and I don't mean proper politics, I mean crass bending over to not only the secular, to the enemies of the church.
The biggest case in point is what we're doing with China.
China is, of course, run by the Communist Party, and they have a patriotic Catholic association, which is a fake church set up by the Chinese Communist government whose stated goal is the elimination of Catholicism.
So, Rome allows them, the Chinese Communist Party, to name their own bishops and without papal mandate.
Now, they're supposed to have it, but they do it anyways without it.
And Rome signs off and smiles even when they do it without their permission.
So, under both Francis and Leo, Rome has faced the basically that they've named their own bishops without consulting with Rome.
And Rome goes, Oh, okay, then you shouldn't have done that, but yeah, yeah, it's fine.
It's all good.
They've got the mandate now.
After the fact, it's all good.
So that is where we will see what's going to happen with the SSPX.
If Rome allows for bishops to be named, no excommunications to the Chinese Communist Party, which hates the church, stated goal is to get rid.
Of Catholicism, and it treats them with not only kid gloves, but actually is now encouraging the faithful there, the underground church, to come out.
There was just a report by Human Rights Watch of all places, a leftist outfit, saying that, hey, Rome, you've done a really bad thing here because your faithful in China are now persecuted more thanks to your agreement with China than ever before.
And so it's sick, but if Rome's now going to turn around, And say to the SSPX, whose stated goal is to further the church, who loves the church, who's willing to sacrifice themselves for the church, if they're going to go ahead and tell those folks, you're excommunicated, while the Chinese are not for doing the same thing, that really will speak volumes to the world.
So I actually made a guess that Leo was going to ignore it because I thought.
I said the same.
I thought there's no way he's going to act.
What he'll do is he'll be vague and ambiguous, like the church often is these days, and kind of.
People won't know.
So, people who don't like the SSPX will think they're excommunicated de facto, and people that do like them will think they're not.
But no, it seems to be coming down.
But you've pointed out that there's a two tiered system here.
Now, legal systems should be equal.
People are equal in terms of dignity and worth in the eyes of God, but we should have equality under the law too.
If China's been treated one way and the SSPX another, that's an issue.
But it's not just within China.
We've seen over the last few days, actually, that there's been a different treatment of, well, not just schismatics, but apostates.
We saw the new so called Archbishop of Canterbury being greeted.
By the Holy Father.
Spiritual Schism Between Old And New Masses00:08:23
We saw her praying in front of cardinals who were bowing their heads and crossing themselves as if they're being blessed by her, which is an impossibility.
And so there's kind of that problem.
But also, we've seen Catholic bishops co-consecrate, not co-consecrating, co-facilitating in what looks like some kind of sacramental service.
Yeah, yeah.
The ordination or whatever of an Anglican bishop.
With the participation of an actual bishop, a Catholic bishop.
And these things are so sad because it actually gets worse than the welcome of Sarah Malali.
She's a female lay person who's not in the church.
She's an Anglican.
And, by the way, she's pro abortion, pro lesbian, pro homosexual.
She's not even a Christian by that right because she rejects the teachings of Christ.
But she.
She claims to be a priest and a bishop, dresses up in liturgical garb, as Ed Penton said.
And Ed, God bless him, he's such a mild mannered guy.
He has been a Vatican reporter for decades and is one of the best.
He even said Rome is confirming her in her trans ecclesial identity.
I thought that was great.
She spoke afterwards.
She said it was like a meeting of two pastors.
So she clearly wasn't rebuked and she needed to be in love, rebuked.
No, in fact, it got even worse.
She was asked if she spoke to the Pope about female ordinations, female priests, and she said, Well, I'm not a politician.
But then she said, But I sometimes will have to say some things when they're a matter of justice.
And I thought, Oh my, that seems like a pretty clear hint that she spoke to him about the issue.
And I thought, My goodness.
But the visuals of it were so striking that I think that really cut deep for a lot of Catholics who've been trying to avoid the issue of Leo being.
Heterodox, you know, just burying their heads in the sand, looking the other way.
This one was too visually striking.
Just to allow women to masquerade as priests is just a nightmare.
And yet, here's the real rub.
While he met with Sarah Malali, he refused to meet with Archbishop Viganot, excommunicated unjustly by Francis.
He refused to meet with the leaders of the Society of Pius X.
He will meet with rock stars and known heretics in the church, like Father James Martin, but he won't meet with actual Catholic bishops and those whom they're pretending they're all concerned about, i.e., the SSPX.
Well, let's get to the meat and veg of this, because this is what it all comes down to in essence, isn't it?
There is a kind of a spiritual schism already within the church between the Old Mass and the New Mass.
There's a problem here in that we have the Mass of the Ages, which has been celebrated at least going back to the third century.
Standardized during the Council of Trent, and we have evidence of it throughout the whole of church history.
So it's called the Mass of the Ages for a reason.
It's the Mass that has been prayed throughout the ages.
And so we pray it not just in unity with Christ, but we pray it in unity with all of the saints in heaven.
And then there's the new Mass, which came out of Vatican II, which people can argue whether it's valid or not.
That's not the point of this conversation.
But the point here is that the church clearly wants to go in that direction, and it's trying to not just offer two forms, like an ordinary form and an extraordinary form, as was the promise.
But is actually trying to cut off tradition, cut off the Mass of the Ages, and force people down this new track.
Is that not what all of this is really about?
It's not about the SSPX, not about the bishops, not about Sarah Mullali or China.
It's all about the Mass of the Ages being cut off, really, isn't it?
Yeah, I mean, it does seem to be that in terms of validity, you had Lefebvre even say, insist that the new Mass was valid.
But the difficulty here is it moves further and further away from.
The truth, which is the Mass, the way handed down, as I said, from Christ to his apostles.
And this is how we get to the third century Mass, if you will.
It comes from those apostolic prayers.
In fact, if you look at an old Missal and compare it to a new one, and you look at some of the prayers that are already eliminated in the Novus Ordo, the new rite of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Mass, you'll see some of the prayers removed.
When you look at the date, it says from apostolic times, i.e., from the apostles.
And so that's just totally bizarre.
How can they do that?
God only knows.
But this is it.
As we move further and further away, there's a lot of postulation in Rome that they are moving toward a mass which eliminates the words of institution.
In other words, the very words that are necessary to say in order to confect or to make the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And those words, of course, very simple this is my body, this is my blood.
There's already a move.
To try and do a more ecumenical mass that talks about that but doesn't actually use those words.
And that would actually eliminate the mass itself.
And that is the trajectory.
We've already seen that with COVID, the shutdown of the mass, never before in history.
That was a sign like never before of the end times, if you will.
And that has to be the trajectory of a lot of these people.
And I'm sorry to say, there's a lot of evil involved in this.
We know from Malik Martin from even Fulton J. Sheen.
It's very interesting.
He's being beatified this year because Fulton J. Sheen was very clear that there is a false church coming.
It will be the ape of the church.
It will be like the mystical body of Antichrist.
And this is where we're headed.
And it's actually in effect right now.
You can see it because this thing that we're experiencing have been for the last 14 years or so is not where we were before, even 14 years ago.
It was bad since the 60s, sure, but this thing is wholly new.
In that we have official papal documents that are absolutely heretical.
That terrifies me because those words, hoc est enim corpus meum, have been prayed not from the apostles, but from Christ himself.
So the idea of removing them is terrifying to me.
But this is part of the broader picture in that it already moves the mass away from a sacrifice into something lesser than.
It feels quite Protestant, actually, as does much of the things that came out of Vatican II, because you look at the offertory prayers and they were changed from, again, from the prayers of the apostles to something that is taken from.
Jewish liturgy, a prayer over a meal.
And so instead of praying over a sacrifice, the perpetual sacrifice of Christ, we're praying over the Lord's Supper.
That sounds very Anglican to me.
And so I have many problems with the New Mass, and it's not about the language.
But what gets put forth in the public conversations is that people think it's about the language.
They say, well, you pray the New Mass in Latin.
There you go.
You've got your Latin Mass.
It's about what has been handed down to us.
It's a treasure of the church.
It's the sacred tradition which makes up the church and is older than the Bible itself.
And is that not why it matters?
Well, indeed.
So, Benedict, for his part, he actually made some changes to the Mass, to the English version, the secular versions, excuse me, vernacular versions of the Mass, to correct some errors that have been going around for decades.
So, one of them, I'll make the most serious one, was where the priest during consecration would say, My blood is shed for, in the Bible, in the true version, it's shed for many.
But it was always used, at least in English, for you and for all.
But that can't be because A, our Lord didn't say that.
The Scary Truth About An Empty Hell00:07:03
But B, that wants to give credence to the false teaching that no one's in hell.
This is universalism.
This is what we're hearing that hell is empty.
That's right.
And that's been going on again since, well, it's been going on.
There's a lot of people who thought that forever.
But that's always been a heresy.
John Henry, I heard this over Easter.
I heard one of the bishops in the church saying that hell is empty.
Unfortunately, because of certain theologians, you have even modern bishops who are pretty good, like Bishop Barron, suggesting that, yes, we could have a hope that hell is empty, that no one's there.
Even Judas.
And it's all nonsense.
You make our Lord a liar.
Remember, it's our Lord who says, narrow is the road that leads to life, few there are that find it, broad is the road that leads to destruction, many there are that go therein.
You can't say hell is empty.
You have to acknowledge, painful as it is, our Lord's own teaching that the majority go to hell.
And that makes us, should make us, as St. Paul said, work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
Amen to that.
I think that sums it up pretty well.
Thank you for that.
For people who want to find out more, where can they follow you?
Where can they watch your shows?
Lifesitenews.com is the original source.
So L I F E S I T E N E W S.com.
We, of course, Are after being canceled twice, are still on YouTube at LSN TV.
We have all of our social media channels Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, everywhere you can reach us at JH Weston or at Life Site News.
And we hope to see you there.
Also, we've just launched a new venture, like a Catholic only page at signofthcrossmedia.com.
Fantastic.
John Henry Weston from Life Site News.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much, Kevin.
God bless you.
Now let's take a look at the comments from last week's episode.
I like to have real engagement with you guys, the viewers.
So do drop your replies, your comments, whether you're watching on X, YouTube, Facebook, Substack, whatever, wherever you are, let me know in the comments.
Looking at the clip that Joel put up on X, when preaching becomes a crime, Christian replied, and that's at God's Lonely Man.
Oh, saying, I'm watching Dale's American Grit on YouTube, and now this one with Calvin.
Amazing times.
Glad you're excited about the show, Christian.
Thank you for watching.
We've got Filmer's Ghost here who says, We need more government surveillance, not less.
We need to know who every foreigner is so we can identify and deport.
That's creepy and scary.
First and foremost, if you have a problem with the number of foreigners in your country, prevent the number of foreigners from coming into your country.
So prevention is better than reaction.
But secondly, this is just a short sighted approach, Filmer's Ghost, because if you allow your government to have a lot of surveillance, Because you think they'll help you on a particular policy, you're not thinking ahead because eventually they may and probably will use it against you on another policy.
The smaller the government, the freer the people.
We don't want our governments to have a big brother state where they can see us everywhere, monitor everything we do from everywhere we go to everything we spend.
That's communist China, that's North Korea, that's Great Britain.
We don't want that in America.
At least I don't want that in America.
Caro says when praying becomes a crime and prayer emoji, absolutely, it's shocking what's happening.
And we'll have more in that story as it progresses.
Dark Chicago says, But will you help us take back Constantinople?
I would love to help you take back Constantinople.
Let me know when the crusade begins over there.
Now, on the clip of my friend Isabel Vaughan Spruce being arrested for silent prayer in her own head, Justin Harris Fonseca quotes from the scriptures And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and power was given him over all kindreds and tongues and nations.
Revelation 13, 7, King James Version.
He says, It's time to defeat the beast, take over the surveillance systems, to take down the criminals.
Absolutely.
I'm with you on that level.
In Great Britain, there are these people who call themselves the Blade Runners from the movie, and they go around chopping down these cameras that have been put up, I would say, very immorally, if not illegally, that capture us all around, particularly in the capital, but all around the place.
And so that's an activist method that's been taken up.
But also over here in America, these flock cameras are popping up everywhere without seeming any consensus from the population.
And hackers have put together these little flock zappers.
That you can get that essentially flood the flocks with false information.
I think they could probably go a step further and disable the flocks.
As a former computer scientist and penetration tester, someone who's interested in cybersecurity and used to teach it, I'm more in favor of disabling these immoral and illegal devices than chopping them down, as the Blade Runners are doing in Britain.
But I think it's good that activists are looking at ways of doing things.
And again, I'm not advocating for any illegal activities.
A friend of mine is alleged to have.
Promoted the Blade Runners and is in a long court case about it because the state has taken him to court.
So I'm not advocating for any illegal activities, but I'm saying what the state is doing is wrong and it's good that people are standing up against it.
Julia Lee said, People don't realize that smart TVs and other devices are watching and listening to conversations in people's homes.
Absolutely.
And these things too.
These things are always on.
Right now, you can't see it on the camera that we have, but there are infrared bursts coming out of these phone cameras all the time.
Particularly from the front camera to check to see if your face is in front of it.
Well, that's the reason they give.
But essentially, the microphones are always on.
We often say things, and then a couple of hours later, we advertise something in line with what we said.
We are being monitored at all times in all places.
Most people around the world now use Gmail, for example.
Google has access to everything.
Big tech is scary, and we should be suspicious of these big companies and big governments that have too much information on us.
Because they know more about us than we know about ourselves.
The algorithms that they have can predict things that we may not even suspect about ourselves.
On the next crusade clip on X, we've got a number of comments here.
Rachel, so SapphireSon7, good commenter.
She's always around, supportive.
Says that Callum is a bundle of joy, literally lights up the world with his smile.
Oh, I'm sure Callum Smiles would love to hear that.
They don't call him Smiles for nothing.
On the Britain's King Skipping Easter post, we've got some.
We've got quite a few comments on there.
I'll pick just a handful.
Time To Take Back Christendom00:14:53
Theoria Neosis says, Hi, Father Robinson.
Do you currently have a jurisdictional home?
I wish to connect with whatever church gives you a home.
I love that.
I love that sentiment.
Thank you, Theoria.
But what I would say is, look, I am in an irregular situation and I don't advocate irregular situations to anyone.
I think everyone should go to the nearest Catholic church and they are all around the world.
If you are.
If you are in a place where there isn't a Catholic church, then look up the nearest high church, whether it's Anglo Catholic or Old Catholic Church in your area.
Or if your local Catholic church is captured by homosexuality or liberalism, then look elsewhere.
But otherwise, generally speaking, you should be sticking to your local Catholic church, especially if you're baptized and confirmed Catholic.
I don't recommend anyone who's baptized and confirmed and taken First Holy Communion leave the Catholic Church because that is becoming apostate.
My situation is kind of unique.
I submit to my bishop.
Is not in full communion with Rome at present, but that's not an ideal situation.
All Catholics should aim to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
But I appreciate you saying someone that would take me on is a good sign.
And it is.
My bishop is Bishop Jaden Haygood, good man.
But the old Catholic church that I belong to or jurisdiction that I belong to doesn't have churches everywhere.
And that's just the situation that we are in right now.
I hope that the whole church is reunited at some point.
And if East and West manages to do it, then everyone else should be able to do it too.
Laura says, That worried me.
This is about the king not making an Easter speech, but celebrating Ramadan.
And not having been a fan of his, but loved his mother.
I did find his trip to see Trump was refreshing and hopeful.
Yeah, I'm with you on that.
I'm not the biggest King Charles fan.
I loved Queen Elizabeth II, God rest her soul.
And I also think his visit to America was quite good, actually, for someone who's been a massive critic of his for a while.
The Wandering Shrew said JQ.
I have addressed the JQ.
I will address the JQ.
Not relevant to this particular topic, I don't think.
But other than, Queen Elizabeth II did not like Israelis visiting Buckingham Palace, she considered them all to be terrorists.
A little tidbit of knowledge for you there.
What else have we got here?
Darren said, Not my king.
Unfortunately, he is.
If you live in Great Britain andor the Commonwealth of Nations, he is your king.
He is my king.
I don't like him, but he is our king.
We don't get to just say, Not our king.
That's what the leftists do with the president.
And, you know, in a democracy, whether it's a constitutional republic or whatever, it doesn't matter.
The person who's elected president on the popular vote is the president of the United States, whether you like him or not.
Julia Lee said, He is not our king.
The monarchy needs to be abolished.
Don't want someone who has turned their back on our faith.
I don't want someone who has turned their back on our faith either.
But again, he is our king.
We can argue for the abolition of the monarchy.
We can get into that conversation and then we'd have to wonder about what kind of system we'd like.
I would prefer an absolute monarchy, actually.
I just prefer an absolute Christian monarchy.
Kranjas says we all know why.
I think he's alluding to the idea that the king may have converted to Mohammedanism.
Orion 77 said, Ramadan is Great Britain's future?
No, I hope not.
Heaven forbid.
Moses pointing up said, The people need to elect a new king.
If only we could.
But the point of a king is he can't be elected.
He is above the democratic system, even in a constitutional monarchy.
What we need is a good king, a benevolent king.
Micah Cherry said, Britain cooked.
Time to take back Christendom.
It is time to take back Christendom.
And that's why this crusade is the starting point.
We have a spiritual crusade.
And hopefully.
That will amount to something.
Now, on the other X post, just before we move on to YouTube, I had a post.
World by Wolf has gone missing, by the way, on X. He's been a great account for a long time, usually very sound.
He's been a bit of a negative Nancy recently.
I don't know why, but I hope he's okay.
But his account is down.
Anyway, he clipped a bit from last week's show where I was just having a conversation with Callum about the United Kingdom events.
Got a bit upset by it, and some of his bootlickers got upset by it.
But I have nothing against Tommy Robinson.
I say the same thing I always say.
I like Tommy Robinson, actually.
I get on quite well with him in person.
We disagree on one particular issue, which is Israel and Zionism, but I don't expect to have the same opinion as everyone I get on with.
I don't expect to agree 100% with everyone that I'm friends with.
And most of my friends I have disagreements with on some level about some issue.
I think it would be very strange if I agreed with everyone absolutely.
And so, again, I have no issue with Tommy Robinson whatsoever.
But I was just having a conversation about a factual situation, a turn of events, and some people have taken issue with it.
That's the only way to save the country, returning to God, returning to his church.
AGF said it used to be a pagan country.
I don't know why people always come up with this stuff.
It used to be a pagan country.
No, England's never been a pagan country.
England was founded in 927 AD by Rex Anglorum, the first king of England, uniting Wessex and the other counties around, which all had their own lower kings.
They all came under one high king, and it was founded as a Christian nation from the very beginning.
So, over a thousand years, it's been a Christian nation, explicitly so, in all of its constitutions.
And so, to suggest that it was pagan is just poor history.
But of course, we had pagans in our land.
Of course, we did, yeah.
People who built Stonehenge and stuff like that.
But it was never a majority pagan country.
And even before England was founded as a country, the British Isles had Christians on there.
In fact, it was one of the first places to have Christians in the world.
So, I don't know why people pipe up with this and think it's some like passive aggressive attack.
It means nothing.
Rachel said, England first, not Israel first.
I'm with you on that one.
Christ first, England first.
Absolutely.
Planet Walker said, You muppet!
The Judeo is reflective of the Old Testament.
Clawless as usual.
I mean, if anyone's a muppet, Planet Walker, it is you because Christianity and Christian, those two words have meant something for 2,000 years now.
People understand that the Christian Bible has an Old Testament and a New Testament, always has done.
And no one until the last few years has needed to say, oh, Judeo before Christian, in order to understand that it's reflective of the Old Testament.
That's just stupid.
In fact, actually, the word Judeo Christian originally meant that Jews who converted to Christianity, sometimes people call them messianic Jews, but I mean, all Jews should follow the Jewish Messiah, the Christ, and become Christian, as the first Christians were Jews.
But to suggest that the term Judeo Christian somehow means that we're reflecting on the Old Testament is inaccurate.
Untrue and stupid.
And we need to face down these stupid suggestions because what it does is it undermines the Christian faith.
We don't need to put anything before Christ or before Christian.
Christ should come first in all things.
And so we know that the Old Testament is pointing towards Christ all the way through it.
It's prophesying Him.
And we know that the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament.
And together they make up the canon of the Christian Bible, which is a good thing.
Christian Bible, not Judeo Christian Bible.
Yes, the modern day Jews have parts.
Of our Old Testament, not all of it, because they took out the bits that prophesied the coming of Christ, or many of them.
But that doesn't mean we somehow have to recognize that.
No, we don't.
We don't recognize any false religions, any other religions.
We recognize Christianity, we recognize Jesus Christ, anything else is a lie.
You, sir, are clueless.
On to the next comment.
Spero Petria said a positive Christian country.
Yes, that's what we need.
He said raw Christians who follow Jesus' original, uncorrupt ideals before the Jew Paul distorted them.
What?
What is this heresy?
They know Jesus could not have been Jewish as the Jews would never have handed one of their own over to Roman Goy courts for punishment.
Well, okay, let's break this down a little bit because this is interesting.
Thank you for this comment, Spiro.
Jesus was Jewish in terms of he was from Judea, right?
He wasn't Jewish in terms of what we understand to be the Jewish faith in 2026.
No, not at all.
However, Saul was a Jew.
And Saul persecuted Christians because he was a Jew.
But he converted on the road to Damascus.
A very famous passage in this book, you should check it out.
But when Paul converted, he became one of the most ardent followers of Christ, and his teachings have been in our canon from the beginning, passed down first through the Word and then secondly through the Bible once it was put together.
St. Paul is one of the most important Christians of all time, and this is why the Bible teaches, and the Bible is God breathed by the way, it's inerrant.
There are no errors in the Bible.
The Bible teaches us that we should mirror Paul as Paul mirrors Christ.
And so, no, the Bible is not corrupted.
Christianity is not corrupted.
I don't know what it means to follow raw Christianity.
Following the Christian faith of both sacrament and tradition, sacred scripture and sacred tradition, is what we call the Catholic faith.
And we learn about it through the tradition handed down to us through the apostles, but also through the Bible.
So, that's a very interesting take.
I've never heard that one before.
And just a couple more from this clip.
England, so this is Stop the World, I Want to Get Off, aptly named.
England isn't a Christian country.
It's a country with Christians in it.
No, England is still a Christian country.
And I want it to stay that way forever.
I want it to become more Christian.
But our laws are Christian.
Our judiciary is Christian.
Our legislative is Christian.
Our monarchy is Christian.
Our houses of parliament are Christian.
The very culture is Christian.
Our morality is Christian.
Everything about our country is explicitly andor implicitly Christian.
And we want to strengthen that, not weaken it.
And I think we'll leave that one there.
Gary Mack posted that excellent meme of just to clarify, Christian.
And Judeo, where Christian is Christ on the cross, and Judeo is the people standing around yelling, Crucify Him.
Yes.
We'll leave that one there.
Let's go over to the comments on YouTube.
That's on NXR Studios.
Lots of lovely, positive comments here.
Thank you for this encouragement from David saying, Great premiere.
Angela, love Father Calvin.
Love you too.
Thank you, Angela.
Miss Phoenix, excellent show.
Joseph, I am a big fan of Calvin.
Blessing to America.
Thank you.
Bless you too.
Goldfish said, not nearly enough people are actively watching this content.
Don't be afraid to share this stuff with your friends, guys.
Yes, be evangelists.
Helen said, love NXR.
Everyone, great job.
Yes, great team at NXR.
Sean said, Jesus is king.
Yes, he is indeed.
Sarah said, sharing with everyone.
Love you guys.
Keep going.
Thank you for sharing.
Please do like, comment, subscribe, share, all of that stuff.
Dylan said, let's go.
Yes, exactly.
Right, chick.
Oh, right, Chicken Wing said surveillance and facial recognition is wrong.
Makes me wonder if the Blade Runners will add the cameras to their to do list, like you, Les.
Makes me wonder, too, right, Chicken Wing.
And Zach said, This is incredible.
This show is prayers answered.
I wish that things hadn't gotten this bad.
UK is in such a horrible place, it must become British and Christian again.
I am with you 100%, Zach.
Thank you for that.
Thank you for.
I can scroll all day.
Lots and lots of wonderful comments from you.
Very kind people.
Oh, Johnny Dorak said, Does Calvin have an afro?
Maybe he's just listening and I'm not watching.
I don't know.
But the neo Puritan replied, Yes, it's pretty epic.
Thank you.
It's not as epic as it was.
It used to be about here.
But we'll see how far, how big it grows this time around.
I'm going to leave that there for this week.
Please leave your replies and comments and I'll get back to more next week.
Love engaging with you guys.
Even when we have these little debates, these little tit for tats, it's great to have a bit of challenge and it's great to have some encouragement too.
We do this for you guys.
And so as long as you like it, we'll keep doing it.
That is it for this week.
Thank you for watching another Next Crusade, only here on NXR Studios.
Today, of course, is the solemnity of the ascension of the Lord, which is his ascension into heaven 40 days after Easter.
So let us pray the collect of the day.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Grant, we pray thee, Almighty God, that as we believe your only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to have ascended into heaven, so we may also in heart and mind there ascend, and with him continually dwell.
Who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever.
Amen.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.
That's been another great episode with great guests.
Thank you for tuning in.
Leave your comments down below, and I will have a read of them next week.
We have an announcement this week in that the book is live.
You can purchase the book.
Go to newchristianright.com and click on the shop, or go to shop.newchristianright.com.
And that is my book.
The Silent Jihad, where I outline the mess of Islam and its invasion of Christendom and what we should be doing about it as Christians.
You can catch us at the same time, same place next week, which is Thursdays at 5 pm Eastern for the next crusade on NXR Studios.
You can also watch our live show as well on Wednesdays at 2 pm Eastern time.
That's the Common Sense Crusade over at CalvinRobinson.com.
And look out for Fox and Father during the week.
That's Sundays on Reclaim the Media at 7 pm British time.
2 p.m. or 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
You can follow me on social media if you'd like.
I'm at Calvin Robinson on all the usuals X, Instagram, Facebook, you name it.
And my YouTube channel is at Common Sense Crusade.