The (re)branding of the SSPX

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

The (re)branding of the SSPX

“So they organize the meeting in Menzingen, and Father Wegner told me that the man went there and asked one hundred and fifty questions to Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Fellay answered all of these questions, and it lasted six hours! For six hours! And, at the end, that man said: “Okay, I will take the contract of the Society, and I will do your branding.”

So I don’t know exactly how long this took… A few months… And I don’t know how much it cost, but… I talked with some people, and they think it was a bundle of money, and I wish they would have given it to us, so we could have a nice church by now! And afterwards he gave the conclusion to Father Wegner and to Bishop Fellay, the conclusion of the whole survey of the branding, and he said to Father and Bishop Fellay: “Bishop Fellay, the result of my survey, is that for the last fifteen years, you had it all wrong! You will never get more faithful and more people to come to your churches if you continue this way, because right now, the Vatican II Church is like an old man dying, and it’s like dying flat on the street. Like they lose their seminaries, they lose their monasteries, they sell their churches, and it is a dying church! And you are really looking bad when you continue to fight that Church! It makes you look like a cruel… or like you exaggerate, or like you are kicking somebody who is already dying! So your new branding has to change you completely! You have to stop arguing; you have to stop fighting; you have instead to go on the positive side, and to show the beauty of the traditional liturgy, the beauty of the traditional theology, and that way people will not see you as cruel, or bitter, or things like that.”

And this is why, since the branding of the society, DICI has changed; the SSPX websites have changed; the Angelus has changed. And in fact, interestingly enough, if you go back to the first issue of the new Angelus, what does Father Wegner say? Go back if you have it, and read it. He says: “We will not anymore put the emphasis on the battle and the fight, but we will put the emphasis on the beauty of the Gregorian chant, the beauty of art…”

Fr. Patrick Girouard  
Solemnity of Corpus Christi 
2 June 2013
“[The FSSPX] has forgotten its role of explaining 
the truth and battling against error.”


(begins at 13:15 and finishes at 26:14)
— Fr. Jürgen Wegner —
(click image to enlarge)
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2018/07/05/the-rebranding-of-the-sspx/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

3 comments on “The (re)branding of the SSPX

  1. Be firm in the Faith, and show people how beautiful it is in all of its fullness. That doesn’t seem like a bad plan to me.

  2. Yawn…typical nonsense from the resisters 🙄.

    God bless and preserve the SSPX.

  3. As someone once said: “I don’t believe in positive thinking. I don’t believe in negative thinking. I just believe in thinking *straight*.
    /
    It may be the SSPX’s general approach in the past *was* too negative.
    But I’d say its approach now is way too positive, to the point of producing results that are…er…negative.
    Some manifestations of this I’ve already mentioned.
    Here are a couple of other examples:
    2012: Bs. Fellay says in an interview that 95% of Vat II is OK.
    Positive thinking, yes…but positively wrong — and that’s a negative. Straight thinking maybe would say 5% of Vat II is outright heresy, 30% is ambiguous, thus confusing and thus evil, and almost all the rest is just bland stuff; what we already knew anyway.
    A multitude of similar episodes of Fellay’s “positive” thinking could be produced if I had the time.
    In the past ten years or more: SSPX schools, in the U.S. at least, have been moving to a “positive” approach to education. That means you always use positive reinforcement, and never negative reinforcement; always the carrot, never the stick. This implies a denial of original sin; it completely ignores the fact known to any thinking person that some people take a perverse joy in doing evil just for the hell of it; in taking advantage of all kindness and mercy shown to them to simply get away with more evil, and thus spit in the face of authority, to dominate and crush it, which they despise as weak and cowardly. This “positive” approach has produced some extremely negative results, some of which we’ve recently spoken of.
    Apparently, SSPX school management no longer believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, at least those passages where it is said: “Spare the rod and spoil the child” and “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, and the rod of correction shall drive it away” and “Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.”
    This is not to advocate uncharitable and imprudent corporal punishment, for there are other passages that show the right way to apply it.
    The point is that if you have an absolute no-corporal-punishment policy, you are denying the inerrancy of Scripture — or you just think you know better than God. Either way, the results aren’t good, for you or the students.
    That’s being nasty by being nice.

Leave a Reply