Bishop Strickland aknowledges a state of necessity to SSPX
Every Texan knows this story:
Long before we knew about politics, before we knew the arguments, before we knew how to quibble over details, we were taught something in school that shaped our bones. At the Alamo, there came a moment when there were no more letters to send, no reinforcements coming, no negotiations left to try. The enemy was at the gates. Surrender had been demanded. And everyone knew what surrender would mean.
So the commander – William Barrett Travis – gathered his men – not to inspire them, not to give a pep talk, but to tell them the truth. He drew a line in the dirt. On one side of that line was safety – at least for the moment. On the other side was almost certain death. And he said, in effect: “Choose.” Only one man stepped back. The rest stepped forward.
That line in the sand was not drawn to start a rebellion. It was drawn to end illusions. Crossing it did not guarantee victory – it guaranteed fidelity. And whether we like it or not, that is where the Church …More
The SSPX and the Question of Apostolic …
"The current situation involving the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has once again revealed a serious and unresolved reality within the Church – one that cannot be dismissed, delayed indefinitely, or answered with silence.
In the years following the Council, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre acted under the conviction that essential elements of the Church’s life – the traditional priestly formation, the sacramental theology that shaped it, and the Mass that had nourished countless saints – were being abandoned or actively suppressed. The Society of St. Pius X arose from that crisis and, for decades, preserved these realities when few others were willing or permitted to do so.
This preservation was not ideological or nostalgic. It required bishops to ordain priests, to confirm the faithful, and to govern so that the Church’s traditional sacramental life would not be extinguished during a period of profound upheaval.
As the generation of bishops who first bore this responsibility has largely passed from the scene, the Society has repeatedly raised a concrete concern: without new bishops, the continuity of that priestly formation and sacramental life cannot be sustained. This is not a request for novelty, power, or exception. It is a question of whether something preserved at great cost for the good of the Church will now be allowed to disappear through inaction.
When such concerns are brought forward calmly, respectfully, and repeatedly – and when they are met not with clarity but with silence – delay itself becomes a decision. Inaction becomes a judgment. And silence begins to function as an answer.
The Church is hierarchical by divine design, and authority exists to safeguard what has been entrusted to it. That authority bears a grave responsibility: to protect the priesthood, to preserve apostolic continuity, and to speak plainly when essential realities are at stake.
Unity in the Church is not preserved by ambiguity. Fidelity is not a threat. Tradition is not an enemy. When those who openly contradict the Church’s teaching are tolerated, while those who seek continuity are treated as suspect, something has been inverted.
This moment demands prayer, honesty, and courage – especially from those entrusted with authority. The salvation of souls must remain the supreme law of the Church. Silence cannot be the final word. "