I haven't figured out why, but Texas is something of a wasteland when it comes to Traditional Catholic presence.


And yet look at how few Trad chapels *of any variety* there are in Texas.

The state is very large and spread out as well. You'd think with the Mexican (a Catholic country) influence there would be more interest in Tradition and supporting Traditional chapels, if not for dogmatic or "the right" reasons, at least they should see it as a good place for Mass. (Keep in mind Latin is much closer to Spanish than to English).

Nevertheless, it seems like Texas is particularly bad, at least per capita, when it comes to Traditional Catholic options.

Take the SSPX for example. Austin, the capital of Texas, STILL gets Mass just twice a month -- in a hotel room! And San Antonio, the 10th largest city in the USA, has an old chapel from the 1970's that has been overcrowded since at least the early 2000s. They still don't have a school. The SSPX recently bought land outside S.A., and on paper the plan is to build a larger church there. But I'll believe it when I see it. They might never get their upgraded/new chapel.

The HQ or "priory" is in Houston, which is right near the border with Louisiana. For most Texans, Houston might as well be in Louisiana, for how far away it is.

Texas is the size of France, but not NEARLY as densely populated with Traditional Catholics as France is.

Sedevacantism is not at all a radical position. It is the ONLY logical position to take if a Catholic believes in ALL of the papal powers and then personally observes that ALL of the popes for the last 60+ years have DIRECTLY contradicted the papal teachings from ALL of the popes before them regarding faith and morals.

Any other position besides Sedevacantism is arrived at either through IGNORANCE (e.g. a Catholic who believes in all of the papal powers but does not know much Church history and, therefore, might not know the direct contradictions the modern popes have stated against all former popes regarding faith and morals) or through DENIAL (e.g. an R&R Catholic who knows the aforementioned contradictions yet still tries to mentally cope with the contradictions by making up a bunch of excuses to justify his/her completely illogical and untenable position).

Sedevacantism is somewhat a radical position in the sense that it does not try to see nuances and grey areas like Recognize and Resist, for instance. It simply says that the bad boys are not real Popes and that's it.

I am much more interested in the Sociology behind Traditionalism, and to understand why it grows in certain places and not in others, or why some places have more Sedevacantists while others have more "R&R".

Sedevacantism started strong in Mexico right after the end of the Council. Many older priests who opposed the changes were kicked out of their parishes and continued their ministery privately. Most of them passed away in the 70's. In those years there was no internet, no way for them to know what was going on in Rome, all newspapers and tv supporting the new ideas, socialism and comunism taught in schools, etc. Catechism was taught in private schools that were forced to change. After all "father said so", he cannot be wrong. Blind obedience was common. Without communication means and who to trust, specially in the countryside, these older priest stayed on their own until they passed. Some of the faithfuls turned to the SSPX when they stablished the first missions in the 80's. Nevertheless, currently sedevacantism is stronger in numbers. There's a couple of seminaries founded by bishops descendent from the Thuc line.