They ranged in age from 12 to 90, with many young adults and many recent converts and reverts, people deepening their Faith, or discovering it, in the company of the Traditional Latin Mass. They also discovered the traditions of Latin chants and English hymnody, and some hard truths about wet socks and blisters.
A pilgrimage is a way of honouring Christ or the saints. The more trouble we go to about it, to honour them, the greater the gift we are giving them. They don’t need our gifts, but it is good for us to give them: it creates, within us, a better ordering of priorities. It is good, also, for others to see the trouble we are going to, and for wider communities to take part in these efforts. We can’t increase the glory God enjoys in heaven, but as George Herbert expressed it, “In our hearts, though not in heaven, we can raise Thee.”

Cardinal Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, will
forever be associated with his Dicastery’s explanation of why details of
Traditional Masses should be excluded from parish newsletters:
“There is no intention in these provisions to marginalise the faithful who are rooted in the previous form of celebration: they are only meant to remind them that this is a concession to provide for their good (in view of the common use of the one lex orandi of the Roman Rite) and not an opportunity to promote the previous rite.”
If the aim of Traditionis custodes was indeed to
marginalise the faithful rooted in the Traditional Mass, then it might be said
to have had a measure of success, though this has come at the expense of
promoting the “previous rite” by putting a bright spotlight on it. Otherwise it
is much more difficult to see what it has achieved, or still might achieve,
that Pope Francis and his advisers might actually have wanted to achieve.
It is time for Pope Leo to clear up the mess.
Read the whole thing there.
I have a high regard for democracy, because unless it is unusually
corrupt, it makes possible the eviction of unpopular ruling parties without
bloodshed, and that counts for a lot. Democratic institutions are regarded as
having legitimacy, and elected officials who promised particular things when
campaigning for votes are regarded as having a “mandate” to implement them.
These are good things which help political systems to function and to overcome
all kinds of challenges. But this all works because of the western political
tradition, which attributes legitimacy to these things. This tradition
is reasonable, but it is not necessary. Things could be done in
different ways, and in different times and places they have been done in
different ways.
The Homeric tradition regards a warrior elite as having the mandate to rule: perhaps it makes sense that those prepared to die for their community should rule it, and it may make for an efficient and just political system. Other communities, living in other circumstances, may focus on a religious elite, or an intellectually, culturally, or economically preponderant class of one kind or another, as natural rulers. If it works for them, it is not for us to criticise it.
The hereditary principle is characteristic of a pre-modern
political system, but if it was reasonable then, there is no sense in which it
is in principle wrong now. The test of its legitimacy, in fact, is the degree
to which it is part of the political tradition of a community. The hereditary
House of Lords has been part of Britain’s, and England’s, political system for
at least 800 years, so the case for it is pretty conclusive.

Michael Davies (1936-2004) was from the 1970s until his
death the foremost lay advocate of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). His books,
particularly the trilogy Cranmer’s Godly Order, Pope John’s Council, and
Pope Paul’s New Mass, were an enormous influence on a generation of
Catholics attached to the TLM, and set the terms of the debate. He rejected the
extreme claims made by some, that the reformed Mass was invalid or that recent
popes were not real popes, and when he died he was praised by Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger. Nevertheless his support for the Traditional Mass and the
traditional teachings of the Church were uncompromising.
Leo Darroch’s biography starts with Davies’ early life. He was born into a Protestant family with Welsh roots, and attended a Grammar school. Instead of doing National Service he joined the regular Army, and served in Malaya. Back in civilian life he became a Catholic, married Maria Milosh, a Yugoslavian teacher who had been studying in England, and became a teacher himself. The young Davies had a growing family and was devout, conscientious, and intelligent, but those who met him in the 1960s would have had little reason to imagine that he would devote the second half of his life to writing, speaking, and campaigning about the Church’s teaching and liturgy, with unrelenting industry and very little earthly reward. It is interesting to ask what radicalised him.


The importance of this kind of solution, and
its appropriateness, is further clarified. It is important because the current
situation represents a ‘painful wound’. Blame for this wound is not assigned to
anyone; perhaps it is best to see it simply as the unfortunate outcome of
history, including some very recent history. On a casual reading, the ‘wound’
metaphor might seem to refer to the division implied by the mere fact that
there are two rival liturgical rites, but if Pope Leo is concerned about a
practical solution to help those attached to the older form, this can’t be what
he means. The wound that concerns the Holy Father is one that can be healed by
‘generous’ inclusion of those attached to the Vetus Ordo, suggesting
that what he had in mind is their current deep unhappiness, in feeling excluded
from the Church’s pastoral care. Pope Leo is calling for the bishops to
understand the sensitivities of those attached to the Vetus Ordo, and
having come to that understanding, respond to this sensitivity by making
provision for the celebration of this liturgy.
![]() |
| LMS Annual Requiem at the Oxford Blackfriars last November |