Title XLI: On the Celebration of Masses, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the Divine Offices

Latin source headnote: A priest is bound to say the canonical hours at the due hours; nevertheless, for a cause he is permitted to say them through Vespers inclusive. This it says according to one understanding.

From the Council of Agde.

After the morning office has been completed in the morning, let a priest discharge the due task of his service, namely, by chanting Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers, yet in such a way that they are completed publicly at the suitable and appointed hours, according to possibility, either by himself or by the scholars. Then, after the hours have been completed and the sick visited, if he wishes, let him go out fasting to rural work so that he may again be able to assist the necessities of pilgrims and guests, or of diverse travelers, also of the sick and the dead, until the appointed hour, according to the quality and opportunity of the time. From the sayings of Benedict: The Prophet says, “Seven times in the day I have spoken praise to you”; which sevenfold number is fulfilled by us in this way, if we discharge the offices of our service at the time of Matins, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline, because, as the Prophet says: seven times in the day, etc For concerning the night watches the same Prophet says: “At midnight I arose to confess to you, etc.” Therefore, at these times let us render praises to our Creator for the judgments of his justice.

Latin source headnote: On account of a special Mass, the Mass of the feria is not to be omitted.

From the Council of Tribur.

Certain persons also among the laity, and especially matrons, have as a custom that on each day they hear the Gospel “In the beginning was the Word” and particular Masses, that is, of the Holy Trinity and of Saint Michael; and therefore it was sanctioned in the same council that this is not to be done further except at its own time, and unless one of the [faithful] should wish to hear it on account of reverence for the Holy Trinity, not from another devotion. But if they wish Masses to be chanted for them, let them hear Masses of that same day for the salvation of the living and also of the dead.

Latin source headnote: It suffices for a priest to celebrate once a day, and it excepts two cases, namely necessity and the feast of the Nativity.

Innocent III, to the Bishop of Worcester.

You consulted us whether a priest can celebrate two Masses on the same day; concerning which we respond to you that, except on the day of the Lord's Nativity, unless a cause of necessity counsels it, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only one Mass once a day. [Given on the seventh day before the Kalends of February. 1206.]

Latin source headnote: In a Mass of commemoration, although the proper preface is said, neither the angelic hymn nor the creed is said.

The same, to the Archbishop of Braga.

Our counsel (And below: [cf. c. 2, On the Observance of Fasts, III. 46.)] Furthermore, you inquired whether on ordinary days, on which it happens that Mass is celebrated in honor of the Holy Spirit, the Blessed Virgin, and the holy cross, the angelic hymn, the creed, and the proper preface ought to be chanted, especially since in your regions Mass is solemnly celebrated in honor of the Blessed Virgin on Saturdays. To which indeed we respond to your inquiry in this way: among us on ordinary days, when the solemnities of Masses are celebrated in honor of the Blessed Virgin, neither the angelic hymn nor the creed is chanted, although the proper preface is chanted in the Mass, so that the difference between a commemoration and a solemnity may be shown. Hence “We praise you, God” is more regularly omitted than said at morning Lauds. [But since you asked, etc. Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the ninth day before the Kalends of March, in the eighth year of our pontificate. 1206.]

Latin source headnote: A priest is to take an ablution after receiving the Eucharist, unless he is going to say another Mass.

The same, to the Clerics of Saint Peter of Maguelone.

On your part (And below: [cf. c. 1, On the Observance of Fasts, III. 46.]) Furthermore, you petitioned to be instructed through apostolic letters how a priest ought to take an ablution in the Mass. To which we respond to your petition in this way: a priest ought always to take an ablution with wine after he has received the whole sacrament of the Eucharist, unless he is to celebrate another Mass on the same day, lest, if perhaps he received the wine of ablution, he impede the other celebration. [Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the Nones of November. 1204.]

Latin source headnote: If there are any words in the canon of the Mass that were not spoken by the Evangelists, we ought to believe that the Apostles received them from Christ, and their successors from the Apostles. And this it says as far as § “You asked.” — (You asked, etc.:) In the sacrament of the altar water is transubstantiated with wine into blood. This it says as far as § “In the third place.” The Sicilian Abbot. — (In the third place, etc.:) The prayer that is said in the secret on the feast of Saint Leo has been changed, because where it used to be said, “Grant us, Lord, that this offering may profit the soul of your servant Leo,” today it is said, “that through the intercession of blessed Leo this offering may profit us”; and this change occurs because the saints do not need our prayers, but we need theirs. This it says as far as the end. The Abbot.

The same, to J., formerly Archbishop of Lyon.

Since, renouncing for the greater part in the care of pastoral governance the office of Martha, who was busy about many things, you have chosen to dwell in the house of the Lord as though an abject with those who chose the best part, sitting with Mary at the feet of the Lord so that they may meditate continually in his law, preferring the beauty of Rachel to the weak eyes of Leah, we believe such understanding of the scriptures flourishes in you that you can not only break bread for little ones, but also minister solid food to the advanced and untie the knots of difficult questions. But because, recognizing in the primacy of the prince of the Apostles the teaching authority of the Apostolic See, you believe that the greater causes of the Church are to be referred to it, we gladly respond, as the Lord inspires us, to your consultations, which we know you raised not for the advantage of earthly utility, since they contain no civil question, but for the advancement of souls, namely so that obscure scriptures may come forth into the light. For you asked indeed who added to the form of words that Christ himself expressed, when he transubstantiated bread and wine into his body and blood, that which no Evangelist is read to have expressed in the canon of the Mass used by the universal Church. For since it is thus read in the Gospel: “Taking the chalice, giving thanks, he blessed it and gave it to his disciples, saying: Drink from this, all of you; for this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be poured out for you and for many others unto the remission of sins,” in the canon of the Mass this phrase, namely “the mystery of faith,” is found interposed among those words. Hence, since no Evangelist testifies that Christ said this, you are moved not a little and marvel that anyone has attempted to assert that he said anything more than any of the Evangelists asserts.

But if you diligently inspect the form of the canon itself, beyond this concerning which your fraternity inquired, you will be able to find in the same canon two other things, namely “with his eyes raised to heaven” and “of the eternal testament,” which are not read in the Gospel text. Indeed, we find many things, both words and deeds of the Lord, omitted by the Evangelists that the Apostles are read either to have supplied in word or expressed in deed. For Paul says thus in the Acts of the Apostles: “You ought to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, who said: It is more blessed to give than to receive.” None of the four Evangelists wrote this. Nor did any of them express what Paul, writing to the Corinthians concerning Christ, says: “He was seen by more than five hundred brothers at once; then he was seen by James; but last of all, as though by one born out of due time, he was seen also by me.” The Evangelists themselves are also read mutually to have supplied among themselves those things omitted by one or some of them. Hence, while three Evangelists placed “this is my body,” Luke alone added “which shall be delivered for you”; and while Matthew and Mark say “for many,” Luke says “for you.” But Matthew added “unto the remission of sins.” Furthermore, those things that are added in the canon of the Mass can be proved from other places in the Gospel. For John, describing the raising of Lazarus, asserts that Jesus lifted his eyes upward and said: “Father, I give thanks to you because you have heard me.” Elsewhere the same also says: “Jesus spoke these things and, lifting his eyes to heaven, said: Father, glorify your Son.” Therefore, if at that time he lifted his eyes to the Father in heaven when he recalled the soul of Lazarus to the lifeless body, it appears more probable that he lifted his eyes to the Father in heaven when he changed bread and wine into his own body and blood.

Furthermore, as was expressed above, while “of the new testament” is placed in the Gospel text, “and eternal” is interposed here. For the old testament, which was dedicated with the blood of goats and calves, promised temporal things; but the new, which was consecrated with the blood of Christ, promises eternal things. And therefore that testament was old and transitory, but this is new and eternal. Or, to use another reason, from the same ground on which it is described as new, that is, last, it is proved to be eternal, that is, perpetual. For the last testament of a man remains unalterable because it is confirmed by the death of the testator; according to which the Apostle asserts that a testament is confirmed in death, otherwise it is not valid while the one who makes the testament lives. Furthermore, not only a writing but also a promise is called a testament, according to which the Apostle himself writes: “Therefore he is the mediator of the new testament, so that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” Thus, therefore, what is found in the canon itself ought to be understood: “For this is my blood of the new and eternal testament,” that is, the confirmer of the new and eternal promise, just as the Lord promises, saying: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.”

But from that word concerning which your fraternity raised a question, namely “the mystery of faith,” certain persons thought to draw a defense of error, saying that in the sacrament of the altar there is not the truth of the body and blood of Christ, but only an image, appearance, and figure, because scripture sometimes commemorates that what is received at the altar is a sacrament, mystery, and example. But such persons fall into the snare of error from the fact that they neither understand the authorities of scripture fittingly nor receive the sacraments of God reverently, knowing alike neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For if for this reason, because the sacrament of the altar is a figure, it is denied to be truth, then neither the death nor the resurrection of Christ, since it is a figure, is to be believed as truth, since the Apostle manifests the death and resurrection of Christ to be a likeness and image: “Christ,” he says, “died for our offenses and rose again for our justification.” Peter, the prince of the Apostles, also writes thus in his epistle: “Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you may follow his footsteps.” Therefore, if both the death of Christ and his resurrection are an example, so that we also, dead to sin, may now live to justice, why, if it was not truth because it was an example, then Christ neither truly died nor truly rose from the dead. But may this error be far from the hearts of the faithful, since the Prophet testifies concerning him that he himself truly bore our infirmities and himself carried our sorrows. Nevertheless, it is called the mystery of faith because one thing is believed there other than what is seen, and one thing is seen other than what is believed. For the appearance of bread and wine is seen, and the truth of Christ's flesh and blood and the power of unity and charity are believed. But what is called the mystery of faith in this place is elsewhere, according to John, described as spirit and life. For spirit is mystery according to this: “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life”; and faith is life, according to what is read: “My just man lives by faith,” on account of which the Lord himself says: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Nevertheless, a subtle distinction is to be made among the three things that are distinct in this sacrament, namely the visible form, the truth of the body, and the spiritual power. The form is of bread and wine, the truth is of flesh and blood, and the power is of unity and charity. The first is sacrament and not reality. The second is sacrament and reality. The third is reality and not sacrament. But the first is the sacrament of a twofold reality. The second however is the sacrament of one and exists as the reality of the other. The third indeed is the reality of a twofold sacrament. We therefore believe that the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them, the form of words as it is found in the canon. For, as was expressed above, the Apostles both supplied in words many things omitted by the Evangelists concerning the words and deeds of the Lord and expressed them in works.

§ 1. You also asked whether water with wine is converted into blood. Concerning this, opinions vary among the scholastics. For it appears to some that, since two principal sacraments flowed from the side of Christ—of redemption in the blood and of regeneration in the water—the two things, wine and water, which are mixed in the chalice, are changed by divine power into those two, so that in this sacrament there may fully be truth and figure. But others hold that the water with the wine is transubstantiated into blood, since, mixed with wine, it passes into wine, although natural philosophers assert the contrary, who say that water can be separated from wine by art. Furthermore, it can be said that the water does not pass into blood, but remains surrounded by the accidents of the prior wine in such a way that it assumes the taste of wine. This is proved from the fact that, if other wine is placed in the chalice after the consecration of the chalice, it indeed does not pass into blood or become mixed with the blood, but, mixed with the accidents of the prior wine, it is poured all around the body that lies hidden under them, without wetting that which is surrounded. Nevertheless, those accidents appear to affect the wine added, because, if pure water has been added, it assumes the taste of wine. It therefore happens that accidents change the subject, just as it happens that the subject changes the accidents; for nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom. Nor is it believed unfitting or absurd if water is believed to be in the body of Christ, since it is read to have issued from his side. But it is wicked to opine what certain persons presumed to say, namely that the water is converted into phlegm. For they also lie that not water but watery humor issued from the side of Christ, not attending that two sacraments flowed from the side of Christ and that persons are baptized not in phlegm but in water, according to what the Lord declares: “Unless anyone is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of God.”

But among the aforesaid opinions that one is judged more probable which asserts that the water with the wine is changed into blood, so that the property of the sacrament may shine forth more expressly. For since many waters are many peoples, according to what is read elsewhere, “Blessed are you who sow upon all waters,” water is therefore united to wine so that the people may be united to Christ. For through this, that he both assumed from what is ours and we received from what is his, we are joined by so indissoluble a bond that he who is one with the Father through ineffable unity becomes one with us through admirable union, and through this, with him himself mediating in common, we are made one with the Father. “Holy Father,” he says, “preserve in your name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, as we also are; but I ask not for these alone, but for those who will believe in me through their word, that they also may be one in us, and that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

§ 2. In the third place indeed, your fraternity inquired who changed, or when, or why that which is contained in older codices in the secret of blessed Leo was changed, namely thus: “Grant us, Lord, that this offering may profit the soul of your servant Leo,” when in modern sacramentaries it is held: “Grant us, we beseech you, Lord, that through the intercession of blessed Leo this offering may profit us.” Concerning this we respond to you in this way: we do not know who changed it or when it was changed. We know, however, on what occasion it was changed, because, since the authority of sacred scripture says that one who prays for a martyr does injury to the martyr, the same is to be thought by similar reason concerning the other saints, because they do not need our prayers, on account of the fact that, since they are perfectly blessed, all things fall out for them according to their wishes. But we rather need their prayers, for, since we are wretched, our evils disturb us on every side. Hence, what is contained in very many prayers—“may such an offering,” namely, “profit or benefit this or that saint unto glory and honor”—ought assuredly to be understood in this way: that it profits to this end, that he is glorified more and more by the faithful on earth, or even honored, although very many judge it not unfitting that the glory of the saints is increased until the judgment, and therefore that in the meantime the Church can soundly desire an increase of their glorification. But whether in this article that distinction has a place by which it is taught that some of the dead are very good, others very evil, others moderately good, and others moderately evil—whence the suffrages made by the faithful in the Church for the very good are acts of thanksgiving; for the very evil, consolations of the living; but for the moderately good, expiations; and for the moderately evil, propitiations—let your discretion investigate. Henceforth we petition to be aided before God by your prayers. [Given at the Lateran, on the third day before the Kalends of December, in the fifth year. 1202.]

Latin source headnote: One who simulates confecting and does not confect sins more gravely than one who confects while in mortal sin.

The same, to the Rectors of the Roman Fraternity.

Concerning a man (And below:) For you asked of us what is to be thought concerning an incautious priest who, when he knows that he is constituted in mortal sin, doubts on account of the consciousness of his offense whether to celebrate the solemnities of Masses, which he cannot omit on account of some necessity, and, being gravely constrained between two things, while he fears to carry out the divine ministry lest he offend the people awaiting it, and dreads to confect the body of Christ lest, receiving it unworthily, he eat and drink judgment to himself, after all the other circumstances have been performed, feigns that he celebrates Mass and, suppressing the words by which the body of Christ is confected, simply consumes only bread and wine, believing that through what he outwardly presents he satisfies the people, so that through what he intends he ought not provoke God. Therefore, since false remedies, which are more grave than true perils, are to be cast aside, although one who on account of consciousness of his crime considers himself unworthy ought reverently to abstain from a sacrament of this kind, and therefore sins gravely if he irreverently intrudes himself upon it, nevertheless he who has presumed fraudulently to simulate it in this way appears without doubt to offend more gravely: for the former, by avoiding a fault while he acts, falls into the hand of the merciful God alone; but the latter, by committing a fault while he avoids one, binds himself not only to God, whom he does not fear to mock, but also to the people, whom he deceives. [Given at Sora, on the tenth day before the Kalends of October, in the year of our pontificate. 1208.]

Latin source headnote: Here he disproves the opinion which holds that in the sacrament of the altar water is converted into phlegm, and proves that Christ was true God and true man, and that true water issued from his side.

The same, to the Bishop of Ferrara.

You assert that you read in a certain decretal epistle of ours that it is a wicked thing to opine what certain persons presumed to say, namely that in the sacrament of the Eucharist water is converted into phlegm. For they lie that also not water but watery humor issued from the side of Christ. Although you recount that great and authoritative men held this, whose opinion you have hitherto followed in speech and writings, nevertheless, since we hold the contrary, you are compelled to consent to our opinion. But you confess that the word of John the Apostle greatly moves you, saying: “There are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one”; although this last phrase is not found in many codices, which you say is thus expounded by all: that they are one, that is, testify concerning one and the same thing, namely concerning the humanity of Christ. Moreover, if that which flowed from the side of Christ was true water and not a humor of the human body, you do not see how it is proved through it that Christ is man. For the gloss upon that place has thus: “The spirit, that is, the human soul which he emitted in the Passion; the water and blood that flowed from the side of Christ,” which could not happen if he did not have the true nature of flesh. Thus, therefore, you propose from both the text and the gloss that through that water it is proved that Christ is true man; and therefore, if it is said that it was not true water but the watery humor of the human body, the words of both the expositor and the Apostle appear intelligible to you. But if it is said that it was true water, as we believe and confess, you sufficiently understand neither the former nor the latter. Hence you humbly petitioned us that, for the general utility of readers and for removing the cloud from your heart, we deign to expound this sufficiently and clearly. Therefore, in response to the insistence of your supplication, we answer that certain persons said—but erred—that Christ was not true God but an adopted God, as the wretched Arians; others however said that Christ was not true man but a phantom, as the impious Manichaeans. But against heresies of this kind John the Apostle speaks in his epistle, saying: “There are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one,” intending through this to show that Christ is true God. “And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood,” intending through this to show that Christ is true man. For two things are principally required for the being of a man, namely body and soul, from the conjunction of which a true man subsists. Moreover, through the fact that at the moment of death Christ, having inclined his head, delivered up the spirit, concerning which he had cried with a great voice, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit,” it is manifestly proved that he had a spirit, not only vital breath but also a rational soul, concerning which he had foretold: “My soul is sorrowful even unto death,” and: “I have power to lay down my soul and again to take it up.” Moreover, through the fact that one of the soldiers opened his side with a lance and immediately blood and water came out, it is openly proved that Christ had a true body. For neither blood nor water could have issued from a phantasmal body; hence “he who saw it indeed furnished testimony, and his testimony is true, because there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood.” Namely, that Christ is true man, subsisting from a rational soul and human flesh, is proved from the fact that he emitted the vital spirit; and it is proved concerning the true body because blood and water issued from it, for a rational soul could vivify only a human body, from which things true man consists. Furthermore, just as there was true spirit and true blood, so without doubt there was true water, since Christ is truth and every falsehood is altogether alien to truth. For if what issued from the side of the Savior had not been water but phlegm, he who saw and furnished testimony to the truth would assuredly have said not “water” but “phlegm.” Nor would the true sacrament of regeneration have been shown in this, since through the sacrament of baptism we are regenerated not in phlegm but in water. Nor could it be proved by a true argument through this that in the sacrament of the Eucharist water is to be mixed with wine, if not water but phlegm had flowed with the blood from the side of Christ. Nor would the figure that preceded concerning this matter in the Old Testament have been true, when namely Moses struck the rock with a rod and from it indeed not phlegm but water flowed. It remains, therefore, that whatever the nature of that water—whether natural or miraculous, whether newly created by divine power or resolved in some part from the component things—it was without doubt true water, since both a composite can naturally be resolved into its components and an elemented thing into the elements, just as his sweat was true, like drops of blood running down upon the earth. Moreover, since four elements concur in the composition of the human body, namely earth and water, air and fire, and four humors similar to them concur in the vegetation of the same body, namely blood and yellow bile, phlegm, and black bile, in order to demonstrate more expressly the truth of the human body, John expressed one of the former and one of the latter, and from the former and the latter especially those that were more congruent with the mystery: from the elements, water, and from the humors, blood; in which two especially shine forth the two sacraments, namely of redemption and regeneration. [Given on the third day before the Nones of March, in the twelfth year. 1209.]

Latin source headnote: It commands prelates and clerics, in virtue of obedience, to celebrate the nocturnal and diurnal office diligently and devoutly.

The same, in the general council.

We report with grief that not only certain lesser clerics but even some prelates of churches spend almost half the night on excessive banquets and unlawful tales, to be silent concerning other things, and, leaving the remainder to sleep, are scarcely awakened at the diurnal song of the birds, running through Matins everywhere with continual cutting-short. There are also others who scarcely celebrate the solemnities of Masses four times a year and, what is worse, disdain to be present. And if sometimes they are present while these are celebrated, fleeing the silence of the choir, they attend outside to conversations of laymen; and while they pour out their hearing upon improper discourses, they do not extend attentive ears to divine things. We therefore entirely prohibit these and similar things under penalty of suspension, strictly commanding in virtue of obedience that they diligently and devoutly celebrate alike the nocturnal and diurnal divine office, so far as God shall have granted them.

Latin source headnote: The Eucharist ought to be kept cleanly, and at its elevation and carrying the people ought to incline themselves; and when it is carried to a sick person, it ought to be carried in decent attire and with a light; but transgressors are to be gravely punished.

Honorius III.

Indeed, since formerly [a golden vessel full of manna, prefiguring the body of Christ's divinity, was placed in the ark of the covenant covered with gold within the holy of holies so that it might be kept cleanly in a venerable place, we grieve and are exceedingly saddened that in very many provinces priests, contemning the canonical sanctions, indeed the divine judgment, guard the sacred Eucharist carelessly and handle it uncleanly and indevoutly, as though they neither feared the Creator, loved the Re-creator, nor dreaded the Judge of all, although the Apostle threatens terribly that one who has trampled upon the Son of God, regarded the blood of the testament as polluted, or done insult to the Spirit of grace merits worse punishments than a transgressor of the Mosaic law, who was punished by a sentence of death.] Lest [therefore] henceforth divine indignation blaze more gravely against the indevout on account of the carelessness of priests, we command by strict precept that the Eucharist always be placed honorably by priests in a separate place, clean also and sealed, and be preserved devoutly and faithfully. Moreover, let every priest frequently teach his people that, when the saving host is elevated in the celebration of Masses, each person is reverently to incline himself, doing the same when the priest carries it to a sick person. Let him carry it in decent attire, with a clean veil placed over it, and carry it openly and honorably before his breast with every reverence and fear, with a light nevertheless always preceding, since it is the brightness of eternal light, so that from this faith and devotion may be increased among all. But let prelates not defer gravely to punish transgressors of a mandate of this kind if they themselves wish to escape divine and our vengeance. But you are to cause the aforesaid things to be observed in such a way that you do not become participants in the vengeance, but in the crown. [Given at Viterbo, on the tenth day before the Kalends of December, in the fourth year of our pontificate. 1219.]

Latin source headnote: In collegiate churches two Masses ought to be celebrated collegially, one for the dead, the other according to the requirement of the day, as for a feast if a feast occurs, or for the feria if it is a feria.

The same, to All Prelates of Churches.

Since the creature does not have that which he may render to the Creator according to his merits (And below:), since, therefore, the Gallican Church, through the grace of God placed as a lamp upon a lampstand, shines upon others by example, who, seeing its good works, glorify the heavenly Father, lest, which may it not be, it be overshadowed by the darkness of so great a negligence and consequently overshadow others, we have considered that your universality should be requested and admonished, and through apostolic writings we command you that, all and each providently attending that to serve God is to reign, you permit no torpor of negligence to creep upon you, as hitherto, by which you might fail to celebrate conventually the solemnities of Masses both for anniversaries of the dead and for a feast or feria according to the congruence of the times, and cause them to be celebrated conventually, so that thus, as though praying without interruption, you may merit to be heard by him who is present to all who invoke his name in truth. [Given at Anagni, on the fourth day before the Nones of July. 1217.]

Latin source headnote: On the day of the Lord's Supper a bishop ought to celebrate Mass and confect chrism only in his own church.

The same.

From your report we learned that on the day of the Lord's Supper you are held by ancient custom to confect chrism in the church of Siponto; but, when on the morning of that same day you approach the church of Monte Gargano so that there, as is customary, you may receive the pilgrims, the clergy and people of that place compel you to celebrate Mass in that church of Monte Gargano before you return to Siponto, concerning which you implored our counsel and that of the Apostolic See. But since chrism is confected on that day within the solemnities of Masses, and it suffices for any priest, whatever dignity in which he shines, to celebrate one Mass a day—for he is also very happy who worthily celebrates one—we command your fraternity that on the day of the Lord's Supper you endeavor to celebrate the solemnities of Masses only in the church of Siponto, in which you are bound to confect chrism.

Latin source headnote: In the sacrifice of the altar more wine than water is to be placed.

The same, to the Archbishop of Ablas.

A very pernicious abuse, as we have heard, has become established in your regions, namely, that a greater quantity of water than of wine is placed in the sacrifice, although according to the reasonable custom of the universal Church more wine than water is to be placed in it. Therefore we command your fraternity [through apostolic writings] that you do not do this henceforth or permit it to be done in your province. [Given on the Ides of December, in the fifth year. 1220.]

Latin source headnote: A priest who sacrifices without water and fire, or with leavened bread or in a wooden vessel, is deposed from office and benefice.

The same, to the Bishop of Brescia.

We received your letters, containing that, when you inquired concerning the excesses of Master Maurus, priest of the church of Saint Bridget of Brescia, according to the duty of the pastoral office, he confessed that, when on a certain day he had neither host nor chalice, he presumed to celebrate the solemnities of Masses in leavened bread and in a wooden cup while the people stood by. On this account you subjected him to perpetual interdict, counseling that he change his life for the better in some regular church. But afterward, when he petitioned before our venerable brother the Bishop of Ostia, then legate of the Apostolic See, that he act mercifully with him, the same bishop, restoring the aforesaid priest to the celebration of divine things, delegated the cause concerning the suspension of the benefice to the provosts of Saint Salvator and Saint Luke of Brescia, who restored him to the benefice. But afterward, having returned from the regions beyond the sea, and understanding again that the aforesaid church was being injured in many ways through the malice of the said priest, you, repeating the office of inquiry, discovered from his confessions that the same man sacrificed without fire and water, on account of which you petitioned to be instructed by our response what is to be done concerning him. Therefore, since he is proved to have sinned either from manifest malice or from excessive folly, we command your fraternity that, if truth supports the premises, you deprive him perpetually of office and benefice, the obstacle of appeal having been removed.