Quod non est celebrandum bis in die

To his venerable friend P., Master Alan sends greetings: so run the race that you may win the prize.

Since it would seem an ascription of laziness or of pride not to answer your honest request as fully as I am able, I have resolved to bring your wish into effect.

It should be understood that greed, mother and mistress of all vices, daughter of a peculiar idolatry, has so bewitched the whole world with the poison of its malice that scarcely anyone is found free of its disgrace. It assails not only civil affairs but penetrates even into the sanctuaries of God. For the sacraments of the Church, which ought to be seasoned only with the sweetness of grace, now smell of the leaven of avarice, and as far as it depends on priests they sit like a harlot seeking gain, so that it is no longer charity that is spent, but greed that is expended. And above all concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist a manifold trafficking is carried on, so that now another Judas, indeed many Judases, strive to sell Christ; another Simon Magus, indeed many Simons, endeavor to buy the grace of the sacrament. In this the greed of priests seems most deserving of the pen's rebuke, for by them the Eucharist is put up for sale.

When a priest celebrates two Masses in one day, when neither extreme necessity compels it nor the authority of the sacrament advises it, as on the solemnity of the Lord's Nativity, what is to be found in such consecration except base trafficking, a hunting for profit, the smell of money, a love of earthly gain? For since the authority of Augustine declares that to receive the Eucharist daily is neither praised nor blamed, what else is it for a priest to receive it twice in one day but to presume; what else is a repeated consecration but a desecration of his office?

Moreover, if anyone other than a priest, under whatever pressing necessity, were to receive the Eucharist twice on the same day, he would act indiscreetly; much more, then, must a priest, who holds the key of knowledge, guard against the inconvenience of such indiscretion.

Again, if it is permitted for him to celebrate two Masses on the same day, by the same reasoning it would be permitted to celebrate three or four or more.

Again, just as there is no fixed number of marriages, since it is permitted for someone to celebrate a second marriage, so it would seem that if it is permitted for a priest to celebrate two Masses in one day, more could be celebrated as well, and thus three or four.

Again, if Christ consecrated the sacrament of his body once in a day, and instituted that his vicars should do the same, will his vicar then consecrate several times in one day? Again, one lamb, and only once, was eaten by one family in the Old Testament, as a sign of the true Lamb, that is, Jesus Christ. It seems, therefore, that the true Lamb ought to be sacrificed only once a day by one priest.

But if any priest pleads necessity, I ask, what is that necessity which compels the celebration of two Masses? On the solemnity of the Lord's Nativity I see a pressing cause: the institution of the Fathers, the authority of the sacrament.

For the holy Fathers established this for a mystical reason: the first Mass, celebrated at night, signifies the state before the Law, in which there was the night of ignorance. The second Mass, celebrated at dawn, signifies the state of the Law of Moses, in which there was some spark of understanding. The Mass sung in broad daylight signifies the time of grace, in which the day of knowledge shone forth most fully. This is the reason why several Masses are celebrated on that day, but by what necessity is a priest constrained, by what sacramental cause is he urged, to repeat the sacrament of the Eucharist on another day? If he pleads the necessity that on the same day the solemnity of Sunday coincides with the feast of some named saint, and this during Advent, that is not a reasonable excuse, nor an excuse grounded in reason.

For on that day he ought to celebrate the Mass belonging to Sunday, and defer the Mass belonging to the saint's solemnity to the following day, since he cannot celebrate both.

But if some priest governs two churches, one his own, the other entrusted to him, let him have a priest to celebrate the one, or resign the other. If he claims that neither suffices for the necessities of life, there is no excuse, since a little ought to suffice a priest, or let him resign to his prelate. If on some day he is bound to celebrate a Mass for the soul of a deceased person whose body is present in the church, and a Sunday or another great solemnity falls on it, if another priest is present there, let him celebrate the one Mass and the other priest the other; but if no other priest can be found, let him defer it to the following day. Likewise, if a wedding is celebrated in his church, and he has already celebrated the divine office, let him have another priest celebrate it, if one is available; if not, let him defer it to the following day. But if the first day of Septuagesima falls on it, that does not matter, for the blessing given in the Mass over the married couple can be given on the following day, since it does not belong to the substance of the sacrament. But if during Lent some solemnity occurs which must be celebrated, since the days of Lent have their own proper office, let the priest celebrate the Mass belonging to the solemnity; after the completion of that Mass, let the priest begin the office belonging to the weekday, and continue the Mass up to the Gospel. But the sacred canons forbid that two Masses be celebrated in one day by one priest, unless in a case of the utmost necessity. And we call it a case of utmost necessity when someone at the point of death asks for the Eucharist from a priest who has already celebrated Mass; then, if the Eucharist is not at hand, he may celebrate Mass and give the Eucharist to the one who asks for it.

Likewise it is not permitted to conclude two Masses' offices with one sacrament of the Eucharist, so that one office is begun and continued up to the Gospel, and before the completion of the sacrament another is begun, as if one were to begin the Mass belonging to the day and, before the completion of the sacrament, begin the Mass for the dead. For each office preceding the sacrament ought to be concluded with its own sacrament. For just as it would be absurd if someone, at Sunday matins, were to read six lessons belonging to another solemnity falling on the same day, and afterward continue with only one office, so too it is absurd in the Mass. For if order must be observed in the smallest things, much more so in the sacraments, and above all in the Mass, which is the most worthy sacrament.

Moreover, in nature it is monstrous for one thing to have two heads; in painting it is unseemly; much more monstrous is it to make a Mass two-headed or three-headed. He who does this seems to fall under that saying of Horace: Humano capiti ceruicem pictor equinam...

For everyone ought to beware of this: Ne primum medio, medium ne discrepet imo.

Is it not also said that order must be observed in the celebration of the Mass? Namely, the order of words, the order of things, the order of celebrants. The order of words, so that the words are pronounced in the order in which they were instituted; the order of things, so that bread, wine, and water are arranged on the altar in order; the order of celebrants, so that it is priests who celebrate.

Therefore, just as those who alter the order of things injure the sacrament, so do those who alter the order of words. Again, by the same reasoning that it is permitted to begin another office after the Gospel, it would be permitted to begin one after the Preface has been said. Again, I ask, whether the second office is part of that Mass, or not? Is the office begun for the dead a part of that Mass which is celebrated in honor of the Blessed Virgin? Either it will be a Mass in itself, or part of another Mass. Again, if two offices are celebrated in one Mass, one belonging to Sunday, the other to another solemnity, I ask, to which does this Mass belong? To Sunday? Or to the other solemnity? Will it belong to the one whose office is sung first, or to the one whose office is sung second? Either there will be two Masses, or one Mass of two solemnities. See what great confusion arises from such a celebration. Again, what reason compels one to celebrate in this way? If two offices press upon him, let him celebrate the one to which he is more bound, up to the completion of the Mass. After the Mass is completed, let him begin the other, and finish it after the Gospel. For why should the second be begun before the completion of the first Mass? What reason compels it? What necessity? I find no cause except avarice. For this reason, before the completion of the sacrament, he begins another office, whether in honor of the Blessed Mary, or in honor of the Holy Spirit, or for the expiation of souls, so that he may wring profit from those standing by. But if he is bound to celebrate for the dead, and after the completion of the Mass belonging to the day he begins the office for the dead, he does not fully discharge his obligation, and thereby defrauds the soul in part. For he was bound to celebrate a Mass specifically for the dead.

Moreover, a priest who, through the intervention of money, that is, by agreement, celebrates a Mass for the dead, sins mortally.

And if he is bound to celebrate for three souls, in such a way that he is bound to discharge for each a set of thirty Masses, and he discharges only one set of thirty, he does not fully discharge the debt, but defrauds the soul in part. For three sets of thirty would benefit the three souls more than one set benefits three. It is sufficiently clear from the foregoing that it suffices for a priest to celebrate one Mass.

Whence Pope Alexander says: It suffices for a priest to celebrate one Mass in one day, because Christ suffered once, and redeemed the whole world; it is no small thing to celebrate one Mass; very blessed is he who can celebrate one worthily.

Priests are also accustomed to extend the number of prayers in the Mass, saying more than three prayers before the Epistle, when they ought to be limited to at most three. For since the Mass represents the Passion of Christ, and his deeds and words at the time of the Passion are also displayed there, and since Christ is recorded to have prayed three times as his Passion drew near, it seems that only three prayers ought to be made in the Mass. But if more are added, this seems to arise rather from human tradition than from the institution of the sacrament. A priest also ought to demand nothing earthly for the administration of the sacrament, lest the grace of the sacrament seem to be for sale, and thus he fall into the heresy of simony. For example, he ought to demand nothing for baptism, or for the Eucharist, or for extreme unction, nor celebrate by agreement; but if something is offered out of pure generosity, it is permitted to accept it, though it would be more perfect to refuse it.

Yet there are those who, under the appearance of rectitude, subtly veil simony, selling the candle or the chrism-cloth. There are also priests who begin the Mass before daybreak, so as to entice to the offering those who have kept vigil all night. But after the offertory, if day has not yet come, they delay the sacrament, and in this they show their greed clearly enough. There are also those who repeat the offertory three or four times, waiting for more people to come and offer something. There are those who ring the bells all night long, so that if the bells could speak they would have cause to complain of their ringing, and they do this for no other reason than to draw people to the church and get them to offer something.

Here it ends.