Martyn considers the peregrinus presbyter to be "non-Italian presbyter", adding that Irish monks were known to call themselves peregrini. This is almost certainly wrong because 1) there was hardly reason for Gregory to limit the choice of possible presbyters to Irish monks; 2) an Irish monk would be likely not interested in serving as a simple parish presbyter; and 3) such monk would definetely live with other monks and be sustained by the newly-created monastery – there would be no need to insist on it. Gregory does mention it, because peregrinus quite plainly refers here to the fact that he was to be employed from the outside of the community. Gregory frowned upon monks being involved in pastoral care (cf. [2357]); a presbyter employed by a community for Eucharistic services, while being formally (and quite often spatially) separated from it does resemble the relations between nuns and the presbyters assigned to their convents. The main difference is the fact that monks could be ordained – it seems that the presbyter mentioned in this letter would be hired by the monastery solely in order to provide Eucharist to the laymen, rather than the monks. Maybe this is the reason why there is a mention of only one presbyter in place of at least a couple that occupied the church before Gregory's intervention.
This letter also proves that the regular parish presbyters assigned to a particular church were sustained by the lands being also allocated to this specific church, rather than being paid directly by the bishop.