II. To the Initial Argument

167. To the argument [n.153] I say that the speaking of the words by which the Eucharist is consecrated is not a sacrament but is a sacramental consecration, and it is not licit to repeat it twice over the same matter; and if it were to be repeated a second time nothing would happen, because it was already done before. And the receiving is not a sacrament, though it is the receiving of a sacrament, as will be plain below [Ord. IV d.8 q.1 nn.15, 41-42].

168. Although, therefore, the same person could rather frequently communicate or receive the Eucharist, yet the words of consecration of the Eucharist cannot be frequently spoken over the same matter; nor can the Eucharist be thus repeated, because some matter properly of this sacrament would receive the form of it twice.