A. Whether the Eucharist has a Single Form

60. The first point is plain from the solution to the preceding question [nn.35-36], because no words are the form of the Eucharist nor belong to its essence, but some words are the form of the consecration of the Eucharist.

61. And by understanding the form in this way (because it is thus put in the question what the form of consecration is), I say that just as this sacrament is one by oneness of integrity and not indivisibility [ibid.] (for it includes in itself two partial signs, which each first signify their own two proper and proximate things, namely body and blood, and two remote things, namely spiritual eating and drinking), so too is this sacrament one consecration by oneness of integrity and yet two partial consecrations. For just as some things are one, so is their beginning one, and just as some things are several, so are their beginnings several; and just as the consecration is several, so is its beginning several. The consecration, therefore, is several partial consecrations, yet one consecration by oneness of integrity

62. Now the distinction between these partial forms is clear, because each of them is efficacious without the other. The fact is manifest; for otherwise the faithful, when adoring the body of Christ before the consecration of the blood, would be idolaters (which is false).