To be sure, in sacrificing the Body and the Blood of the Lord some make one sign of the cross over each during the canon from the beginning, whereas others make one sign over each only when the bread or body is named individually and when the chalice or blood is named individually. But these latter make one sign of the cross over both when the offering or victim is named—because just as Christ, who sacrificed Himself for us, is one, so there is one offering or victim which we offer in the bread and wine. I do not see that in doing this these latter dissent more from Christ, who blessed each individually, than all those dissent who do not consecrate the chalice after a supper, as Christ did, and who do not always do it in the evening, as Christ did, and who call both together by one name—“offering” or “victim”—which Christ did not do. From this we may conclude that in such an action, provided we mutually preserve the truth of the thing, we may differ from one another without blame, since we differ from the very author of the sacrifice itself without offense.

Now, when we say “these gifts, these offerings, these holy sacrifices”—whether separate signs of the cross are made individually over the bread and over the wine, or whether both are consecrated together by one sign of the cross—I do not see in this diversity any reprehensible dissension, except that perhaps it is more fitting to sign both with one cross, even as both are consecrated with one word of blessing. For when we bless several men or bless distinct things collectively, we do not impart to each a particular sign of the cross, but we believe that a single sign of the cross suffices for all.