"from hosts consecrated at the same Mass"

"It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated."

     General instruction of the Roman Missal (2002), par. 85.

"'So that even by means of the signs Communion may stand out more clearly as a participation in the Sacrifice being celebrated', it is preferable that the faithful be able to receive hosts consecrated in the same Mass."

     Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004), par. 89.

     I was put onto these passages by Robert F. Taft, "'Communion' from the tabernacle—a liturgico-theological oxymoron," Worship 88, no 1 (January 2014):  16 (2-22).  But I don't see anything rising to the level of a flat-out reproof of the practice of "giving Communion from the tabernacle at Mass" in any of his examples (Mediator Dei (1947), pars. 118 and 121-122, which is inclusive of par. 3 of the mid-18th-century Certiores effecti).

"The old roman Canon Missae has a weak pneumatology not because it is defective but because it is old, so old that it was composed before the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit became a problem to be resolved."

     Robert F. Taft, "'Communion' from the tabernacle—a liturgico-theological oxymoron," Worship 88, no 1 (January 2014):  17 (2-22).

"from the hand of another"

     "In this pristine vision of the Eucharist, Holy Communion is not just the sacrament of personal communion with the Risen Lord of each of the baptized individually.  It is, rather, the sacrament of our communion with one another in the Body of that Risen Lord to form the one Mystical Body of Christ, a body at once ecclesial and eucharistic.  That this was the meaning of eucharistic koinonia in the early church has been shown beyond cavil.  The sense of this was so strong that in an earlier age none of the clergy concelebrating the Eucharist, not even the pope of Rome or the patriarch of Constantinople, served themselves Holy Communion.  Rather, they all received it from the hand of another, as I have shown in several studies.  This remained the general rule in most communion rites of East and West right up through the Middle Ages:  Holy Communion was not taken, not even by the higher clergy, but given and received.  For Communion is at once a ministry and a gift and a sharing.  As such, it was administered to each communicant by the hand of another as from Christ."

      Robert F. Taft, "'Communion' from the tabernacle—a liturgico-theological oxymoron," Worship 88, no 1 (January 2014):  17 (2-22).

"that persevering love with which Saint Mary Magdalene clung resolutely to Christ her master"

Martin Schongauer,
Noli me tangere, c. 1470/80.

"May the holy reception of your mysteries, Lord, instill in us that persevering love with which Saint Mary Magdalene clung resolutely to Christ her master."

"Mysteriorum tuorum, Domine, sancta perceptio perseverantem illum nobis amorem infundat, quo beata Maria Magdalena Christo magistro suo indesinenter adhæsit."

     Prayer after Communion, Feast of St. Mary Magdalene, 22 July, Roman missal.  In the Liturgy of the hours what appears is only the opening Collect, not this Post-Communion.  Lewis & Short gives "incessantly" (rather than "resolutely") for indesinenter, and the Dictionary of medieval Latin from British sources, "ceaselessly, without pause," "endlessly, perpetually."  (Lewis & Short's reference to an occurrence of et indeficienter inhaerere at Confessions XXII.xi seems to be mistaken, however, for there the verb is cohaerendo.)

     This prayer does not appear with the ancient prayers in the main body of Corpus orationum.  But it is no. 2987 in the online 2004 Concordantia et indices volume of Sources of the Missale Parisiense of 1738, by Gerard O’Connor.  Better yet, Corpus orationum 13 refers from no. 683 (1616?) of the Missale Romanum of 1970/1975 to no. 2987 of the Missale Parisiense of 1706 ed. Noailles () and no. 2987 of the Missale Parisiense of 1685 ed. Harlay ().

     Yet on the other hand, it does not appear in the four Bibliotheque Sainte Genevieve codices of the (?) Missale Parisiense in the Internet Archive dated 1481, 1489, 1490, and 1497.  There the Post-Communion is consistently "Sanctificet nos quaesumus domine et muniat intercedente beata Maria Magdalena", etc.
     So though a lot of work could still be done, I’m going to rest content for now with 1685.

     See also the variant on p. 515 of the Missal of Lyons (Missale sanctæ Lugdunensis ecclesiæ, primaæ Galliarum sedis (1846)):

Mysteriorum tuorum, Domine, sancta perceptio perseverantem illum nobis amorem infundat, quo beata Maria Magdalene tibi immobiliter adhæsit.

(There is a brief introduction to the Lyonese rite in the 2nd edition of the New Catholic encyclopedia, but I have not followed up on that.)
     Corpus orationum 13 traces this back to the "noli me tangere" ("Do not touch me") of John 20:17, read in the light of the "adherere" of Ps 73 (72):28 (from the Greek side, not the Hebrew): "it is good for me to adhere to my God".

Hegel can be so (deceptively?) orthodox!

"the instrumentality of philosophy in introducing these dogmas into the Christian religion, is no sufficient ground for asserting that they were foreign to Christianity and had nothing to do with it. It is a matter of perfect indifference where a thing originated; the only question is: 'Is it true in and for itself?' Many think that by pronouncing the doctrine to be Neo-Platonic, they have ipso facto banished it from Christianity. Whether a Christian doctrine stands exactly thus or thus in the Bible, the point to which the exegetical scholars of modern times devote all their attention, is not the only question. The letter kills, the spirit makes alive: this they say themselves, yet pervert the sentiment by taking the understanding [(Verstand)] for the spirit [(Geist)]. It was the Church that recognized and established the doctrines in question, i.e., the spirit of the Church; and it is itself an article of doctrine: 'I believe in a Holy Church'; as Christ himself also said: 'The Spirit will guide you into all truth.' In the Nicene Council (A.D. 325), was ultimately established a fixed confession of faith, to which we still adhere: this confession had not, indeed, a speculative form, but the profoundly speculative is most intimately inwoven with the manifestation of Christ himself. Even in John (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) we see the commencement of a profounder comprehension. The profoundest thought is connected with the personality of Christ, with the historical and external; and it is the very grandeur of the Christian religion that, with all this profundity, it is easy of comprehension by our consciousness in its outward aspect, while, at the same time, it summons us to penetrate deeper. It is thus adapted to every grade of culture, and yet satisfies the highest requirements."

     Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [Lectures on] The philosophy of history III.iii.2 ("Christianity"), trans. J. Sibree; GBWW,1st ed. (1952), vol. 46, p. 309.  For the underlying German, see the (second?) Karl Hegel manuscript edition of 1840, p. 402.
     It's what he means by Geist that can seem so frustratingly problematic!

The Great Seal of the United States

OBVERSE:
E PLURIBUS UNUM (out of many, one):

• Was there in the proposal of the first committee, which consisted of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, as galvanized by the consultant Pierre Eugene Du Simitière; which positioned it directly beneath a single shield bearing, in its center, a rose for England, a thistle for Scotland, a harp for Ireland, a flower de luce for France, an eagle for Germany, and a lion for Holland ("(These being the Six principal nations of Europe from whom the Americans have originated.)"), and, around its edges chain-linked eschutcheons containing abbreviations "'for each of the thirteen Independent States of America'" (text of Du Simitière's own blazon, as quoted on pp. 19-20 of Patterson & Dougall); and which submitted its design on 20 August 1776.  Though "when first suggested by Du Simitière as a motto for the Great Seal, it may have alluded not only to the union of the Colonies but also to the diverse origins of the people of the New Republic", it seems worth noting that the reference to the "many" countries of origin was eventually dropped, and that only the "thirteens" of the ultimate obverse (the stars and the stripes, and the thirteen-leafed olive branch (representing peace) and thirteen arrows (representing war) clutched by the bald—i.e. distinctively American—eagle) were in the end retained.  Cf. the explanation appended to the first blazon of William Barton of the third committee in 1782, as reproduced on pp. 61-62 of Patterson & Dougall.
• Was referred to the thirteen states explicitly in Barton's third blazon of 1782:  "'the latter represents the several States; all joined in one solid, compact Empire, supporting a Chief, which unites the whole & represents Congress—  The Motto alludes to this Union'" (Patterson & Dougall, 80).
• Was approved by Congress on 20 June 1782 in the form of Thomson's 19 June 1782 Blazon with "Remarks and explanation".  The latter read, in part, "'The Pieces, paly, represent the several states all joined in one solid compact entire, supporting a Chief, which unites the whole & represents Congress.  The Motto alludes to this union'" (Patterson & Dougall, 84).  As for "the question, Did Congress adopt just the Great Seal design, or the 'Remarks and Explanation' as well?", "The better view seems to be that taken by the editor of the Library of Congress edition of the Journals, namely, that Congress had adopted the whole report as submitted to it, and not the blazon alone.  In any case, the 'Remarks and Explanation' have an official character and status, in that they came directly from the principal creators of the seal design and are thus primary evidence of what Barton and Thomson intended the device to signify, and what Congress knew to be the intent of the designers when the device was adopted" (Patterson & Dougall, 85-86).

REVERSE:
ANNUIT CŒPTIS (he (God) or it (the Eye of Providence) has favored/favors our undertakings):

• Was preceded by the motto "'Deo favente'" (God favoring), "''which alludes to the Eye in the Arms, meant for the Eye of Providence'" (first and second blazons of William Barton of the third committee, as reproduced on pp. 60 and 65-68 of Patterson & Dougall).
• Appeared for the first time ''Over the Eye'" in place of "'Deo favente'" in the blazon composed by Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson in 1782 (Patterson & Dougall, 75).  "For Barton's motto Deo favente Thomson substituted Annuit Cœptis" (Patterson & Dougall, 78).
• Was derived from the Aeneid, bk 9, l. 625, which read, in "an [important] eighteenth-century edition of Virgil" (Patterson & Dougall, 89; cf. pp. 90-91), "Juppiter omnipotens, audacibus annue cœptis (All-powerful Jupiter, favor [my] daring undertakings)" (Patterson & Dougall, 89-91, where the Georgics, bk. 1, l. 40 is also cited).
• Was approved by Congress on 20 June 1782 in the form of Thomson's 19 June 1782 Blazon with "Remarks and explanation".  The latter read, in part, "The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration:  The Eye over it & the Motto [(ANNUIT CŒPTIS)] allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause'" (Patterson & Dougall, 85).  As for "the question, Did Congress adopt just the Great Seal design, or the 'Remarks and Explanation' as well?", "The better view seems to be that taken by the editor of the Library of Congress edition of the Journals, namely, that Congress had adopted the whole report as submitted to it, and not the blazon alone.  In any case, the 'Remarks and Explanation' have an official character and status, in that they came directly from the principal creators of the seal design and are thus primary evidence of what Barton and Thomson intended the device to signify, and what Congress knew to be the intent of the designers when the device was adopted" (Patterson & Dougall, 85-86).
• "has been translated in more recent Department of State publications—in the perfect tense—as 'He (God) has favored our undertakings'" (Patterson & Dougall, 89-90).

Eye of God/Providence

• Was there in the proposal of the first committee, which consisted of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, as galvanized by the consultant Pierre Eugene Du Simitière; which called it "'the Eye of Providence'" (text of Du Simitière own blazon, as quoted on pp. 19-20 of Patterson & Dougall); and which submitted its design on 20 August 1776.  "the description and sketch can be regarded as wholly Du Simiètre's creation; they represent his ideas alone, uninfluenced by those of members of the committee.  Both his description and his sketch include four elements that carried over eventually into the Great Seal as finally adopted, two of them into the obverse and two into the reverse.  They are (1) the form or outline of a shield; (2) the eye of Providence in a triangle with a glory; (3) the motto E Pluribus Unum on a scroll; and(4) the year date 'MCCCLXXVI'.  According to the existing evidence, Du Simitière was the one first to propose these four elements.  He set them down on paper, the description in his own handwriting and the sketch with its lettering by his own hand.  Although certain writers have credited either Jefferson or Franklin with suggesting the motto, they are in error, given the documentary evidence, which points to Du Simiètre and no one else" (Patterson & Dougall, 22, who proceed to discuss Du Simiètre's source for the motto "De Pluribus Unum").
• Was "'surrounded with a Glory'" (first and second blazons of consultant to the third committee William Barton, as quoted on pp. 60 and 65-68 of Patterson & Dougall; but see for the "'Glory'" present in the very first blazon composed by Du Simitiére, see p. 26.  See also the Charles Thomson blazon of 1782, as reproduced on p. 75.
• Was preceded on Franklin's part (so far as any explicitly biblical or Judeo-Christian reference is concerned) by a representation of Ex 14:21 ff. and the motto "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" (Patterson & Dougall, 13-14); and on Jefferson's part by 1) "the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night"), and then 2) a sympathetic revision of the proposal by Franklin:  "Pharaoh sitting in an open chariot, a crown on his head & a sword in his hand passing thro' the divided waters of the Red Sea in pursuit of the Israelites:  rays from a pillar of fire in the cloud, expressive of the divine presence, reachi & command, reaching to Moses who stands on the shore &, extending his hand over the sea, causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh.  Motto.  Rebellion to tyrants is obed^ce to god." (Undated note by Jefferson in the Jefferson Papers, Ms Div., Library of Congress, as quoted by Patterson & Dougall, 16).
• Was approved by Congress on 20 June 1782 in the form of Thomson's 19 June 1782 Blazon with "Remarks and explanation".  The latter read, in part, "The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration:  The Eye over it & the Motto [(ANNUIT CŒPTIS)] allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause'" (Patterson & Dougall, 85).  As for "the question, Did Congress adopt just the Great Seal design, or the 'Remarks and Explanation' as well?", "The better view seems to be that taken by the editor of the Library of Congress edition of the Journals, namely, that Congress had adopted the whole report as submitted to it, and not the blazon alone.  In any case, the 'Remarks and Explanation' have an official character and status, in that they came directly from the principal creators of the seal design and are thus primary evidence of what Barton and Thomson intended the device to signify, and what Congress knew to be the intent of the designers when the device was adopted" (Patterson & Dougall, 85-86).

FREE MASONRY:  see Patterson & Dougall, pp. 529-532.  Conclusion:  "While these points are not conclusive, it seems likely that the designers of the Great Seal and the Masons took their symbols from parallel sources, and unlikely that the seal designers consciously copied Masonic symbols with the intention of incorporating Masonic symbolism into the national coat of arms" (532).

BIBILIOGRAPHY:

• Bureau of Public Affairs, United States Department of State.  The Great Seal of the United States.  Publication no. 10411.  Washington, DC:  Office of Public Communication, Bureau of Public Affairs, United States Department of State, 1996 (September).  23 pp.
• Patterson, Richard & Richardson Dougall.  The eagle and the shield:  a history of the Great Seal of the United States.  Department of State Publication 8900; Department and Foreign Service series 161.  Washington, DC:  Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, Department of State, under the auspices of the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration, 1976.  xliv + 637 pp.

"all time is lost, to which we will not have attached . . . something capable of passing on into . . . eternity."

"from this important distinction between time considered in itself, and time [considered] in relation to eternity, I draw this infallible consequence:  if time is nothing in itself, it follows that all time is lost, to which we will not have attached something more immutable than it, something capable of passing on into blessed eternity."

"de cette distinction importante du temps considéré en lui-même, et du temps par rapport à l'éternité, je tire cette conséquence infaillible:  si le temps n'est rien par lui-même, il s'ensuit que tout le temps est perdu, auquel nous n'aurons point attaché quelque chose de plus immuable que lui, quelque chose qui puisse passer à l'éternité bienheureuse."

     Fr. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, "Oraison funèbre de Madame Yolande de Monterby" (Metz, end of December 1656), in Bossuet:  oraisons funèbres, panégyriques, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 33, ed. the Abbé Bernard Velat (Paris:  Librairie Galllimard, 1951):  23.

     And speaking of time, "Ni les affaires ni les compagnies n'étaient pas capables de lui ravir le temps qu'elle destinait aux choses divines" (24, italics mine).