God is still, and will be forever incarnate

"The condescension of that Union, whereby His Divine and Human Natures are never to be divided, is for Eternity.  In all Eternity we shall, in the Light of the Godhead, see the especial lustre of those glorious Suns, the sacred Five, the Blessed Wounds, which for us He received.  In all Eternity, it will be a special glory to us, that it is our Nature, which forever exists enGodded, the own Body and Soul of God."

     E. B. Pusey, Address III, "God’s Love for each soul in the Incarnation," Eleven addresses during a retreat of the Companions of the Love of Jesus engaged in perpetual intercession for the conversion of sinners (Oxford:  James Parker, 1868), 26.  This, as I've said earlier, is an occurrence of the verb engod six years earlier than that (also from Pusey) in the OED at the moment (though I just submitted the correction).

Not mysteries (plural), but the mystery, one and whole

     "Our nature, in Jesus, was engodded, deified.  It shines throughout all space with the ineffable Glory of the Indwelling Godhead; but it was our nature, not ourselves.  And now, as the counterpart and complement of the Incarnation, as He took our manhood into God, He has sent His Spirit, The Holy Ghost, to dwell in us.  Truly it has been said, that men do amiss speak of mysteries of revelation.  For all is one mystery; all is one mysterious whole, of which you cannot detach part from part, without deforming the whole.  As well detach, if it were possible, one of the prismatic colours, and think that the light would remain ever the same, as think to sever from the rest one truth of God, the Father of lights, and think that the other truths would remain harmonious."

     E. B. Pusey, "[Grieve not the Spirit of God]," Sermon 14 in Sermons preached before the University of Oxford between A.D. 1859 and 1872 (Oxford:  J. Parker, 1872), 338-339.  Currently the OED gives Pusey 1874 as the first occurrence of the verb engod.  But here it is in 1872, also in Pusey.  Does it occur any earlier?  Yes, Pusey uses enGodded here in 1868, an "antedating" that I've just submitted via the OED's online form.  (But we need a far more sophisticated search than the rough-and-ready Hathi Trust searches I've just run.
     Interestingly, this was the Pusey's friend Newman's contention as well.)
     This by the way, is on the whole a good sermon, and would bear a re-reading.

"It is from us what befalls us"

      Mohammad Taqi Bahar (1884–1951), “It is from us what befalls us [(Az mast keh bar mast)],” as trans. Abbas Amanant in Iran:  a modern history (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2017), chap. 6, p. 377.  Amanat cites Mohammad Taqi Bahar Malek al-Sho‘ara, Divan-e Ash’ar, ed. M. Bahar, 5th ed. (Tehran: Entesharat Tus, 1368/1984) 1:261–62.  I was put onto this by the Eli Lake podcast "Restless nation:  the making of modern Iran (Part 1)," Breaking history.  Beautiful poem.

"the higher you rise in your craft, skill or profession, the more you will be removed from its performance in order to manage it"

"since the Industrial Revolution, but particularly in the last fifty years, we have created a world around us which, in contrast to the natural world, reflects the left hemisphere’s priorities and its vision. Today all the available sources of intuitive life – the natural world, cultural tradition, the body, religion and art – have been so conceptualised, devitalised and ‘deconstructed’ (ironised) by self-consciousness, explicitness and the systems and theories used to analyse them, that their power to help us see intuitively beyond the hermetic world that the left hemisphere has set up has been largely drained from them. . . . The cerebral and the abstract – for example, management and its systems – have become more highly valued than the hands-on task that management exists to serve, with the odd effect that the higher you rise in your craft, skill or profession, the more you will be removed from its performance in order to manage it. . . ."

     Iain McGilchrist, "Preface to the new expanded edition," The master and his emissary:  the divided brain and the making of the modern world, New expanded edition (New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 2019 [2010]), xxiii.

The unicorn and his lion, the anima and his animus

". . . [the left hemisphere] works its necessary effects at an intermediate stage. Problems arise when this is treated as the end stage. . . [T]he Master realises the need for an emissary to do certain work on his behalf (which he, the Master, must not involve himself with) and report back to him. That is why he appoints the emissary in the first place. The emissary, however, knowing less than the Master, thinks he knows everything and considers himself the real Master, thus failing to carry out his duty to report back. The right hemisphere’s view is inclusive, 'both/and', synthetic, integrative; it realises the need for both. The left hemisphere’s view is exclusive, 'either/or', analytic and fragmentary – but, crucially, unaware of what it is missing. It therefore thinks it can go it alone. . . .
". . . reductionism has become a disease, a viewpoint lacking both intellectual sophistication and emotional depth, which is blighting our ability to understand what is happening and what we need to do about it. My current thoughts are directed towards illuminating what I see as a truer picture, a more helpful and, I believe, a more hopeful way of seeing our situation here on this planet, while we still have time.
". . . There are, it seems to me, four main pathways to the truth: science, reason, intuition and imagination. I also believe strongly that any world view that tries to get by without paying due respect to all four of these is bound to fail. Each on its own has its virtues and its vices, its gifts and its inherent dangers: only by respecting each and all together can we learn to act wisely. And each is a blend of elements contributed by either hemisphere.
     "However, the same proviso applies in each case, namely that for each to be successful, what the left hemisphere can offer must be used in service of what the right hemisphere knows and sees, not the other way round. This is as important in the case of science as in that of imagination, in the case of reason as in that of intuition. The left hemisphere is a wonderful servant, but a very poor master.
     "We also need to be aware of the sheer extent to which the left hemisphere is, in the most down-to-earth, empirically verifiable way, less reliable than the right – in matters of attention, perception, judgment, emotional understanding, and indeed intelligence as it is conventionally understood. And that means that we should be appropriately sceptical of the left hemisphere’s vision of a mechanistic world, an atomistic society, a world in which competition is more important than collaboration; a world in which nature is a heap of resource there for our exploitation, in which only humans count, and yet humans are only machines – not even very good ones, at that; a world curiously stripped of depth, colour and value. This is not the intelligent, if hard-nosed, view that its espousers comfort themselves by making it out to be; just a sterile fantasy, the product of a lack of imagination, which makes it easier for us to manipulate what we no longer understand. But it is a fantasy that displaces and renders inaccessible the vibrant, living, profoundly creative world that it was our fortune to inherit – until we squandered our inheritance.
Time is running out, and the way we think, which got us into this mess, will not be enough to get us out of it. . . . We need, I believe, to see the world with new eyes. . . ."

     Iain McGilchrist, "Preface to the new expanded edition," The master and his emissary:  the divided brain and the making of the modern world, New expanded edition (New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 2019 [2010]), xxiv-xxvi.  Headline:  Fr. M. C. D'Arcy, The mind and heart of love:  Lion and unicorn:  a study of eros and agape (1947), not cited by McGilchrist.

Up with the binarchy

"Recognizing valid differences between two elements of a system is not to 'dichotomise.'  Some people fear dichotomies are simplistic.  But it is also simplistic to reject a perfectly valid dichotomy just because you happen to have a thing against dichotomies when they occur."

     Iain McGilchrist, "Preface to the new expanded edition," The master and his emissary:  the divided brain and the making of the modern world, New expanded edition (New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 2019 [2010]), xvi.  Undoubtedly I'm misusing McGilchrist prematurely.

"The trees were passive to Orpheus; that's why they danced"

"the crucial point to observe here is that Mary is judged to have been purely receptive in relation to God and to God's reconciling purposes.  And yet, her receptivity is to be understood as active, not passive.  She 'goes forth to receive the Lord.'  And that is a point of considerable significance.  Emphasis is laid here on the active obedience of Mary, on her (human) power to receive the Holy Spirit rooted in her holiness.  To be sure, the 'person-forming' power (if I can again borrow a Christological caegory) remains God's.  Mary is given the power of 'Divine Maternity.'  She 'becomes heaven, and Her womb becomes the place of the overshadowing.'  Indeed, what she receives in her virginal conception is not a gift of grace so much as it is 'the Holy Spirit Himself in all the fullness of His divine nature.'  And so she was made the fit instrument of the incarnation of the Logos.  But she must voluntarily receive for any of this to happen.  A hierarchy of wills is envisioned; the lesser 'follows' the greater.  The same holds true in the hypostatic union itself - which brings us, in the second place, to Jesus."

     Bruce Lindley McCormack on Sergius Bulgakov, The humility of the eternal Son:  Reformed kenoticism and the repair of Chalcedon (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2021), 134.  The headline is from Austin Farrer.