Meditation for Christmas Season
“According to the Preface for Christmas the ultimate goal of the Incarnation is man’s ‘divinization’: ‘You have brought about a wondrous exchange; your divine Word became a mortal man, and in Christ we mortal men receive your divine life.’[...]
The Christian ideal of man’s divinization does not indicate a path of self-divinization: it is in fact man’s healing from the ‘God-complex’, from the compulsion of wanting to be like God; it is man’s healing from a view of God which projects the reverse image of his own powerlessness on to a despotic, omnipotent God.
The Christmas theme of the ‘wondrous exchange’ gives the direction in which we should look for the Christian idea of how man can ‘become God’. Paul shows the way: ‘You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich’ (2 Cor 8:9). Thus the Christian path of divinization can only be a path which makes man like God, like him in his ‘self-emptying’ (Phil 2:7) which makes us rich. The goal of God’s Incarnation is man’s divinization. And as for the path to this goal, it can be none other than the path taken by the Son of God in becoming man for us.
Gregory of Nyssa once formulated the Pauline theme in this way: ‘God takes on the poverty of my flesh so that I may receive the riches of his godhead’ (PG 35, 325).”
Christoph von Schönborn, The Mystery of the Incarnation, trans. Graham Garrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992), 51-52.
Comments are closed.
As a native of Austria I have to point out that there is no “von” in Austria anymore, not since the end of World War I, when nobility and its titles were abolished. Austria is a republic. Cardinal Schoenborn is of the Bohemian branch of the Schoenborn family, his family fled at the end of World War II, from the Soviets, and ended up in Western Austria. Neither he nor his assistants would use the word “von”. On a related note – when I was in Prague, I saw the palais that used to belong to his family – it’s now the American embassy.
You can watch my interview with the cardinal at the following link, he was kind enough to see me in April :)
http://media.switchpod.com/users/geraldaugustinus/CardinalSchoenborn.wmv
As I am sure you know, the book is published by Ignatius Press with his name as “Christoph von Schönborn,” unlike his other books. Many of us prefer to actually read his writings.
Germany is also a Republic. I know a good number of German “vons”. Are you saying that Austria actually forced the nobility to alter their names in a way that was not true in Germany?
I suppose Ludwig von Mises, the great Austrian economist and champion of democratic capitalism, didn’t get the memo about the abolishment of his family title and name. Unless, of course, he was grandfathered into the radical reforms of post-WWI Austria. Notwithstanding, I think the quote Katerina provides is rich and incisive, and I am sad to see that Gerald felt the need to correct Ignatius Press on how it printed the good Cardinal’s name rather than commenting on Schönborn’s thought. Having met Schönborn myself, I know that he appreciates familiarity with his theology from those who interview him.
Policratus – I looked, seems it was one of his first books. The newer ones and the German ones the cardinal gave me in Vienna don’t have the “von”
Minion – Germany altered it, too, but not completely, there they use the old title like “cardinal” – ie, John Count Smith, not as before Count John Smith. Some Germans will still refer to them as “Count Smith”.
The “nobles” who didn’t leave/were allowed to stay had the prefix “von” taken away – which is not really part of the name, it simply means “of”. Germany kind of kept titles, Austria abolished them all. In a republic, nobility titles like Duke, Princess and what not are silly, since there is no monarchy left. The only people who still use the “von” and the “count”, “duke” etc. are people you in particular wouldn’t like ;) I ran into some of them at the TLM with the Apostolic Nuncio I photographed. Their dress and behavior gives them away immediately. They even talk differently. To normal Austrians, it’s pretty silly. They often vacation together and party like it’s 1899.
So no, their names weren’t altered. The founders of the First Republic thought that nobody should be “noble” by birth. It’s like referring to the Queen of England as “Elizabeth Windsor”. Austrians are addicted enough as it is to titles. My wife, eg, wouldn’t even addressed by name, but only as “Frau Doktor”. In the monarchy, it must have been insufferable. Just pick up a letter from a subject to some princeling and you’ll get nauseous.
(The “van” on the other hand, as in van Beethoven, is not an indication of nobility.)
Schoenborn would be a count – without a county. His family had three different branches. His branch lost everything, they fled from the Soviets. In Austria, the Habsburgs who did not give up any claims to the throne were banished and disowned. It took Otto Habsburg, the son of the last emperor, a long time to be allowed back in. In Germany, he is known as “Otto von Habsburg”, but not as prince, archduke or whatever he’d be. His father Karl was recently beatified – a rather controversial matter that wasn’t viewed favorably in Austria, even in the church there was some resistance – his supposed use of mustard gas in WW I. was usually cited. The nobility that gave up claims to rule Austria could stay. Karl Habsburg, Otto’s son, was in politics for a while. No risk of beatification there :P Relations to former aristocrats are more relaxed now, as there is no chance they’d return to power. It’s simply thought improper to make some people more special – by birth – than others. Aristocrats still have one function in Europe – helping sell the yellow press, much like American celebrities.
Formerly Communist countries, such as the Czech republic, gave back lots of land to some “nobility” – Schwarzenberg is in the government. We ran into another famous former nobleman, Lobkowitz. He grew up in Boston. The Czechs gave him back quite a bit, part of the old castle. In Vienna, there are many palais named after these families, but they no longer own them. Many of the former nobility are still very rich, so don’t feel too bad for them ;) In-breeding can frequently be a problem, so some of them purposely marry “commoners” in order to freshen things up a bit.
The way titles were handed out in the monarchy, there were many Donald von Trumps :)
I don’t think it was radical to abolish “nobility”, of course to aristocrats it was :) It had been long overdue. Austria had a very reactionary government, censorship (limiting people like Verdi, for example) and what not, not to mention losing one war after another and letting Germany drag it into WW I. So, people’d had enough.
Mises emigrated in 1940 (Jewish ancestry), that’s why he got to decide what to be called I’d think. I’m not sure how the Catholic fascist government held it with titles which he was an adviser for. His family’s title dates back to 1881, kind of like an honorary degree.
What a wonderful reflection from the good Cardinal. When I went to midnight mass at the Cathedral of Ss. Peter and Paul in Philly in 2005 and 2006, Cardinal Rigali had a similar topic (the “wonderous exchange”) for his homilies. Believe it or not, divinization was one of the ideas of Catholicism that I found to be new, even revolutionary, when I was converting from Protestantism. It certainly was not emphasized or taught in the branches of Protestantism (Mennonites, Assemblies of God) that I grew up in. I found it to be a breath of fresh air. That, I, a mere mortal, could share in the divine nature! That sharing in Christ’s self-emptying was the path to this sharing! Looking at the Catholic conception of the power of the Cross for the first time is like looking through a window when one had for one’s whole life only been looking through a keyhole.
Matthew,
Your comment is a powerful testimony.
Yet the movement you sketch from looking through the keyhole to looking through the window is only the beginning. There is yet to be discovered the open expanse itself that takes us “through” the world to God and to do so in a way that is yet to be fully explored.
Divinization is not merely a private matter. It radiates to everything. It impacts the thoughts, acts, relations, and creations of every person. It has tremendous implications for our relations to God, to each other, and to the entirety of the world.
Take, for instance, the notion of worship? How does this notion of divinization give breadth and depth to the meaning of worship? Far too many people view our choice in stark terms: either we “love” God or “love” the world. The Christian, it is thus believed, must turn towards God.
But the thrust of this Christmas Meditation says something different. Indeed, is it enough to stand aloof and give preference to God. Is it enough to relate everything to God and sacrifice everything for Him?
Or are we called upon to undertake a more exciting task. Aren’t we called upon to take this “new order” symbolized by the term “divinization” and let it infuse our being .. and let it radiate throughout our body and soul … and then to use it to give a new form to the world itself. Doesn’t divinization give new meaning to the creative act? Doesn’t it transform us into agents whose mission is to strive to transfigure the world through good works and intellectual struggle?
Aren’t we given this gift of divinization to help complete the Creative process itself and to do so in all we encounter and engage? Doesn’t this notion of “divinization” open up a “third way” that enables us to reconcile earth and heaven through a process of transfiguration? Aren’t we called upon to exercise a true communion with God “through” the world rather than by “ignoring” the world? Aren’t we called upon to be God’s agents and to carry his work — the work of the Incarnation –into all aspects of the world itself?
What implications does the notion of “divinization” have for social policy? For the form of economics? For American jurisprudence? For defining the nature of education? For articulating the nature of human community? For the conduct of American foreign policy? For redefining the nature of international politics?
How does it radicalize the notion of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and the significance those virtues have in our daily lives?
I present the above as random thoughts. But Katerina’s post is so pregnant with meaning I thought I should try to provoke some discussion of its substance and implications.
Gerald C.,
Wow! What a response! Certainly, divinization has all those facets which you discuss, permeating our daily lives and and our relationship with all of creation. God’s grace gives us the “spirit of sonship” whereby “we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’”. “We are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” (quoted from Rom 8:15-17). It is this spirit of sonship, this divinization, which is so clearly connected with the fulfillment, the very consumation of creation itself that St. Paul cries out a little later on, “the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Rom 8:19-21)
I was listening just tonight to Dr. Scott Hahn discussing how the reality of the kingdom of God is present now in the Church itself, most perfectly in the Sacrifice of the Mass, but also in the whole daily life of the Church, whether expressed in the sacraments, the communion of saints, in family life, or in our daily work. If this is the case, if the kingdom is already here and already working in our midst, then we must begin to manifest that kingdom, however imperfectly, in the actions of our daily life, impregnated by the grace of divinization.
As for practical implications, we must make a resolution to carry this notion of divinization into our discussions of other posts. For example, if I were starting to talk about divinizaiton in relation to education (one of the topics you suggest), I would begin by thinking about the nature of those being educated (that they are called to the “spirit of sonship”, that they are called to share in the cardinal and supernatural virtues, that they are called to imitation of Christ in daily life) and also about the nature of what is being taught (which must correspond with those goals). Education transfigured does not cease to teach regular things like math and science, but also aims at formation of the person himself or herself. I’m aware that these thoughts are just scratching the surface. If I were to take a substantive stab at talking about education in relation to divinization, I’d use C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man as a guidebook. I think that he gives some perspective that it’s easy to lose in modernity, particularly when he comments about the role of education in forming the heart and will.
Or are we called upon to undertake a more exciting task. Aren’t we called upon to take this “new order” symbolized by the term “divinization” and let it infuse our being .. and let it radiate throughout our body and soul … and then to use it to give a new form to the world itself. Doesn’t divinization give new meaning to the creative act? Doesn’t it transform us into agents whose mission is to strive to transfigure the world through good works and intellectual struggle?
Aren’t we given this gift of divinization to help complete the Creative process itself and to do so in all we encounter and engage?
Careful, Gerald — you sounding awfully like Michael Novak. ;-)
Christopher,
Although your approval comes with a high price, I’m thankful nonetheless. I’ll buy you a drink at any watering hole near CUA!
Happy New Year!