Carl Jung and "I look upon the receiving of the Holy Spirit as a highly revolutionary fact…"

There were very good reasons why the Catholic Church has carefully purified Christ and his mother from all contamination by the peccatum originate.

Protestantism was more courageous, even daring or—perhaps?—more oblivious of the consequences, in not denying—expressis verbis—the human nature (in part) of Christ and (wholly) of his mother.

Thus the ordinary man became a source of the Holy Spirit, though certainly not the only one.

It is like lightning, which issues not only from the clouds but also from the peaks of the mountains.

This fact signifies the continued and progressive divine incarnation.

Thus man is received and integrated into the divine drama.

He seems destined to play a decisive part in it; that is why he must receive the Holy Spirit.

I look upon the receiving of the Holy Spirit as a highly revolutionary fact which cannot take place until the ambivalent nature of the Father is recognized.

If God is the summum bonum, the incarnation makes no sense, for a good god could never produce such hate and anger that his only son had to be sacrificed to appease it.

A Midrash says that the Shofar is still sounded on the Day of Atonement to remind YHWH of his act of injustice towards Abraham (by compelling him to slay Isaac) and to prevent him from repeating it.

A conscientious clarification of the idea of God would have consequences as upsetting as they are necessary.

They would be indispensable for an interior development of the Trinitarian drama and of the role of the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit is destined to be incarnate in man or to choose him as a transitory dwelling place.

“Non habet nomen proprium, says St. Thomas; because he will receive the name of man.

That is why he must not be identified with Christ.

We cannot receive the Holy Spirit unless we have accepted our own individual life as Christ accepted His: Thus we become the “son’s of god” fated to experience the conflict of the the divine opposites, represented by the crucifixion. ~Carl Jung, The Symbolic Life, Pages 687-688, Para 1551.

Carl Jung "I had to understand that I was unable to make the people see what I am after. I am practically alone."

I had to understand that I was unable to make the people see what I am after. I am practically alone.

There are a few who understand this and that, but almost nobody sees the whole….

I have failed in my foremost task: to open people’s eyes to the fact that man has a soul and there is a buried treasure in the field and that our religion and philosophy are in a lamentable state. ~Quoted by Gerhard Adler in “Aspects of Jung’s Personality,” in Psychological Perspectives 6/1 (Spring 1975), p. 14.

Carl Jung and the Assumption and Coronation of Mary

Assumption and Coronation of Mary

The dogmatization of the Assumptio Mariae points to the hieros gamos in the pleroma, and this in turn implies . . . the future birth of the divine child, who, in accordance with the divine trend towards incarnation, will choose as his birthplace the empirical man.

The metaphysical process is known to the psychology of the unconscious as the individuation process. ~Carl Jung, Jung, “Answer to Job,” Psychology and Religion, CW 11, par. 755.

The nuptial union in the thalamus (bridal-chamber) signifies the hieros gamos, and this in turn is the first step towards incarnation, towards the birth of the saviour who, since antiquity, was thought of as the filius solis et lunae, the filius sapientiae, and the equivalent of Christ. When, therefore, a longing for the exaltation of the Mother of God passes through the people, this tendency, if thought to its logical conclusion, means the desire for the birth of a saviour, a peacemaker, a “mediator pacem faciens inter inimicos.”

Although he is already born in the pleroma, his birth in time can only be accomplished when it is perceived, recognized, and declared by man. ~Carl Jung, Jung, “Answer to Job,” Psychology and Religion, CW 11, par. 748.

The taking up of the body had long been emphasized as an historical and material event, and the alchemists could therefore make use of the representations of the Assumption in describing the glorification of matter in the opus.

The illustration of this process in Reusner’s Pandora shows, underneath the coronation scene, a kind of shield between the emblems of Matthew and Luke, on which is depicted the extraction of Mercurius from the prima materia.

The extracted spirit appears in monstrous form: the head is surrounded by a halo, and reminds us of the traditional head of Christ, but the arms are snakes and the lower half of the body resembles a stylized fish’s tail.

This is without doubt the anima mundi who has been freed from the shackles of matter, the filius macrocosmi or Mercurius-Anthropos, who, because of his double nature, is not only spiritual and physical but unites in himself the morally highest and lowest.

The illustration in Pandora points to the great secret which the alchemists dimly felt was implicit in the Assumption.

The proverbial darkness of sublunary matter has always been associated with the “prince of this world,” the devil.

He is the metaphysical figure who is excluded from the Trinity but who, as the counterpart of Christ, is the sine qua non of the drama of redemption.

His equivalent in alchemy is the dark side of Mercurius duplex and . . . the active sulphur.

He also conceals himself in the poisonous dragon, the preliminary, chthonic form of the lapis aethereus. ~Carl Jung, Mysterium Coniunctionis, CW 14, par. 238.

Image: Coronation of the Virgin and the Extraction of Mercurius.

Carl Jung: The ego participates in God’s suffering.

The ego participates in God’s suffering.

We have become participants in the divine nature. We are the vessel…of the deity suffering in the body of the “slave”(Phil. 2:5).

Buddha’s insight and the incarnation in Christ break the chain through the intervention of the enlightened human consciousness which thereby acquires a metaphysical and cosmic significance.

Individuation and individual existence are indispensable for the transformation of God.

Human consciousness is the only seeing eye of the Deity. ~Carl Jung, Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, 336, 409, Letters II, 314ff.

Carl Jung on the “continued and progressive divine incarnation.

[Carl Jung on the “continued and progressive divine incarnation.]

The continuing, direct operation of the Holy Ghost on those who are called to be God’s children implies, in fact, a broadening process of incarnation. Christ, the son begotten by God, is the first-born who is succeeded by an ever-increasing number of younger brothers and sisters.
These are, however, neither begotten by the Holy Ghost nor born of a virgin. . .. Their lowly origin (possibly from the mammals) does not prevent them from entering into a close kinship with God as their father and Christ as their brother. ~Carl Jung, “Answer to Job,” Psychology and Religion, CW 11, par. 658.

[There is a] . . . continued and progressive divine incarnation. Thus man is received and integrated into the divine drama. He seems destined to play a decisive part in it; that is why he must receive the Holy Spirit.

I look upon the receiving of the Holy Spirit as a highly revolutionary fact which cannot take place until the ambivalent nature of the Father is recognized. If God is the summum bonum, the incarnation makes no sense, for a good god could never produce such hate and anger that his only son had to be sacrificed to appease it.

A Midrash says that the Shofar is still sounded on the Day of Atonement to remind YHWH of his act of injustice towards Abraham (by compelling him to slay Isaac) and to prevent him from repeating it.

A conscientious clarification of the idea of God would have consequences as upsetting as they are necessary. They would be indispensable for an interior development of the trinitarian drama and of the role of the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit is destined to be incarnate in man or to choose him as a transitory dwelling-place. “Non habet nomen proprium,” says St. Thomas; because he will receive the name of man.

That is why he must not be identified with Christ. We cannot receive the Holy Spirit unless we have accepted our own individual life as Christ accepted his.

Thus we become the “sons of god” fated to experience the conflict of the divine opposites, represented by the crucifixion. ~Carl Jung, “Letter to Pèe Lachat,” The Symbolic Life, CW 18, par. 1551.

The "littleness" of the Holy Spirit stems from the fact that God’s pneuma dissolves into the form of little flames

The “littleness” of the Holy Spirit stems from the fact that God’s pneuma dissolves into the form of little flames, remaining none the less intact and whole.

His dwelling in a certain number of human individuals and their transformation into huiõi tou theou1 signifies a very important step forward beyond “Christocentrism.”. . .

On the level of the Son there is no answer to the question of good and evil; there is only an incurable separation of the opposites . .
. . It seems to me to be the Holy Spirit’s task and charge to reconcile and reunite the opposites in the human individual through a special development of the human soul. ~Carl Jung, Symbolic Life, Page CW 18, pars. 1552f.

The fundamental idea of the theologians is always this: the earthly fate of the Church as the body of Christ is modelled on the earthly fate of Christ himself. That is to say the Church, in the course of her history, moves towards a death . . .
until the last day when, after fulfilling her earthly task, she becomes “unnecessary” and “dies,” as indicated in Psalm 71:7: “until the moon shall fail.” These ideas were expressed in the symbolism of Luna as the Church. Just as the kenosis of Christ was fulfilled in death . . . even so it is with the parallel kenosis of Ecclesia-Luna. ~Carl Jung, Mysterium Coniunctionis, CW 14, par. 28, note 194.

If the death of the Church can be postponed to the “last day,” The man who is not particularly bold . . . will . . . thank God that the Holy Spirit does not concern himself with us overmuch. One feels much safer under the shadow of the Church, which serves as a fortress to protect us against God and his Spirit. It is very comforting to be assured by the Catholic Church that it “possesses” the Spirit, who assists regularly at its rites. Then one knows that he is well chained up. ~Carl Jung, “Letter to Père Lachat,” The Symbolic Life, CW 18, par. 1534.

It is for your own good that I am going because unless I go the Advocate [Paraclete] will not come to you; but if I do go,
I will send him to you. (John 16:7, Jerusalem Bible)

I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate [Paraclete] to be with you forever, that Spirit of truth whom the world can never receive since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him, because he is with you, he is in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come back to you.

In a short time the world will no longer see me; but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will understand that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you. (John 14:16 20, Jerusalem Bible)

Per Edward F. Edinger the “X” in the passage below was Father Victor White.

[Per Edward F. Edinger the “X” in the passage below was Father Victor White.]

I [Esther Harding] spoke of the clergy and how they are reaching out for his ideas. . . .

He said, “Only the clergy and we are concerned with the education of the soul.

People may have to go back to the Church when they reach a certain stage of analysis. Individuation is only for the few.” …

Jung went on to say that X. [a mutual acquaintance, a cleric] had never really faced his problem, nor taken up his cross, that ,is, the opposition that forms the cross (crossing his fingers as he spoke).

He need not have been afraid; the Church would not have rejected him.

A Jesuit said to X. once, “You make a fist in your pocket and go on with the ritual!”

But he could not face the fact of evil—just as he denied that Jesus had a shadow, though that is clearly portrayed, even in the records we have.

Not only did he fail on Palm Sunday, allowing himself to be venerated as an imperial savior, and then cursed the fig tree because it did not fall into line, but also he was actually unable to carry his cross, someone else had to carry it for him, a most significant point.

And so he had to be fixed on the cross. If we do not carry our own cross, we will surely be crucified.

So X., who had not enough backbone to carry his cross, had an illness and must die of cancer…. ~C.G. Jung Speaking, From Esther Harding’s Notebooks 1950, Page 440

Carl Jung

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,834 other followers