To Pastor H. Wegmann
Dear Pastor Wegmann, 20 November 1945
Best thanks for your letter.
The position you have taken interests me greatly; it gives me a chance to look more closely at my own attitude.
You are right, of course: Meyer catholicizes.
As you say, he takes the Scriptures tale quale-ostensibly: but, if I am not deceived, he has a streak of mysticism which gives his picture a special character.
The result is that the tale quale standpoint appears almost irrelevant compared with his supramundane vision of an interpretation that comes as close as possible to the ancient Church.
I find him unpalatable only when he modernizes in style and language and thus steps out of his “ekstasis.”
When I visualize the content of the book as understood in its best sense, I discover something in it that is somehow similar to my own way of looking at things.
Not that I believe in verbal inspiration or that I find no contradictions and human peccadillos in the text; but the revelatory character imputed to it and the sometimes farcical thoughts are an integral part of his vision.
And it is this that interests me in its totality.
When Meyer amplifies and interprets he speaks to me out of its fullness; indeed, it is as though he were caught up uncritically in this visionary world and were ambling along its highways and byways, laden with everything that the centuries have piled on top of this primordial phenomenon.
A strange and rare spectacle in modern Protestantism, methinks, so far as my limited knowledge goes!
At the Paracelsus Jubilee in 1941 I heard a Benedictine• sermon, during which the jackanapes took it into his head to present the Catholic view as “agreeable.”
How much better it would have been if he had been inspired by a supramundane vision of the nature and attributes of the Trinity and so conveyed some idea of that primordial
phenomenon from which all Christian doctrine originally sprang.
“Et mortuus est Dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile est.”
For the primordial is indeed the supramundane, which the world knoweth not and is incapable of judging, which cannot be got at with any logic or criticism, and which can only be amplified and interpreted but never made “agreeable .”
I only wish the theologians would accept the Kabbala and India and China as well, so as to proclaim still more clearly how God reveals himself.
If in the process Christianity should be relativized up to a point, this would only be ad majorem Dei gloriam and would do no harm to the meaning of the Christian doctrine.
For all this is true and much else besides.
Minor inconsistencies and obscurities can be left to the purists; but the great incompatibles, such as the being and non-being of God, his person and his non-person, and the coincidentia oppositorum in general, belong to the picture of the divine paradox.
It seems to me strangely beside the point if Protestants think they can adopt a critical, deliberative attitude towards God ‘s revelation in its totality.
I think one can only speak out of the torrent of divine images, and in such a way that the continuity of tradition is not broken, otherwise one gets unawares into the cul de sac of subjective opinion.
Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditor should be the guideline for the theologian, since he is speaking out of and to the depths of an anima naturaliter christiana which recognizes no subjective deals with God, even though the individual psyche enforces them because all life dwells only in individual carriers.
But it is just this fragmentation that has to be compensated by a continual recollection of the veritates catholicae.
It seems to me that Meyer has lived up to this need as fully as possible, if not in all particulars then at least in the general sense that he is speaking on a plane beyond the empirical Church and its ecclesiasticism.
I sense that he is dreaming of a catholicity which wants to embrace the tree of the Church as a whole.
To what extent his attempt is a success or a failure I, an incompetent layman, cannot judge .
I should be glad to hear from you sometime what you think of my “thoughts out of season.”
With best regards,
C.G. Jung ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. 1, Pages 391-393.