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.