: However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no
: way God or even part of God or equal to God.  The Assumption of our
: Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the
: redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not
: ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along
: with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in
: Heaven.  Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to
: any of the previously mentioned personages.


As I said, it is a provocative thought.

From "Answer to Job":

	The logical consistency of the papal declaration cannot be surpassed
	and it leaves Protestantism with the odium of being nothing but a
	_man's religion_ which allows no metaphysical representation of woman.
	...Protestantism has obviously not given sufficient attention to the
	signs of the times which point to the equality of women.  But this
	equality requires to be metaphysically anchored in the figure of a
	"divine" woman, the bride of Christ.  Just as the person of Christ
	cannot be replaced by an organization, so the bride cannot be re-
	placed by the Church.  The feminine, like the masculine, demands an
	equally personal representation.
		The dogmatizing of the Assumption does not, however, according
	to the dogmatic view, mean that Mary has attained the status of a
	goddess, although, as mistress of heaven...and mediatrix, she is 
	functionally on a par with Christ, the king and mediator. At any
	rate, her position satisfies the need of the archetype. [par. 753-4]


: Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology.

Jung made it clear that he was talking about psychology, not theology.  His
comments had to do with the psychological _image_ of God and its function
in the human psyche, not about the actual existence or nature of God.