Flannery O'Connor and the Sacrament - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Levin · 08-05-2008, 03:15 AM

Should Mormons adopt the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Flannery O'Connor reported an incident to her friend "A", in a letter dated December 16, 1955, that makes me wonder if Mormons focus too much on the "symbology" of the Sacrament instead of on its real and present cleansing power:

"I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater. . . . She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say. The people who took me were Robert Lowell and his now wife, Elizabeth Hardwick. Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them.

Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. [Mary McCarthy] said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the 'most portable' person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, 'Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it.' That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."

O'Connor has always been a favorite of mine, but this letter highlights another reason why I like her, and admire Catholicism. The doctrine of Transubstantiation makes the Atonement present at the partaking of Eucharist. We focus on the "symbols" to the detriment of the actual power that the bread and water contain -- taken with faith, they are powerful, and immediate, cleansing agents, as well as an actual renewal of baptismal covenants.

I agree with Flannery: if the bread and water are just symbols, to hell with it.

barnes · 08-05-2008, 06:07 PM

Hmm interesting. I have though that the concept of taking the sacrament being the same as being re-baptized was a false notion (which you did not claim or say). I don't think that the sacrament is a ordinance for the remission of sins, therefore what inherent clensing power does it have? I thought the symbolism of the sacrament suppost to assist you in repentance which allows the H.G to clense you? I don't know.

Tex · 08-05-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levin

O'Connor has always been a favorite of mine, but this letter highlights another reason why I like her, and admire Catholicism. The doctrine of Transubstantiation makes the Atonement present at the partaking of Eucharist. We focus on the "symbols" to the detriment of the actual power that the bread and water contain -- taken with faith, they are powerful, and immediate, cleansing agents, as well as an actual renewal of baptismal covenants.

I agree with Flannery: if the bread and water are just symbols, to hell with it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the bread and water do not contain any inherent power. Excess water and bread is discarded after the administration of the sacrament is complete. Non-members or young children who take the sacrament absent any covenant do not receive its benefits.

It's true that we ask God to "bless and sanctify" the emblems of the sacrament. But it is the act of taking them, with the corresponding commitment that each person is supposed to accept by that act, which sanctifies the soul. We are outwardly "witnessing" unto God an inward covenant to accept the sacrifice of his Son.

The physical piece of bread has, of itself, no more power to cleanse my soul than does the water I'm baptized in.

jay santos · 08-05-2008, 09:03 PM

I believe the sacrament is a renewal of the baptismal and GoHG ordinances. I believe as barnes here says that the cleansing power and remission of sins as if you were baptised again. So I believe the LDS sacrament is every bit as powerful and important as the Catholic sacrament.

Gidget · 08-05-2008, 09:21 PM

Oh Flannery Flannery. Surfah is a big fan (being the English major he is) he bought me her short stories when we were engaged. I read the traveling bible-salesmen/prosthetic leg story. Knowing nothing about Flannery . . . . maybe it is just the mother in me, but I was horrified.

Sleeping in EQ · 08-05-2008, 10:39 PM

From my POV, symbols have everything to do with actual power.

Clark Addison · 08-05-2008, 11:46 PM

It seems strange to me that a writer would speak so disdainfully of symbols.

Levin · 08-06-2008, 02:56 PM

I completely get what Flannery was saying. It's not that symbols have no value, but when it comes to the Sacrament, the emblems of blood and flesh of Christ's atoning sacrifice, Flannery won't stand for them just being symbols b/c, by partaking of them with faith, they have real spiritual power. What she meant was that if it was just eating bread and drinking wine to remind us of Christ, then to hell of it. What she believed in all her heart was that the sacrament had real spiritual power because the Atonement has real spiritual power. I think she understood that to strip the bread and wine of spiritual efficacy, and to make them just symbols, is to strip the Atonement of spiritual efficacy. And the sum of her existence was holding onto Christ's sacrifice, and having it made real, to feel its spiritual effects, every time she attended Mass.

As I understand the Sacrament, I renew my baptismal covenants, and like baptism, it is a time of repentance, forgiveness, and spiritual renewal. If taken penitently, with faith, and worthily, the Sacrament is an essential ordinance that cleanses us and washes away the sins of the past week. The Atonement in action.

Flannery did not disdain symbols generally; implying that is ignorant and shows that you completely misunderstand what she was saying (and have never read one of her stories, which are heavy with symbols). It's just that when it comes to the ordinance where we commemorate Christ's sacrifice, it has to be much more than just symbols for her; her existence depends on the bread and water carrying the spiritual power of the Atonement. And it did for her b/c she partake of the emblems penitently and with faith.

Gidget -- I love the story of the traveling Bible salesman. Flannery did not spare anyone.

Sleeping in EQ · 08-06-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levin

I completely get what Flannery was saying. It's not that symbols have no value, but when it comes to the Sacrament, the emblems of blood and flesh of Christ's atoning sacrifice, Flannery won't stand for them just being symbols b/c, by partaking of them with faith, they have real spiritual power. What she meant was that if it was just eating bread and drinking wine to remind us of Christ, then to hell of it. What she believed in all her heart was that the sacrament had real spiritual power because the Atonement has real spiritual power. I think she understood that to strip the bread and wine of spiritual efficacy, and to make them just symbols, is to strip the Atonement of spiritual efficacy. And the sum of her existence was holding onto Christ's sacrifice, and having it made real, to feel its spiritual effects, every time she attended Mass.

As I understand the Sacrament, I renew my baptismal covenants, and like baptism, it is a time of repentance, forgiveness, and spiritual renewal. If taken penitently, with faith, and worthily, the Sacrament is an essential ordinance that cleanses us and washes away the sins of the past week. The Atonement in action.

Flannery did not disdain symbols generally; implying that is ignorant and shows that you completely misunderstand what she was saying (and have never read one of her stories, which are heavy with symbols). It's just that when it comes to the ordinance where we commemorate Christ's sacrifice, it has to be much more than just symbols for her; her existence depends on the bread and water carrying the spiritual power of the Atonement. And it did for her b/c she partake of the emblems penitently and with faith.

Gidget -- I love the story of the traveling Bible salesman. Flannery did not spare anyone.

"Just being symbols" and "just symbols." Neither you, nor Flannery by your description, are giving them their due.

How about starting with "In the beginning was the Word."

Actually, don't. I don't have time to cross swords with you today, Levin. Suffice it to say, I think there is much more to symbols than either you, or Flannery by your description, are accounting for, but I'm willing to be amiable in my disagreement.

Peace.

Clark Addison · 08-06-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levin

I completely get what Flannery was saying. It's not that symbols have no value, but when it comes to the Sacrament, the emblems of blood and flesh of Christ's atoning sacrifice, Flannery won't stand for them just being symbols b/c, by partaking of them with faith, they have real spiritual power. What she meant was that if it was just eating bread and drinking wine to remind us of Christ, then to hell of it. What she believed in all her heart was that the sacrament had real spiritual power because the Atonement has real spiritual power. I think she understood that to strip the bread and wine of spiritual efficacy, and to make them just symbols, is to strip the Atonement of spiritual efficacy. And the sum of her existence was holding onto Christ's sacrifice, and having it made real, to feel its spiritual effects, every time she attended Mass.

As I understand the Sacrament, I renew my baptismal covenants, and like baptism, it is a time of repentance, forgiveness, and spiritual renewal. If taken penitently, with faith, and worthily, the Sacrament is an essential ordinance that cleanses us and washes away the sins of the past week. The Atonement in action.

Flannery did not disdain symbols generally; implying that is ignorant and shows that you completely misunderstand what she was saying (and have never read one of her stories, which are heavy with symbols). It's just that when it comes to the ordinance where we commemorate Christ's sacrifice, it has to be much more than just symbols for her; her existence depends on the bread and water carrying the spiritual power of the Atonement. And it did for her b/c she partake of the emblems penitently and with faith.

Gidget -- I love the story of the traveling Bible salesman. Flannery did not spare anyone.

Interesting (except for you saying I am ignorant and completely misunderstand her)

Having said that, where I think you are getting push back is in what a religious symbol means. In LDS theology, the sacrament is a symbol; it doesn't turn into anything but little pieces of bread and cups of water. However, to take from that that the sacrament does nothing but help us think about Jesus is obviously a mistake. There is tremendous power in the sacrament. It is a literal renewal of covenants, performed by symbolic means. It's somewhat of a false dichotomy to say that you can look at it as EITHER a symbol or a powerful event. It can be both. I think that we basically agree with O'Connor with the exception of saying we don't see the need of transubstantiation to achieve what she is looking for.

08-05-2008, 03:15 AM	#1
Levin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,484	Flannery O'Connor and the Sacrament Should Mormons adopt the doctrine of Transubstantiation? Flannery O'Connor reported an incident to her friend "A", in a letter dated December 16, 1955, that makes me wonder if Mormons focus too much on the "symbology" of the Sacrament instead of on its real and present cleansing power: "I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater. . . . She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say. The people who took me were Robert Lowell and his now wife, Elizabeth Hardwick. Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. [Mary McCarthy] said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the 'most portable' person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, 'Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it.' That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable." O'Connor has always been a favorite of mine, but this letter highlights another reason why I like her, and admire Catholicism. The doctrine of Transubstantiation makes the Atonement present at the partaking of Eucharist. We focus on the "symbols" to the detriment of the actual power that the bread and water contain -- taken with faith, they are powerful, and immediate, cleansing agents, as well as an actual renewal of baptismal covenants. I agree with Flannery: if the bread and water are just symbols, to hell with it. __________________ "Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 Last edited by Levin; 08-05-2008 at 03:17 AM.

08-05-2008, 09:21 PM	#5
Gidget Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: With Surfah Posts: 329	Oh Flannery Flannery. Surfah is a big fan (being the English major he is) he bought me her short stories when we were engaged. I read the traveling bible-salesmen/prosthetic leg story. Knowing nothing about Flannery . . . . maybe it is just the mother in me, but I was horrified. __________________ I am a philosophical Goldilocks, always looking for something neither too big nor too small, neither too hot nor too cold, something jussssst right. I'll send you a card from purgatory. - PaloAltoCougar

08-05-2008, 10:39 PM	#6
Sleeping in EQ Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto Posts: 3,085	From my POV, symbols have everything to do with actual power. __________________ "Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies.

08-06-2008, 02:56 PM	#8
Levin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,484	I completely get what Flannery was saying. It's not that symbols have no value, but when it comes to the Sacrament, the emblems of blood and flesh of Christ's atoning sacrifice, Flannery won't stand for them just being symbols b/c, by partaking of them with faith, they have real spiritual power. What she meant was that if it was just eating bread and drinking wine to remind us of Christ, then to hell of it. What she believed in all her heart was that the sacrament had real spiritual power because the Atonement has real spiritual power. I think she understood that to strip the bread and wine of spiritual efficacy, and to make them just symbols, is to strip the Atonement of spiritual efficacy. And the sum of her existence was holding onto Christ's sacrifice, and having it made real, to feel its spiritual effects, every time she attended Mass. As I understand the Sacrament, I renew my baptismal covenants, and like baptism, it is a time of repentance, forgiveness, and spiritual renewal. If taken penitently, with faith, and worthily, the Sacrament is an essential ordinance that cleanses us and washes away the sins of the past week. The Atonement in action. Flannery did not disdain symbols generally; implying that is ignorant and shows that you completely misunderstand what she was saying (and have never read one of her stories, which are heavy with symbols). It's just that when it comes to the ordinance where we commemorate Christ's sacrifice, it has to be much more than just symbols for her; her existence depends on the bread and water carrying the spiritual power of the Atonement. And it did for her b/c she partake of the emblems penitently and with faith. Gidget -- I love the story of the traveling Bible salesman. Flannery did not spare anyone. __________________ "Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12

08-05-2008, 06:07 PM	#2
barnes Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23	Hmm interesting. I have though that the concept of taking the sacrament being the same as being re-baptized was a false notion (which you did not claim or say). I don't think that the sacrament is a ordinance for the remission of sins, therefore what inherent clensing power does it have? I thought the symbolism of the sacrament suppost to assist you in repentance which allows the H.G to clense you? I don't know.

08-05-2008, 09:03 PM	#4
jay santos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,177	I believe the sacrament is a renewal of the baptismal and GoHG ordinances. I believe as barnes here says that the cleansing power and remission of sins as if you were baptised again. So I believe the LDS sacrament is every bit as powerful and important as the Catholic sacrament.

08-05-2008, 11:46 PM	#7
Clark Addison Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 638	It seems strange to me that a writer would speak so disdainfully of symbols.