Flannery O'Connor and the Sacrament

[All-American]

Do Latter-day Saints believe that the act of Baptism literally washes ones sins away? In which case, are a person's sins swimming around in the font after baptism? I think most people realize that the important thing about the ordinance of baptism is not necessarily the physical act of putting somebody under water, but the covenant thereby made with God.

We know that the scriptures are the word of God. We know that Jesus is the word of God (John 1:1). This makes for a powerful symbol: the scriptures, like Christ, show us the way. He IS, after all, the way, the truth, and the life. Does that mean that the little book that the Church prints off at $2.50 a copy is a little piece of Jesus? Should we refrain from marking favorite scriptures, since that is basically like giving Jesus a tattoo?

Similarly, the temple is filled with symbolism. Do we deny its efficacy because the guy who performs in the play is just an actor who appears in local musical productions or historical recreations of the constitutional convention? Do we get upset because the veil is just a piece of cotton? Or are we capable of seeing beyond the physical forms, understand what they represent, and appreciate the edifying power of the concepts which the symbols represent?

To confine the meaning of a symbol to the significance of its literal form is to cripple the edifying power of that symbol. The symbolism, among other things, allows the sacrament to be more than a little piece of bread; the scriptures, more than a book; the temple, more than a building.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Clark Addison

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.

I agree with this, especially your comment about the false dichotomy. Reading Levin's post, I kept wondering why the two needed to be mutually exclusive.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Levin

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.

I'm quite curious to hear your definition of a symbol. How does viewing the bread and wine as symbols "strip them of their spiritual efficacy"? This entire paragraph is senseless to me.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

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.

I hate to rain on your anti-symbology parade, but as n FYI.....if you are in a fire, your garments, and your body, will be charred to a crisp. Also, bullets will tear through mesh. Sorry.

[Cali Coug]

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.

I haven't read any other posts on this, but I think I get what you are saying.

My thoughts: I don't think we need to adopt transubstantiation in order to accomplish what I think you are advocating (giving real power to the bread and water). The bread and water are, I think, more than merely symbolic. The Lord commanded that we use the bread and water in the sacrament. Could we accomplish the cleansing that is given from the sacrament without partaking of the sacrament? I don't believe we can. We must partake of the sacrament. Now it is true that we can sometimes exchange bread for a wafer and water for Gatorade (examples) if we don't have anything else available, but we have been commanded to use the bread and water as part of the cleansing process.

In that sense, the bread and water are more than just symbolic. While the bread and water don't contain any power on their own, per se, we cannot possibly accomplish the cleansing we need without consuming them. It is akin to looking at the staff that Moses held. The staff didn't contain its own power, but God required people to look at it in order to be saved. The staff became necessary for the safety of the people.

I think the line between symbol and power is often thin, and in this case possibly indistinguishable. If by "to hell with the sacrament as a symbol" you mean "I don't need to take the bread and water to receive the cleansing the sacrament provides," I think you are mistaken. If you mean "the bread and water are more important than just chewing on bread and water," then I agree. We don't need the bread and water to literally turn into Christ's flesh and blood in order to give the sacrament effect. It already has effect- without it, we cannot be cleansed in the same fashion as with it.

[Levin]

I wish Flannery were here to explain. She could do so in three witty sentences.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation takes the spiritual and makes it concrete; takes it out of the abstract and makes it real. How are we washed clean? In the blood of Christ. For Catholics, the wine turns into the blood of Christ and washes the partaker clean. We don't need that last step to understand and believe that it is Christ's sacrifice that is washing us clean. But I appreciate the Catholic belief and I understand it. It is what we believe, really; that there is power in the Sacrament. We don't need the blood and flesh of Christ to be made real in the physical emblems. It is enough for us to understand that there is a similitude. But I understand the inclination to take that last step: to have the emblems literally be the cleansing agents of Christ's sacrifice.

But it wasn't the doctrine of Transubstantiaion that Flannery was defending when she said, "if it's just a symbol, to hell with it." It was the reality of Christ's Atonement in her life; that it had a living and present force in her life, and everything else in her life was expendable -- but the Atonement, and the Atonement was made real for her in the Sacrament. That's what I mean when I agree with Flannery. If the Sacrament has no spiritual efficacy -- if it has no atoning effect -- then to hell with it. And like Flannery, that's all the defense I can give of it. In Flannery's way, that is how she was bearing her testimony of Christ. And I understand what she was saying.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

But it wasn't the doctrine of Transubstantiaion that Flannery was defending when she said, "if it's just a symbol, to hell with it." It was the reality of Christ's Atonement in her life; that it had a living and present force in her life, and everything else in her life was expendable -- but the Atonement, and the Atonement was made real for her in the Sacrament. That's what I mean when I agree with Flannery. If the Sacrament has no spiritual efficacy -- if it has no atoning effect -- then to hell with it.

I don't know that that's true. Based on what little you've posted, it strikes me that her view is the "reality of Christ's Atonement in her life" is not efficacious without that doctrine; that transubstantiation is what made the ordinance "a living and present force in her life."

Since we as Mormons don't believe that doctrine, it seems to me a distinction without a difference. For us, the emblems are simultaneously symbols and vehicles of priesthood power. Why the need to draw a line in the sand?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you mean "the bread and water are more important than just chewing on bread and water," then I agree. We don't need the bread and water to literally turn into Christ's flesh and blood in order to give the sacrament effect. It already has effect- without it, we cannot be cleansed in the same fashion as with it.

Yes, this is what I mean.

But I think Flannery meant something slightly different. I think she was saying that Christ was not some person who lived 2000 years ago, and all we have to remember him and his sacrifice by today is symbols. She was saying that Christ was alive for her that day, and every day, and the Eucharist, that most sacred ordinance, was the conduit of the power of Christ's sacrifice, and it had a real spiritual effect in her life each time she partook.

Symbols are inanimate. The bread and water, for Flannery, are animate because Christ is animate. That, succinclty (finally) is what I think she was saying.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know that that's true. Based on what little you've posted, it strikes me that her view is the "reality of Christ's Atonement in her life" is not efficacious without that doctrine; that transubstantiation is what made the ordinance "a living and present force in her life."

Since we as Mormons don't believe that doctrine, it seems to me a distinction without a difference. For us, the emblems are simultaneously symbols and vehicles of priesthood power. Why the need to draw a line in the sand?

Can't you see I'm not drawing a line in the sand. I'm saying that what Catholics and we believe, spiritually, are one and the same? See my last post as to what I think Flannery was saying. She, in her faith, needed the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but it was not what she was defending. She was defending what we and she share.

When I first asked the question whether we needed to adopt the doctrine of Transubstantiation, what I was really saying is whether Mormons place too much emphasis on the symbols, and not enough on the spiritual effects of the emblems. I think the doctrine of Transubstantiation is, at bottom, a doctrine aimed at that concern: lapsing into thinking its just a symbol without a power.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

Can't you see I'm not drawing a line in the sand. I'm saying that what Catholics and we believe, spiritually, are one and the same? See my last post as to what I think Flannery was saying. She, in her faith, needed the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but it was not what she was defending. She was defending what we and she share.

When I first asked the question whether we needed to adopt the doctrine of Transubstantiation, what I was really saying is whether Mormons place too much emphasis on the symbols, and not enough on the spiritual effects of the emblems. I think the doctrine of Transubstantiation is, at bottom, a doctrine aimed at that concern: lapsing into thinking its just a symbol without a power.

In that case, the body of replies to this thread should constitute your answer.