Sacred Feast?

Sacred Feast? When Desperation Leads To Desecration

When does the Sacred Feast of Holy Communion cease to be a Sacred Feast? When does a Communion Host truly become Desecrated?

In the context of Christianity, the consecrated Bread and Wine were for human consumption. There is absolutely nothing in Holy Scripture, in Church Tradition, or in the writings of the Church Fathers, about burying the Sacred Host in the dirt to “consecrate a land.” Are hosts needed to consecrate land?

Israel-supporting Pentecostal fringe groups are now so desperate, for Divine change, that they are starting to resort to “consecrating the land” by directing entire congregations to “go out the back door and plant the Sacred Host into the soil, to consecrate the land.”

Should the painting of the Last Supper portray the Apostles gathered around Jesus, commanding them, “Do This In Remembrance Of Me,” taking the Bread and crushing it into the dirt, then the Wine and pouring it into the soil?

Tremendous deception is underway today. Pastors who have directed their congregations to do this, with good intentions, need to publicly apologize and prostrate themselves before the Lord.

Host desecration is a form of sacrilege in Christian denominations that follow the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It involves the mistreatment or malicious use of a consecrated host—the bread used in the Eucharistic service of the Divine Liturgy or Mass (also known by Protestants simply as Communion bread). It is forbidden by the Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well as in certain Protestant traditions (including Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Methodism).

Martin Luther through his dying day completely believed in the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Young Reformer Zwingli from Switzerland, when in his twenties, opposed the scholarly Luther and called it merely bread. Their contemporary from France, Calvin, wrote that it was somewhere in-between. The only time Luther met Zwingli he severely chastised him and rejoiced at Zwingli’s death. Today, many who follow Zwingli consider the feast of the Eucharist more sacred than the Eucharist itself – or they would not rub the Host into the dirt.

Throughout history, a number of groups have been accused of desecrating the Eucharist, often with grave consequences due to the spiritual importance of the consecrated host. When Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, being no respecter of persons, what could be the “grave consequences” of desecrating the Host today? Untimely deaths in the complicit congregation?

As one in western civilization who always considers “innocence before proven guilty,” I do believe this unwitting desecration is done with the best of intentions. But should one – indeed, an entire congregation – attempt to consecrate the land to God by desecrating the Host? Is the Sacred Feast for both the consumption of humans and the land? Desperation leading to desecration needs to be re-examined…

The Incarnation blessed this material world: why shouldn’t people feed the Host to cattle to bless their cattle? Why just put it into the soil? An examination of witch-trials involving the host is used to explore lay assumptions about the proper temporal uses of Christian sacred objects. Why bring up witch trials? Because though Pentecostals may have good intentions, they are not above deception. Satan is always trying to conform people to his image, especially with slander; especially with magnifying and embellishing the false guilt laid upon those who oppose his subtle tactics; but also with host desecrations which span the centuries.

It’s best to back up, it’s theologically safer, to become stronger in tradition, to shun even the appearance of evil. For an entire congregation to crush their hosts into the dirt, definitely gives the appearance of evil… A serious degree of liberalism is at play here. Liberalism which has infiltrated the Church in a thousand ways, slowly, incrementally, over time. Until the Holy Spirit Himself is made to seem a liberal progressive, where the Feast is made to appear more sacred than the Host itself. The Host, they insist, can be rubbed into the dirt; as can those Truth seekers who oppose this practice.

After considering this article, a professional theologian commented the following:

The offenders may argue this is not a ritual. But whether one burns a Viking funeral ship one time – or a thousand times – even one time is a ritual. And should their church alone have the privilege of putting the Host into the soil – and if so, why don’t all the others in their national organization do the same? In any event, is this not apostasy?