The Rat Eat My God!

The Rat Eat My God!

A Study to Understand the History of Transubstantiation, the Eucharist, and the Catholic Mass

---

Preface

This book was born from a simple but disturbing story told by a nineteenth-century former priest. Charles Chiniquy recounted an incident in which consecrated wafers—believed by the Catholic Church to have become the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ—were eaten by rats in a church in Beauport. The elderly priest’s anguished cry, in essence, “The rats have eaten the good God,” exposes a profound theological problem.

If the doctrine of Transubstantiation is true, then the God of heaven can be carried off and consumed by rodents. If the doctrine is not true, then millions of sincere people have been taught to worship and trust something Scripture never commanded.

The purpose of this study is not to attack persons, but to examine a doctrine. We will trace its historical development with care, and we will measure it against the only final authority given to the people of God: the written Scriptures, read in their first-century Judeo-Christian context and in the light of the Pauline revelation.

We will not begin with Aristotle. We will not begin with Thomas Aquinas. We will not begin with the decrees of Lateran IV or the Council of Trent. We will begin with the words of the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul. Only after we have heard Scripture clearly will we turn to the later history that produced the dogma of Transubstantiation and the theology of the Catholic Mass.

The goal is straightforward: that the reader may be strengthened in loyalty to the Word of God, protected from speculative systems, and equipped to observe the Lord’s Supper as it was given by Christ and delivered by the apostles.

---

Introduction

The Question of Authority

Every generation of the church faces the same fundamental question: What is the final authority for faith and practice?

For many, the answer is a combination of Scripture, tradition, philosophical reasoning, and the consensus of scholars or councils. This study takes a different path. It insists that the Holy Scriptures alone are the sufficient and final authority for establishing doctrine. Later traditions, no matter how ancient or widely accepted, must be tested by the written Word. Philosophical systems—especially those drawn from Greco-Roman sources—must not be allowed to redefine what the apostles taught.

The apostle Paul wrote:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

(2 Timothy 3:16–17)

And again:

“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written.”

(1 Corinthians 4:6)

The early believers in Berea were commended because they examined the Scriptures daily to see if the things they heard were true (Acts 17:11). That same standard must govern us.

When we approach the Lord’s Supper, therefore, we do not begin with the language of “substance” and “accidents.” Those categories belong to Aristotle, not to Moses, the prophets, Jesus, or Paul. We begin with the actual words spoken on the night Jesus was betrayed, preserved for us by the apostle Paul and the Gospel writers. We read them in the light of the Jewish Passover and the biblical concept of memorial (zikkaron). Only then do we turn to the centuries of development that produced the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

This is the method of the present study. It is deliberately Judeo-Christian and Pauline rather than Hellenistic. It seeks to recover the simplicity and power of what the Lord actually instituted.

With that foundation laid, we begin.

---

Chapter 1

The Starting Point — Establishing Biblical Doctrine

The most important decision any student of Scripture makes is not which conclusion to reach, but which method to follow. Method determines outcome. If we begin with later philosophy or church tradition and then look for biblical support, we will almost always find what we are looking for. If we begin with the text of Scripture in its original setting and allow it to speak on its own terms, the results may challenge long-held assumptions.

The Primacy of Scripture

The Scriptures claim for themselves a unique authority. They are not one source among many; they are the God-breathed standard by which every other claim must be measured. Paul warned the Galatians with the strongest possible language:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

(Galatians 1:8–9)

The same principle applies to any doctrine. If a teaching cannot be established from the Scriptures themselves, it cannot bind the conscience of the believer.

The First-Century Context

Jesus and the apostles lived and taught within a Jewish world. The categories they used were shaped by the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the living traditions of Israel. The Lord’s Supper was instituted in the setting of the Passover. The language of body, blood, covenant, and remembrance belonged first to that world, not to the lecture halls of Athens or the metaphysical discussions of medieval Europe.

When later generations imported Aristotelian concepts of substance and accidents into the discussion of the bread and the cup, they introduced a foreign framework. That framework may have seemed helpful for answering certain philosophical questions, but it was not the language of the apostles. A method that honors Scripture will therefore prefer the categories of the text itself over the categories of later philosophy.

The Pauline Revelation

Among the New Testament writers, Paul provides the earliest and most detailed instruction concerning the Lord’s Supper. His words in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 were written within twenty-five years of the events they describe. He claims to have received this tradition “from the Lord” and to have delivered it to the churches. Any study that seeks to remain faithful to the apostolic pattern must give special weight to the Pauline account.

The Danger of Derived Theology

Much of what is taught about the Eucharist in later Christian tradition is derived theology—conclusions built upon previous conclusions, philosophical distinctions, and conciliar definitions. Derived theology is not necessarily wrong, but it is always secondary. It must never be allowed to silence or reshape the primary text.

The proper order is clear:

1. Hear the words of Scripture in their original setting.
2. Understand the Jewish background that gives those words their meaning.
3. Observe how the apostles themselves applied the ordinance.
4. Only then examine later historical developments and test them by the standard already established.

This is the path we will follow. In the chapters ahead we will look honestly at the history of Transubstantiation and the Catholic Mass. We will not hide the evidence or soften the difficulties. But we will keep the Scriptures in the highest place, so that the final word belongs not to councils or philosophers, but to the Lord who said, “Do this in remembrance of Me.”