Among Christians there has long been the debate concerning the Lord's Supper, also called, the Holy Eucherest, and Holy Communion.  There are to my knowledge 4 major views concerning Holy Communion:  Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, (Both of which believe in the physical presence of Christ at communion.) Then there is the belief in Spiritual Presence of Christ at communion, and then there is the idea of pure symbolism, also called an ordinance.  Transubstantiation is practiced in the Roman Catholic church.  Consubstantiation is practiced within most parts of the Lutherin church.  Belief in Christ's Spiritual Presence is practiced by most of the Calvinist churches.  Pure symbolic/remembrance communion is practiced predominantly throughout the Baptist churches.

Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of bread and wine actually become the very body and e of our Lord, Jesus Christ.  The terminology used when explained to me, is that the elements of the supper are Christ's e and flesh under the of bread and wine.  Not that this occuring is an .  The term is used in Greek philosophy, and I am not qualified to explain that to you at all.

Consubstantiation is the belief taught by Martin Luther, that the elements of Holy Communion contain somewhere within them the actual physical body and e of our Lord Christ.  During a 'discussion' with the theologan Zwingly (sp) (who believed that the Lord's Supper was pure symbolism) it was said the Luther ended up carving in the table "This is my body..."

Spiritual Presence is the belief taught by John Calvin, that the elements of Holy Communion are indeed bread and wine, but we however in the partaking of the elements commune with Jesus Christ.  Two views are either:  we are taken spiritually into Heaven and commune with Christ, or that Christ descends upon us and communes with us here.

Symbolism or Pure Ordinance is the belief taught by Zwingly (sp), that the Lord's Supper is only for remembrance of Christ's .  They believe neither in actual communion with Christ or actual partaking of Christ.

I believe in Spiritual Presence of Christ at Holy Communion personally.  My problems with Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation are the same.  I do not believe that we are to continually feed on Christ's body and e.  His first sacrifice on the cross was completely sufficient.  However, most Roman Catholics and Lutherins deny that they are re-sacrificing Jesus Christ.  I'll accept that argument as well.  I do not believe that a true Christian wants to continually sacrifice Jesus in the least.  They cite the passage where Jesus says: "This is my body.... this is my e...."  What they fail to realize is that scripture also says "He took the bread..." etc.  You get the picture.  However, if you believe that Christ's body is actually present within the elements of Holy Communion, did our Lord's sacrifice begin at the Last Supper, before He prayed at Gethsemane.  Keep in mind that he prayed there that this cup be passed from Him.  (Not that Jesus had any intention of backing down mind you.)  But my reasoning is that if the cup could be passed from Him, His sacrifice had not yet begun.  Thus the Last Supper could not have been the actual partaking of Christ's flesh and e.

Now my problem with the idea that the Lord's supper is pure symbolism, set as an ordinance by Christ for remembrance of His sacrifice only.  Those who ascribe to this belief cite where Jesus says, "As often as you do this, do this in remembrance of me..."  While this is all well and good, we must also go futher into scripture to see how the Apostle Paul expounds on the Lord's Supper.  He gives a warning to all those who would partake of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner eat and drink condemnation to themselves.  This also defends Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, in that how can something that is mere symbolism and remembrance bring condemnation upon you?  Believing that this Holy Sacrament is really only symbolism, it comes no where near the sanctity of prayer. 

Which brings me to my belief in Spiritual Communion with Christ.  I've explained why I do not acribe to the other beliefs in Holy Communion, and I've defined this belief already.  So I am at sort of a loss on what to say here.  However, prayer itself is a communion with our God.  Communion IS and has since the church was founded been a sacrament.  This cannot be brought to the level of mere symbolism.  For prayer isn't even symbolic, it is communion with God... Why then would the Lord's Supper be any different? 

In closing... I want to know what other Christians view on this matter.  Non-Christians are welcome to respond (as always), but keep in mind, this is a post for Christians to ponder upon.  I don't expect a creation vs. evolution debate to arise out of this.  Also, as for the major denominations I listed.  I apologize if I left yours out.  However, I am in south Louisiana where it is predominatly Roman Catholic, and Baptist.  I'm however Prebyterian (IE: Calvinist) and the only group I know of to believe in consubstantiation are the Lutherins.  If you've got a view you might want to include your denomination for reference as well.  That's always a good place to start when debating this sort of thing, so we know where the other is coming from.