There are a lot of topics beaten to death on forums. I never really know what to post for new topics, and I never seem to have much to say in response to every other topic. It seems to me a lot of the topics I might consider starting have already been started. I might just be unintelligent, I don't know, but I had a thought during one of my classes (Human Diversity, we were discussing Christianity which explains why I'm talking about it). So, here I am making a topic.

Before I really set things in motion, there's a question (two actually) that I'd like everybody to answer. That is, of course, if you are part of the Christian faith.

- I'm assuming because you are part of one of the sects (for lack of a better word) of Christianity you know and more than likely practice eucharist. I'd like to ask, though, how you feel about transubstantiation?

- This one is quite simple, really, I'm just curious (again, for lack of a better term) which sect of Christianity you follow.

- I lied, I have a third. Is wine or just grape juice used for eucharist?

After these responses I'll be jumping in to add a bit of a debate to this. Of course one could easily start with just these questions, but I'd like to get more than just people of the Christian faith in on this (seeing as how I'm not Christian).

I'm not Christian, but it's wine - well, it's wine before it's transubstantiated, at least.

Theologically, the substance of the bread and wine - the essential properties that make them what they are - is permanently changed. After transubstantiation, they are no longer bread and wine at all, but the Body and Blood of Christ. That they retain the appearance of bread and wine is irrelevant.

edit: comprehensive article here.

Transubstantiation is a very Catholic belief. I being a Protestant, with a pension for taking the Bible as partly literal and partly figurative, don't believe in transubstantiation. I think that Christ's words were figurative - remember the Christ always, whenever you're eating, whenever you're breathing, all hours of the day.

I don't think God wants us eating people.

I'm a christian, but I'm currently without a denomination. I think that transubstantiation is an interesting idea, but one that is more figurative than literal. Unfortunately, my logical mind cannot accept that there can be no testable change in the bread, but it becomes the body of christ. And some denominations use wine, some use grape juice, I'm not sure which use which, though.

*Resists reciting Eddie Izzard and leaves*

Technically, EvilSpoon, it's called a denomination. I'm Presbyterian. Thusly, we use grape juice, so that everyone can have communion, even the ickluns (or even, I suppose, recovering alcoholics). I don't believe in transubstantiation any more than I believe the world was created as is several thousand years ago in a 144 hour period of time. Some things in the Bible, I think, are meant to teach us a lesson or make us bear certain things in mind, not be taken literally.

(Drink this wine, it is my blood? Now you've got vampirism day one of the new religion! )

I think that the Body and Blood thing is symbolic and transubstantion seems very murky and uncertain. It's an intersting theory, but I don't subscribe to it.
I'm a Methodist in a church where they put you in a choir robe as soon as you can walk and talk. Lots of choirs make for some lovely services, especially when all the choirs sing together in various combinations of groups in a huge service near Christmas.
We use grape juice for communion (our term for eucharist) so everyone can take it. Besides, it's cheaper than wine.

Interestingly enough, Martin Luther did believe in transubstantiation - therefore, Lutherans did/do. The Protestant movement was splintered when Zwingli and Luther had conflicting ideas about transubstantiation - Luther believed in it literally, and Zwingli believed it in figuratively, which I believe is called consubstantiation. This is taken to mean Christ's presence is in the Eucharist, but not his literal body.

So generally, most Protestant dominations believe in consubstantiation - could be wrong there, though. The Catholics believe in trans, don't they? It's something simple and yet such a large difference. I think both ideas can work, but I won't expand on them yet, especially because of my inferior knowledge of Christianity.

And if anything's wrong, my excuse is I'm not Christian.

Alright, I understood the concepts, don't worry about that bit

I know it does not change in appearance or form, but is no longer bread or wine.

Now here's the thing - Catholic churches use wine (I used to go and at age 10 I was indeed given wine, no matter how little it was)

I should have phrased the third question as "in your denomination" (thank you for the correction of terms, I forgot about that one).

Alright, so here's the idea (and it was already brought up, which is good?)

From an oustide standpoint is the use of actual wine (and it is given to young ones at every Catholic church I have been to) in the ceremonies a dilemma? Catholics believe in transubstantiation so I guess one could say it is part of their faith, and I assume it would be thought that it was no longer alcohol (only in appearance?). Even so, it's not completely literal (as mentioned) so that's why I ask if it's a dilemma in the case of young children and alcoholics?

Also is it a moral problem if it truely is the body and blood of Christ? I know - it's not literal, but it's fun to be a bit morbid at times.

As a note : I avoid quoting Eddie on this type of topic as well.

When I worked in an off licence I occasionally sold the wine to the local priest/father/reverend (I can never remember which is the right term). I can say for certain that it was extremely cheap British fortified wine (AKA sherry) when it left our shop, the same stuff that homeless drunks will normally be seen swilling.

I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK minors are permitted to be given alcohol at home. I assume that there is also a dispensation for church ceremonies too. I think that there is a bottom age limit for this, around seven or eight, but I'm also pretty sure that rubbing brandy onto the gums of teething babies wouldn't really cause any problems either.

As a side note, I asked the priest-chap whether the wine really turned into blood, and he said that it didn't. I'm not sure if that was the official position of the church, but it was still a little disappointing!

I just remembered a great scene from a fantasy book I read a few years ago that deals with this. It's set in England of long-ish time ago, but I can't remember what year. Our merry crew drops into the town near where they've been hiding and see a priest yelling at his flock about how it is sinful and wrong to believe that the communion wine literally turns into the blood of Christ. The priest starts to take a sip of the communion wine that he's holding and starts spitting and screaming because it turned into blood in his mouth. The scene shifts to the side a little and one of the magically-gifted characters is smirking at how successful his little spell was.
I'm not really sure what to believe on this one, but it seems that the transformation is supposed to be symbolic. There doesn't seem to be a moral problem, but in my more morbid moments it seems like ritual cannibalism.