Interesting, it's clearly taught in the Bible, has been the orthodox view for 2000 years and only one person here believes it.
The Bible doesn’t “clearly teach” transubstantiation. It clearly teaches (unless you’re an Anabaptist/Baptist) that what we receive in communion is “the body and blood” of Christ. The rest is up to interpretation. As I understand it, transubstantiation is Rome’s hypothesis for how Aristotelian metaphysical ideas can explain how this happens. Lutherans largely leave it up to a mystery, saying (for example) that the bread can be just bread AND the body of Christ at the same time in a way we cannot understand (just as the Trinity works). I believe Anglicans/Episcopalians have more or less the Lutheran view, but I am not sure. My novice perception is that Methodists have a watered down version of the Anglican view, as they descended from that tradition. Reformed Christians (including Presbyterians and Congregationalists) believe that Christ is spiritually present but that the bread and wine are still mostly just bread and wine, I believe. Then, of course, Anabaptists, Baptists and those who adopted their theologies on this abandoned the pretty universally held view of SOME type of presence and teach that it’s just symbolic.
Transubstantiation is just a Catholic teaching, and even Catholics would admit it’s not plainly spelled out in Scripture.
Poll
