Do you believe in Transubstantiation? (see link)

[Skill and Chance]

Historically, I favored a purely symbolic interpretation of Communion, in an "obviously there aren't literally Pilgrims and Patuxet Indians present at your Thanksgiving dinner, but we still eat it in remembrance of them" kind of way. 

However, I am increasingly questioning this. This interpretation is both non-literal and almost entirely absent from pre-1500 AD Christian literature.  So 1500 years of tradition favored a more literal interpretation without significant regional variation.  That seems like it should really matter. 

I would say I now take a more intermediate high church Protestant view that something miraculous/metaphysical must be happening, but how exactly it happens and how literal it is meant remains mysterious.  I am still not sure about defining it in as much detail or reading it quite as literally as the Orthodox or especially Catholics do.   

[Skill and Chance]

No (Protestant)

I lean towards the Baptist view, but I'll admit that this is what I was taught when I started going to church on my own volition, and I haven't done an in depth study of it.  But, based on my understanding, the memory/representation is what matters.  So, I view debates like whether to use wine or grape juice as unnecessary because it's just a representation, not the actual literal body and blood of Christ.

I was all in on that position growing up (the "Thanksgiving dinner" view), and TBH I still find it pretty compelling.  Given my scientific background, I think there is a very compelling argument that we should avoid reading any additional miracles into ambiguous text.  This is why I also have some trouble with the extra Catholic/Orthodox doctrines about Mary.  I also believe we must also be careful about taking this to the other extreme ("Christmas celebrations aren't in the Bible, you tree-worshiping pagan!").

However, it is undeniably a step out from a very long tradition with very little to support a purely symbolic interpretation pre-1500.  Now, perhaps that is a natural shift as that is right around the time our knowledge of physics and chemistry began to greatly expand.  The Bible is not a math or physics text after all.  Christ spoke directly to ancient audiences who were mostly illiterate and had a concept of numbers that was basically 1 through 10 and then indescribably many.  There has undoubtedly been a mindset shift over the centuries.

But spiritual presence does not require a change in physics or chemistry.  There is some evidence of a non-physical (but still mystical) interpretation in the Assyrian Church of the East, which was also notably skeptical of the extra Mary miracles in early tradition and notably hesitant about icons.  We even see Catholic churches in Scandinavia substituting locally available white wine for red wine, which seems a notable deviation from a message that it's literally blood, especially when facing a mostly illiterate audience.

Still, I can't read John 6 without an implication that something supernatural is going on.  Christ never deviates from direct, literal statements even as the crowd gets progressively more and more weirded out.  Perhaps that reaction has to do with the intricacies of Jewish law, but it stands out to me that no clarification or limiting statement is made.  However, Didache, with the oldest record of a communion ceremony outside of the Bible, reads surprisingly relaxed and non-literal to me.  The language emphasizes bringing the church together in remembrance of Christ, not Communion as a mechanism for forgiveness of sins.  As I have mentioned before, Didache seems like the early church document most favorable to Baptist/non-denominational Protestant interpretations.

I see just enough there to conclude that something mystical is going on, but not to define it or elaborate on it.  This is why I have shifted toward a more intermediate spiritual presence view.