This whole topic, of course, is as contentious as a topic can be, and I have no desire to offend people by harping on it or boring people by re-hashing old news. But, for people who are into thinking about this topic, here's an interesting passage:
1 Corinthians 11:23-34 --
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.
Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.
It seems clear from this passage, that the original Christians celebrated the "Lord's Supper" with a meal that was indistinguishable from a meal they might eat at home. Paul even has to correct them that the Lord's Supper isn't intended to satisfy physical hunger, because apparently so many people were treating the meal as a "normal" meal.
But Paul's correction tells the people to think about the INTENT of the meal, and to guide their THOUGHTS during the meal to Christ, His teachings, and His death and resurrection. Paul quotes Jesus's word, "...in remembrance of Me."
If there had been some intent to the Lord's Supper even deeper than this, even more mystical and metaphysical -- as if this wasn't enough! -- then Paul could easily have said so.
To my eyes, it seems probable that the notion of transubstantiation is a way an oppressive ecclesiastical hierarchy actually takes away from people the real meaning of the Lord's Supper, and replaces it with mystical mumbo jumbo that means different things to everyone who attempts to conceptualize it.
Please don't get me wrong here -- I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just trying to state my view of the matter clearly, so that if people are interested in this stuff, they can chalk up my particular point of view.
Mark W.
The meaning becomes clear when you take the Last Supper in its Jewish context. Jesus is performing a Seder meal. In the Seder meal, the historical event of the Passover is literally "made present;" it is more than a simple re-enactment.
Also, to complete the Seder meal, it was necessary that the lamb be entirely consumed.
I found this interesting link showing how the Seder meal reveals Christ