Christians: What line are you unwilling to cross for God?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The RCC maintains that the cracker is not just a cracker...that after the magic spell is cast..it's not even a cracker.  

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).

The manner of it's transformation may be "not fully understood".... yet another mystery of the Not-A-Mystery-Cult™...but the fact of it's transformation is settled.

'Substance' is a term from Scholastic philosophy that refers to the resulting union from final, formal, efficient, and final causes. If any cause is changed then one substance changes into another. Interpreting the terms of the doctrine through a modern lens leads to the errors of interpretation such as the notion that consuming the host is cannibalism or that its physical matter is human flesh.

Similarly the word mystery in English has different connotations (not comprehensible or unknown) than the Latin word "mysterium" which literally means 'hidden'. As such when the the Eucharist is called a mystery, it refers to that which was hidden but has been revealed to believers by faith.

I don't really fault people for making those errors, since we are seeped in modernity, unless of course they have been informed that the significance of the Eucharist is more subtle and embedded in a tradition that preceded the modern era.

You, like CL before you have now put yourself it direct opposition to Catholic Doctrine. You know better than the Vatican. You know better than the Pope. You even know better than the majority of catholics even though you are not one yourself...I am intrigued how you will set about defending that.

See above. My defense is based on the express interpretation provided by the Magistrate and not the popular understanding of the layity. One doesn't have to be a practicing Catholic to have accurate knowledge of Catholic traditions and intellectual history. You have the same arrogance as someone who says that because he listens to the radio he is an expert in electronics.