As a non-Catholic, I’ve never understood why Mary’s perpetual virginity is important anyways. Let her be a virgin before she had the Christ child, and then let her do whatever she wants. She is married, after all.
Can any of you who don’t accept it explain why your Church considers it so important?
No, I mean excommunication doesn’t drop you down a notch and make you an Anglican! 
Being severed or whatever you want to call it makes you a bad Catholic, but it doesn’t stop you from being one. Even Marcel Lefebvre considered himself a “true” Catholic, even if his future and some past ordinations were considered grave errors and with no standing.
Think about it: the Mother of God hollering and moaning in ecstasy as Joseph explores her clit and tits.
It isn’t significant as far as calling yourself a Christian, IMHO.
But I would think it would be significant to a Catholic. To me, this isn’t a minor quibble. If someone insists that the banana that I’m eating is actually an airplane, I’m gonna be suspicious about everything else they tell me because it is likely they believe in other stuff that defy my reasoning. Even moreso if eating this banana-cum-air plane is an incredibly important sacrament.
“Catching the holy ghost” was a big thing at the Pentecostal church where I grew up. Every Sunday, whenever the organ music got jeeped up to a certain fevor, there would be the same people dancing in the aisles, speaking in tongues (always the same gibberish…never anything that sounded remotely like a language, living or dead), always the same people “falling out” in spiritual convulsions. Once I decided that all of it was a bunch of craziness, it was really hard to take anything else seriously.
It’s kind of like trying not to think about pink elephants when they’re sitting all around you, wrapping their pink trunks around your neck.
So that I’m with the Irish and Italians, right? Because ELCA Heaven, with all the Swedes and Norskies, though nice at first, would be totally boring.
When it’s ajar.
I’m a Catholic now, because I say I am.
Now I’m not.
Now I am again.
Now, I’m not.
As far as I know, there’s no authority who I have to clear this with. Anyone else is free to recognize or not recognize my Catholicism as it suits them, no skin off me.
Because, of course, there is no other, actually . . . 
Actually, it’s not quite true that it must be unleavened. I’ve been to masses that used regular bread for various reasons, so unless the priest didn’t know what he was doing, I assume it’s allowed. It’s just that it is traditionally (and recommended to be) unleavened, because it commemorates the Last Supper, which occurred on Passover, when the Jews are only allowed unleavened bread.
CofE has “Consubstantiation”. The bread and wine are still bread and wine, but are also body and blood. It’s amusing to watch them argue with Catholics on that one. 
Wouldn’t that be an argument on somthing they agree about, except in a ridiculously nitpicky sense?
“Dammit, this IS the Body and Blood of our Saviour!”
“Hell no, it’s not! It’s the Body and Blood of Jesus, and don’t you forget it!”
As others have pointed out, excommunication has nothing to do with not being a Catholic, or ceasing to be a Catholic. Excommunication is a canonical penalty imposed in certain circumstances for canonical offences, but an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic, just like an American citizen who is sentenced to a fine or a term of imprisonment is still an American citizen.
A Catholic, in Catholic teaching, is (a) a baptised Christian, who is (b) in eucharistic communion with a church gathered around a bishop who is in communion with the bishop of Rome.
“Communion” is a relationship and, as Facebook users know, relationship status is not a simple binary. Sometimes it’s complicated.
In the English-speaking world, due I suspect to the influence of Protestantism, there’s a tendency to identify “litmus tests” for the state of the relationship which focus on belief. Do you believe X? If not, you’re not a Catholic. However belief is just one aspect of the relationship; a failure to believe this or that may impair a relationship of communion, without necessarily destroying it. The relationship also embraces shared worship, shared identity, communal participation, shared sacramental life, etc. (For what it’s worth, traditionally the key beliefs are those set out in the Creed. Transubstantiation is not one of them.)
Traditionally the church is reluctant to conclude that the relationship has completely terminated; if this decision is made, it is nearly always by the individual deciding that he is no longer a Catholic. But, while saying that you are no longer a Catholic is a pretty strong indicator that you aren’t, ultimately the issue is a factual one; what kind of relationship, if any, do you have with the Catholic church? There was experience, a few years back, of some people in Germany declaring publicly that they had left the church (in order to avoid the [state-imposed] church tax) but still presenting themselves to the church for, e.g. weddings, funerals, etc, and even presenting their children for baptism.
Probably the clearest way that you can definitely cease to be a Catholic is by formally joining another church and participating in it. But if you are leaving Catholicism for simple unbelief, well, it may be hard to point to some objectively verifiable cast-iron clinching evidence that you are not a Catholic. Saying publicly that you have left the church, plus avoiding any kind of participation in the church, is pretty clear, though.
The website Count Me Out tried to provide Irish former Catholics with information on the process of defection.
Yes, quite nitpicky. But more like this:
CoE: It’s the body and blood.
RCC: Quite right. We agree.
CoE: It’s also still bread and wine.
RCC: No, it stops being bread and wine when it changes.
CoE: You can see yourself that it still looks and tastes like bread and wine.
RCC: But that’s irrelevant. Once it changes, it’s not, anymore.
CoE: Yes it is!
RCC: No it’s NOT!
Repeat as needed…
Transubstantiation vs consubstantiation vs purely symbolic. Wife and I avoid this discussion (she’s a trans) which is how she can be a Lutheran (cons) and I can be a heathen (symbolic). But people have died over this.
It’s hard to reconcile this:
With this, quoted in the same post:
Then that gets into Substance vs. Accident, and I’m generally of the opinion that anyone who worries too much about details that fine are very scary.
I agree. If you say you are, then you are. But how can people still claim to be X yet disagree with major points of the faith? The Catholic church is pretty clear on what they believe. If they weren’t hurting for members, many so called Catholics probably would be kicked out for not following the party line.
Also, I would have trouble reconciling my lack of belief with attending and pretending I believe in order to maintain whatever social ties I got through it. Again, in my younger searching days, I tried it. I joined some church organizations but always felt bad because I pretended or was assumed to believe what they believed.