Catholicism is a set of beliefs. If one professes in not believing a certain subset of it (the ones called de fide beliefs - or those essential to the faith), they are not Catholic. This is just definitional.
If someone believes Jesus rose from the dead, I won’t question that they actually believe that statement. However, if they profess to not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then they are by definition not Catholic. Note that nowhere in that assertion do I state that I do not belief that this person actually “not believe that Jesus rose from the dead”. Patrick did profess that he used to believe transubstantiation is a physical change in the host, in contrary to de fide beliefs.
To be clear, one does not need to know or even agree with everything the Church says to be considered Catholic. But one is required to believe the subset known as de fide beliefs.
This is why I disagree with current Church practice of having very young Children undertook the sacrament of Confirmation. Confirmation is supposed to be undertaken later in life, and the question is essentially: “Now that you know the doctrines of the Church, do you still want to be Catholic?” Similarly, in the past baptism is undertaken late in life, when the person in question is already familiar with the doctrines.
Further, my original question:
Might be read as being confrontational, but really its more incredulity. I’m just surprised that someone who grew up Catholic did not learn the doctrine of transubstantiation. Since he believes that Catholics believe these things:
Which he has professed before: Several States Investigating the Catholic Church - #30 by Patrick, I was wondering what other strawmen of Catholicism and Christianity in general he believes in. This was why I originally asked that question.
You cannot be Catholic but not Christian.