Is the Roman Catholic Church and the body of Christ one and the same?

[guanophore]

Patrick, you’re doing what Guanophore does: You’re confusing me! You seem to be saying two different things.

I think it is just that either/or thinking that you have. The Catholic faith is most generally “both”.

Then you say we should enter through the narrow gate.  The Catholic church is the single PORTAL.  We'd have to stop and make sure what you mean by Catholic church.  Can I trust that you're using the term correctly?  By this do you mean the UNIVERSAL (catholic in Greek) church of Christ which would also be His body in which all believers in Jesus are united and are one since He is the vine and we are the branches and He is the head and we are members of the body?

If this is what you mean, then I agree.

Jesus only founded One Church. All who are members of HIm are members of His One Body.

He also founded a visible and heirarchical Church which has been called Catholic since the first century. They are one and the same.

Next: You say Christ created, guides and guards Just the one Church He founded for man’s salvation. Church again. Have to get that meaning straight.

I don’t remember reading anywhere in scripture that I must believe in the Church to be saved. I become a member of the Church, once I AM saved. Church, capital C.
I remember reading in many places that I must believe in Jesus to be saved. Like for instance John 3:16 would be a good one.

The two are not separated. When we are joined to HIm in baptism, we are made members of His One Body, the Church.

Now you proclaim that salvation MIGHT conditionally be possible outside the Catholic Church.

This is not possible. Although a person may be saved who is not visibly Catholic, in some mysterious way we don’t understand, Jesus has grafted them into Himself, and thus, into His One Body. For the record, I agree with you that it is not our place to judge that. Only He knows those who are His. He was specific that we are not to separate the wheat from the chaff, but leave it to the angels.

I think God is big and I think He can decide whom He wants and whom He doesn’t want without any help from us.
We’re catholic so we believe what we believe. Those who aren’t catholic have just as much a right to approach God as we do without having to hear that they aren’t saved, or they might be saved, or they might be saved conditionally. Which is what I hear many times.

As to the state of anyone’s soul, none of us can know. As such, we need to support all those who seek His face, and seek the Truth.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Are you suggesting that you are to old and set in your ways to admit any new perspectives?

Jesus intended to found a visible heirarchical Church. Over the course of time, it has developed institutional qualities, because it is contains humans, who need institutions. But it is not spearate from his Body, that is mystical, and invisible.

The Church, like Jesus, is incarnational in nature. She has a divine element and a human element. Christ is her Head,and her Soul is the Holy Spirit. It is these divine aspects that prevent her from error (make her infallible) not the human elements.

The divine aspect of the Church is Holy and undefiled by the corruption of man, who sometimes brings the contamination of sin into the body.

Actually, I said we are saved by grace (neither faith nor works) but we access that grace through faith. It is a certain QUALITY of faith - saving faith is faith that works.

Yes, I am praying for that purification of the Body. No, I do not find it frightening. I think it is time for the lukewarm to be spewed out of His mouth. We can no longer afford to be nominal Christians (in name only) but must be on fire for Jesus. As the Pope Emeritus said, smaller but more fervent.

Are you referring to an institution?

I am not sure how you would be able to tell if my understanding was different. I think you have made a lot of erroneous assumptions about me.

My understanding of the Holy Bride of Christ has developed over a long time with many different influences, a major one being how the Saints perceive her. When we read what St. Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine wrote about the Church, it is clear that they perceive the unsullied bride of Christ in the midst of the human institution. This is why St. Catherine admonished the Pope to return to Rome. They are one and the same.

I tell my brother I feel like I’m still 28 on the inside. The problem is what’s on the outside! It’s not so bad, actually, but I’m not 28!! I’m not sure I could change my mind and have a new perspective in relation to what I understand the Church to be. I did have a long talk about this with a priest a few years ago.

I actually agree with all you say. Down toward the bottom I WAS referring to an institution. The institution of the church is not going away because it cannot and should not.

I agree that some weeding out needs to be done. Smaller but more fervent. I like that. In that aspect we should become more protestant. The people you’ll see at Mass will be “true believers”. Yes. I do see this coming. This spirituality is turning some away - and others are having to accept different concepts of christianity. In my opinion, the right ones. Spirit not Law. (I don’t mean we’re not to follow rules).

I also agree that the church is holy - even if all the people in it are not, for the reasons you state. I do believe the church is one with Christ. How could it be otherwise?

Here’s where I have a problem explaining myself:

Not everyone in the church is a part of the Church.

So for me, it’s more clear to say that the Church is the Body of Christ because I know for sure that everyone that is a part of is is more fervent, as you said. Or is a “real believer” as I like to say.

I’d be willing to go through the discussion I had with the priest but it would take a bit. Don’t know if a chatterbox like me could narrow it down.

church = the institution. My parish, or the church in Rome. The magisterium, The Pope, etc.

Church = those who belong to the body of Christ. It IS the church in Rome, the Pope, and all those who believe in Christ as their savior, follow Him, are baptized, follow the rules (although they’re not trusting on the rules for their salvation), live a christian based life, etc.

Does this not make sense??

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR GUANOPHORE

Originally Posted by frangiuliano115 View Post
Now you proclaim that salvation MIGHT conditionally be possible outside the Catholic Church.

In the above I was saying that people outside the Catholic Church could be saved (and it’s not our place to decide who is saved and who is lost).l

To which YOU reply:

This is not possible. Although a person may be saved who is not visibly Catholic, in some mysterious way we don’t understand, Jesus has grafted them into Himself, and thus, into His One Body. For the record, I agree with you that it is not our place to judge that. Only He knows those who are His. He was specific that we are not to separate the wheat from the chaff, but leave it to the angels.

Could you please reread. I have to go. First you say it’s not possible. Then you say Jesus has grafted them in. First of all the grafting in is US, the gentiles - those that believe in Christ, the Messiah. WE are grafted in. Then you say it’s not our place to judge. So then it can’t be impossible…

Is it just that you’re unwilling to say. “Yes. Those outside the Catholic church can be saved.” Plain and simple.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

We are the building not made wit hands. Jesus is the Door by which one enters the Church, made up of living stones.

Seeker!

I’ve been looking for you. No PM’s.
Just wanted to share the following with you. Do you know it?

There is a blood
That cost a life
That paid my way
Death its price
When it flowed
Down from the cross
My sins were gone
My sins forgot

There is a grave
That tried to hide
This precious blood
That gave me life
In Three Days
He breathed again
And rose to stand in my defense

So I come to tell you He’s alive
To tell you that He dries every tear that falls
So I come to tell you that He saves
To shout and to proclaim that He’s coming back for you
This Life, This Price, This Blood, This One

There is a Blood
That sights the blind
That Heals the sick
The lonely finds
It has the Power
To free the bound
As chains they fall
Upon the ground

So pour it out and
To cleanse my soul
And let its crimson Glory flow
Because it lives
To make me whole
I owe my life
I owe my soul

What a blessing!

Fran

 

[PJM]

=frangiuliano115;13471807]You keep bringing up black and white thinking and this dichotomy thing you keep talking about. I’m tired and shouldn’t even be here, but…

Jesus is the only name under heaven by which we are saved. Okay. JESUS is WHO saves us. It may be through he church or we wouldn’t know about Him, but it’s still Jesus who saves us. This idea of not being able to separate Him from the institutional church will just never be in my book. It’s His Church, His body, that we cannot be separated from.

Plus, you do kind of have to decide which side of the faith question you’re on. In a different thread I read that you agree that we are saved by faith and not by our works.
I’m saying the SAME thing. You’re hoping things will become more spiritual, if I understood that post correctly. If they do, Jesus will have to increase and the church (small c) will have to decrease. Frightening thought, isn’t it? But it won’t be going away. It’s NEEDED. We’ll, maybe, just get our priorities straight.

One day you’re going to understand this and that it’s not really different from what you say. I say this because a very legalistic, pharisee type friend of mine is starting to understand this because of changes that are happening here.

Fran

Hi Fran

I’m a bit confused about your concept of “church” & “Church.”

Simply being aligned with any church will by itself be insufficient to merit salvation.

Christ founded just one “MY Church” Mt. 16:18, precisely so that all men could know where the “Way. Truth and Life” reside. Being a "Christian and buying into man-engineered faith beliefs is a great Spiritual Risk.

OT salvation was THROUGH the Jews; NT Salvation is through Christ CC:thumbsup:

And simply calling one self a “Catholic” .will not get one to heaven. One must be a humble, obedient, informed and fully practicing Catholic. That my friend is God’s way
:
God Bless you,
'Patrick

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Fran

I’m a bit confused about your concept of “church” & “Church.”

Simply being aligned with any church will by itself be insufficient to merit salvation.

Christ founded just one “MY Church” Mt. 16:18, precisely so that all men could know where the “Way. Truth and Life” reside. Being a "Christian and buying into man-engineered faith beliefs is a great Spiritual Risk.

OT salvation was THROUGH the Jews; NT Salvation is through Christ CC:thumbsup:

And simply calling one self a “Catholic” .will not get one to heaven. One must be a humble, obedient, informed and fully practicing Catholic. That my friend is God’s way
:
God Bless you,
'Patrick

Yes. Patrick. I don’t really know why this is difficult to understand. Maybe I’m just not in agreement with people who put the church above Chrsit. Maybe I’m just not explaining myself well.

I agree that just being a member of a church will not suffice for salvation. (although I was taught this as a girl - many years ago).

I agree that Christ founded just one Church A capital C, Church. OR His Body, of which we are members and He is the head. He is the vine, we are the branches.

I agree with your statement that N.T. salvation is through Christ. O.T. salvation was through faith, see Hebrews - you know your bible well enough to probably already know where I’m headed… It was through the Jews in the sense that He revealed Himself through them - okay.

I also agree with your last statement.

So we agree! So what is it we can’t agree on???

church = the bldg down the block
Church = The Body of Christ - His one and only Church.

Maybe the problem is that I separate the two churches. But I have to because not everyone in the church is a member of the Church! Which is exactly what you’re saying:
That it’s not enough to be called a catholic to be one and/or to attain salvation.

This apparently small nuance is actually not so small. Since by this, I’m able to allow, in my heart, more people into the Church than are most catholics - all this talk of EENS and all that. See?

Fran

 

[Peter_J]

Yes. Patrick. I don’t really know why this is difficult to understand. Maybe I’m just not in agreement with people who put the church above Chrsit. Maybe I’m just not explaining myself well.

I agree that just being a member of a church will not suffice for salvation. (although I was taught this as a girl - many years ago).

I agree that Christ founded just one Church A capital C, Church. OR His Body, of which we are members and He is the head. He is the vine, we are the branches.

I agree with your statement that N.T. salvation is through Christ. O.T. salvation was through faith, see Hebrews - you know your bible well enough to probably already know where I’m headed… It was through the Jews in the sense that He revealed Himself through them - okay.

I also agree with your last statement.

So we agree! So what is it we can’t agree on???

church = the bldg down the block
Church = The Body of Christ - His one and only Church.

Maybe the problem is that I separate the two churches. But I have to because not everyone in the church is a member of the Church! Which is exactly what you’re saying:
That it’s not enough to be called a catholic to be one and/or to attain salvation.

This apparently small nuance is actually not so small. Since by this, I’m able to allow, in my heart, more people into the Church than are most catholics - all this talk of EENS and all that. See?

Fran

Lumen gentium 14: " … Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

The thing is, however, that a lot of “traditionalist” Catholics have taken this to be talking about being ICWR (in communion with Rome) or not, but the sentence right before makes it clear that it is about being Christian or not: “In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.”

 

[guanophore]

 I'm not sure I could change my mind and have a new perspective in relation to what I understand the Church to be.

I have confidence of the Spirit of God within you, Fran!

  I agree that some weeding out needs to be done.

But this is the work of God’s angels, not of us.

 Smaller but more fervent.  I like that.  In that aspect we should become more protestant.  The people you'll see at Mass will be "true believers".  Yes.  I do see this coming.  This spirituality is turning some away - and others are having to accept different concepts of christianity.  In my opinion, the right ones.  Spirit not Law. (I don't mean we're not to follow rules).

Yes, but let us not characterize it as “becoming more protestant”, because that is disrespectful to all the saints and martyrs who gave their lives for the Holy Bride of Christ. Let us think of it instead as developing more fervency for our faith, letting it permeate all aspects of our lives, and allowing the HS to set us on fire for His Word, and His mission in the world. We must become, as the Holy Father has said truly “evangelical”.

**

I also agree that the church is holy - even if all the people in it are not, for the reasons you state. I do believe the church is one with Christ. How could it be otherwise?**

It that case perhaps I can surmount our semantics problem.

frangiuliano115:

Here's where I have a problem explaining myself:

Not everyone in the church is a part of the Church.

So for me, it’s more clear to say that the Church is the Body of Christ because I know for sure that everyone that is a part of is is more fervent, as you said. Or is a “real believer” as I like to say.

I think you are meaning here to say that not everyone who appears to be a member of the Visible Catholic institution is a true believer? If so , then I certainly agree. I just do not call them “in the Church”, because to me that means they are in Christ, and a member of the Body. There are many who are “nominal” Catholics, baptized but not practicing. There are some that may even be official members of the local parish yet do not know Christ (he will say to them “I never knew you”).

These I call the sacramentalized yet unevangelized.

 I'd be willing to go through the discussion I had with the priest but it would take a bit.  Don't know if a chatterbox like me could narrow it down.

Perhaps just the part that pertains to the thread topic?

church  = the institution.  My parish, or the church in Rome.  The magisterium, The Pope, etc.

Church = those who belong to the body of Christ. It IS the church in Rome, the Pope, and all those who believe in Christ as their savior, follow Him, are baptized, follow the rules (although they’re not trusting on the rules for their salvation), live a christian based life, etc.

Does this not make sense??

No, I don’t understand why you need to create two “churches”, or separate one from the other.

But I am in agreement that there are people that appear to be part of the visible institution that are not “in Christ”. I think this is why Jesus talked about the wheat and the tares growing together until the end of the age.

 

[guanophore]

FOR GUANOPHORE

Originally Posted by frangiuliano115 View Post
Now you proclaim that salvation MIGHT conditionally be possible outside the Catholic Church.

In the above I was saying that people outside the Catholic Church could be saved (and it’s not our place to decide who is saved and who is lost).l

To which YOU reply:

This is not possible. Although a person may be saved who is not visibly Catholic, in some mysterious way we don’t understand, Jesus has grafted them into Himself, and thus, into His One Body. For the record, I agree with you that it is not our place to judge that. Only He knows those who are His. He was specific that we are not to separate the wheat from the chaff, but leave it to the angels.

Could you please reread. I have to go. First you say it’s not possible. Then you say Jesus has grafted them in. First of all the grafting in is US, the gentiles - those that believe in Christ, the Messiah. WE are grafted in. Then you say it’s not our place to judge. So then it can’t be impossible…

Is it just that you’re unwilling to say. “Yes. Those outside the Catholic church can be saved.” Plain and simple.

Fran

You are right, Fran, I am unwilling to assert that an infallible teaching of the Holy Spirit maintained in the Church doctrine is untrue. I hope and pray that you too will come to a place were you will not contradict the doctrine of the Church in your posts. This will require that you change your perspective of “Church”.

I think we have agreed that

1. Jesus only founded One Church
2. He intended for that Church to be visible, hierarchical, and institutional
3. All who are saved are Saved through Jesus, as there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved
4. There is no way that we as humans can know who is saved and who is not, and it is not our place to try

I think we may agree on …

1. Everyone who is saved is made a member of Christ and belongs to His One Body

For reasons it is difficult for me to understand, you seem to believe that the Church no longer teaches EENS, which is not true.

The major change that has occurred since Vatican 2 is that the Church recognizes that there are members of His One Body that are not identifiable as visible Catholics belonging to the local parish. It is our understanding of the nature of the Church that has changed, not EENS.

I don’t really know why this is difficult to understand.
Maybe the problem is that I separate the two churches. But I have to because not everyone in the church is a member of the Church! Which is exactly what you’re saying:
That it’s not enough to be called a catholic to be one and/or to attain salvation.

This apparently small nuance is actually not so small. Since by this, I’m able to allow, in my heart, more people into the Church than are most catholics - all this talk of EENS and all that. See?

Fran

I think it is difficult because there are not two churches.

It seems like we are all in agreement that being an official member of one’s local parish is not sufficient for one to be saved.

It is not sufficient to be baptized as a Catholic, have a Catholic culture, or call oneself a Catholic to be saved.

It might be easier to call these people “nominal” Catholics (in name only). That would eliminate a lot of confusion.

I think you are also saying that Catholics who are sacramentalized may not be evangelized, and since they do not know Christ, they may not be saved. These people (perhaps as you and I were taught in our youth) that following all the rules and participating in the sacraments is sufficient to be saved. I do not think it is helpful to refer to these persons as a separate “church”. Rather, they are uncatechized, unevangelized members of the One Body. They have been baptized validly into Christ, but have not grown beyond and infantile understanding of their faith.

 

[Seekerjn316]

Well, clearly the first Protestants were men and women who were in the Roman Catholic Church (the only real alternative would have been Eastern Orthodoxy) and then left it – either by their own choice or by Rome’s decision (excommunication), but either way I think it makes just as much sense to speak of Protestants “returning” to RCism as to speak of Greek Catholics “returning” to Orthodoxy.

Perhaps those who left RCism some 500 years ago could “return”…except to “irk” those of us who have never even considered RCism as an option, the thought of “returning” to a place we’ve never been seems dishonest to me. But then maybe THAT is the reason Catholicism is not attractive…Words either have meaning in spreading Truth or they dont. I cannot “return”…to claim I can “return” to a place I’ve never been robs “return” of its meaning and fosters falseehood…if RCism is ok with that, we now have one more reason I could not be Catholic…wilful falsehood is not what I’m looking for…I’m looking for Truth…not manufactured falsehood…no matter how small a falsehood it is…to state I can “return” simply is false.

 

[Michael68]

Perhaps those who left RCism some 500 years ago could “return”…except to “irk” those of us who have never even considered RCism as an option, the thought of “returning” to a place we’ve never been seems dishonest to me. But then maybe THAT is the reason Catholicism is not attractive…Words either have meaning in spreading Truth or they dont. I cannot “return”…to claim I can “return” to a place I’ve never been robs “return” of its meaning and fosters falseehood…if RCism is ok with that, we now have one more reason I could not be Catholic…wilful falsehood is not what I’m looking for…I’m looking for Truth…not manufactured falsehood…no matter how small a falsehood it is…to state I can “return” simply is false.

All churches came from the Catholic church. That is what is meant by return. No falsehood or misleading statements. You are finding something that isn’t there like most non catholics

 

[guanophore]

All non-Catholic Christians that exist today have roots in ecclesial communities that broke away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation. Granted, there are many that do not know this, but their ignorance does not change the facts. Protestant theologies are defined by which parts, and how much of the One Deposit of Faith held by the Catholic Church that they reject/deny. Although many will say they are not “protesting” anything but the adherance to heretical positions developed during the Reformation places them in a position from which they can “return” to the faith of the Apostles.

Even those who have never been Catholic can still “return” to the faith of the Apostles, which is their true spiritual home as Christians.

 

[Seekerjn316]

All churches came from the Catholic church. That is what is meant by return. No falsehood or misleading statements. You are finding something that isn’t there like most non catholics

Seems like engaging in making claims not true is being defended by Catholics…not a small thing at all…it remains false, no matter how Catholicism wants to dress it up.

 

[Seekerjn316]

All non-Catholic Christians that exist today have roots in ecclesial communities that broke away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation. Granted, there are many that do not know this, but their ignorance does not change the facts. Protestant theologies are defined by which parts, and how much of the One Deposit of Faith held by the Catholic Church that they reject/deny. Although many will say they are not “protesting” anything but the adherance to heretical positions developed during the Reformation places them in a position from which they can “return” to the faith of the Apostles.

Even those who have never been Catholic can still “return” to the faith of the Apostles, which is their true spiritual home as Christians.

My true spiritual home is not in Catholicism …“return” no longer has meaning if one can “return” to a place never visited.

Not all “ecclesial communities” stem from your “ecclesial community”., that is another falsehood Catholics promote.

 

[friardchips]

My true spiritual home is not in Catholicism …“return” no longer has meaning if one can “return” to a place never visited.

Catholic means ‘all embracing’.

Whatever is “bound” by His Church, is “bound”, and whatever is “loosed”, is “loosed”.

If anyone, including those outside the Catholic faith or any ‘protestants’ are saved it is because the Catholic Church has said that this can be so…

And because we believe the CC is led by the power of the Holy Spirit then the Church is surely simultaneously binding and loosing just as Heaven is in its guidance of her. Because the Church is the mystical Bride.

If you have never been a Catholic it does not means that this was never your home. Or that you never were intended to be.

You have freewill. Your choice.

IMO, anyway.

 

[Michael68]

My true spiritual home is not in Catholicism …“return” no longer has meaning if one can “return” to a place never visited.

Not all “ecclesial communities” stem from your “ecclesial community”., that is another falsehood Catholics promote.

It says you are a mystic. Do you subscribe to any particular flavor of Christianity or do you just harass Catholics?

 

[Peter_J]

… a place I’ve never been

That’s one way of looking at it. Like I said, I did not personally leave Orthodoxy, nor did the overwhelming majority of GCs alive today. We could, and many do, reject the language of “return to Orthodoxy.”

 

[Michael68]

Seems like engaging in making claims not true is being defended by Catholics…not a small thing at all…it remains false, no matter how Catholicism wants to dress it up.

Can you explain why you think this is a falshood?

 

[Seekerjn316]

It says you are a mystic. Do you subscribe to any particular flavor of Christianity or do you just harass Catholics?

Yes I do belong to a very distinct “flavor”… Am I " harassing" Catholics?
I have lurked on this board for years before enrolling…and I have read threads that argue the meaning of words like “church”, " grace", “saved”/down to minutiae, yet to insist that " return" means “return” is considered “harassment” is a new wrinkle in the CAF experience.

 

[Genesis315]

As I understand the expression, “This Church … subsists in the Catholic Church,” it means that the Catholic Church is the truest and most complete continuation of the Church established by Christ, preserving the entire apostolic faith without error and retaining all the supernatural gifts that Christ wanted his Church to have, such as the office of bishop and apostolic succession thereof, the office of pope, and all seven sacraments. Other Churches may also be continuations of the Church established by Christ but they are defective continuations, defective in some aspect of faith and/or gifts. For instance, the Orthodox Churches are defective continuations of the Church established by Christ because they have failed to retain the gift of the office of pope.

I don’t think this is correct. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Vatican II itself says so:
Vatican II:

The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

The one Church we profess in the Creed is the Catholic Church and does not include those other communities. They are not continuations of that one Church we profess in the Creed. That’s the real meaning of “subsistit in”: the continuing, perduring, and exclusive identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Those other communities cannot be identified as the one Church. The Church has consistently rejected branch theory.

Those communities have elements that properly belong to the Church and as such have a relationship with the Church, but they are not the Church. We can even say the Church is present to them in those elements that belong to the Church and they can be sanctified by the Church through them (if they are in good faith, of course). But the Church in the Creed can only be said to be the Catholic Church subject to the successor of Peter–that Church cannot be said to subsist anywhere else: It’s a key distinction that has had to be reiterated at various times in recent years.

CDF:

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

CDF:

The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html