The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[Carol_Coombe]

If you do not think that you are “right” in your choice of religion, as many Catholics are who truly believe the tenets of their religion, which teaches them (us) that we are indeed the true Church of Jesus, then you are free to consider our certainty as “arrogance” and “self-righteousness”, as I’m sure you do anyway.

Can you understand that I am a would-be convert to Catholicism? I am asking questions, I am challenging beliefs, for my understanding. If I cannot accept, ultimately, what the Roman Church is teaching, I shall go somewhere else. I am not sure what the rest of your sentence means.

The issue is YOUR conviction that YOU are right in what you believe.

I am trying to understand what you (generic Catholic) believe, so that I can believe it too. That is why I am at Church every day, go on retreats and have a spiritual director in addition to catechism class. I pray, meditate, contemplate, read and discuss. I spend too much time on this Forum. What more do you want me to do?

I have no conviction that anyone is right or wrong, but I do wish that you would understand I am learning, and that saying this is the truth alone is not sufficient. So perhaps I will wander away and take up Jainism - they require I do not kill any living being. Do you not consider questing a legitimate activity? Perhaps not, given your absolute certainty about your belief?

If you are fully confident that you are right, for no other reason that “no one could possibly be COMPLETELY right”, then you might want to find out why we are actually fully confident that we are completely right.

You confidently say that you are completely right every time you write. I am glad for you. Being told is not enough; I must understand. What is good for you is not necessarily good enough for me.

If you’re happy in your uncertainty, best to you…!

The Chinese say *May we live in uncertain times. *Why should I be happy in my uncertainty? Christ took pity on those who sought to learn, and he taught, he chose disciples who became apostles. I think your remark may perhaps be sensitive-defensive.

If people who are certain bother you, then either learn to love the “bothering” or avoid that which bothers you.

That is absolutely what I prefer to do. My three spiritual directors have all insisted on the degree of uncertainty at the edges of belief, so I concentrate not on rite but on core doctrine. And I certainly would prefer to stay away from people who aggravate me.

Hopefully, you’ll get used to it,… which’ll give us an opportunity to make a FULL Christian out of 'ya…!!

Perhaps you would do well to defer to others: it would be my preference.

I am not angry with you - your asked about that in a previous posting. But I do find your biases, your mindless observance of ritual and belief in infallible doctrine far from reality. If that kind of Christian observance is appropriate for you, then I am happy for you. My kind of (Catholic) Christian observance would be rather different, especially here in Africa, where there all kinds of adjustments, shifts in understanding and capacity to understand, among the many many peoples of Africa - who come out of different pantheistic backgrounds, some of them fairly recently. We have learned that there will always be some integration of aspects of the contextual mental landscape with the individual’s understanding of the Teachings of the Church, and I think that you just have to accept that. At least that is the line you keep giving me: you just have to accept it. That is the way human beings are made!

Jabulani

 

[jmcrae]

Can you understand that I am a would-be convert to Catholicism? I am asking questions, I am challenging beliefs, for my understanding. If I cannot accept, ultimately, what the Roman Church is teaching, I shall go somewhere else.

We’re not here to “sell” you our religion.

Our job is to let you know what it teaches; not to water it down, or make it seem like something different than what it really is, just to get you to join up.

We also don’t have the authority to “customize” our religion according to individual requirements. It is what it is. If you join up, it will still be what it is - nobody can say, “Well, Carol doesn’t like this or that aspect of our religion, so let’s take it out so that she can join.”

 

[Carol_Coombe]

We’re not here to “sell” you our religion.

Our job is to let you know what it teaches; not to water it down, or make it seem like something different than what it really is, just to get you to join up.

We also don’t have the authority to “customize” our religion according to individual requirements. It is what it is. If you join up, it will still be what it is - nobody can say, “Well, Carol doesn’t like this or that aspect of our religion, so let’s take it out so that she can join.”

Thank you to all those who have commented.

I am leaving the Forum, and am grateful to all those who have helped me in my quest.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. …That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Albert Einstein

Carol Coombe
Pretoria South Africa

Christ work through me
Christ stand with me
Christ be in me

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Let me offer another way to look at this question:
Does the existence of Christendom, of catholicitiy itself (small “c”) depend on the continued existence of the Roman Catholic Church?

Personally, I think the answer to that question is NO.

First, unless one is of the opinion that non-Catholics are also therefore (as if by definition) non-Christians, then Christendom is not inexoriably linked with Roman Catholicism for its future. All of our roots may indeed be Catholic, but that does not mean that the vine would not survive if God should for some unknown reason prune the Roman Catholic branches from the vine. As long as the remaining branches remained connected to Christ (the true vine) then they would still be Christian branches. Furthermore, they would still be capable of producing fruit.

Second, even if there should be no more Roman Catholic Church, the archives of humanity would preserve the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, as so many other branches of Christendom shared these same traditions and teachings for several centuries of their own existence, one might suggest that though protestant denominations may not recognize the authority of the Roman Catholic Church’s leadership, that they still practice and maintain the truly catholic (i.e. universal)teachings as much as the Roman Catholic Church does. By this my inference is that the moment that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church became Roman they also quit being catholic, because they lost their universal nature.

Thus, though the Roman Catholic Church see itself as the only true continuation of the original church, such a statement only serves to alienate other Christians who practice the same teachings that the early church did as if they were not truly part of Christ’s Church. Yet all who are believers in Christ Jesus, who accept him as Lord and Savior, who follow Jesus as his disicples are indeed brothers and sisters equally with Christ – to deny this is to push away those Christ has died to save from being part of the family. And if all are equally brothers and sisters with Christ, then they are also equally part of the body of Christ. Some are eyes, some are ears, some are feet and so on, but all are members and one in Christ Jesus. Christ is the one and only head of the body. There may be temporal offices for directing the body, but the only head remains Christ himself. And no member of the body is above any other member. Thus, all of the other branches of Christianity are indeed just as Christian, and even just as catholic (small “c”), as is Roman Catholicism. Realizing that this is so, Roman Catholicism (at least its present day manifestation of it) is one among many historic representations of the Christian faith. It is unique in its history and tradition as are all of the other branches, but it is not unique in its connection with God.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, first of all, the Catholic Church is the “tree” off of which all of these other “branches” have fallen.

I also think that if the Catholic Church were to cease to exist, there would no longer be any standard of orthodoxy within Christendom.

Acknowledged or not, other churches do look to what the Pope is saying, and what the Councils have said, in order to help figure out what they should believe about the Hypostatic Union, the Trinity, etc. If the Catholic Church were to cease to exist, this standard of orthodoxy would also no longer be available to the world, and there would become great confusion over these issues, because nobody would know anymore what was infallible, what was pastoral, what was disciplinary, etc.

It is only by the Church defining these things that anybody - Catholic or not - knows what they are. After that, they decide whether they agree with them or not, and obviously that’s their perogative as free people with free choice and free will - but without being able to know what these things are, this freedom - even the freedom to disagree - disappears.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Well, first of all, the Catholic Church is the “tree” off of which all of these other “branches” have fallen.

I dispute two things. First that the allusion should be that of a “tree”. I specifically used a vine because that is the analogy which Christ used in John 15. Second, that the branches have fallen. I find such a description pergorative with respect to the identification of the other branches as being worthy of being gathered up and burned in the fire. You have basically described a branchless tree, and no such tree would be able to continue to live.

I also think that if the Catholic Church were to cease to exist, there would no longer be any standard of orthodoxy within Christendom.

There still exists the Orthodox Church for a standard or orthodoxy. And as I stated there still would exist the archives of the Roman Catholic Church, the very tradition to which the Roman Catholic Church itself turns to determine orthodoxy.

Acknowledged or not, other churches do look to what the Pope is saying, and what the Councils have said, in order to help figure out what they should believe about the Hypostatic Union, the Trinity, etc.

Acknowleged. Indeed, even described in my post.

If the Catholic Church were to cease to exist, this standard of orthodoxy would also no longer be available to the world, and there would become great confusion over these issues, because nobody would know anymore what was infallible, what was pastoral, what was disciplinary, etc.

It is only by the Church defining these things that anybody - Catholic or not - knows what they are. After that, they decide whether they agree with them or not, and obviously that’s their perogative as free people with free choice and free will - but without being able to know what these things are, this freedom - even the freedom to disagree - disappears.

Again, I did not say to wipe out the record of the Roman Catholic Church’s prior existence or its very clear written opinion on these matters. I don’t think it takes a Roman Catholic to read and understand the writings of the Roman Catholic Church for the last 19 centuries.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, I did not say to wipe out the record of the Roman Catholic Church’s prior existence or its very clear written opinion on these matters. I don’t think it takes a Roman Catholic to read and understand the writings of the Roman Catholic Church for the last 19 centuries.

Yes, but why would anyone bother to do so, if the Catholic Church had been deliberately wiped out for whatever reason?

After all, the Arians were around for something like five centuries, and left all kinds of written records, but nobody seeks them out for teaching or instruction in the faith, because we already assume that they are heretical.

There are already Protestants who don’t look at what the Catholic Church has to offer, while we are here - those who have already rejected Sunday as the Lord’s Day, the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, etc. I think that if the Catholic Church were to disappear, all of Protestantism would go the way of these Protestants - I don’t think they would hold on to any of the teachings of the Church for more than just a few generations.

 

[sterryfamily]

Let me offer another way to look at this question:
Does the existence of Christendom, of catholicitiy itself (small “c”) depend on the continued existence of the Roman Catholic Church?

Personally, I think the answer to that question is NO.

First, unless one is of the opinion that non-Catholics are also therefore (as if by definition) non-Christians, then Christendom is not inexoriably linked with Roman Catholicism for its future. All of our roots may indeed be Catholic, but that does not mean that the vine would not survive if God should for some unknown reason prune the Roman Catholic branches from the vine. As long as the remaining branches remained connected to Christ (the true vine) then they would still be Christian branches. Furthermore, they would still be capable of producing fruit.

Second, even if there should be no more Roman Catholic Church, the archives of humanity would preserve the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, as so many other branches of Christendom shared these same traditions and teachings for several centuries of their own existence, one might suggest that though protestant denominations may not recognize the authority of the Roman Catholic Church’s leadership, that they still practice and maintain the truly catholic (i.e. universal)teachings as much as the Roman Catholic Church does. By this my inference is that the moment that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church became Roman they also quit being catholic, because they lost their universal nature.

Thus, though the Roman Catholic Church see itself as the only true continuation of the original church, such a statement only serves to alienate other Christians who practice the same teachings that the early church did as if they were not truly part of Christ’s Church. Yet all who are believers in Christ Jesus, who accept him as Lord and Savior, who follow Jesus as his disicples are indeed brothers and sisters equally with Christ – to deny this is to push away those Christ has died to save from being part of the family. And if all are equally brothers and sisters with Christ, then they are also equally part of the body of Christ. Some are eyes, some are ears, some are feet and so on, but all are members and one in Christ Jesus. Christ is the one and only head of the body. There may be temporal offices for directing the body, but the only head remains Christ himself. And no member of the body is above any other member. Thus, all of the other branches of Christianity are indeed just as Christian, and even just as catholic (small “c”), as is Roman Catholicism. Realizing that this is so, Roman Catholicism (at least its present day manifestation of it) is one among many historic representations of the Christian faith. It is unique in its history and tradition as are all of the other branches, but it is not unique in its connection with God.

Christ TOLD US He came to establish His Church. He promised His eternal protection to her. He rules today from Heaven over His kingdom, His Church, through His appointed ministers, the successors to the apostles. That Church was one in the first century and it was one in the second century. It has been one for 2000 years. It is His Church Militant, here on Earth, His Church Suffering, in Purgatory, and His Church Triumphant, in Heaven.

“Any who reject you reject me and the One who sent me.”

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Christ TOLD US He came to establish His Church. He promised His eternal protection to her. He rules today from Heaven over His kingdom, His Church, through His appointed ministers, the successors to the apostles. That Church was one in the first century and it was one in the second century. It has been one for 2000 years. It is His Church Militant, here on Earth, His Church Suffering, in Purgatory, and His Church Triumphant, in Heaven.

“Any who reject you reject me and the One who sent me.”

And I believe that ALL Christians are a part of that Church which Christ established, not just Catholics.

Yes, but why would anyone bother to do so, if the Catholic Church had been deliberately wiped out for whatever reason?

After all, the Arians were around for something like five centuries, and left all kinds of written records, but nobody seeks them out for teaching or instruction in the faith, because we already assume that they are heretical.

There are already Protestants who don’t look at what the Catholic Church has to offer, while we are here - those who have already rejected Sunday as the Lord’s Day, the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, etc. I think that if the Catholic Church were to disappear, all of Protestantism would go the way of these Protestants - I don’t think they would hold on to any of the teachings of the Church for more than just a few generations.

Why would we? Because as I said, we too are catholic and orthodox (small “c” and small “o”) in our faith just as were the first Christians. In some cases we are that way despite the Roman Catholic Church, not because of it. The Greek Orthodox Church has held to all of the teachings you named without the need of the Roman Catholic Church. Those groups that you listed that have rejected the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the creedal statements of the early church (e.g. Mormons, Jehovahs Witness), they are not Protestant, they are not even Christian in my understanding.

Btw, I also did not say the the Roman Catholic Church was “deliberately wiped-out.” I wasn’t trying to speak of it in any active sense, only a hypothetical, which I hope and trust will never occur.

 

[jmcrae]

And I believe that ALL Christians are a part of that Church which Christ established, not just Catholics.

What is your evidence for this belief? Because it seems to contradict the evidence of history and Scripture.

I believe that Jesus founded the Catholic Church because of Matthew 16:18 (Christ establishes the Church on Peter and his testimony of faith, and gives it infallibility) and John 21:15-19 (Christ ordains Peter as chief shepherd of the Church) and because of the historical record, which shows us that Peter was the first Pope and that all Catholic Popes are successors of Peter.

The historical record also shows that the Protestant churches had their beginning many centuries later, and that the basis of their establishment was their rejection of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Do you have any evidence that refutes this? (For example, is there any evidence that Lutheranism predates Catholicism, or that Christ and not Martin Luther founded the Lutheran Church?)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

What is your evidence for this belief? Because it seems to contradict the evidence of history and Scripture.

I believe that Jesus founded the Catholic Church because of Matthew 16:18 (Christ establishes the Church on Peter and his testimony of faith, and gives it infallibility) and John 21:15-19 (Christ ordains Peter as chief shepherd of the Church) and because of the historical record, which shows us that Peter was the first Pope and that all Catholic Popes are successors of Peter.

The historical record also shows that the Protestant churches had their beginning many centuries later, and that the basis of their establishment was their rejection of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Do you have any evidence that refutes this? (For example, is there any evidence that Lutheranism predates Catholicism, or that Christ and not Martin Luther founded the Lutheran Church?)

I don’t know how the history of the Roman Catholic Church, which you very nicely articulated, implies that the Church of Jesus Christ being limited to just that portion of it. Scripture tells us that all Christians are members of one body in Jesus Christ:

Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3)

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. (1 Corinthians 12:7)

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

As it is, there are many parts, but one body. (1 Corinthians 12:20)

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Corinthains 12:27)

To whom do there verses apply?
a) To only the 1st century Christians in Corinth.
b) To all Christians anywhere and everywhere.
c) To only Roman Catholic Christians.

I submit that the answer is B. And if so, then non-Catholic Christians are part of the “body of Christ”. I understand the terms “Church” and “body of Christ” to be synonymous, it includes all Christians from all time,in all places,both the living and the dead in Christ.

Note in this lesson from Paul how he again makes the comparision between the Church and the body:

Ephesians 5
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing** her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body.** 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Note again, by what means one enters into the body: This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 3:6) It comes not by belonging to a particular institution, not even the institution that Christ himself established. (I have no problem with saying that Christ established the Church, that he did it with Peter as the first earthly leader – though scripture does not say “head”, that title is reserved for Christ.) The word “church” or more properly the Greek word “ekklesia” is used by Jesus only here and again in 18:17 springs from the verb “ekkaleo” meaning “to call out from” and thus refers to those who are called out. The Church of Jesus Christ are those people who are called out by him to belong to him. Clearly even non-Catholics belong to Jesus Christ, they are Christians. Even if not in communion with Rome, they are in communion with Christ for they have done exactly as Paul said and have confessed that “Jesus is Lord”.

continued in next post…

 

[Grace_Seeker]

…continuing from above…

There is nothing in Matthew 16 which refers to the Roman Catholic Church, it only speaks of the Church, the whole of it, not a portion of it. There is nothing in Matthew 16 which implies infallibility of the Church either.

John 21 is a wondeful example that each one of Christ’s disciples has their own unique ministry, but again there is nothing in John 21 that makes Peter the exclusive shepherd of the sheep. Indeed as to what Jesus asks of John, Peter is asked “what is that to you?” Peter is to mind his own business, take care of the task Christ has instructed him in. If others are to live longer than him or not, that is not Peter’s concern. If others are to also serve as shepherds (nothing in John 21 precludes that from being possible) again that would not be Peter’s concern. Peter’s concern is to shepherd the flock. What happens after Peter’s passing is not Peter’s concern – Jesus as much as says so directly to Peter. Given that, I hardly think that Jesus was instituting a succession of Peters.

There are those who read this passage differently than me, I admit. They are entitled to their opinion. But they are not entitled to claim exclusive use of the term “Church”. Jesus did not grant that to them.

 

[Pater_Familias]

The catholic church is not just another denomination but rather the church founded by our lord. We were always meant to be unified within mother churche’s bosom and denominations is an aberration caused by the pride and folly of man. Outside the catholic church there is no salvation if one knew what the church teaches and still persists with one’s heresy. And yes i veiw protestants as heretics. Obviously in line with Catholic teaching some knowledge of the catholic church is required before any intent and therefore culpability can be imputed.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The catholic church is not just another denomination but rather the church founded by our lord. We were always meant to be unified within mother churche’s bosom and denominations is an aberration caused by the pride and folly of man. Outside the catholic church there is no salvation if one knew what the church teaches and still persists with one’s heresy. And yes i veiw protestants as heretics. Obviously in line with Catholic teaching some knowledge of the catholic church is required before any intent and therefore culpability can be imputed.

Well, let’s start with the Catholic definition of heretic.

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”.

Only Catholics, by Roman Catholic definition, can be classified as heretics. So, by what definition do you consider protestants to be heretics?

I was asked for evidence in the belief which I posted. I have given it. And I have given it from the scriptures. I’m sorry to hear that you consider us protestants to be heretics. I’m glad that my local Catholic priest has no such pretentions to the exclusive holiness of the Roman Catholic Church, but understands all followers of the Lord Jesus Christ to be brothers and sisters together one with another.

 

[guanophore]

The catholic church is not just another denomination but rather the church founded by our lord. We were always meant to be unified within mother churche’s bosom and denominations is an aberration caused by the pride and folly of man. Outside the catholic church there is no salvation if one knew what the church teaches and still persists with one’s heresy. And yes i veiw protestants as heretics. Obviously in line with Catholic teaching some knowledge of the catholic church is required before any intent and therefore culpability can be imputed.

This is not entirely consistent with Catholic teaching, Pater Familias. Yes, there is no salvation outside the Church, but the Catechism teaches that there are Protestants who are part of Christ’s body that should not be labelled as heretics, since Catholicsm is required in order to be come a heretic. Those that were raised in a separated community who have never been educated about the fullness of the faith cannot carry this title, having never been instructed. From the CCC:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[sterryfamily]

And I believe that ALL Christians are a part of that Church which Christ established, not just Catholics.

So long as you understand that your position is a relatively new invention. It was created by men who, in rejecting the Church that Christ gave to us, wanted to justify establishing their own religions. The apostles and all the early Church Fathers taught extremely differently. All of us would do well to fully understand this history.

 

[Steadfast]

So long as you understand that your position is a relatively new invention. It was created by men who, in rejecting the Church that Christ gave to us, wanted to justify establishing their own religions. The apostles and all the early Church Fathers taught extremely differently. All of us would do well to fully understand this history.

You mean the Vatican II fathers?

The ones who wrote and approved Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintigratio?

 

[guanophore]

You mean the Vatican II fathers?

The ones who wrote and approved Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintigratio?

No, no. The EARLY fathers. First millenium after Christ.

 

[Steadfast]

Guan, you missed my point.

SterryFamily was saying that the view that Protestants are part of the universal church is a “relatively new invention. It was created by men who, in rejecting the Church that Christ gave to us, wanted to justify establishing their own religions.”

I was responding by pointing out that this was exactly the view of the council fathers as reflected in the documents I named.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know how the history of the Roman Catholic Church, which you very nicely articulated, implies that the Church of Jesus Christ being limited to just that portion of it. Scripture tells us that all Christians are members of one body in Jesus Christ:

Because when the Protestants split away from the Catholic Church, they renounced all and everything of the Catholic Church, in order to start over from scratch.

“All and everything” includes Jesus Christ.

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

As it is, there are many parts, but one body. (1 Corinthians 12:20)

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Corinthains 12:27)

These verses apply to everyone who is “in the body” - that is, everyone who is a member of the Church that Christ founded.

Whoever is separated from the body is not part of the body.

Non-Catholic Christians who want to be part of Christ’s body, who are not aware at all of the sins of their ancestors, and who thought they were joining Christ’s Church when they became part of their Protestant church, are not guilty of the sin of separation, and are joined in an imperfect manner to the Church (although they cannot participate in the Sacraments of the Church) - but God’s will is that we should all become actual members of Christ’s Church, and participate fully in His Sacraments.