Christ alone knows his sheep and only he knows our hearts regardless of any outward public confession we may make. Those who truly believe in his promise are his sheep (the one fold, the one "church" or the communion of saints et al) and are led by one shepherd (Christ, the good shepherd)...
Have you been reading Pope Pius IX? Your interpretation is a very close paraphrase of what he said on the subject 150 years ago.
I however would conclude you take, faithfully according to the translation of the church, that this means the one fold is and always has been only the RCC...
A respectful question...Knowing these differences do we agree that if we both believe in the promise of Christ's death and for the washing of our sins, are we both his sheep? Or because I am not a RCC member I am incapable of being one of Christ's sheep?
If I may, I'd prefer to let Venerable Pope Pius IX answer that:
"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord."
"Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice. But as long as we dwell on earth, encumbered with this soul-dulling, mortal body, let us tenaciously cling to the Catholic doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5)."
Singulari quadam
Allocution against the Errors of Rationalism and Indifferentism
December 9, 1854
As to the historical background, I recommend an excellent history of the early Church, "Saint Peter and the First Years of Christianity", by the Abbe Constant Fouard. I have an original edition from 1892, but reprints are available from several sources online. Without getting into a lengthy discourse, I don't believe that there's any historical basis for five "congregations" in the Apostolic period as we see sects today. Everything coalesced around Peter, and his line of succession is clear. Fouard started out with a different idea, and came to this conslusion as a result of his extensively-documented research. Plus, it's a pretty good read!
In any event, I hope this was helpful and I appreciate your thoughtful questions and courtesy.
As Luddite posted, if the belief and will is there, and considering you are baptized, you are certainly a member of Christ's flock. But we would say that since Lutheranism denies some of the essential aspects of the faith Christ intended for you and I (7 sacraments most notably), it is an imperfect membership.
I'm essentially looking to understand how the RCC ended up being the "C"catholic in the catholic faith with the original catholic church not being Roman, but rather they were unified-- as in unified under Christ not Rome
Hmm, good etymological question which I can't answer. But we'd take issue with the "unified under Christ not Rome" part. We'd see it as "unified under Christ THROUGH Rome".
I think the technical answer would be that you are a sheep in imperfect communion with the fold/Shepherd.
Out of curiosity, how do you deal with Lutherans who are not very conservative? I know that there are many liberal Catholics, but it is fairly easy for me to deal with the fact that their errors can be authoritatively condemned, and any new errors/excuses that they come up with in the future can also be authoritatively condemned. But if you are dealing with a liberal Lutheran, once he has come up with his list of standard excuses (Sodom was destroyed for 'inhospitality', etc.) what do you do with him?
The reason I ask is that I have read much lately on the historical formation of the Roman Catholic Church. From what I have seen five "churches" and really rather "congregations" formed in the earliest of times during and immediately after the apostolic period 33-100ad...
Actually there were dozens, if not hundreds of Churches formed throughout the Empire (just take all of the Churches St. Paul wrote to as a starting point). There were several Churches that were especially prestigious for various reasons, and many times a local Church was considered to have authority over other local Churches (e.g. Alexandria over the other Coptic Churches). But Rome was the one and only Church which was considered to have a universal jurisdiction.
If there were five legitimate descendants or successive churches when and why did the whittling down to only the Roman Bishop and his church become the only of the congregations that was the One Holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church? Did the churches started by Paul and the other Apostles not believe the same things as the church that stakes its claim to have the successor of Peter as its leader?
The Churches were united by the one faith. But only the successor of St. Peter was given the grace to remain in the faith always. Of the "big five" every single diocese fell into heresy at one point or another, except Rome. As a conservative Lutheran you can easily look through all of the original doctrinal controversies, look at the side that you yourself see as orthodox, and then realize that in every one of the Christological/Trinitarian controversies of the first 1000 years of Christianity, "your" side is the "Roman" side.
In case there was any doubt left about the "big five," it seems to me that God did a pretty good job settling the controversy by wiping out four of them...