I believe that too, just not exclusively. There isn't just one letter to one church in Revelation.
I believe that baptism is necessary, but not sufficient for salvation.
Baptism? It wasn't necessary for the thief to be redeemed on the cross next to Jesus. I am sure people are dunked without truly turning to Christ as Lord and Savior. Baptism is a powerful symbol and outward statement, but it is our hearts that need to be changed.
I believe that while it is His desire that we receive the sacraments, for our own benefit, and so that we have the means of further sanctification, it is possible for one who dies with complete contrition for his sins and a desire for baptism, to gain salvation through the merits of the Catholic Church-particularly through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
While sacraments and repeated religious actions can be a very good thing, they are particularly dangerous to become the object that is worshiped rather than God. Like the bronze serpent, they become gods rather than a lens to help us focus on God. I believe the more ritual that surrounds a symbol, the more likely the symbol becomes a god.
So, the lost and separated are non-Catholics and fallen away Catholics, and even practicing Catholics who have fallen into serious sin.
You set yourself up to judge hearts here. The Catholic church is not perfect. People can have legitimate and morally righteous reasons for leaving or deciding not to join.
Gotta go, so I’ll be brief.
The thief desired salvation through Christ. He died without the opportunity to receive it-Baptism by desire. Jesus told His apostles to preach the Gospel, and to baptize.
He said it needed to be done. I believe Him.
Sacraments: We do not worship them. We avail ourselves of the graces we receive through them as they were given to us for that purpose by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
I judge noone. I leave that to God. However, He left us with a Church. This Church instructs us in accordance with God’s will. This way, we’re not stray sheep, wandering off the cliff.
Pax.
Were the churches in Revelation distinct in their theology and administrative structures? Had they separated from one another over doctrinal differences?
Okay we differ on Baptism. (The lingo, incidentally, is "ordinarily necessary". We contemplate exceptions. Some have been stated by Catholics on this thread, one in the post to which you are responding.) This is a difference. Are we both right? Is it good to have the correct opinion? The group that has the correct opinion would, in that one respect, be better than the other group. Should the other group be offended?
You set yourself up to judge hearts here.
Isn't SOME judging of hearts unavoidable? Isn't characterising my attitude toward "the separated brethren, at least possibly an instance of heart-judging?
Further, to get back to the dinner analogy, someone may banish himself to solitude in a clean but bare room and eat by himself. Whatever his motivation, he still deprives himself of the benefits of the dining room.
Further, while it is always wrong not to follow one's conscience, one can be mistaken. What may mistakenly believed to be a good reason for leaving or deciding not to join may not in fact be a good reason. Judging by the astonishing level of misunderstanding on FR about what we truly teach, I'd wager a number of people are leaving or not joining for notions which IF they were true (but they aren't) would indeed be good reasons not to join.