Replies

Actually, you are wrong: baptism makes us united with Christ

No: It is such faith that is to be confessed in baptism that purifies the heart - and effects profound basic changes in heart and life - not the act of baptism (much less by proxy faith) which itself does not regenerate a person

The redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith (Acts 10:43-47; Acts 15:7-9 - "purifying their heart by faith" before baptism) in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world. (1 Jn. 4:14)

Who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account, rendering them "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6; Eph. 2:6-9) - not deserved by any merit of themselves or any church.

And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb. 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)

In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39) Glory and thanks be to God.

but one chooses or doesn’t choose to follow God’s laws. By choose to support or just turn a blind eye to the murder of infants, they renounce the teachings of the Church and the laws of God. They have left Catholicism and gone astray.

However, that is according to your own personal opinion, and as correct as it may be, and valid for a Biblical believer, yet as consistent with the papal teachings from the past that I provided, in Catholicism that is not how determination of who and what is of God works. "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906. "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff,"...."

Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.

Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

Sources and More.

And a canon lawyer provides:

“Who can excommunicate? “ Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope alone or a general council for the entire Church; from the provincial council for an ecclesiastical province; from the bishop for his diocese; from the prelate nullius for quasi-diocesan territories; and from regular prelates for religious orders. Moreover, anyone can excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentious jurisdiction in the forum externum; for instance, papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner....

Hence arise various extenuating reasons (causæ excusantes), based on lack of guilt, which prevent the incurring of excommunication:....(There is a running joke among canonists that, since the requirements for imposition of a canonical penalty are so complex, and require so much knowledge on the part of the perpetrator, that the end result is that the only people who can be excommunicated are…canon lawyers.) - Am I Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part I http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/01/25/am-i-excommunicated/

The person committing an offense must be at least sixteen years old; must have full use of reason; must have full knowledge that there is a sanction attached to commission of that offense; must be acting with full freedom, i.e., without any outside force or compulsion of grave fear; and must not be acting in self-defense. If even one of these conditions is not met, a person does not incur the censure that is attached by law to a particular crime! - Is She Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part II http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/03/07/is-she-excommunicated-sanctions-part-ii/

And the same canon law lawyer also states,

Canon 751 tells us that schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. And this is where sedevacantism fits into the equation.

Thus as part of your basic "one duty," you are leave the declaration of who is excommuned up your local ordinary, and then upwards if needed. Likewise:

Canon 915 states:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion.

But as with so much else in Catholicism, there is the issue of interpretation:

Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together. -- from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert's criticism of Gov. Cuomo)

[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, but he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives. -- from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed)

"...there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon [Canon 915] was never intended to be used this way.'' -- from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/03/abps-wuerl-c-916-burke-cc-915-916-on.html

And as what one believes is manifest by what they do, (James 5:18) and makes disciples thereby, then your leadership manifests its interpretation of canon law by what it does and leads the flock who look for the interpretation of the law by how the teacher of it apply it.

When Rome manifestly treats even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures as members in life and in death including when the pope commends a Ted Kennedy and sanctions an ecclesiastical funeral for him (with Obama doing the eulogy no less), as well as for the likes of Mayor Menino, Chavez, etc. then it is leading the flock whose one duty is to follow such, versus being divided into a multitude of sects as she is now.

RCs often have condemned us for reproving their church, for under the premise that "private interpretation" of Scripture is wrong (misinterpreting 2 Peter 1:20) - as they do - as we are supposed to submit to their church.

Yet rather than being consistent with many past papal teachings, and canon law, if you - as with most vocal FRoman Catholics - disagree with your "living magisterium" as V2 and the modern ordinary magisterium then you essentially responding like evangelicals are criticized for doing, insofar as making the veracity and authority of such dependent upon your judgment of what ancient church teaching is and means, as well as canon law. The difference is that for us, ancient church teaching for true Christians, ancient church teaching is that of the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

And canon law also states: Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/ixt/eng0017/_p2p.htm

Yet in times past:

Pope Alexander IV, "We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”.

“the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

But your interpretation may differ.