My compatriot, Mr. Átila Sinke Guimarães, wrote an article about the Declaration Dominus Iesus. Unfortunately, I had only access to the last part of it, in which he vents his criticisms against this document, showing that either he has not understood any of it, or he is trying to persuade his readers that even if the Pope says so, the Second Vatican Council cannot possibly be read in an orthodox manner.

Here is Mr. Guimarães article, as it arrived to me. As I have not seen the full article, I must comment only what I have read. My comments are in bold type, between brackets [like this]. The numbers refer to the Declaration itself.
 

"Having showed the positive points of the Declaration Dominus Jesus, I go on to point out its negative sides. I will enter directly into the matter.
"First, the document establishes a clear distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (n. 16c).

[Absolutely not. It is emphasized that "Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: 'a single Catholic and apostolic Church'." (16b)]

The Church of Christ would be broader than the Catholic Church, and would subsist in her, without being confused with her. This distinction does not agree with the perennial doctrine of the Catholic Magisterium.

[This distinction does not exist, except in Mr. Guimarães's mind.

Footnote # 56 states, to the delight of true Catholics, that "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"

What does it mean? It means that the Catholic Church *is* the Church of Christ; outside the visible fold of the Catholic Church there are only "ecclesial elements", that is, things that exist in the Church and are repeated outside, working (when they do work, as the baptism conferred by heretics, whole validity was established in the third Century by Pope St. Stephen I - Cf. Dz. 46 & 47) through the Church and not through some sort of theoretical extra-ecclesial special channel of grace.]

In the book Quo Vadis, Petre? (Pp. 40-49), I presented papal documents teaching that there is only one true Church of Christ, and this is the Catholic Church. If it should be necessary, I will return to present those documents and yet many others.
"Second, this supposed "Church of Christ" (which I will place between quotes) would be composed of all the Protestant and Greek Schismatic sects that accept some type of Baptism (n. 17). This incorporation of the heretics and the schismatics into the "Church of Christ" is absolutely contrary to the whole doctrinal past of the Catholic Church.

[No, it is not. As a matter of fact, it is in the Creed: Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.

When the Baptism is valid, it is a Catholic Baptism. Thus, someone who has been validly baptized and does not know the Catholic Truth (therefore, someone who has not denied assent to the truth, only accepted the partial Truth that has been presented to him) has been baptized a Catholic and will go to Heaven if he dies before committing a mortal sin. Of course, unless a truck runs over him immediately afterwards, he will eventually commit a mortal sin and will go straight to Hell, because we will not seek sacramental absolution. Nevertheless, his baptism being valid makes him a Catholic.

The mistake repeatedly made by Mr. Guimarães is the common confusion between personal and community belonging to the Church. The Protestant sects do not belong to the Church, but their baptized members who have never been exposed to the Catholic Truth do, *in spite of the sect*, not because of it.]

There are many documents that prove what I sustain here, which I will provide should the debate with the religious authority require it.
"Third, in the document the heretical and schismatic sects receive the pompous title of "Churches," a thing that until Vatican II the Catholic Magisterium never permitted. Before then, such assemblages were designated as sects, false religions, heretics, schismatics, etc. Ratziner's document, however, affirms: "The Churches which .... remain united to her [the Catholic Church] by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches" (17a). In other words, what he is saying is that these false religious confessions
are agreeable to God and promote the salvation of souls. Which is, once again, contrary to Catholic Doctrine.

[Again, the same mistake. Heretics are still heretics; schismatics are still schismatics. However, there are heretical and schismatic *particular churches*. A particular Church is a Diocese, a Patriarchate, some ecclesial instance that is governed by a Bishop. Just as some dioceses - whose names we do not need to mention, that do not have a single orthodox priest and are governed by heretical Bishops - are heretical particular Churches, the Eastern schismatic Dioceses and Patriarchates are schismatic particular Churches. They are not Churches as the Catholic Church is a Church. They are churches as the Diocese of Los Angeles is a church, that is, a particular Church.

Moreover, precisely as the fact that some Modernist-governed Dioceses are churches does not mean that they are agreeable to God and promote the salvation of souls, the fact that the Arch-Devil KGB-mole-in-chief of the Russian Patriarchate governs a schismatic particular Church does not at all means that he is not working for the Devil.]

"Fourth, even the more radical and repellent Protestant fragmentations, which do not accept any religious authority, are incorporated into the "Church of Christ": "The ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church" (17b).
If the former statements were contrary to Catholic Doctrine, this affirmation is even more so.

[I think the mistake he repeatedly makes is even clearer here.

The Protestant sects are not Churches, and it the Declaration clearly states so. They are "ecclesial communities", that is, a community that is assembled in a church-like form but is not a Church at all. The communities do not belong to the Church, but Mrs. Smith who has been born and raised in this sect, without having ever the slightest contact with the Catholic Church is, by virtue of her valid Baptism, a Catholic. She would hate to know it, but she is.]

In passing, I point out that with this paragraph, Ratzinger intends to annul a certain conduct of the Magisterium in the past. In fact, since the second century, the Catholic Church has placed in doubt the validity of the Baptism in heretical sects; for this reason, until Vatican II, there was the practice of conditionally re-baptizing those who converted to the Catholic Church.

[Now he is dangerously standing at the edge of heresy, not to speak about bad History. If you have the patience to open your faithful Denzingers you will see that baptisms performed by heretics are valid if they use the right matter, form and intention.

The Council of Trent expressly defined that "If someone says that the Baptism ministered by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not a true Baptism, let him be anathema" (4th canon on Baptism, Session VII, Dz. 861)

The very same Council defined that "If someone says that three Sacraments, viz., Baptism, Confirmation and Order, is imprinted no character - that is, a certain spiritual and permanent sign in which virtue they cannot be repeated - let him be anathema" (9th canon on the Sacraments, Session VII, Dz. 852)

*Conditional* baptism (not "re-baptism" - again, confiteor unum baptisma...) is given when there are doubts about the validity of a certain Baptism, especially when performed by truly non compos mentis heretics who may use weird formulae. It is a wise thing to do, but the Church has never, as he almost states, regularly doubted the validity of baptisms conferred by heretics (that is, the Church has never said that baptisms ministered by heretics are invalid until proved otherwise; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact, as we have shown).]

More than this, I have before me, the Decree of the Holy Office of March 10, 1824, stating that those who are converted from sects that minister a minimum or invalid Baptism "shall be solemnly baptized," which is equivalent to saying that the Baptism administered by them is not true. However, contradicting this prudential doctrinal past, Ratzinger unrestrictedly affirms that the non-Catholic Baptisms incorporate all those individuals to Christ.

[No, he does not. Just as when we refer to the Eucharist it is quite obvious that we do not mean Protestant "Lord's Supper" wheat bread, when referring to Baptism it is quite obvious that Msgr. Ratzinger is referring to valid Baptisms, not to immersions "in the name of Jesus!" or other invalid pseudo-Sacraments, that obviously would require a valid Baptism made when the pseudo-baptized heretic finds the truth.

If I say that a bus can easily carry 20 people, I am not saying that my son's toy bus, less than a foot long, can hold anyone at all. I am obviously talking about a true bus...]

"Fifth, reading the document one can understand that the "Church of Christ" would be composed of concentric circles: in the center would be the Catholic Church, which would have the plenitude of grace and of truth. In the second circle there would be the "official" Protestant and Schismatic sects. After them would come the more spurious fragmentations of heresy and schism. It seems that a fourth circle could include the pagan false religious confessions. But the document is not clear on this point.

[It is a completely unwarranted assumption made by my compatriot. The document clearly states that there is a single Church of Christ, and this Church is governed by the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him, each in his particular Church.

There are also particular Churches that are in schism, and therefore do not have a full communion with the One True Church. There are also groups (the "ecclesial communities") of heretics who, by virtue of their valid Baptisms, may individually and personally belong to the Church. In the schismatic Churches and in the ecclesial communities, the Sacraments work through the Catholic Church, not by some sort of "direct connection to Heaven".

Pagans and other heathen may only be saved through the Catholic Church, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Their rites have no divine origin and are frequently an obstacle to salvation (n. 21).

"Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ." (n. 22)

My compatriot's notion of a concentrical Church of Christ including all kinds of heretic and schismatic association has absolutely nothing to do with the document.

It is a straw man, not a true conclusion to be drawn from the text.]

The "terrible" error of the Asian theologians would be either 1) defending a promiscuous participation of all the "Churchs" in the "Church of Christ" without acknowledging Ratzinger's concentric distribution,

[Or should we say "Guimarães's concentric distribution"? The - truly terrible - heresy of these Asians is preaching that it is possible to be saved by means other than Our Lord and His Church.]

or 2) saying that this "Church of Christ" has no reality, it remains in the realm of the ideal. Thus one reads in the document: "The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection .... of Churches and ecclesiastical communities;

[This would precisely be the "concentric distribution" Mr. Guimarães attributes to Msgr. Ratzinger in order to have a straw man against which to fight.]

nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only a goal which all [1].... must strive to reach. In fact, the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities. Therefore, these [2].... Churches and communities as such [3].... have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation [4]" (17c).

[Now let's see what he clipped (I added numbers between brackets to his text above, to make it easier to read the full text):

[1]: Churches and ecclesial communities

[2]: separated

[3]: though we believe they suffer from defects,

[4]: which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

I really believe it is not honest to clip selectively out what is truly said in order to find heresies that do not exist there.]

This paragraph conflicts so sharply with Catholic Doctrine and all the past of the Church that it does not seem necessary to compare it with the prior Magisterium.

[Oh, so he does believe that "[t]he Christian faithful are permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection - divided, yet in some way one - of Churches and ecclesial communities, and they are free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists"?! Moreover, that would not contrast with Catholic Doctrine?!

What the paragraph states - when the important parts he selectively clipped out are placed back in the text - is that the Church is One (not a collection of Churches and ecclesial communities), Visible (it really exists, and, as stated in other parts of the text, is governed by the Pope, has a visible hierarchy, etc.), all those who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church, even when valid Sacraments have been ministered to them by schismatic and heretic ministers whose organizations are separated, suffer from defects and only may efficaciously operate through the Catholic Church (this whole last sentence is composed by the parts he left out to pretend that the text portrays the sects and schismatic particular Churches as Heaven on Earth).]

With this, we can see that we are facing two progressivist currents arguing with each other over the details of their desired pan-religion.
"Sixth, the conclusion to be drawn is clear: I did not find anything in the document that defends the unicity of Catholic Church as the Popes and the Universal Magisterium have always taught.

[I would strongly suggest him to read it again. Perhaps the dots replacing important words have been added by someone before he actually read it, who knows?]

In it there is the defense of a certain priority of the Catholic Church which no longer excludes heretics and schismatics, but nothing more than this.

[Oh. So when it states "the unicity of the relationship which Christ and the Church have with the kingdom of God", and also that "[a]bove all else, it must be firmly believed that 'the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; He is present to us in His Body which is the Church." or that "[t]he Church is the universal sacrament of salvation" and "has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being", it is only defending "a certain priority"?!]

When the document employs the word "unicity" (Chap. IV), it does so in a way to apply it not to the Catholic Church, but to this strange "Church of Christ."

[Which, still in Chapter IV, is said to be "governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". No wonder the Prots did not like it, the Modernists did not like it...]

Therefore, in its whole, the doctrine of the Declaration is a more subtle variant of the same religious indifferentism condemned by the prior papal Magisterium.

[Unfortunately, I do not have the time now to write a fuller reply to Mr. Guimarães strange statements, that may only be understood if we consider that he makes a living trying to "prove" that the only possible reading of the Vatican II documents is opposed to what this documents states it to be.]

"This is, in my judgment, the essence of the document Dominus Jesus. "After the study of the Declaration of Ratzinger, the reason for the great hooha being raised around it became clear. In the name of the "conservativism" of Ratzinger, his fight against the Asian theologians and his "defense of the unicity" of the Church, there is the desire to make faithful Catholics swallow this strange notion of "Church of Christ." I do not have conditions to affirm with certainty whether this last hypothesis is true or not. However, it seems quite probable.

[It is easy to create a monster, a straw man, and fight against it. Mr. Guimarães should be glad to see that, while he has accepted the Modernist misreading of VII at face value and fought against it - what is laudable, for it is sheer heresy - the Church did not, and after a quick interval of thirty years, corrected this misreading.]

"What does not seem probable is the hypothesis of the conversion of the progressivist cupola who directs the Catholic Church and of the international financial circles who command the press. However, for God nothing is impossible. Who knows what the future will bring…

[More and more orthodox magisterial clarifications of the misinterpreted passages of the Vatican II texts, I hope. I also hope that Mr. Guimarães will eventually - as we say in Brazil, the home country of both of us - stop looking for horns on the head of a horse and accept the fact that misreading of Church documents may happen, but they are always eventually explained in an orthodox manner.]

Having thus presented Mr. Guimarães's text with my commentaries, I would also like to address the arguments he proposes:

Mr. Guimarães considers that Dominus Iesus's ecclesiology cannot be considered theologically Catholic, for:

1 - [T]he document establishes a clear distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (n. 16c).

2 - [According to Dominus Iesus, t]he Church of Christ would be broader than the Catholic Church

3 - [According to Dominus Iesus] this supposed "Church of Christ" would be composed of all the Protestant and Greek Schismatic sects that accept some type of Baptism (n. 17).

4 - [I]n the document the heretical and schismatic sects receive the pompous title of "Churches" a thing that until Vatican II the Catholic Magisterium never permitted.

5 - [According to Dominus Iesus] these false religious confessions are agreeable to God and promote the salvation of souls.

6 - [According to Dominus Iesus, E]ven the more radical and repellent Protestant fragmentations, which do not accept any religious authority, are incorporated into the "Church of Christ"

7 - Ratzinger intends to annul a certain conduct of the Magisterium in the past. In fact, since the second century, the Catholic Church has placed in doubt the validity of the Baptism in heretical sects (...) Ratzinger unrestrictedly affirms that the non-Catholic Baptisms incorporate all those individuals to Christ.

8 - [Acording to Dominus Iesus] the "Church of Christ" would be composed of concentric circles: in the center would be the Catholic Church, which would have the plenitude of grace and of truth. In the second circle there would be the "official" Protestant and Schismatic sects. After them would come the more spurious fragmentations of heresy and schism. It seems that a fourth circle could include the pagan false religious confessions.

9 - [According to Dominus Iesus, t]he "terrible" error of the Asian theologians would be either 1) defending a promiscuous participation of all the "Churchs" in the "Church of Christ" without acknowledging Ratzinger's concentric distribution, or 2) saying that this "Church of Christ" has no reality, it remains in the realm of the ideal.

10 - I did not find anything in the document that defends the unicity of Catholic Church as the Popes and the
Universal Magisterium have always taught. In it there is the defense of a certain priority of the Catholic Church which no longer excludes heretics and schismatics, but nothing more than this.

11 - When the document employs the word "unicity" (Chap. IV), it does so in a way to apply it not to the Catholic Church, but to this strange "Church of Christ."
 

ON THE CONTRARY, I SAY THAT Mr. Guimarães is completely wrong.

There are two main mistakes he repeatedly makes:

a) He adheres to the common Protestant conception of a man-made Church, that is, a Church that is the product of man. When a few people gather to pray, according to the Protestant ecclesiology which Mr. Guimarães swallowed line and sink, a Church is born.

Thus, Mr. Guimarães interprets every single case of personal belonging to the Church as meaning a recognition (which is not at all made) of a true ecclesiological status for their gathering. He repeatedly accuses the Declaration of stating that sects, pagan religions, etc. would be part of the Church, when it says that people, not their gatherings, may be part of the Church due to their valid Baptisms.

If he said that according to Dominus Iesus it is possible to have a full, let's say, Southern Baptist community of Catholics (if none of them had ever had access to the Catholic Truth, yet all of them had received valid Baptisms) but neither would their gathering constitute a Church, nor would their particular Southern Baptist sect have any ecclesiological status whatsoever, he would be right.

When, however, he says that Dominus Iesus includes sects as part of the Church, he is committing a logical fallacy, either a fallacy of composition (if his presupposition is that when every member of a given group is part of the Church, the group as a whole is part of the Church) or a fallacy of converse accident (if his presupposition is that when a single member of a given group is part of the Church, the group as a whole is part of the Church).

The only charitable explanation for these fallacies, I think, may be found in a defective Protestant ecclesiology that would be so deeply embedded in his reasoning he wouldn't be able to think clearly. The other possible, albeit not charitable, explanation would be that he knows he is wrong, but he fears losing his captive audience, who wants to believe that Vatican II cannot be possibly interpreted in a Catholic way, so that they can try to justify their schismatic attitudes.

The other mistake he repeatedly makes is considering that when the document uses the expression "Church of Christ", it is not referring to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. He ignores all evidence to the contrary, as the following excerpt of #16 of this Declaration:

"[T]he unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”. Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. "

The explanation of the Lumen Gentium expression subsistit in is given in a footnote, which I quote below:

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” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power” by Father Leonardo Boff: AAS 77 [1985], 756-762).

This feigned ignorance of the actual text, compounded to the carefully clipped parts, makes it hard to believe in his good faith. However, a charitable explanation would again be an ingrained habitude of thinking with a Protestant ecclesiological mindset, now applied to the very Catholic text of Dominus Iesus. The erroneous Protestant ecclesiology, which is by the way condemned in this Declaration, considers that the Church of Christ would be an invisible reunion of all man-made "Churches". Thus, inadvertently Mr. Guimarães commits the logical fallacy of equivocation, mistaking the Catholic meaning of the term "Church of Christ" (i.e., the One True Catholic Church, governed by the Pope, etc.) for the Protestant meaning applied to the very same word (i.e., an invisible an all-embracing "Church" composed by all man-made "Churches"; precisely what is anathematized by this Declaration). His "reasoning" would go like this:

"The Church of Christ" is an invisible Church that would be greater and bigger than the Catholic Church.

Well, Dominus Iesus uses the expression "The Church of Christ"

Therefore, Dominus Iesus preaches that the Catholic Church is but a part of a larger "Church of Christ", notwithstanding its definition of the inadmissibility of this ecclesiological notion.

Having thus seen the main problems caused by Mr. Guimarães faulted reasoning, let us punctually address his accusations:

First faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "[T]he document establishes a clear distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (n. 16c)."

 To which I answer that:
As seen above, the document does not at all establish this distinction. The distinction the document does establish is the traditional theological distinction between belonging visibly and invisibly to the One True Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church:

Those who blamelessly did not adhere to the Catholic Faith and yet received valid baptism belong invisibly to the Church, as do those who, through no fault of their own, have never had access to the Catholic Truth, and sincerely repent their sins and wish to do the Will of God (Pope St. Pius V condemned in the Bull Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, # 71, the proposition that "Through contrition, even if united to perfect charity and desire of Sacrament reception, sin is not remitted without the actual reception of the Sacrament, apart from martyrdom or need" - Dz. 1071)

It is evident to whoever reads the text that it plainly restates the traditional thinking, restricting thus salvation to those who are visibly inside the fold of the Church or - extraordinarily and dangerously - only visibly inside it. It is said that: "If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation."
 

Second faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "[According to Dominus Iesus, t]he Church of Christ would be broader than the Catholic Church"

 To which I answer that he is only expressing his misunderstanding of the nature of the Church, to which I referred above. If we said that according to this Declaration the Catholic Church is broader that its visible expression, for there are some who invisibly belong to her, he would be correct.

Third faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "[According to Dominus Iesus] this supposed 'Church of Christ' would be composed of all the Protestant and Greek Schismatic sects that accept some type of Baptism (n. 17)."

 To which I answer that he is committing either a fallacy of composition or a fallacy of converse accident, as explained above.

Fourth faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "[I]n the document the heretical and schismatic sects receive the pompous title of "Churches" a thing that until Vatican II the Catholic Magisterium never permitted."

 To which I answer that the Declaration is absolutely crystal-clear when it states that "[T]he ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense". This particular sentence has been the object of loud and angry protests coming from all kinds of Protestant and Modernist quarters, showing that unlike Mr. Guimarães, they did understand it.

The Oriental schismatic Particular Churches have always been called by their true ecclesiological condition, i.e., a particular Church that unfortunately is in schism. For instance, when some Greco-Russians came back to the Church in 1575 a. D., they had to profess their Catholic Faith saying that, among other things, that they accepted the definitions of the Florence Council "on the union of the Occidental and Oriental Churches" (Dz. 1084).

Fifth faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "[According to Dominus Iesus] these false religious confessions are agreeable to God and promote the salvation of souls. "

To which I answer that while the Declaration certainly states that extraordinarily some people who mistakenly follow false religions may be saved through the Church, it clearly states that they will be saved in spite of their belonging to a false religion, not because of it, for "as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), [the practices of false religions] constitute an obstacle to salvation." (n. 22)

Sixth faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "[According to Dominus Iesus, E]ven the more radical and repellent Protestant fragmentations, which do not accept any religious authority, are incorporated into the "Church of Christ"

 To which I answer that again, he is committing either a fallacy of composition or a fallacy of converse accident, as explained above. In any case, it is quite clear that while people who nominally belong to a sect may invisibly be part of the Catholic Church, the sect is, ecclesiologically speaking, a non-entity.

Seventh faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "Ratzinger intends to annul a certain conduct of the Magisterium in the past. In fact, since the second century, the Catholic Church has placed in doubt the validity of the Baptism in heretical sects (...) Ratzinger unrestrictedly affirms that the non-Catholic Baptisms incorporate all those individuals to Christ."

 To which I answer that not only Msgr. Ratzinger does not affirm that any attempt of Baptism (including thus obviously invalid baptisms such as those performed "in the Name of Jesus!" by Pentecostal preachers, etc.) is valid, as Mr. Guimarães accuses him of saying, but also that Mr. Guimarães needs a few Church History classes. The validity of a Baptism ministered by a heretic (when using correct form, matter and intention, of course) has been defined in the Third Century by Pope St. Stephen (Dz. 46ss) and constantly restated ever since (Dz. 53, 55ss, 88, 94, 97, 249, 297, 334a, 696, 1470, etc.).

Eighth faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "[According to Dominus Iesus] the "Church of Christ" would be composed of concentric circles: in the center would be the Catholic Church, which would have the plenitude of grace and of truth. In the second circle there would be the "official" Protestant and Schismatic sects. After them would come the more spurious fragmentations of heresy and schism. It seems that a fourth circle could include the pagan false religious confessions."

 To which I answer that this "concentric circles" theory is Mr. Guimarães's invention.

Searching the text for the radical "cent" (CENTral, CENTer, conCENTric, etc.), all I could find was a clear condemnation of the theory Mr. Guimarães states to be supported by the Declaration (my comments are between brackets, [like this]; all emphasis has been added by myself):

"In considering the relationship between the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, it is necessary to avoid one-sided accentuations, as is the case with those “conceptions which deliberately emphasize the kingdom and which describe themselves as ‘kingdom centred.' They stress the image of a Church which is not concerned about herself, but which is totally concerned with bearing witness to and serving the kingdom. It is a ‘Church for others,' just as Christ is the ‘man for others'... [at this point, the Declaration condemns the Liberation Theology "concentric" theory, that is usually expressed as above, downplaying the Church and presuming that all sects are part of it, the Catholic Church being no more than the hard core of a supposed 'Kingdom of God" - in Mr. Guimarães theory, this "kingdom" would be called "The Church of Christ"]
(...)
Furthermore, the kingdom, as they understand it, ends up either leaving very little room for the Church or undervaluing the Church in reaction to a presumed ‘ecclesiocentrism' of the past and because they consider the Church herself only a sign, for that matter a sign not without ambiguity”. These theses are contrary to Catholic faith because they deny the unicity of the relationship which Christ and the Church have with the kingdom of God." (n. 19) [It is quite clear that what is condemned, that is, a theoretical "Kingdom of God" - or "Church of Christ" in Mr. Guimarães misunderstanding - that would be larger than the Church and concentrically arranged around it, is precisely what Mr. Guimarães states to be preached by the very same document.]

All other instances of the radical "cent" are found in expressions that state the absolute centrality and necessity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the economy of Salvation, providing thus further proof of the error of Mr. Guimarães misreading.

Ninth faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "[According to Dominus Iesus, t]he "terrible" error of the Asian theologians would be either 1) defending a promiscuous participation of all the "Churchs" in the "Church of Christ" without acknowledging Ratzinger's concentric distribution, or 2) saying that this "Church of Christ" has no reality, it remains in the realm of the ideal."

 To which I answer that in spite of the fact that the Declaration does not give names, except the name of the Brazilian Mr. Boff (who betrayed his vows, left his convent and now lives with a married woman - ooh, those pesky Brazilians!) whose name is given in a footnote pointing to the condemnation of his works, it is widely known that some Asian theologians had an important role in the formation and spread of some "new" heresies. All of these proposed indifferentism and religious relativism - sometimes based on the mistaken notion that the Eastern mind would be unable to grasp the Christian truth - and chapter IV of the Declaration condemns them.

Therefore, Mr. Guimarães first ludicrous hypothesis, which depends on the acceptance of his "discovery" of a "concentric distribution" ecclesiology, finding in Msgr. Ratzinger's text something neither him nor the Pope would could ever find, is of course wrong. His second hypothesis is truly condemned in the text if his previously exposed mistake on the meaning of the expression "Church of Christ" is not to be considered, but it is condemned in a totally different context (namely, the condemnation of Protestant ecclesiology in Chapter IV).

Tenth faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "I did not find anything in the document that defends the unicity of Catholic Church as the Popes and the Universal Magisterium have always taught. In it there is the defense of a certain priority of the Catholic Church which no longer excludes heretics and schismatics, but nothing more than this."

 To which I answer that the Declaration clearly states that "[T]he unicity of the Church founded by Him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”. (...) The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). (...) [T]he Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church (...) there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. (...) 'The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach'. In fact, 'the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities'. 'Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church'." (Chapter IV)

I would hardly consider it "a certain priority"...

Eleventh faulty statement by Mr. Guimarães: "When the document employs the word "unicity" (Chap. IV), it does so in a way to apply it not to the Catholic Church, but to this strange "Church of Christ."

To which I answer that in Chapter IV, which deals with the unicity of the Church, it is clearly and repeatedly stated, as may be seen in the answer to the previous question, that the "strange 'Church of Christ" is governed by the Pope, is the single Bride of Our Lord, etc. The last time I checked, the only Church governed by a Pope and preaching its uniqueness was the Catholic Church, not Mr. Guimarães concocted "Church-of-Christ-that-is-not-the-Catholic-Church".