Daily Tombstone epitaph., 1886-05-19
MORE THEOLOGY.
Father Dolie Replies to the Rev. MT.
 HaskinsaLast Remarks.
TOMBSTONE, May F, 1886.

EDIIOR EPIlAfh.
 The long article of Rev. Mir. Haskins
 over my last few words. causes me tC
 give same little explanation over his ar
 guments of yesterday. When I first as
 sumed to contradic, the public statement:
 of his lecture, given in the Tombstone
 Democrat of April 10, 1886, l vindicated
 that neither the Roman Catholic Church
 nor their Bible are sectional, but that the division of Protestant creeds and their different bibles deserved that quail iieation alone; because they are "cut of of the main Catholic religion" in the course of the 10th century. This con- cluded from the definition, given by Mir.
 Haskins, of sectarianism. IL seemed the conclusion pressed him little too hard, for from sectarianism he jumped to the supremacy of Peter, till finally he makes his stronghold in the "Papal po- liticai domination. Why not stick to the bush and stay with the first subject? I did not run away but only followed him patiently, when he played hide and seek to avoid the point of my arguments, Neither do run away now, as you will see. stay with what said in my last letter and emphasize now every word oft, although had not the honor of hearing a single lecture at the propaganda. My youth entities me to the mercy of Mir Haskins. am glad to see it, although never accept such mercy as would throw the rope around my neck. l ,tand always to defend my religion against islander and lies, and am not frightened by the vain threats of Prot estant minister. My quotations and ar guments, published in the columns of the EPITAPH, are given with reason and facts. Also, quoted the books and names of my authors. This, my rever. end opponent, has till now forgotten to do. Seeing that my ,hesis of supremacy was attacked in false assertion of papal political domination, turned against him the consequences of his ignorance or malice. Knowing that man would deny that two and two maSe four if il was in his interest, made an end to the discussion. This provoked five columns of the blackest bitterness against the Catholic religion from the pen of MT. Haskins. He affirms again that de. pend in my theis on "politcal denom- nation of the popes;" that all the Catho. lies must admit it. Here I ask ques- ton: Does Catholic priest or Prot estant minister know what Catholics be- leve or what they do not believe? Per haps somebody might think that with us it is the same internal chaos in matters of religion as with the sects. think no protestant minister must be SO insolent as to prescribe to Catholics their rule of failh-they might laugh at his comical
 isplay of religion. Mir. Haskins argues that the Roman Catholic Church was built on the ruins of the Roman Empire. Now let us see whether this is lie or not. Till now we were discussing the supremacy of Peter and the popes. es- pecially in the four councils of the early times of Christianity. Here he denies the existence of the Romon Catholic Church in those times. Which of the two assertions does he take as lie? For my part he may take either one. Bah!
 That is mean of minister of the Cos pei. Let him speak now of his reputa. tion.
 Then he continues in the same spirit to prove the political power of the popes, from Catholic authorities. Yes, my dear friend, in the Middle Ages the pope had such power, and claimed it also to be privilege of the supremacy, with many oi the old canon laws in matters of politics. But te what purpose all that compilation "f nonsense 10 prove a thing that had never been denied. 1 ask the public whether we discussed the supremacy of St. Peter and the first popes or or the DO. litical domination of these same popes ten centuries lateri What a ridiculous subterfuge that political domination is, the following facts show: Were the popes that governed the Catholic Church dur ing ten long centuries before that politi- cal domination not as good successors of St. Peter, with his privileges, as those of the Middle Ages? Have the Cath. olics of today not the same be- lief as they had in the Middle Ages? Is the now gloriously reigning Pope Leo XIII inferior in anything to the Ur- bans and Gregorys who exercised that political powerl Does it not show a great prejudice to assert that defended the political domination of the papacy,
 when l upheld the supremacy of the le. gitimate successors of St. Peter. With
 regard to the discipline and doctrine of
 the Cathollc church over the constitu.