The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1886-02-09
Reioinder to Rev. l. A Quito, Rec
tor st Peters.

Reioinder to Rev. l. A. Quito, Rec
tor st. Peters.
Ma. Enron: ]. Father Quito may ray
that uttermnc,s Of Is years ago, quoted
/ from memory VIII not be received a. an
argument in a doctriual discussion, The
que-tion pending Is not Of doctrine, it il
onc Of fact. VIZ "Dors the Roman Catholic
| Church teach that marriage ~ performed
| by Methodist- il true matrinony p A
living witness solcmnly ayers thathe heard
IL priest say in a Roman Catholic Church
that the only true marriage is that per-
formed by the Catholic Church. This
witness il cnrroboriicd by the memory 81
other persons now living So Father Dulto
must either impeach the witnesses, or
allow that Rpmi.h priests contradict
themselves in expOunding the doctrines
Of their church II he fails in both OF
these be NUT admit his error. The boat
Of the Roruirh Church ia that it is unit
in all it, d,liverancrs from the Pope down
10 the priest and The Bible says, "ouI Of
the mouths Of two or three witnesses phall
every word be established"
2. My second argument to prove that.
Roman Catholics taught that marriage
-oemnzed 10y Melhodsts was not rue
mstrmony, was based upon the fact that
IN two alleged cases marriage was re-
soemnzed by priests OF parties who had
been married by Methodist minister,
Father Quito replies TO this: Although
am lar from saying that every marrlag,
even Of Catholics, by Melhodists is null
aud void, nevertheless, | refuse to consider
his argument because it is not to the
point" But, Father Quito, | will hold
you to the point, and all men shtll see
| the prrtineucy Of the argument whether
YOU conrider it or not The argument j.
based upon fact, Romi-h priests did alb
-olutoly require parties to be re married
| who were married by a Methodist Minister
! Now. if this did not indicate that the form
er marriage was not true one, what in tn,
name OF reason did it iudicute2 Account
lor it az CA please, the fact -tarcs you in
| the face that the only thing which rende' ed
these marriages. untrue, and r quired tneu
! to be performed over again, was, that they
had been performed 10y Methodist Min
| i-tcr
/ Father Quito attaches importance to the
| fact that the parties in each of these cases
! were OF the Rumish faith Well if Melho.
! dist Ministers cannot perform true MARI
ipe for people OF the Romish faith, eau
| they do so Tor people OF Methodist faith
| Would Father Quito teach by this idea
! that while almost any sort Of marriage
even that performed by me, might do we'll
enough for Methodist people, still for pen
] 1 l. { .srl l.. / -
! be demanded. | would resent more hearti.
! " this lmputaton than the other one:
might admit that Father Dutto was superb
or to nue. IA education and in other point,
OF view, but | would indignantly deny that
the members Of his church were worthiel
ol true marriage than those who belong &c
miue,
| 3. Father utto seems TO think that my
/ b Isl argument il the one taken from tn,
| Council OF Trent, and the only escape he
| hnds from its inevitable conclusion Is "be
cause the accepted opinion of Catholic the
ougious is that the contracting partie'
[ themselves are ministers OF the sacrament
OF mutrimony and not the officiating priest
who is simply an official witness to The
Inuptial cnutract.n Is this true2 Can il
I ht IurHihlt kiltN tllNT AL We nave ltdII
about the eanctily of marriage il
| the Roman Catholic Church, that
they absolutely admit that unordain.
Ell lips can solemnize it, aud that
| the priest occupies about the same relation
to the transaction thar the Circuit Court
clerk does, simply IAN official witness II
Father Duttu's Bishop does not uufrock
him Tor his utterauce rs untrue, then thi,
inevitable conclusion follows. viz: that d
bad man aud a bad WON, n (such do some.
times marJyl and an herelloal minister Call
Protestant ministers are branded heretiCs
by the Romish Church, can perform n
saCrauent, yes q sacrament which is IN
the same sacred list as the sacra,
ment ol the Lords Supper, Alas! how
this strips the holy vestments from our
conception of a pure form OF a sacrament
and ,thrnsts upon it garments that are gro
te,que and shameless! Father Quito vir.
tually admits that he did not answer my
arguments by adding, iii what have said
does not convice my opponent, | hereby
declare that as Il Catholic Priest, | do be-
lieve that marriages properly contracted in
the pr. sence ui amy Methodist Minister Ia
Mississippi by baptized persons OF any
Protestant (ltalics minel denomina-
ton are true, binding and sacra.
ameutal marriages" But even this
remnant Of salvo for his cause shall
not be left him. The putting in OF the
word Protestant is pitiable dod ging of
the question at issue. The report OF the
Board OF Education under'',r ticlSm has not
a syllable about protestant marriage; it
Condemns the practice of patronizing
schools whose church teaches that our
ministers are not true ministers, and one
way such church teaches 1t, is by marry
ing over again their own people who were
N arried by oar ministers.
1t is somewhat amusing that Father
Duuo writes II an not Concerned about
the opinions of Mr.. {, Il. Andrews about
the Roman Catholics" and vet, in the
same connection, after having virtually ad-
mltted that his Arguments are not convinc-
ing, he rests his whole case upon, II hereby