You addressed it by the lack of mention in the Catechism--thus committing the absence of evidence argument that you accused me of. And given that I've shown (and you've not disputed) that the Catechism isn't a source that even attempts to address the issue, it's not the least bit disingenuous for me to point out that it's every bit as relevant to the discussion as The Cat in the Hat.
The Church does not use those things in the practice of the faith, therefore you cannot use those things in an attempt to disparage the Church as pagan.
While I could indeed point out areas in which the RCC is pagan-like in its theology and practices, I've not done so in this thread for two reasons: 1) Like the Catechism, my opinion on saint-veneration is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and 2) this is not an issue I consider to be relevant to the RCC and/or EOC alone: Protestants celebrate the Resurrection on Easter day with eggs too.
You seem to have a bit of tunnel-vision on the use of the term "Church" or "Ekklesia." Unlike you, I do not automatically associate either term with the RCC (or the EOC)--rather, I refer to the Body of believers that transcends denominational bounds, united in faith in the Messiah Yeshua (regardless of whether they call Him Yeshua, Jesus, Iesous, or whatever transliteration is your choice) and in the sealing of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, when I criticize the Church as a whole for a historical error or sin (particularly against the Jewish people), I am not pointing my finger at your particular denomination from afar, or anyone else's denomination, but including all of our (including my own) physical and spiritual ancestors!
The Catechism has demonstrated that the Church did not co-opt pagan symbols.
Your argument from silence is unzipped. You might want to see to that, since you've not "demonstrated" anything from the Catechism.
You have already admitted the Church did not co-opt a pagan holiday.
No, I've admitted that the etymological ("family tree" of the word) connection between Easter and Ishtar doesn't work because of a several-century gap between the change of the date and the use of the word Easter to describe the holiday. In other words, I've ceded the argument on one piece of evidence. I've also said that I'd do some digging on other parts (like the rabbits). I've maintained the matter of the symbolism of the eggs.
On the other hand, no one has argued about the Saturnalia origin of Christmas, and Campion ceded (in post #164) that there were in fact some pagan elements (like mistletoe and the Yule log) of the traditional Christmas celebration that he couldn't explain away.
Now, I think I've been a good sport about ceding arguments that I've been corrected factually on. Let's see how you do: I documented back in post #107 that Constantine and the Council of Nicea did indeed add letters to the Council's decisions commanding the eastern churches to no longer keep Passover on the correct date, which they had been doing, for the express purpose of separation from and exclusion of the Jews.
Now, are you willing to concede that the Church by a mere council of men changed a date that God Himself commanded, even though approximately half of then-existent Christendom, including many venerated fathers like Polycarp and Irenaeus, understood and practiced the keeping of Pesach on the Biblically-mandated date? If you do, the next question we can then address is why they chose the date (or rather, the calculation method) that they did.
You've not shown this.
By simple definition, changing any of God's Appointed Times, whether Passover, Sabbath, or any other Feast, would exclude Jewish believers from participating unless they became "uncircumcised" (non-Jewish) and rejected the Torah that the Apostles were scrupulous to keep (see Acts 21 again). Moreover, you can see here a number of confessions forced upon Jews who wished to be believers in the Messiah. The fact that Jewish believers have been forced for nearly twenty centuries to give up all Jewish practice in order to be accepted by the Christian Ekklesia is no historical secret.
I think we know why you still won't respond to me about my question regarding your accusation regarding the egg.
I actually did, albeit to another (Campion) in post #188. I forgot to give you the reference in my last post; sorry for the confusion.
The Cat in the Hat has just as much to do with our practice of the Catholic faith as does your list of items. The Catechism is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine. That you cannot find your list of items in the Catechism is hardly an absence of evidence. But for those who really wish it to be true, there will be no convincing.
While I could indeed point out areas in which the RCC is pagan-like in its theology and practices, I've not done so in this thread for two reasons
Yes, it is probably best that you leave that alone. Pagan-like practices can be found in everyone’s practice of the faith, including yours.
Protestants celebrate the Resurrection on Easter day with eggs too.
There is nothing any more damning there than your use of beitzah (roasted egg) in your celebrations. In the Seder meal the egg symbolizes the cycle of life and the hope for a future, among other things. What were you saying about pagan-like? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
You seem to have a bit of tunnel-vision on the use of the term "Church" or "Ekklesia."
Yes, I am speaking only about the practices of my Church. I’m sorry you have a problem with that.
I am not pointing my finger at your particular denomination from afar, or anyone else's denomination, but including all of our (including my own) physical and spiritual ancestors!
But not yourself. How convenient.
Your argument from silence is unzipped. You might want to see to that, since you've not "demonstrated" anything from the Catechism.
That you can’t find in the Catechism what you oh so want to be there, is plenty of demonstration.
No, I've admitted that the etymological ("family tree" of the word) connection between Easter and Ishtar doesn't work because of a several-century gap between the change of the date and the use of the word Easter to describe the holiday.
Then I advise you to educate your co-religionists here on FR.
I've maintained the matter of the symbolism of the eggs.
Me, too. The symbolism is no more pagan than your use of the egg as a symbol of the cycle of life and the hope for a future.
On the other hand, no one has argued about the Saturnalia origin of Christmas
It does not surprise me that celebration of Christ’s birth is pagan is your eyes.
Campion ceded (in post #164) that there were in fact some pagan elements (like mistletoe and the Yule log)
Neither of which have a part in the practice of the Catholic faith.
Now, are you willing to concede that the Church by a mere council of men changed a date that God Himself commanded
A council didn’t change what was already in practice.
By simple definition, changing any of God's Appointed Times, whether Passover, Sabbath, or any other Feast, would exclude Jewish believers from participating unless they became "uncircumcised" (non-Jewish) and rejected the Torah that the Apostles were scrupulous to keep (see Acts 21 again).
We celebrate everyday of the week, so they should be able to find a day in there somewhere that suits them.