Your substantive reproof can be expected to simply be dismissed as others, and the same propaganda reposted as if it was irrefutable. For as Newman also said, going "deep in history,"
"in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html
Even EOs state,
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html .
And as Steve Hays states ,
In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain [see link]. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position. Of which dogmatic development of doctrine see links.
And the same Newman affirmed,
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}; http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html)
And Newman's view of history is that of one under the spell of the imaginary Mary of Catholicism , versus the virtuous one of Scripture who is to be honored, as with other servant of God.
He might have endued that being, so created, with a richer grant of grace, of power, of blessedness: but in one respect she surpasses all even possible creations, viz., that she is Mother of her Creator. . What outfit of sanctity, what fullness and redundance of grace, what exuberance of merits must have been hers,... St. Cyril, too, at Ephesus, "Hail. Mary, Mother of God,...through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified . . . through whom Angels and Archangels rejoice, devils are put to flight.. (Works taken from "Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II); http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp
Basil of Seleucia says that, "she shines out above all the martyrs as the sun above the stars, and that she mediates between God and men." "Run through all creation in your thought," says Proclus, "and see if there be one equal or superior to the Holy Virgin, Mother of God." And St. Cyril, too, at Ephesus, "Hail. Mary, Mother of God,...through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified . . . through whom Angels and Archangels rejoice, devils are put to flight.. (Works taken from "Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II); http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp
Probably. As if it will be even read through and considered. Historians from more than a hundred years ago now -- have supplied the refutation --- which even many [Roman] Catholic historians agree upon as being the real "history", as you have frequently and abundantly shown on these pages.
So while the refutations will be ignored, and ourselves called "haters" by some (irregardless of the validity of the information which our disputations are much supported by...as you continued;
which of course is the same propaganda which has been soundly refuted, time and again.
Meanwhile, on other threads, the likes of we-'uns are likened to swine.
Fighting words --spitwads, what's the difference?
It means one thing --they are losing, and losing badly in some areas of their propaganda war, on these pages.
So if we "dig deeper" in the history we find 'sanctification' of pagan practices because the Roman Church says so. Opens the door for the Roman Church to futher 'sanctify' that which it sees fit.