Throwing out a bunch of quotes is not argument. To reference eminent theologians from the Catholic side and former well known Protestants theologians who have converted to Catholicism with educated “socialists etc” is what’s terribly pathetic with your argument. If that’s all you can say, its equivalent to saying you are dumbfounded and really you have no response.
You ask for biblical reference to support veneration of relics and when provided you scurry away.
And then your quote on Irenaeus its laughable since he was talking about known heresies at the time of his day that denied either the full humanity or divinity of Christ.
But since you reference Irenaeus as an authority, perhaps this debate ends and you should accept the following:
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]
Bingo!
Well, then I will throw out all of your quoting from those who "converted to Catholicism" and all your "church fathers" which you like to post. Oh, and the quote you posted.
>>perhaps this debate ends and you should accept the following:<<
I accept what Jesus and the apostles taught. The only reason I ever quote your so called "church fathers" is to show the duplicity of Catholic thinking and belief.