This post can perhaps be considered an expansion of a previous one. A while ago, I made a post that examined a quote I had seen people copy/paste online a bunch (that they clearly had not bothered verifying due to errors in it). However, as is often the case with copy/pasted quotes, it's often accompanied by various other copy/pasted quotes that they appear to have not bothered to verify either. Now, depending on the person doing the copy/pasting, the quotes found with it can vary, but there are some that frequently accompany it, and I thought it would be worth checking those out also.
These are often preceded with some kind of comment like claiming the Catholic Church admits its beliefs or practices come from paganism (which is odd when that happens, given that a bunch of these quotes aren't even from Catholics). However, some of these can be used as an attack on Christianity in general, making them an odd choice to try to attack Catholicism with. As is often the case with these sorts of things, exactly who originally came up with these citations is unclear.
In any event, I'll first give the various quotes accompanied with a short description of what my examination of them turned up, then go through them again in far more depth.
"In order to attach to Christianity great attraction in the eyes of
the nobility, the priests adopted the outer garments and adornments
which were used in pagan cults." -Life of Constantine, Eusabius, cited
in Altai-Nimalaya, p. 94 This is the one that was looked at in
the original post. This is not a quote by Eusebius.
"It is interesting to note how often
our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use
among pagans...Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic
rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds...."
(The Externals of the Catholic Church, Her Government, Ceremonies,
Festivals, Sacramentals and Devotions, by John F. Sullivan, p 156,
published by P.J. Kennedy, NY, 1942) Taken out of context. This is talking about holy water and notes that while pagans made use of the concept, it ascribes the origin of Christian usage to Jewish practices.
"The retention of
the old pagan name of Dies Solis, for Sunday is, in a great measure,
owing to the union of pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first
day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects - pagan
and Christian alike - as the 'venerable' day of the sun." -Arthur P.
Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 184 This cuts out part of the actual quote, and (depending on how one interprets the source) it either offers nothing to claims of pagan origins or is making
an argument that doesn't make sense.
"It has often
been charged... that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan
incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation - and even
to make it her boast... the great god Pan is not really dead, he is
baptized" -The Story of Catholicism p 37 An important qualifying portion is cut out ("Only it would change the terms to some extent; it regards the process
as a willingness to absorb the true, the good and the beautiful,
wherever they may be found, and to indulge all harmless human
propensities"), and it gives no indication as to what the supposed "pagan incrustations" are.
Cardinal Newman admits in his
book that; the "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, are all of pagan origin,
and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." -An Essay on The
Development of the Christian Doctrine John Henry "Cardinal Newman" p.359 If
Newman is actually saying all these things came to Christianity
specifically from paganism, he seems incorrect;
however, he may be simply saying that these were things pagans did, but
were not necessarily taken specifically from pagans when used in Christianity.
The
penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known
that Rome was called the "New Babylon." -Faith of our fathers 1917 ed.
Cardinal Gibbons, p. 106 The source does not say this.
"The Church did everything it could to stamp out such 'pagan' rites,
but had to capitulate and allow the rites to continue with only the name
of the local deity changed to some Christian saint's name." -Religious
Tradition and Myth. Dr. Edwin Goodenough, Professor of Religion, Harvard
University. p. 56, 57 Evidence is not given, and the only example he offers is speculative and concerns only a local custom.
"The popes filled the place of the vacant
emperors at Rome, inheriting their power, their prestige, and their
titles from PAGANISM." (Stanley's History, page 40) This is misquoted; most importantly, it does not say "from paganism" but "which they [Roman emperors] had themselves derived from the days of their paganism." In context, it says the Roman emperors moved from Rome to Constantinople, which caused the popes to gain the prestige and power that the emperors had which had lasted from pagan days. It is not saying that these things came to the pope from actual pagan religion.
The above is done so people can get quick results of the examination; for those who want something in more depth, we'll now begin with that.
"In order to attach to Christianity great attraction in the eyes of the nobility, the priests adopted the outer garments and adornments which were used in pagan cults." -Life of Constantine, Eusabius, cited in Altai-Nimalaya, p. 94
This was already discussed in the prior post, so if someone wants more detail go there. Still, as a summary, this quote by all appearances is false. First, you can be confident people who share the quote with the above citation have never bothered to take even the slightest steps to verify it; if they had, they would have discovered there is no work called "Altai-Himalaya". The work is actually Altai-Nimalaya (also, Life of Constantine was by Eusebius, not Eusabius). But as to the quote itself, while Altai-Himalaya makes reference to it, it does not tell us where in the work it is, and it appears to repeat a false quote of Pope Leo X next to it, further raising suspicion it's inaccurate. It ultimately appears to all date back to another writer (John Henry Newman) making a similar statement to the above, not as a quote of Eusebius, but as a summary of what he thought Eusebius said, although Newman's citations of Eusebius don't seem to back his summary up. Roerich then presented a paraphrase of Newman's summary as the actual words of Eusebius.
"It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans...Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds...." (The Externals of the Catholic Church, Her Government, Ceremonies, Festivals, Sacramentals and Devotions, by John F. Sullivan, p 156, published by P.J. Kennedy, NY, 1942)
I did not find a 1942 edition, but did find one from 1918 which had the quote on the applicable page. The context, however, indicates that it is not saying these practices--at least not the one it was discussing--actually came from paganism, but rather it was just something that the pagans also did. The above quote comes from the discussion on holy water, and it goes on to say:
"Water is the natural element for cleansing, and hence its usage was common in almost every ancient faith, to denote interior purification. Among the Greeks and Romans the sprinkling of water, or "lustration," was an important feature of religious ceremonies. Cities were purified by its use, in solemn processions. Fields were prepared for planting by being blessed with water. Armies setting out for war were put under the protection of the gods by being sprinkled in a similar manner. Among the Egyptians the use of holy water was even more common, the priests being required to bathe in it twice every day and twice every night, that they might thereby be sanctified for their religious duties. The Brahmins and others of the far Orient, and even the Indians of our own continent have always attached great importance to ceremonial purification by means of water."
So it mentions the usage of holy water by pagans. However, it then adds:
"Among the Jews the sparkling of the people, the sacrifices, the sacred vessels, etc., was enjoined by the regulations laid down by Moses in the books of Exodus and Leviticus; and it was undoubtedly from these practices of the Mosaic law that our Church took many of the details of her rituals in regard to holy water."
Thus it clearly ascribes the origin of the usage of holy water in Catholicism not to pagans, but to Jewish practices that predated Christianity and originated from the Old Testament. Its point is simply say to that the usage of holy water is shared by pagan religions, but never says it actually came from them (it is possible for separate groups to come to the same idea independently). It instead asserts that it came from the Jews. Thus, the quote has been misrepresented by ignoring context.
"The retention of the old pagan name of Dies Solis, for Sunday is, in a great measure, owing to the union of pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects - pagan and Christian alike - as the 'venerable' day of the sun." -Arthur P. Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 184
The full title of the work is actually "Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church". First, the above quote is not quite what it says in the book. Here is what it actually says:
"The retention of the old Pagan name of 'Dies Solis,' or 'Sunday,' for the weekly Christian festival is, in great measure, owing to the union of Pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects Pagan and Christian alike, as the 'venerable day of the Sun.'"
The changes in capitalization and punctuation are not particularly important, but the alleged quote replaces "or" with "for" and cuts out "for the weekly Christian festival."
As the quote (along with the rest) is normally presented without commentary outside of sometimes a generic heading of claiming the Catholic Church admits to be taking things from paganism (even though this author appears to have been an Anglican), it is difficult to determine exactly what we are supposed to take from this. In fact, it's a bit confusing as to what the original text is even trying to say. "Dies Solis" is not retained as the name of the day. As far as I can tell, all the Romance languages (those descended from Latin) derive their name of the first day of the week from the Latin word dominus, meaning lord. Thus domingo in Spanish, domenica in Italian, or dimanche in French. Latin itself later switched from Dies Solis to Dominica. So if this is the assertion, this doesn't make sense.
Or perhaps it is talking about English having the word Sun in Sunday, but this can hardly be ascribed to anything about Constantine; as noted, Latin and the Romance languages dropped any reference to the Sun, as did Greek, the other major language of the Roman Empire (originally it was "ἡμέρα Ἡλίου" (day of the sun or day of Helios), but now it is called Κυριακή (Kyriaki or Kyriake), which derives from κύριος (kyrios), meaning "lord"). It was the Germanic languages like English, spoken by those outside of the Roman Empire, which retained reference to the Sun in the name. So if this is the assertion, this doesn't make sense.
Most likely, the book is referring specifically to how the phrase "Dies Solis" was retained in Constantine's declaration rather than using the more specifically Christian term of referring to it. If that is the case, though, any issue seems to disappear, as would merely be saying Constantine used neutral language (Day of the Sun rather than the way Christians said Day of the Lord or Lord's Day). Therefore the "union of Pagan and Christian sentiment" would refer to the day being esteemed by Christians but being referred to in this instance by Constantine using the older and pre-Christian name of Dies Solis, even if the decree itself was presumably based on having the day off being more useful to Christians as they held their assemblies on that date. The "union" is therefore in nothing more than using a more neutral term for the day.
So it seems either the claim Arthur Stanley makes is wrong or it isn't really talking about anything being based on or taken from paganism. Either way, it offers nothing to prove pagan origin of anything.
"It has often been charged... that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation - and even to make it her boast... the great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized" -The Story of Catholicism p 37
One will try in vain to try to find any work called "Story of Catholicism". The work is actually called "The Story of American Catholicism". Again we see how those who copy/paste these quotes do not bother to check them.
The above quote takes out an important statement, though. Here is what it says in full, and I have underlined the portions that were left out:
"It has often been charged–usually by the narrower sort of Protestant controversialist–that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism, it must be added, is ready to accept the accusation–and even to make it her boast. Only it would change the terms to some extent; it regards the process as a willingness to absorb the true, the good and the beautiful, wherever they may be found, and to indulge all harmless human propensities. The great god Pan is not really dead; he is baptized."
The dropping out of the phrase "usually by the narrower sort of Protestant controversialist" is not particularly important, even if it's short enough I see no reason to not retain it. The removal of "it must be added" is also not particularly important, but it is notable that it does not acknowledge anything was removed, as there is no ellipsis in the quote. However, the last one cut is far more problematic, as it provides considerable qualification for its statement: Its assertion is that the "pagan incrustations" are only "the true, the good, and the beautiful" or "to indulge all harmless human propensities."
Given this qualification, it seems to be saying that Catholicism is willing to tolerate things that come from pagans so long as it is not intrinsically tied to their pagan religion and does not go against Christian belief. This seems to me to be a rather different thing than the edited quote suggested. Regardless, as no examples are given of these "pagan incrustations" in the work (this was a side remark), it is difficult to determine what is being referred to. But the qualification makes it sound more like it is saying that Catholicism is willing to utilize things from pagan societies that are true/good/beautiful, or to "indulge all harmless human propensities", none of which sound like an accepting of things in pagan religion itself.
So ultimately, this quote seems too vague to be able to ascertain anything from, given its lack of examples of what it is talking about, and it is misrepresented due to cutting things out of it.
Cardinal Newman admits in his book that; the "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, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." -An Essay on The Development of the Christian Doctrine John Henry "Cardinal Newman" p.359
This is a quote that gets thrown around quite a bit in different forms. The quote is indeed found in Newman's work. At first glance this seems quite powerful given that we have a Catholic making such a statement that all these things are of pagan origin. The problem is that if Newman is saying these things were taken from paganism, he simply seems wrong in a lot of this.
The simple fact is, a lot make no sense to say that for. As I saw someone else notice when they were discussing this quote, one can find a lot of these things in the Bible itself; for some examples, "holy water" is mentioned in Numbers 5:17, the usage of "candles" and "incense" is in Exodus 30:27, "holidays" are explicitly referred to on various occasions (e.g. Passover) and they obviously had a "calendar" given that's how they knew when they would be done, "processions" occur in 2 Samuel 6:15, "blessings on the fields" are in Genesis 49:26, and "sacerdotal vestments" are in Exodus 28:4, etc. "Kyrie Eleison" is an especially odd one given it's found word-for-word in the Greek of Matthew 17:15.
What is confusing to me is what exactly Newman means by "of pagan origin." Having read through the chapter of his work this quote comes from, at some points it seems he's saying these were adopted specifically from paganism, but in other points it seems he's saying these were things pagans did that the Church also did, but didn't specifically taken them from paganism, and that the pagan practices being similar were just them having some level of truth in them.
Prior to the above quote, Newman says "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us." The first sentence, which appears to be the origin of the false Eusebius quote discussed earlier, makes it look like they actually did take things from paganism, though as observed in the examination of that quote, Newman's citations to Eusebius do not seem to bear him out on this. The second sentence indicates he is getting his information from Protestant writers.
It should be noted immediately that he published this in 1845, so whoever these Protestant writers are, they clearly are out of date in regards to scholarship and thus their information could be in error from being outdated. It is understandable for him to be out of date compared to more than a century and a half later, but it's not so understandable for someone nowadays to be appealing to a source from this far back. Given that Newman's claim about Eusebius and Constantine he made immediately prior was really not backed up by the citations, one should be cautious about further claims on the subject made without citations. And none of the above, except for the mention of Kyrie Eleison, is offered with any kind of citation.
In regards to that footnote, it says "According to Dr. E. D. Clarke, Travels, vol. i. p. 352." If one looks that up, it is talking about Russian churches, and mentions that they say in Russian "Lord have mercy on us" which is what Kyrie Eleison means (it is Greek for "lord have mercy"). It then adds in a footnote itself "It is an antient [sic] Heathen prayer. Vossius says that Κυριε ελιησον was a usual form of prayer among the Gentiles as well as the Jews. So Arrian, [difficult to make out Greek text, but ending with Κυριε ελιησον] "Calling upon God, we pray, Lord have mercy upon us!" Arrian. Epict. lib. ii. c. 7."
The Greek text Κυριε ελιησον is Kyrie eleison. It is not clear who this Vossius is (I can see several candidates) or where he said it, but we can look into the citation of Arrian, namely "Discourses of Epictetus". That is found here, and we do indeed see this phrase. However, as noted above, the phrase is found in the Bible itself. I can hardly imagine that Newman would be unaware of the fact the phrase is found in the Bible. Is he saying the Bible took it from paganism? Or is perhaps throwing it in there to demonstrate how taking things from paganism isn't inherently bad, if such a phrase is used in the New Testament, with the phrase perhaps inspired by pagan usage?
It could also be what he is saying with the rest is not that these things in Christianity or Catholicism were taken specifically from pagans, but rather that they were things that pagans also did that Christians started doing at some point independent of the pagans. In other words, pagans would use the phrase "Kyrie Eleison" and so would Christians, but Christians didn't specifically taken it from pagan religion (Arrian's works were, for the record, written and published several decades after the Gospels). After all, the New Testament is filled with words or phrases one can find used by pagans, given they were both using Greek.
If this is his intent, it means the list makes more sense; some certainly are things from the Old Testament, but were also things pagans did. And Newman subsequently says the following, as if to argue against those who use his above list to argue for Christianity/Catholicism just taking things from pagan religions:
"Since it has been represented as if the power of assimilation, spoken of in this Chapter, is in my meaning nothing more than a mere accretion of doctrines or rites from without, I am led to quote the following passage in further illustration of it from my "Essays," vol. ii. p. 231:—
"The phenomenon, admitted on all hands, is this:—That great portion of what is generally received as Christian truth is, in its rudiments or in its separate parts, to be found in heathen philosophies and religions. For instance, the doctrine of a Trinity is found both in the East and in the West; so is the ceremony of washing; so is the rite of sacrifice. The doctrine of the Divine Word is Platonic; the doctrine of the Incarnation is Indian; of a divine kingdom is Judaic; of Angels and demons is Magian; the connexion of sin with the body is Gnostic; celibacy is known to Bonze and Talapoin; a sacerdotal order is Egyptian; the idea of a new birth is Chinese and Eleusinian; belief in sacramental virtue is Pythagorean; and honours to the dead are a polytheism. Such is the general nature of the fact before us; Mr. Milman argues from it,—'These things are in heathenism, therefore they are not Christian:' we, on the contrary, prefer to say, 'these things are in Christianity, therefore they are not heathen.' That is, we prefer to say, and we think that Scripture bears us out in saying, that from the beginning the Moral Governor of the world has scattered the seeds of truth far and wide over its extent; that these have variously taken root, and grown as in the wilderness, wild plants indeed but living; and hence that, as the inferior animals have tokens of an immaterial principle in them, yet have not souls, so the philosophies and religions of men have their life in certain true ideas, though they are not directly divine. What man is amid the brute creation, such is the Church among the schools of the world; and as Adam gave names to the animals about him, so has the Church from the first looked round upon the earth, noting and visiting the doctrines she found there. She began in Chaldea, and then sojourned among the Canannites, and went down into Egypt, and thence passed into Arabia, till she rested in her own land. Next she encountered the merchants of Tyre, and the wisdom of the East country, and the luxury of Sheba. Then she was carried away to Babylon, and wandered to the schools of Greece. And wherever she went, in trouble or in triumph, still she was a living spirit, the mind and voice of the Most High; 'sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions;' claiming to herself what they said rightly, correcting their errors, supplying their defects, completing their beginnings, expanding their surmises, and thus gradually by means of them enlarging the range and refining the sense of her own teaching. So far then from her creed being of doubtful credit because it resembles foreign theologies, we even hold that one special way in which Providence has imparted divine knowledge to us has been by enabling her to draw and collect it together out of the world, and, in this sense, as in others, to 'suck the milk of the Gentiles and to suck the breast of kings.""
Some of these examples seem questionable to me, such as "the doctrine of a Trinity is found both in the East and the West." This sometimes get brought up by those who try to claim Christianity is just copying pagan religions, but in my experience the alleged "trinities" that get brought up ultimately have little resemblance to that of Christianity or actually appear to only have been developed after the Trinity doctrine was explicitly established in Christendom.
At any rate, Newman's position, as articulated above, appears to be less that Catholicism/Christianity took the things in his list from paganism, but rather that paganism, due to having some truth in their religions, happened to also have these things. If so, the quote is of no use in claiming that Christianity/Catholicism deliberately took these things from paganism.
On the other hand, we cannot overlook the earlier statements indicating that things were taken from pagans. Thus it is unclear to me what Newman thought on this subject, given at some points he seems to be saying they were taken from paganism but at other points seems to reject that idea. Still, if Newman was in fact saying these things came to Catholicism and/or Christianity through paganism, for reasons given above, this assertion seems inaccurate (and evidence is not provided by Newman for it). It looks to me like Newman, living in the 19th century, could have been relying on some incorrect information, with his questionable Eusebius invocation perhaps being an example. And if he was saying that while the list of things was like what some pagans did, they did not specifically come to Christianity from paganism, then it obviously is of no benefit to claiming they did come from paganism.
So whichever way one interprets Newman, it doesn't really provide evidence for all these things in the list being brought into Christianity from paganism.
The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known that Rome was called the "New Babylon." -Faith of our fathers 1917 ed. Cardinal Gibbons, p. 106
Regarding the work Faith of our Fathers, the phrase "The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known that Rome was called the "New Babylon"" is not found on page 106 or as far as I can tell anywhere else in the work. Now, unlike the other quotes, one notices above that it is not put in quotation marks outside of "New Babylon". This may indicate that it was not supposed to be an explicit quote (though some of those who copy/paste it do put the whole thing in quotes, so who knows which version came first). However, even if we grant that only "New Babylon" was supposed to be a quote and the rest was just a summary, it still doesn't work. Here is all that is said on page 106 that relates to the above quote (note that some 1917 editions instead have this on page 87):
""Babylon," from which Peter addresses his first Epistle, is understood by learned annotators, Protestant and Catholic, to refer to Rome–the word Babylon being symbolical of the corruption then prevailing in the city of the Caesars."
And that's all it says in regards to Babylon. It asserts that when in 1 Peter 5:13 the writers says he is in Babylon, he's using the term metaphorically to describe Rome. However, the above says nothing about the religion of Babylon penetrating Rome, nor does it ever use the phrase "New Babylon". So even if we suppose it isn't supposed to be offering an exact quote, it fails completely even as a summary. Furthermore, trying to use it as any kind of argument of pagan syncretism with Christianity fails because the actual quote is talking about Rome only in the earliest days of Christianity (as it is referring to Peter's epistle), not Rome after Christianity had gained hold of it.
So this one is simply a false citation. Even if we want to take "The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general and well known that Rome was called the "New Babylon"" as a summary rather than an exact quote, it's still a false summary of what the work says.
"The Church did everything it could to stamp out such 'pagan' rites, but had to capitulate and allow the rites to continue with only the name of the local deity changed to some Christian saint's name." -Religious Tradition and Myth. Dr. Edwin Goodenough, Professor of Religion, Harvard University. p. 56, 57
Oddly, sometimes this get posted in this form with some obvious typos, namely capitulate and deity being misspelled:
""The Church did everything it could to stamp out such 'pagan' rites, but had to capitualet and allow the rites to continue with only the name of the local diety changed to some Christian saint's name." -Religious Tradition and Myth. Dr. Edwin Goodenough, Professor of Religion, Harvard University. p. 56, 57"
But regardless of the spelling, what of the actual quote? The quote is indeed found there, though Goodenough does not really offer anything in the way of evidence for it. This means that one must essentially rely on Goodenough's authority by itself to make use of this. Now, Goodenough does seem to have been a legitimate scholar, even if he was from nearly a century ago, so his opinion does carry some weight. Unfortunately, even if we were to grant it credence simply based on the author, he is very vague about what "rites" he is actually referring to. I do not expect him to go into detail about a lot of examples, but surely he could at least give one or two with some clear evidence of how far the practice goes back.The closest thing to an actual example of such a rite is when he claims, saying it came even to other countries from immigrants, "On a flat land near New Haven there is a settlement of a thousand or more Italians who do excellent market gardening. Each year, at the Feast of the Assumption, a gaudy image of the Virgin is taken out of the little local church and carried about through the fields to bless them. It would seem to represent an early fertility rite of the Italy of a thousand years before Christ which after whatever devious history is still devoutly practiced by the people. Such is the surviving power of this religion." However, he offers no evidence of it dating to anything from any early fertility rite, and merely claims "it would seem to represent" one. And this is the only thing resembling an example he offers!
As a result, I have to conclude that Goodenough has not really offered evidence for his claims, and it is not even entirely clear what the examples are supposed to be. It ultimately therefore seems to hinge entirely on how much trust one puts into Goodenough himself. Even if we conclude he is absolutely right, his claim is so frustratingly vague it's hard to parse much out of it. Also, as the one (speculative) example he offers indicates, it appears he is only talking about local customs rather than the more formal beliefs or practices of Catholicism or Christianity.
"The popes filled the place of the vacant emperors at Rome, inheriting their power, their prestige, and their titles from PAGANISM." (Stanley's History, page 40)
The capitalization of paganism is not found in the source, for the record. Anyway, this refers to Arthur Stanley's "Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church" which was cited in one of the other quotes. However, this quote is not found on page 40. What appears to be in mind is instead on pages 38-39. It is talking about the effect of the seat of government being moved from Rome to Constantinople, and how this ended up causing the Bishop of Rome to gain more power, whereas the Bishop of Constantinople lost power as a result. It then says the following, which is presumably the origin of the quote:
"As the Pope filled the place of the absent Emperors at Rome, inheriting their power, their prestige, the titles which they had themselves derived from the days of their paganism, so the Emperors controlled, guided, personified, the Church at Constantinople."
The problem is, we can immediately see how it has been edited and misquoted. Some of the adjustments are not important for the meaning of it (such as replacing "absent" with "vacant") though it is still problematic they are there. However, in terms of changes that are very important, a key point is the fact it says "from the days of their paganism" and not "from paganism." The point it is making is that the (by that time Christian) emperors had power/prestige/titles at the time which went back to even when the emperors were pagan, and then when the emperors moved the pope gained those. It is not saying that the pope inherited power, prestige, or titles from paganism.
One thing I notice is its vagueness as to what these "titles" were, as it says nothing. Power and prestige are general concept, but a title is more specific. What are the titles that were inherited? I know some claim Pontifex Maximus came from the emperors after they discarded it, but it appears Pontifex Maximus was not applied to popes until the 15th century. It is possible that Stanley was under the incorrect impression that it was adopted in the fourth or fifth century--but as he doesn't give any examples, we have no idea what he had in mind. Regardless of what he was referring to, the actual text shows he was not saying these titles, whatever ones he had in mind, came from any pagan religion.
So once one views what was actually said rather than the misleadingly edited quote, this ends up not meaning much of anything.
Conclusion
Much like the false Eusebius quote that started this whole thing, there are a lot of problems with these quotes that are offered, with a good number of misrepresentations or misquotes. The Gibbons one is particularly bad; while it (possibly) might not have been presenting itself as a quote, even as a summary it fails. The most credible one is from Goodenough. However, to accept his claims is entirely on his person rather than any evidence, because he doesn't offer anything in the way of evidence. But even his is rather vague given his lack of examples, and the one speculative example he does give indicates his concern is more on local customs than anything in Catholicism or Christianity itself.
Thus, these quotes do not end up proving much of anything. Whatever pagan influence there might have been on Catholicism, these quotes aren't useful for determining. And the errors in the citations, yet again, show that the people who have been spreading these quotes around have not actually bothered to verify them (or even worse, might be spreading information they know is false!).
