I like the wittiness of the reply, 
but I just don’t know that the objections of former paganism and papalism are necessarily of the same nature.
The Scriptures speak to us pretty specifically concerning the distinction between sacrificing meat to idols, versus the meat itself. The meat is clean to the Christian who eats with a clean conscience. The meat may be enjoyed with thanksgiving, and it is made holy by the word of God and by prayer (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:4-5). So I can say with a clean conscience, so what if my pagan viking forefathers made kringla to celebrate their heathen gods? That doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy kringla as a Christian to the glory of Christ.
The papal objection is different though. The reason we are protestants, after all, owes to the fact that we reject certain doctrines as heretical which the Catholic church holds. Included among those doctrines are the supposed apostolic authority of the pope, and the dangers of elevating the traditions of men over and against Scripture. Therefore, if the tradition of Christmas exists for essentially no other historical reason than papal decree, it seems incumbent upon the protestant to give a coherent basis for why he embraces it.
As Spurgeon said somewhere, it makes sense that a papist would regard Christmas as holy. But it doesn’t make sense for the protestant.