Mitre : The Pope Hat is Pagan?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I can see why this is an issue for some and how it would fit in with the “Christianity is a copycat religion” thesis of many skeptics. What puzzles me is why another Christian would not see the obvious: we ourselves are former pagans. To say that the Pope’s hat, or an altar, or anything else has “pagan roots” is not fundamentally different than saying a “born-again Christian” or a convert has pagan roots. "Don’t pray with Joe! He has pagan roots! Preposterous.

We are all former pagans . . .

​

Second, why is the Pope’s Mitre so funny? I have a simple thesis. . .to make the Pope feel ridiculous every time he has to appear in it. Imagine yourself as a serious intellectual, with doctorates and scholarly letters, articles and books, decades of theological study and reflection and also decades of experience as a priest, bishop, etc. under your hat (pun intended). That’s rarified air, and the temptation to pride could be overwhelming at times. Now, imagine that hat is a Mitre and you have to wear it as you stroll for the cameras and for thousands of ordinary folks, fellow priests, representatives of other faith traditions, heads of state, etc. Kind of a humbling experience, wouldn’t you think?

Isn’t the highest title awarded the Holy Father that of “Slave of Christ?” If the Master says, “you’re wearing the funny hat” . . . well, you’re wearing the funny hat.

My two cents . . .

In the book all this comes from, the theology is Calvinist. And for Calvinism, there is something called “the principle of separation” - the idea being, that Christians are in the world but not of it (something we can all agree on); & that this means or entails not following after the ways of non-Christians; the motive being the desire to obey God, & not to add anything to His revealed Will. So, if God’s revelation does not positively lay down that organs are to be used in worship - they are not to be used in worship; as one example. They want to obey God, & try very hard to do so. Which does them enormous credit ISTM. They try enormously hard to make sure that nothing is left outside the scope of their obedience, however trivial-seeming​

The principle of separation has an OT background: Israel was not to follow the nations outside the Covenant; but was to be God’s holy,obedient, faithful, Covenant-People. This Covenant is still in force, in an even more demanding way: so the NT Israel - & thus, the Church since the NT - because it is in continuity with the OT Israel, has the same Covenant, but in “deepened” form: so the separation-principle is still part of the Church’s life.

In the book the mitre thing comes from, this outlook appears in a polemical form: Rome is not like the above; not a Church of Christ, but is the Great Whore of Rev.17, And All That. The problem is not that Rome’s religion has pagan roots; but, that Rome’s religion is a pagan religion, is the pagan religion - IOW, the religion of Babylon.

Having said that, while the above is the basic thesis of the book (or a part thereof), the author does in practice use the argument from pagan origins as a reason to say that X or Y is not appropriate in the Christian Church.

As you point out, the argument from pagan origins can prove too much; one of the weaknesses in the book is that it is not rigorous enough in method & logic to prevent various arguments in it proving that Catholicism is pagan, only at the cost of proving Christianity as a whole is pagan. One is left to rely, not on the arguments of the book, but on the say-so of the author instead. And he might be mistaken - his entire thesis could be a mistake. He adopts the (methodologically very dodgy) procedure of identifying the content of the Babylonian Mystery Religion by looking at the lands identified as influenced by it.

Just my penn’orth

 

[Convert66]

Gottle of Geer,

I did a fair bit of reading about Calvinism, but it took only a few readings for me to realize that any man claiming for his religion that Man is too depraved to assent to God must be taken at his word, and that doing so necessarily puts that man’s religion under suspicion of depravity.

All my best. . .

 

[bpbasilphx]

Times change. Paul VI, after his coronation in 1963, layed the papal tiara on the altar of St. Peter’s in a gesture of humility and as a sign of the renunciation of human glory and power in keeping with the renewed spirit of Vatican Council II. Since then, none of his successors has worn a tiara as it had been for the past thousand plus years or so. Now, a mitre is worn

---

**Actually, the tiara was NEVER worn by the popes for liturgical ceremonies. Always it was the mitre.

The one exception is when Pope John XXIII publicly celebrated the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, when he wore the tiara in place of the Byzantine mitre, which have the same origin.**