On his blog, Mr Abe Arganiosa posed this question:

Is It True That the Miter of the Pope and Bishops Is Patterned After Egyptian Paganism?

To which he proudly answered this:

ANSWER: DEFINITENLY NOT! THE EPISCOPAL MITER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TAKEN FROM THE HOLY GARMENTS WORN BY THE HIGH RANKING MINISTERS OF GOD IN THE TEMPLE AND THE MEETING TENT OF ISRAEL:

He then proceeded to quote bible verses from the book of Exodus that seemed to say that indeed the mitre was used by God’s ancient servants. The verses talked about ceremonies in which the priest wore a headgear. The verses he quoted from the book of Exodus were: 28:4. 28:37, 39:31, 28:39, 29:6, 39:28.

So the assertions of Mr Arganiosa on his blog are:

1. The mitre used by the Catholic church is based on God’s ancient peoples, specifically ancient Israel.
2. The mitre was used by the ancient people of God, ancient Israel.

Let examine Mr Arganiosa’s claims and see if they have some substance.

Abe Arganiosa

A casual check of the verses he quoted revealed that not all bible version render the verse to say “mitre”! Actually a good majority of bible versions render the headgear as “turban”. So, the second assertion of Mr Arganiosa that the people of God in the time of Moses wore a mitre is on a shaky foundation. He should have consulted other versions of the bible to make sure he is right but he obviously did not do this and now he’s in danger of being inadequate in his research. Or maybe he did to intentionally mislead?

The Turban, wound as a "Mitznefet" (left) for the Kohen Gadol and as a "Migba'at" (right) for the ordinary Kohen

What exactly is in the Hebrew rendition of the verses he quoted? Again a cursory check of the bible reveals that the Hebrew word which was translated to both mitre and turban by different version is “mitsnepheth“. Mitsnepheth means a piece of cloth woven around the head.  One has to agree that even today, people in the middle east wear some sort of headgear wrapped around their head to keep the sun and heat away. So it won’t be too far fetched to think that a turban is the most likely headgear used by the early inhabitants of the Middle East. In fact, some Hebrew websites describe the apparel of ancient Hebrews to include a turban.

Clearly, even common sense dictates that the “mitre” quoted by Mr Arganiosa is a turban similar to the graphic at right and is a long piece of cloth wrapped around the head. Now let’s compare this to the mitre used by the Catholic church.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org):

Mitre of the Catholic Church

The mitre is a kind of folding-cap. It consists of two like parts, each stiffened by a lining and risingto a peak; these are sewn together on the sides, but are united above by a piece of material that can fold together. Two lappets trimmed on the ends with fringe hang down from the back. The mitre is, theoretically, always supposed to be white. The official “Cæremoniale Romanum” distinguishes three kinds of mitres: the mitra pretiosa, auriphrygiata, and simplex. The first two differ from each other only in the greater or less richness of the ornamentation; the mitra simplex, or simple mitre, is one of white silk or white linen entirely without ornament. The fringe on the lappets at the back should be red.

Origin

The pontifical mitre is of Roman origin: it is derived from a non-liturgical head-covering distinctive of the pope, the camelaucum, to which also the tiara is to be traced. The camelaucum was worn as early as the beginning of the eighth century, as is shown by the biography of Pope Constantine I (708- 815) in the “Liber Pontificalis”. The same headcovering is also mentioned in the so-called “Donation of Constantine”. The Ninth Ordo states that the camelaucum was made of white stuff and shaped like a helmet. The coins of Sergius III (904-11) and of Benedict VII (974-83), on which St. Peter is portrayed wearing a camelaucum, give the cap the form of a cone, the original shape of the mitre. The camelaucum was worn by the pope principally during solemn processions. The mitre developed from the camelaucum in this way: in the course of the tenth century the pope began to wear this head-covering not merely during processions to the church, but also during the subsequent church service. Whether any influence was exerted by the recollection of the sacerdotal head-ornament of the high-priest of the Old Testament is not known, but probably not—at least there is no trace of any such influence. It was not until the mitre was universally worn by bishops that it was called an imitation of the Jewish sacerdotal head-ornament.

source: newadvent.org

Need I say more? A folding cap is not at all similar to a long piece of linen cloth wrapped around the head. The Catholic encyclopedia has more than enough information contradicting Mr Arganiosa’s claims. Too bad that Mr Arganiosa seems to not even know the history of his own religion.

To recap, we’ve just established that both of Mr Arganiosa’s claim are not true and also established the following:

1. The mitre used by the Catholic church is not based on the turban used by the ancient people of God.
2. A turban was used by the ancient people of God.

But then we’re still left by the question posed to Mr Arganiosa, which is

Is It True That the Miter of the Pope and Bishops Is Patterned After Egyptian Paganism?

"St". Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, wearing a mitre

As is stated by the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Pope’s mitre is of Roman origin! Read again, Roman origin, NOT Christian origin. It is derived from camelaucum. What is a camelaucum?  Again, the Catholic encyclopedia tells us that the camelaucum was first used  by Pope Constantine during his reign in the 8th century and was part of the supposed donation of Emperor Constantine.

Suffice it to say, we can safely assert with much authority that Mr Arganiosa doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that the mitre used by the Catholic church is of pagan influence.

Ask yourself this: do you think a supposedly Christian religion is well justified in using a pagan instrument in its practices?

Abe Arganiosa

The Roman Catholic priest Abe Arganiosa is a big disappointment. One would expect so much more from a supposedly “learned”, “schooled”, “educated” person. And yet, judging from his blog entries, Mr Arganiosa is all show and no substance. For a view of this amazing let down, read on:

Misinterpretation of Scriptures

He was talking about bible interpretation and claimed the the church, his church the Roman Catholic church is the official interpreter of the bible. Yeah right! To be honest and blunt, there’s not a single Roman Catholic doctrine that is based on the teachings of the bible, let alone the Lord Jesus Christ. And not only are the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church NOT biblical, they go against teachings written in the bible. I’ve already enumerated a few in this blog which have not been refuted by any catholic defender. Let’s name a few:

• Bowing and worshiping idols
• Forbidding to marry
• Commanding to abstain from eating meat

And who can forget the biggest snow job in the history of mankind, the doctrine of the trinity! Their own websites admit and confirm that the trinity doctrine is not biblical, therefore it is an addition and replacement to the teachings of the Apostles.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of “the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen (“In Ps. xvii”, 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270

newadvent.org

Why the need for saints?

Canonization Ceremony

First, let’s define who saints are and what makes them saints. In particular, catholic “saints”. Catholic saints are another form of a money making scheme developed by the Roman Catholic. If one would look into how someone becomes a saint it would be evident that it involves money. A lot of  this money goes to the Vatican. So basically if you’re foreign to the Vatican Hierarchy, you need to have a lot of money and are willing to spend it if you wanted to be “sainted”. Miguel Arroyo, the Philippine presidents husband is now in the process of making one of his aunts a saint. Let’s hope it doesn’t involve government money intended for the poverty stricken flood victims. But I digress.

Mr Arganiosa mentioned a few names whom he said were saints and said these are not to be set aside. Curious thing is that he did not provide any basis as to why these names are saints and what their role is in the worship of God. Again let’s consult newadvent.org, a catholic website. It says:

Patron Saints – A patron is one who has been assigned by a venerable tradition, or chosen by election, as a special intercessor with God

You read it right! Catholic saints are supposedly “special intercessor” with God, or another “mediator”! A special one at that! Does this agree with the bible? Absolutely not! Here:

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

As you can read, there is only ONE mediator between God and men, and it is the Lord Jesus Christ. Can anyone be more special than the Saviour? Ask Abe that.

God created Himself?

This has to be the most absurd statement ever made. Mr Arganiosa claims God made himself into a man. This is so wrong in so many points so let’s see a few of them for Mr Arganiosa’s benefit.

• God will not be man because He said so Himself.
• Jesus Christ, whom catholic claim is also God said there is ONLY ONE God the Father in Heaven. So to even think that God became Jesus is absurd.
• Jesus Christ died on the cross. God is immortal

So we ask, if the Roman Catholics did not derive their doctrines from the bible then where did they get the idea that God made Himself man, or similarly, that a man made himself God? Where else but from Greek Mythology by way of Plato. You don’t need a degree on Theology to know that.

“Dionysus, like Jesus, was son of the divine ruler of the world and a mortal mother, appeared in human form among mortals, was killed and restored to life. Early Christian writers, aware of the similarity between Christianity and mystery-cult, claim that the latter is a diabolical imitation of the former” (Dionysus, Richard Seaford, 126.)

There you go. A few things to answer Abe Arganiosa’s preposterous claims. I sure hope he learns something.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about the trinity doctrine:

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): “The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son“

Is this biblical? Certainly not! For in the Old Testament this is clearly stated:

“To whom will you compare me? Who is my equal?” asks the Holy One.

Clear as day. God the Father Himself said He has no equal. So for mere men to say that God has an equal is the highest form of blasphemy! Supporters of the trinity doctrine will surely and quickly point out this verse:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Saying that this particular verse clearly states Jesus is equal to God. Well, take your pick. We have two verses that seems to contradict each other. Which verse holds true and which one becomes a case of wrong interpretation, erroneous translation, careless paraphrasing or all three. This verse puts this argument to rest:

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.

Swedish tapestry depicting Odin, Thor and Freyr

Is it not a big deal to say let alone teach something that is totally opposite what God said? In the first book of the Bible, Genesis is recorded another instance where some entity deceived man by saying something totally opposite what God had said. God said:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

A very simple instruction. And what did God’s adversary said that is totally opposite? And who is this adversary?

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

So be careful friends. Question your own understanding of what is being taught by your religious organization.

Is this teaching of a triune God, promulgated by so called “church fathers” at the council at Constantinople in 381 AD agreed to by the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles? Far from it. Here’s the teachings of the Apostles:

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God

Here’s another. The “God the Father” and “God the Son” of the Roman Catholics being co-equal gods clearly contradicts this verse:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

So here, the Lord Jesus states that he has a God and it’s the same God as those he was speaking to. How then can a god have a co-equal god?!  Preposterous!

Here’s another. Roman Catholics claim they have one god which has three persons, but all three are gods. This is another absurd claim because if that was true then following verse has the two persons next to each other! How can two next to each other be one?!

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God

Figuratively and literally, no two entities who are NEXT to each other can be one and same.

Sumerian Trinity, Ishtar, Namakh, Marduk

And that is why the trinity doctrine is the greatest con job ever imagined. One of the most successful too!

Salamat po sa mga kapatid na binuksan ang kanilang tahanan upang magkasama-sama makapanood ng burol at libing ng Ka Erdy. Hindi po kayo nagdamot at dahil na rin sa inyong kabaitan, naibsan kahit konti ang kapighatian na tayong lahat ngayon ay nadarama.

Salamat po sa mga kapatid na kasapi sa GEMNET.TV at dahil sa inyong paguulat ay nakabahagi kami sa mga kaganapan sa Templo Central. Salamat po sa inyong mga pagpapagal.

Salamat po sa mga kapatid na pumunta sa Templo Central upang makita kahit saglit at sa huling sandali ang ating pinakamamahal na Ke Erdy. Salamat po sa inyong pagtitiyaga at pagtitiis. Gutom, puyat at pagod hindi nyo inalintana at dahil dito nakita ng buong mundo kung ano ang itinanim sa atin ng Ka Erdy. Maraming salamat po dahil naging maayos at marangal ang lahat.

Salamat po sa mga mahal sa buhay ng Ka Erdy at hindi nila ipinagdamot sa atin ang burol at libing ng ating Tagapamahala. Salamat po sa dignidad na ipinakita nyo sa buong bansa at ganon na rin sa pagmamahal nyo sa buong kapatiran.

Salamat po Ka Erdy. Ginugol nyo po ang inyong buong buhay para sa amin na inyong mga kapatid. Hinding hindi po namin malilimutan ang inyong pagmamahal at pagmamalasakit sa amin. Pinupuri po namin ang Ama dahil sa inyo. Salamat po at paalam. Hanggang sa muling pagkikita.

At higit sa lahat, salamat po Ama, salamat po Panginoong Jesus at hindi nyo po iniwan ang Ka Erdy hanggang sa huli. Dahil po sa inyong pagsusugo sa tagapamahala ng Iglesia, nakita po namin ang daan tungo sa tunay na buhay.

Maraming, maraming salamat po.