|Novus Ordo Mass where women have been enslaved!|
By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
Throughout history—even among the pagans and other worshippers of false gods—it has been common for women to wear head coverings during worship and even beyond that, something that has precedent in St. Paul’s epistles. “You yourselves judge:” says the holy apostle, “doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered?” (See 1 Cor. 11: 2-16).
|A perfect way of veiling.|
Head covering was mandated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1262 states:
1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
This pious custom fell gradually into disuse even as modernists invaded our holy church!
In the 1970s, after the Novus Ordo mass was imposed on Catholics there was a judgment issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document entitled Inter Insigniores, which basically diabolically stated that since chapel veils were “not a matter of faith”, it was no longer mandatory for women to wear them.
In paragraph 4 it states:
"It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value."
Here we see anti-Catholics in action! The inspired writings of St. Paul have now become mere “ordinances probably inspired by the customs of the period”, mere “requirements” which “no longer have a normative value”! Indeed, how dangerous this new religion can be! You can read the whole evil document here.
In the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the heretic John Paul II—the one in effect today, an evil Canon which even permits a priest to give Holy Communion to a Protestant, something which John Paul II and Benedict XVI themselves practised—the canon about head coverings was not re-issued. Now, you might be thinking, “Well, just because they didn’t reissue it doesn’t mean that it’s not still in effect, right?” Wrong!
Canon 6 of the current code states that all subsequent laws that are not reissued in the new code are abrogated:
Can. 61. When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated:
1. the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2. other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescriptions of this Code, unless particular laws are otherwise expressly provided for;
3. any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code;
4. other universal disciplinary laws dealing with a matter which is regulated ex integro by this Code.
We see then the source of the scandal witnessed all over the Catholic world today! We see then how modern Catholic women have been enslaved by the devil, using wolves who masquerade as Catholic bishops, cardinals and even popes!
Indeed the Society of St. Pius X must be 24 hours vigilant because this current unchristian attitude has simply gone viral. As one "traditional" priest (not SSPX) puts it, “But even at the Latin Masses I offer, women exhibit diversity in this matter. Some wear the longer veil (mantilla) others a short veil. Others wear hats. Still others wear no head covering at all" And he allows it! Indeed, lawlessness!
As I wrote in my piece, ‘A Feminized Catholic Church?’ , “St. Augustine, the great theologian, describes any failure in the veil to conceal all the hair, even a minor one, as a violation of chastity. St. Ambrose of Milan says: “Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offence against God. For what modesty can there be? ”