By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
 |
| Our Lady praying. |
 |
| Modern Muslim women praying. |
 |
| Modern"Christian" women praying! |
Today, while I was searching
for some words in the dictionary, I came across the word “blouse”. Of course, I
knew what it meant. But as I considered the meaning given in the dictionary — namely,
“Loose outer garment worn by women on the upper half of the body” — I had a
second thought. “This is a modern dictionary, surely,” I said. “So do modern
people actually know that there are clothes peculiar to particular sex?” I
thought that all things — especially things like clothes — are now sexless.
I concluded that maybe it was
just a mistake made by the writers. So I decided to consider a definition given
to another dress worn by women — whether it will also emphasise on the
particular sex. I checked “gown” and surprisingly got the following definition:
“1. long indoor garment. 2. Women’s dress” “Wow”! I said.
Not yet satisfied, I decided
to check another women’s dress to completely clear my doubts. I checked “skirt”
and — still — got the following definition: “Woman’s dress from the waist
downward”.
So I concluded: modern people
indeed recognise that there are clothes worn only by women — women’s clothes which
men simply can’t wear — and examples are a blouse, gown, and skirt. I tried
imagining whether — in reality — it is truly only women that wear these clothes
and the answer that came to me — from my everyday experience — was a resounding
YES. Men don’t wear blouses; men don’t wear gowns; men don’t wear skirts. That
is true.
Then it equally occurred to me
to check some clothes worn by men. Two well-known clothes came to my mind
immediately. The first was “trousers”, and the second was “shirt”. So I checked
“trousers” in the same dictionary but surprisingly got the following definition:
“Two-legged outer garment reaching from the waist usually to the ankles”. And
that’s all! To my amazement, the dictionary — the same Western dictionary which
has been emphasising on the “sex” with regards to the clothes worn by women — is
silent with regards to the “sex” that owns the trousers!
“Well”, I said, “let me also
consider “shirt” before I draw my conclusion. So I checked “shirt” and — still —
got the following definition: “lightweight garment for the upper part of the
body”. Again, the Dictionary is silent with regards to the particular “sex”
that actually owns the shirt! So I drew my conclusion.
Why do the writers of this
Dictionary — and indeed, of many other modern
dictionaries — emphasise on the “sex” with regards to the clothes worn by women
but remain silent with regards to those worn by men? Of course, the reason is that
they know that today, modern women — I
mean the majority of modern women — wear virtually all clothes worn by men —
a practice which has simply become universal.
And in case you don’t know, a trouser (or pants as it’s also called) is peculiarly men’s clothing — I mean, men’s clothing which, before the
current revolution, was worn only by men for centuries. Women only started
wearing it in the twentieth century following feminists’ clamour for the
equality of men and women — though the main revolt was started in the mid-nineteenth
century. This modern practice, which in former centuries was simply considered an abomination, has become so normalised
in contemporary society that today some women who wear trousers and other men’s
clothes are even sometimes being described by some as “modest” — a clear sign
that modern man has indeed lost his basic sense of morality.
What is modesty?
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus offers the following definitions:
“1: freedom from conceit or
vanity 2 : propriety in dress, speech, or conduct.”
For the word “modest”, the
same Dictionary gives the following definitions: “1 a: placing a moderate
estimate on one's abilities or worth b : neither bold nor self-assertive :
tending toward diffidence 2: arising from or characteristic of a modest nature
3 : observing the proprieties of dress and behaviour: decent.”
Only a moral comedian would
consider a woman who dresses like men to be “observing the proprieties of dress
and behaviour: decent”, or to be free “from conceit or vanity”.
St. Paul writes: “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with
proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or
pearls or costly garments but rather by means of good works, as befits women
making a claim to godliness. Let a woman quietly receive instruction with
entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise
authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (1 Tim. 2:9-12).
Put
simply, the kind of women St. Paul talks about here almost no longer exist in
today’s “Christianity.” Unfortunately, you can only locate such women in Islam!
That is the bitter truth! (Note: even some Muslim women who also do dress like
men — putting on trousers, etc. — are those who have been influenced and
corrupted by today’s “Christian” women).
“A
pair of baggy trousers gathered at the ankles and worn with a short belted
tunic was sported by Amelia Jenks Bloomer of Homer, New York, in 1851. She had
copied the pants costume from a friend, Elizabeth Smith Miller. But it was Mrs
Bloomer, an early FEMINIST and staunch supporter of reformer Susan B. Anthony,
who became so strongly associated with the MASCULINE-TYPE outfit that it
acquired her name. Pants (i.e. trousers), then MEN'S wear, appealed to Amelia
Bloomer...Amelia Bloomer REFUSED to wear the popular fashion. Starting in 1851,
she began to appear in public in baggy pants and a short tunic. And as more
women joined the campaign for the right to vote, Mrs Bloomer turned the
trousers into a UNIFORM OF REBELLION...CHALLENGING the long TRADITION of who in
the family wore the PANTS.”
“So
what can we gather from all this?” asks Wyler. “That a feminist miscreant
desired to wear the other sex's clothes to express a demand for "women's
rights" and to spark a rebellion against the traditional mores in decency.
Feminists challenged the tradition of the man being the head of the family by
wearing his clothes. Later on in the 1930's, the Communists would finalize this
revolution in women's clothing. Using Gnostic "theology", the
communists deemed women nothing more than imperfect men, who in order to be as
perfect as men, had to express masculinity and repress their feminine
attributes. They made it the ideal fashion, in their propaganda, that women, in
order to express true equality with men in all things, would also have
to wear the masculine clothing for men only, called Pants (trousers). So we can
see that this custom of women wearing pants is nothing more than a feminist tradition.
It certainly does not come from the long held decency code passed down from
Catholic woman to Catholic woman throughout the 19 centuries of the Church's
influence on society.”
Tragically, in the Bible, it
is God Himself who specifically calls this attitude (woman putting on man’s
clothing, or vice versa) AN ABOMINATION. We read, in the Book of Deuteronomy:
“A
woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s
apparel: for he that doeth these things is abomination before God.” (Deuteronomy
22:5).
Why then do modern “Christian”
women ignore this biblical command? Why do they — instead — follow
Feminists’/Communists’ command?
Similarly, in November last
year, we read in the newspaper about the Lagos State Government ordering the
Tutor-General and Permanent Secretaries and Principals in the state to immediately
permit the use of Hijab (Muslims headscarf) in public schools. (See: LASG approves use of Hijab in public schools).
I read the news and, later, I was discussing the matter with a friend (a “Pentecostal
Christian”) when I noticed he was laughing (because the idea of wearing a Hijab
was just bullshit to him). So I asked him: “See, this Hijab is all about head-covering.
So why are you laughing? Is it not in the Bible you also carry about?” I
referred him to First Corinthians, where St. Paul writes:
“But I would have you know,
that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man, and
the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head
covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her
head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For
if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to
be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. ...You yourselves judge: doth it
become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach
you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if
a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her
for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
nor the church of God”. (1 Cor. 11: 3-6; 13-16).
Here St. Paul makes it very
clear that hair-covering is all about humility before God. He tells us the
reason why women must cover their heads while men must not. And he ends by
admonishing: εἰ δέ
τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι, ἡμεῖς
τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν,
οὐδὲ αἱ ἐκκλησίαι
τοῦ θεοῦ: “But if any man seems to be
contentious (other Bible versions say “But if any man wants to argue about it),
we have no such custom, nor the church of God”.
Logically, St. Paul’s last
statement here — “we have no such custom,
nor the church of God” — implies that all the “churches” we see around us
today (in which women shamelessly don’t cover their hairs) are simply not the churches of God. St. Paul is
more than clear on that. “...we have no
such custom, nor the church of God,” he says. Throughout history, it has
been common for women to wear head-coverings. For over one thousand nine
hundred years, this was just the case in the Catholic Church. But today —
roughly since about 50 or sixty years ago — Vatican II popes, cardinals,
bishops and priests are, in fact, openly encouraging women not to cover their
heads while in the church or while praying. These
Satanic men — in collaboration with their fellow Protestant heretics — have indeed
eradicated the teachings of St. Paul from today’s “Christianity”. What they now
teach is that some of the writings of St. Paul — like the one on head-covering
— were addressed merely to the ancient people of his time and not to the people of this time and therefore
these writings are just irrelevant in today’s world, whereas a great theologian
like St. Augustine tells us that every single word in the Bible — from Genesis
to Revelation — was put there by God and therefore must be obeyed at all times.
Today, young men who wish to be priests but follow some of the teachings of St.
Paul, St. Augustine and other great Saints — like the one just quoted — are no longer
being allowed to get into “Catholic” seminaries. Only those who are ready to
compromise and mess up the Faith are — the very reason why today’s “Catholic
priests” are simply the worst set of evil men on earth. It’s sad! (For the
contribution of “Saint” John Paul II and his co-workers towards this attack,
see: WHY WOMEN ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO WEAR HEAD COVERINGS
DURING NOVUS ORDO MASSES!). And read THIS EVIL DOCUMENT particularly to see for yourself.
My Pentecostal friend could
not respond!
So the question once again: why
do Muslim women cover their heads during worship while most of today’s
“Christian women” don’t? In fact, within the Catholic Church, even some of the so-called
“traditional Catholic women” who still do the covering make a subtle mockery of
the practice — it’s usually a sort of fashion show in disguise; usually a half
of the head is covered while a half remains totally bare, an attitude which St.
Augustine describes as “a violation of chastity”.
Why? The honest answer to this
question is that it’s simply because most of today’s Christians — over 90% of
them, both men and women — have totally abandoned the Faith. APOSTASY! And when
I say “most Christians” I’m referring to those who were baptised and brought up
in true Christian families but have, due to the influence of modernism,
abandoned the Christian Faith — not
to the Protestants or “Pentecostals” who are clearly fake Christians.
The funny thing is that the
instructions that are given in First Corinthians 11: 3-16 apply to both men and
women. Men are forbidden to wear head-covering while in the church or while
praying while women are mandated to wear head-covering. Today, men obey this
simple instruction but women don’t. Today, it is still being considered abnormal for a man to wear a cap while
in the church or while praying, but perfectly
normal for a woman to pray or enter the church with a bare head. Modern
women are indeed “free” in all things — they can choose to pray covering their
heads; they can also choose to pray without covering their heads; they can
choose to wear any type of men’s clothes they want; they can also choose to
wear their own clothes. Just absolute “freedom” — a “freedom” which modern men
simply don’t have! Modern women have even gone to the extent of questioning God
Himself and accusing Him of being “biased towards women” — the same God who
chose to come into this world through a woman, and indeed made Our Lady, Mother
of Christ, the greatest human that ever lived. Some, in fact, are now
questioning why God Himself should be addressed as “He” in the first place!
For instance, just a year ago,
in January 2018 we heard of the Protestant “Episcopal Church” in the Diocese of
Washington, D.C., passing a “resolution” to stop using masculine pronouns for
God in future updates to its Book of Common Prayer; and indeed, the resolution to stop using “gendered
language for God” was passed quickly by delegates to the Diocese’s 123rd
Convention! Fr. Mark Hodges of Lifesitenews.com reported that “Clergy”
delegate “Rev.” Linda R. Calkins from St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in
Laytonsville, Maryland, even “challenged the delegates to go
further. Calkins read from Genesis Chapter 17, in which God tells Abraham
“I am El Shaddai.” She said that if Episcopalians “are going to be true to what
El Shaddai means, it means God with breasts.”
Even
though Our Lord Jesus Christ did not call God ‘Imma’ (Mother), but always and
exclusively ‘Abba’ (Father), Calkins told the delegates:
“Having studied much feminist theology in my
masters’ degrees, I wrote a thesis on liberation and freedom and non-equality
in feminist theology and existential counselling.”
“And
I am still waiting for the Episcopal Church to come to the place where all
people feel that they can speak God’s name. Many, many women that I have spoken
with over my past almost 20 years in ordained ministry have felt that they
could not be a part of any church because of the male image of God that is
systemic and that is sustained throughout our liturgies. Many of us are waiting
and need to hear God in our language, in our words and in our pronouns,” she
added, as reported by The Institute On Religion & Democracy (quoted by Fr.
Mark Hodges in his article: ‘U.S. Episcopal diocese votes to stop using
masculine pronouns for God’). (Read the RESOLUTION).
 |
| Members of the "Episcopal Church" voting to change the Bible's use of "He" for God, in January 2018! |
Now
any Vatican II “Catholic” who thinks that “Well, that is happening in a
Protestant Church, it can’t happen in a Catholic Church” is only fooling
himself. When you see Novus Ordo priests using “altar girls” instead of altar
boys, or using women lay readers, or giving the consecrated Host to Rev.
Sisters to distribute, or encouraging women not to cover their heads while in
the Church and to wear trousers in order to be like men, or doing similar
things, that’s just the same mentality — equality
with a vengeance!
 |
| Women lay readers proceeding to the altar with their "priest"! |
 |
| "Catholic" ladies and men distributing "Holy Communion"! |
But there are implications for
all this. In First Corinthians 11: 7-9, St. Paul writes:
Ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει
κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων· ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν.
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ
γυναικός ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός· καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη
ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα: “For
indeed a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God; but
woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”
 |
| St. Paul |
Here
St. Paul, a great theologian, begins a new argument in which the head-covering
is explained as a symbol. He begins by explaining that man and woman are
themselves like symbols, pointing to the purposes for which they were created.
When he says that man is the “image” (εἰκὼν) of God he is referring to Genesis 1:26-27, where
God says, “Let us make man (Heb. adam) in our image, after our likeness.” When
he adds “and glory” (δόξα) he is probably using it in the sense of
“honour, majesty,” in contrast with the “dishonour” mentioned in verse 4. The
majesty of God belongs to men according to the mandate, “Let them have
dominion,” and for a man, this is part of what it means to be the image of God.
The phrase “image and glory” in Greek is “εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα”. It is probably best understood as a hendiadys,
meaning “image of the majesty” (or perhaps “majestic image”). Man was created
to symbolise God’s dominion in the earth. But the woman was not created for
that iconic purpose; she was rather created for man. It should be noticed here
that St. Paul does not say that woman is the εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα “image and glory” of man, but only the δόξα “glory” of
man. The omission of the qualifying word εἰκὼν is not accidental — the implication is that her
“glory” is not iconic or imitative. She is not merely a lesser man, an inferior
second-hand copy of the image of God, as those who accuse us of “male
chauvinism” rashly suppose. She symbolises something altogether different, and
this will have consequences for the way in which she ought to worship God.
We
should notice at this point that St. Paul rejects the idea that God has
ordained a “unisex” spirituality for Christians — the error which today’s
Christian heretics (and by this I mean most of today’s “Christians”) are
championing. God, who created us male and female, has ordained a masculine
spirituality and a feminine spirituality. The influence of the Holy Spirit does
not lead us to androgyny, but to sanctified masculinity for men and sanctified
femininity for women. This is contrary to certain pagan ideas which were
becoming popular in places like Corinth in ancient times. Under the Gnostic
ideologies that arose from Middle Platonism in the first century, the human
soul was essentially a spark of the cosmic Reason or mind of God, and the ideal
and glorified human soul, liberated from the accidents of the flesh, was
androgynous or sexless. Women in their spiritual exercises were supposed to
become more like men, and men more like women. This idea is plainly expressed
in various pseudo-Christian writings of the Gnostic sects in the first three
centuries of the Church, and there is a good reason to suppose that it was
present already in the first generation of the Corinthian congregation. The
first-century Gnostics, like the “inner light” Quakers and the
Transcendentalists of the nineteenth century, maintained that there is “no sex
in the soul.” St. Paul runs counter to that heretical opinion.
For
St. Paul, the outstanding fact of woman’s existence is her subordinate
position, or rather her subordinate nature, as revealed in the story of
creation. It is not merely a matter of position, determined by custom, or an
accident of the flesh. A woman is womanly by nature, and by God’s design. She is
ontologically subordinate to man because she was fashioned for man. In another
epistle, he says that in this subordination she symbolises the Church under
submission to the authority of God. A well-ordered marriage is a holy mystery
that “refers to Christ and to the Church” (Ephesians 5:32). This is the
inherent symbolism of man and woman, intended by God from the beginning. Sexual
differentiation and identity is not a tragic result of the Fall, to be reversed
or transcended by the soul’s escape from the body of flesh (as the Gnostics
taught), but a consequence of the Creator’s good design.
In the
early Church, the position and role of women in the Church, as well as the
manner in which they ought to conduct themselves while in the Church, was well
understood and women were simply women —
just as in today’s Islam it is still perfectly well understood and women don’t
argue over it.
Have you seen a modern Vatican
II “Catholic priest” giving what he believes to be “Holy Communion” to a woman
with a bare head, quite contrary to the above biblical teaching in First
Corinthians? Have you seen a “Catholic priest” giving the same “Communion” to a
woman putting on men’s clothes like trousers, quite contrary to God’s command
in the Book of Deuteronomy quoted above? What about “altar girls” — one of the
greatest wonders in today’s pseudo-Catholicism? And then, have you witnessed
the total madness in the Protestant/Pentecostal “churches” with regards to the
same issues? If so, what do you think is the inspiration behind all these
attitudes?
Of course, all
these diabolical practices are not from the Bible. They are rather from modern
secularists, modern Feminists, Communists and Democrats who champion the idea
of equality of man and woman — in fact, they go a step further to assert that
“what a man can do, a woman can do better”.
“Within Western society”, says
the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “trousers were long regarded as masculine
apparel. Although 19th-century dress reformers tried to introduce trousers for
women (known as bloomers), the style was rejected as
too radical. It was only in the 20th century that it was deemed appropriate for
women to wear trousers — first for sport, then for casual attire, and finally
for business and formal wear.” (For more information on this point, see also Dr
Carol Byrne’s article What’s wrong with women wearing trousers?).
“Bloomer” is the very name of that feminist Amelia Jenks Bloomer of Homer, New York, who is
associated with trousers or pants. By 1853
Bloomer, a journalist and writer had become quite active as an advocate of
“women’s rights”, making speaking appearances in New York City and elsewhere.
As already stated, she became involved in a dress-reform movement as well when
she began appearing in public wearing full-cut pantaloons, or “Turkish
trousers,” under a short skirt. She attracted considerable ridicule for
appearing in the costume, and the pantaloons (close-fitting trousers) came to
be called “bloomers”. Although she had not originated
the costume — among others, actress Fanny Kemble and reformer Lydia Sayer
(Hasbrouck) are said to have worn it as early as 1849, and Elizabeth Smith
Miller had actually introduced it to Bloomer and Stanton early in 1851 — Bloomer's
defence of it in The Lily, a newspaper she personally began for women
and probably the first to be edited entirely by a woman, linked her name with
it indissolubly.
But both Miller and Bloomer
were indeed “co-workers”. Miller had earlier attempted to introduce a “more
comfortable and practical” attire for women. The
costume she designed was enthusiastically advocated by Bloomer — who was her
friend. In 1851 Bloomer travelled to London and Dublin to publicise this dress
reform. The outfit, consisting of a jacket and knee-length skirt worn over
Turkish-style trousers, was regarded as immodest and unfeminine. It was greeted
with horror and disdain, and the idea quickly died. What has survived is the
name “bloomers”, which originally referred to Miller's
full trousers.
Now the main
point to note here is that before the 1840s at least, it never crossed the mind
of any woman — in any part of the world — to put on trousers, and when it was
later introduced (by the unfortunate individuals just mentioned) it was
considered a horror and greeted with disdain and those who introduced it were in
fact ridiculed. Consequently, the idea died quickly — only to resurface and
indeed pervade the whole world in the twentieth century. Today, not just
adults, female children also wear trousers. “Christian” parents buy trousers
for their female children and the tragic result is that by the time these
children grow up it becomes quite impossible to stop them from wearing
trousers. Our Lady, of course, predicted all this when she appeared in Fatima one hundred years ago.
Pope Pius XII warned:
“O
Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of
ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting
them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of
modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you
are making for yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom
Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians.”
 |
| Pope Pius XII |
G.
K. Chesterton writes, in "What's Wrong with the World?”:
“...And
since we are talking here chiefly in types and symbols, perhaps as good an
embodiment as any of the idea may be found in the mere fact of a woman wearing
a skirt. It is highly typical of the rabid plagiarism which now passes
everywhere for emancipation, that a little while ago it was common for an
“advanced” woman to claim the right to wear trousers; a right about as
GROTESQUE as the right to wear a false nose...It is quite certain that the
skirt means female dignity...”
 |
| G.K. Chesterton |
When I was a
little boy, I heard a lot of concerned Catholics ask Vatican II priests and
bishops during church programmes why women are now allowed to walk into the
church wearing trousers. Usually, those priests and bishops would cunningly
defend African women wearing trousers and then quickly refer us to Europe and
America; they would answer: “Well,
wearing trousers is a matter of culture. In Europe and America women do wear
trousers and that’s fine. It is their culture.” So now, as an adult, I ask:
where did those lying clergy get that information?
Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of
Genoa predicted that the change from skirts to trousers would modify the
Christian perception of womanhood as essentially ordered towards motherhood and
that it would subvert the divinely ordained order in which the husband is the
protector of his wife and head of the family. He said:
“First, the wearing of men’s
dress by women affects the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology
proper to women; second, it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by
tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; and third, it affects the
woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes.
… This changing of the feminine psychology does fundamental, and, in the long
run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections
and to human society…Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future
age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.”
 |
| Cardinal Siri |
 |
| How it all started: Bloomer in action! But interestingly, here she looks more "modest" than even an average contemporary "Catholic" lady! |
Even the Encyclopaedia
Britannica — as “secular” as it is — calls women’s wearing of men’s clothes (especially
trousers) in the twentieth century “A REBELLION”. It calls it
“transvestism”. It states:
“Rebellion
against the established or dominant fashion has been a constant theme in the
history of costume. The reasons prompting such rebellion are various: to shock,
to attract attention, to protest against the traditional social order, to avoid
current trends and thereby avoid looks soon considered dated or outmoded. One
of the earliest forms such rebellion has taken — and continues to take — has
been that of women adopting male dress. By donning
men's clothing, women have been able to challenge the status quo and
participate in activities or roles traditionally perceived as masculine”.
The rebellion against head-covering
comes from the same diabolical mentality — “to shock, to attract attention, to
protest against the traditional social order, to avoid current trends and
thereby avoid looks soon considered dated or outmoded”, and so on. In fact, not
just only trousers, the Encyclopaedia also states that “Throughout the 19th century cosmetics were worn mostly by actresses,
and rarely if ever by “respectable” women.”
Indeed, even though they carry
the Bible about and parade themselves as “Christians”, virtually everything
modern Christians do is not in the Bible
and they simply practise a totally different religion — not Christianity. Modern “Christians”
go to church for radically dubious, selfish and materialistic reasons. Some,
blinded by many fruits of contemporary atheistic society, are even already convinced in their minds that the
religion is false, so virtually everything they go to do in the church is just
pretence. You can also read my article, NIGERIAN “PASTORS” AND THEIR PROSPERITY “GOSPEL”
where, from another perspective, I demonstrated this very fact convincingly.
Bill Wyler concluded his
article (quoted above) with a prophecy of St. Nilus which concerns the time we
are living in now and which I also wish to use to conclude this article. He
writes:
“Realizing that St. Nilus is scarcely known to a
large part of the Church, a brief sketch of his life, taken from the Catholic
Encyclopedia (1911 copyright edition), is related below:
“St.
Nilus was one of the many disciples and fervent defenders of St. John
Chrysostom. He was an officer at the Court of Constantinople, married, with two
sons. While St. John Chrysostom was patriarch, before his exile (398-403), he
directed Nilus in the study of Scripture and in works of piety. St. Nilus left
his wife and one son and took the other, Theodulos, with him to Mt. Sinai to be
a monk. The Bishop of Eleusa ordained both St. Nilus and his son to the
priesthood. The mother and other son also embraced the religious life in Egypt.
From his monastery at Sinai, St. Nilus was a well-known person throughout the
Eastern Church; by his writings and correspondence he played an important part
in the history of his time. He was known as a theologian, Biblical scholar and
ascetic writer, so people of all kinds, from the emperor down wrote to consult
him. His numerous works, including a multitude of letters, consist of
denunciations of heresy, paganism, abuses of discipline and crimes, of rules
and principles of asceticism, especially maxims about the religious life. He
warns and threatens people in high places, abbots and bishops, governors and
princes, even the emperor himself, without fear. He kept up a correspondence
with Gaina, a leader of the Goths, endeavoring to convert him from Arianism. He
denounced vigorously the persecution of St. John Chrysostom both to the Emperor
Arcadius and to his courtiers. St. Nilus must be counted as one of the leading
ascetic writers of the fifth century. His feast is kept on November 12th in the
Byzantine Calendar; he is commemorated also in the Roman Martyrology on the
same date. St. Nilus probably died around the year 430 as there is no evidence
of his life after that.”
Now
the prophecy of St. Nilus — which today has perfectly
been fulfilled. He prophesied:
“After
the year 1900, toward the middle of the 20th century, the people of that time
will become unrecognizable. When the time for the Advent of the Antichrist
approaches, people's minds will grow cloudy from carnal passions, and dishonour
and lawlessness will grow stronger. Then the world will become
unrecognizable. People's appearances will change, and it will be impossible
to distinguish men from women due to their shamelessness in dress and style of
hair. These people will be cruel and will be like wild animals because
of the temptations of the Antichrist. There will be no respect for parents and
elders, love will disappear, and Christian pastors, bishops, and priests will
become vain men, completely failing to distinguish the right-hand way from the
left. At that time the morals and traditions of Christians and of the
Church will change. People will abandon modesty, and dissipation will reign. Falsehood
and greed will attain great proportions, and woe to those who pile up
treasures. Lust, adultery, homosexuality, secret deeds and murder will rule in
society. At that future time, due to the power of such great crimes and
licentiousness, people will be deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which
they received in Holy Baptism and equally of remorse. The Churches of God will
be deprived of God-fearing and pious pastors, and woe to the Christians
remaining in the world at that time; they will completely lose their faith
because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of knowledge from
anyone at all. Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy
refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they
will meet obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact
that the Antichrist wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of
the whole universe, and he will produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will
also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man so that he will discover a way by
which one man can carry on a conversation with another from one end of the
earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air like birds
and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all
this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing,
poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! -- he
will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and
lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three
hypostases. Then the All-good God will see the downfall of the human race
and will shorten the days for the sake of those few who are being saved,
because the enemy wants to lead even the chosen into temptation, if that is
possible... then the sword of chastisement will suddenly appear and kill the
perverter and his servants.”
Bill Wyler comments:
“In
essence the prophecy has basically said that Catholics (those who are orthodox
in the faith) would change the traditions and morals of the Church and
specifically points out that one of these is *modesty*. It even remarkably
states that with these new fashions you could not see the difference between
the masculine and feminine clothing as to blur what sex the person was. Also
that if you tried to correct these people that they would feel no shame in what
they were doing, and classify it as the norm or at least trivial. If you tried
to ask advice from the Catholic Pastor, although good with knowing dogma, they
would fail to distinguish the "right-hand way from the left" in
morality. These are wicked times and we need to, "Therefore, brethren,
stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or
by our epistle," (2 Thess. ii, 14), if we are ever going to be saved,
despite the reluctance our Pastors have to condemn these modern fashions right
up from the beginning of this century. In their giving us the "green light"
in these matters, "easing" our conscience, they are doing more harm
than the apparent good. People forget that although the Saints might have
differed on different points of dogmatic doctrine (prior to the Church
explicitly ending the differences with a magisterial decree), they all agreed
as to what was modest in attire. There was not a single Canonized Saint or
Church Father who deviated from the decency code in over 1800 years. We as
Catholics are not allowed to differ from their perspectives. We are to condemn
and to condone what they condemned and condoned. It is when we deviate from
THEIR NORM, that we can say we are no longer of their One, Holy, Catholic,
Apostolic Faith. For in order to be Catholic we must be of the same religious
body, and in order to be of the same body, we must profess the same religion of
Christ in Faith *and* morals. We must use the traditions and habits of the
Saints, that they all had in common, throughout the centuries of the Church. If
we fail in achieving this common denominator, we can expect to fail in
achieving our Supernatural End as well.”
Related: Francis and his gang of heretics pushing for
women ordination
