Muslim women dressing modestly...“Christian” women dressing immodestly...no head-coverings...are putting on trousers. Why?

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).

And how exactly did this women’s revolt start? Bill Wyler, a Catholic writer, gives us the brief history in the article: THE IMPORTANCE OF MODESTY IN DRESS:

“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