Another Schism will Come

No matter how the church handles the gay issue, there will be a split.

Readership: All
Author’s Note: NovaSeeker started drafting this post on 2021 June 7, but left it unfinished. In his absence (due to work), and given the importance of the subject matter, Jack has taken the liberty of finishing this post.
Length: 1,600 words
Reading Time: 5.5 minutes

Will the Catholic Church embrace LGBT?

Oscar shared this article from PJ Media, Roman Catholic Church Affirms Teaching on Marriage, Media Hardest Hit ( 2021 March 15).

“On Monday, the Vatican reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s 2,000-year-old doctrine that marriage is between one man and one woman and that homosexual acts are illicit. Therefore, the Vatican stated that the church cannot bless same-sex weddings because that would lead to confusion about the doctrine of marriage.

This should not surprise anyone with a basic familiarity with historic Christianity or with the Roman Catholic Church. The New Testament clearly condemns homosexual activity and Jesus explicitly affirmed the teaching of Genesis that marriage is between one man and one woman. The Catholic Church has a 2,000-year tradition of upholding this basic definition of marriage that, in historical terms, only came under fire yesterday.”

Reserved Catholics might take satisfaction in hearing the Vatican reaffirm their position on the time tested definition of marriage, but they should not allow themselves to become complacent about this, thinking that the battle is over. It’s not that the Catholic church intends to behave differently from the wider cultural drift. Rather, it’s more the case that the Catholic church is intent on following the prescription for convergence that was pioneered by Protestant denominations.

The “established sequence” is to ordain women first. The reason for this is twofold. One is that it “softens up” opposition to such changes downrange, among at least some, because they get accustomed to these kinds of substantial changes. The second is that once you concede that women can be ordained, you’ve already conceded that sex differences are not material for certain roles — that a woman can be a deacon (which is where it will start, just like it did with the Episcopalians), and eventually a priest, as well as a man can — and at that point, the door is wide open for dissociating one’s sex from other roles, such as the spousal role. If a men and women are interchangeable as priests, then they can be interchangeable as lovers, and as spouses.

Once you understand this gradual slide down the slippery slope, then it becomes obvious that if the Catholic church endorsed gay unions now, then it would not be following the same “order”, and would draw resistance that would otherwise be abated if the established process “order” were followed.

Trying to “skip” the women’s ordination “step” here could create a schism in the church, because the groundwork would not be laid for the liberalization of gays, as it was done in the Protestant churches. As far as I am aware, every Protestant denomination that conducts actual ordinations and has ordained women has also blessed same sex couples in some way — they aren’t separable, because they follow the same logic. This is why sex roles, gender issues, and homosexuality are inextricably intertwined within the broader fourth wave narrative. This is why the many twits on the Manosphere, and the “right wing internet” who are dead-set on sex differences and sex roles but who don’t want to touch gay issues with a 100-foot pole, don’t understand the game and how it is being played … pretty much at all, so they are getting well and truly played.

So in the grand scheme of things, this pronouncement by the CDF wasn’t very surprising at all. The thing to look for in the years ahead is the pressure to ordain women into the diaconate. That’s the proverbial brick in the dam for the Catholics.

The Coming Schism

It’s likely true that I’ve probably dealt with a lot more LBGT issues and the like being in the Washington DC area for the past 25 years.  The LBGT issue, in my opinion, is going to lead to a schism in U.S. evangelicalism that mirrors what has happened in the mainline churches here in the past 30 years or so.  The evangelicals are “behind” the mainline because of generational differences.  In evangelical types who are above around age 40 (i.e. Boomers and Xers), the tendency is to have an approach towards LGBT like – “It’s defiled. Let them re-orient. Let other re-oriented ex-gays deal with them, and that’s that.”  The people under 40, though (and it gets more intense and larger as a percentage the younger you go) are much, much less inclined to take that approach and are not “tolerant” of it, tending either to see homosexuality as a sin like any other (similar to adultery) or, in some cases, seeing it as a non-sin, provided it is channeled in the same ways normal couples do (i.e., marriage).  These positions are very small among older evangelicals, but very entrenched among younger ones.  The generational difference is massive, and it will lead to splits in the evangelical church just as the mainline has had recently.  This will surprise many, I think, who tend to see evangelicalism as more monolithic on this issue, because the younger generation has not yet “come into power” in the evangelical church.  When that happens, the split will happen soon thereafter, and I think that will blindside people as much as the swiftness of the acceptance of LGBT in the broader culture did.

I don’t see an easy solution.  To me, it’s fairly comfortable, because the Orthodox Church is institutionally not set up to undergo massive changes like that, so I have the luxury of observing it elsewhere.  Orthodoxy doesn’t see gays as uniquely “defiled” in the way evangelicals do. Someone who is an active homosexual is treated in the same way as someone who is an active adulterer, or someone who is openly fornicating and so on, and is not welcome at the chalice — but also not seen as singularly defiled in a way that the adulterer is not.  Nevertheless, gay marriage, ordination of openly gay coupled clergy, toleration of gay relationships, and so on is not a thing in Orthodoxy, and likely never will be at least in any reasonable timeframe.  The Catholics, I am not so sure about because their leadership is going left, but they are so large and have such an institutionalized traditional movement now that I think that unless the Catholic left plays its cards perfectly, any move to normalize gays there would likely lead to a de facto schism, at least in the American and other Western European Catholic churches.  And it is unlikely to play out quickly there, either.  I expect that if the left manages to hold power in Rome after Pope Francis dies, the top issue on the agenda will be getting women into the clergy by means of the so-called “permanent diaconate”, which would initiate a process that, everywhere it has happened, has eventually resulted in acceptance of gays (because it must … it is the same thing once you accept that men and women are interchangeable clerically, that they must be so sexually as well … it takes a generation to get there, but that’s about it). Adam Piggott, a Sedevacantist, has anticipated this game plan for some time.

In the evangelical world, however, I see this happening more quickly simply because evangelicalism is not structured in the same way, and is very “PR” sensitive.  Among the peers that the younger evangelicals will be aiming to evangelize once they assume leadership roles, being against LGBT, or seeing them as uniquely defiled and so on, is like being a member of the KKK.  It will make the kind of evangelism as we have known of evangelical types in the past (i.e., popular, aping popular cultural forms, expressions, memes, and experiences) essentially impossible, because this issue is a generational marker, period, for the young.

Conclusions

Mainline churches, evangelical churches, and the Catholic church are all on the same path to LGBT acceptance, with the only difference being that they are at different milestones along the way currently — the mainline being the furthest down that path, closely followed by evangelicals, and Catholics distantly trailing up the rear.

Protestantism is already too far down the yellow brick road to change course now. The mainline is already converged, and I do not see how evangelicalism (as we know it) will survive in any way intact once the younger wave reaches leadership positions which, given the way things seem to work there, won’t be very long now.

The USA will still have plenty of churches in 15 years, busy on Sundays. But they will be heretical across the board on any traditional teaching regarding sex or gender, while the Christians who still adhere to those will be considered to be KKK/Fred Phelps. That’s what’s going to happen, I think.

The church won’t fall, it will just be transformed. It already is. It’s just going to go further down the same path.

Related

This entry was posted in Cathodoxy, Churchianity, Collective Strength, Conspiracy Theories, Convergence, Culture Wars, Discernment, Wisdom, Evangelism, Feminism, Homosexuality, Models of Failure, Prophecy, Protestantism, Sanctification & Defilement, Society, Strategy. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Another Schism will Come

  1. cameron232 says:

    SSPX is also an option for Catholics. You don’t have to go full on Mel Gibson RadTrad.

    Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Sedevacantism is growing. It’s funny talking to it’s adherents. They hate Protestants for separating from the church, and defend the RCC to the death, but then claim only they are right in not separating from the RCC but “continuing on” because they are the true church.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah pretty much. Interestingly, the idea that Benedict’s resignation was invalid and that he’s still Pope has grown in popularity among many who aren’t even as far out there as SSPX. Obviously, it all sounds conspiracy theorist but these are weird times I suppose.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        My argument is this:

        The church has been illegitimate at least since the first imposition of celibacy.

        It doesn’t matter if singleness is a gift, a single man is not qualified to be a teacher/elder and cannot hold any position in the church.

        With that standard alone we can look at the popes and go back further in time.

        But point this out and you will get an endless recital of dogma and “one true church cuz Peter, blah blah…”

        Liked by 2 people

  2. dpmonahan says:

    Humane Vitae is the linchpin.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Lastmod says:

    “Nevertheless, gay marriage, ordination of openly gay coupled clergy, toleration of gay relationships, and so on is not a thing in Orthodoxy, and likely never will be at least in any reasonable timeframe.”

    My cousin married into the Greek Orthodox church (Modesto, CA). Her husband ended up cheating on her, divorced her, and remarried in that Holiness tradition with zero questions on his actions.

    The priest in that church at the time defended Bill Clinton openly, and believed “healthcare was a human right”, and he was the one who told me that “Jesus was really the first socialist if you really read the Scriptures.”

    Orthodoxy is perhaps a few steps behind the Catholics. The only reason these issues have not made the forefront because it is such a small percentage of Americans being brought up and raised in this tradition. The “structure” of it has nothing to do with it. This priest was testament to that.
    In Texas there are two Orthodox priests, as I recall, that have no problem with abortion.

    Churches are dead… All of them!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      “Churches are dead… All of them!”

      False. God always preserves a remnant.

      Romans 11:5: “Even so at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        Jason’s statement isn’t wrong if what he’s referring to are the “churchian franchises” that are the public face of Christianity for most people. These ARE dead, and have long been so. BUT, as they are not the true church, the genuine body of Christ, we shouldn’t be mourning their collapse.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ feeriker

        “…they are not the true church…”

        That’s the only part that matters, and why Jason’s statement is false.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Oscar
        Have you read this?
        https://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html

        For a supposedly Orthodox Christian in every other way since he does do solid Apologetics in every other way. To be compromised on this issue is very suspect. And very, very dangerous. Especially in regards to the word games in regards to the Greek and other sophistries.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ info

        I hadn’t read that, and it’s going to take me a while to get through all of it. Who wrote it? I looked for an author, and I think I saw “Glenn Miller”, but I don’t know of anyone by that name. Well, other than the Big Band orchestra guy. But I doubt that’s who we’re talking about here.

        Like

    • feeriker says:

      My (admittedly limited) experience with Greek Orthodoxy (which includes having spent four years in Greece itself), is that, far more than the other Eastern Orthodox branches, it is a cultural and political institution, not a religious one. This is true especially in the U.S., where it serves as little more than a social club for Greek Americans. There is no spiritual life in it at all. When Jesus says, “Depart from me. I never knew you”, He will be talking to pretty much the entire Greek Orthodox “church,” among most other established denominations.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Scott and Nova, I think, will tell you that the Greek Orthodox in USA are far more liberal than others. Don’t know why. Orthodoxy tends to look to the Church Fathers who are pretty unambiguous on these things.

        Liked by 2 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      “Churches are dead… All of them!”

      The church—denominations typically represented by the formal buildings that house them—are dead. The church that is the body of believers—the ekklēsia—will never end.

      Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        Truth. Matthew 16:18 NIV “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (Ekklesia), and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” The true church, the believers, aka the ‘Body of Christ’ will never go down. Never has throughout history, never will.

        Like

  4. Oscar says:

    “Once you understand this gradual slide down the slippery slope…”

    I don’t want to hear another damned thing about “slippery slope fallacies” from fools too blind to see that they’re careening down a slippery slope right now.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Oscar,

      It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a Trojan horse. The breach is two-fold. First, women in leadership positions over men in the church is directly against biblical teaching. Second, having women in leadership positions denies that there are real differences between the genders that make us fit for different roles within the body of Christ.

      So once you put women in church leadership with authority over men, accepting homosexual unions in the church is a foregone conclusion. The principles of both obeying God and genders being different are already lost. It’s just a matter of the victors reorganizing the battlefield.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPA

        It’s a slippery slope. And, it doesn’t end with the acceptance of Sodomy. In fact, we haven’t even seen where it ends yet.

        Like

  5. feeriker says:

    “The church won’t fall, it will just be transformed.”

    It’s already “transformed” and has been for years, if not decades.

    Because of number 1, it’s no longer “the church,” but a secular social justice movement with a rotten fish slapped on it.

    Anyone seeking genuine Christ-centered fellowship nowadays must do so outside the confines of any established denomination or incorporated congregation (what I refer to as a “churchian franchise”). We’re returning to the days of believers gathering clandestinely in small groups inside of homes. IMO, and in light of the complete convergence and heresy of churchianity, this is by no means a bad thing.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Lexet Blog says:

    Hate to break it to you: the RCC won’t fire the gays working inside of it. They hide behind the excuse that those priests and bishops “confessed” to their crimes and sins.

    As per Protestant land, 40% of elders in the PCA already affirm the gay identity being accepted. It’s part of the revoice movement.

    The reason why many right wing people don’t care about that group is because it’s obvious that only false churches accept them.

    The problem in the most “orthodox” denominations is they accept our feminist society.

    Liked by 1 person

    • pukeko60 says:

      Which is why, among other reasons this reformed bloke worships in a newly founded bapticostal church where all the pastoral staff are known by the founders and the founders are accountable to people with a track record.
      It’s a tradie church, hated by the elite, who are athiest, or liberal Anglican, Presbyterian or Catholic here.
      The Anglicans, Presbyterians and Catholic have too many women and gays.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Joe2 says:

      “As per Protestant land, 40% of elders in the PCA already affirm the gay identity being accepted. It’s part of the revoice movement.”

      One of the local RCCs in my neighborhood has the “rainbow flag” prominently displayed by the entrance. Upon further investigation, I learned that this church welcomes gays, but not their lifestyle. The teaching is that they have to remain celibate and the church does not perform gay marriages, gay unions, etc. The teaching is the same for gays as it is for heterosexuals, except heterosexuals have the marriage option.

      There are individuals who have a gay identity, not by choice but simply as they developed they become gay.

      Years ago, many years ago (ancient history), a family member worked at a well known dance studio (in Manhattan) that sold ballroom dance lessons, such as waltz and foxtrot. She said that many of her customers were single men who came for lessons well dressed in a suit and tie. I always thought that was just a ploy to meet the young attractive women who gave the lessons. To some extent that was true, but she said there was a large number who confided in her they were tormented being homosexual. They spent a lot of dollars on lessons thinking that somehow they could change and become attracted to women by simply being close to and holding them as required for such dancing. It didn’t work and they left disappointed.

      Like

      • Lastmod says:

        I lived in San Francisco for over a decade, and you always end up having a gay friend or two…… I knew one who indeed wanted to be “straight”.

        Dressed masculine. No lisp. No glaring effeminate behaviors. A cocaine addict like me at the time…… My addiction grew out of loneliness, being invisible to women. His was out of wanting to be hetero… but drawn to men. Shame, anger, resentment….

        He was never married, no children….. didn’t lead a gal on. Women did pursue him at the time and he just didn’t know what to do……. Must have been hard for him that way. Don’t know what happened to him after I moved away. We were friends…. but not buds or pallies.

        Like

  7. Lexet Blog says:

    Most Americans choose churches based on one of the following:
    1- Will adequate entertainment be provided for their children while they attend a separate service?
    2- Will they be adequately entertained by music?
    3- Will they be adequately entertained with a message that is non controversial and acceptable socially?
    4- Is it a moderate commute?

    Liked by 3 people

  8. caterpillar345 says:

    For those interested in long-form discussions, there is an interesting CRCNA pastor, Paul VanderKlay, making videos in the Jordan Peterson/John Vervaeke/Jonathan Pageau space. He’s talked through this issue at length in a few recent videos:
    Why Marriage Equality Means the Death of Protestant Churches
    Jesus, Paul, and the Church Want to Control Men’s Bodies
    Equality/Justice vs Merciful Accommodation, Moral Vanguard vs. Rebels. The Issues Below Church SSM
    Why Mainline Churches Die of Politicalitis When They Can No Longer Imagine Heavenly Salvation
    Marriage Equality and Chesterton’s Fence

    And, slightly off topic but relevant to this blog overall, a recent video of his that is surprisingly red pill!
    High Masculine Status doesn’t give Women what it Gives Men

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      “High Masculine Status doesn’t give Women what it Gives Men”

      Paul VanderKlay actually absolutely supports women’s ordination as Pastors/Priests in that video. (15:00-16:00). He doesn’t oppose women in “All offices of the Church” His “Reformed Church” features women preaching/performing all the offices of Eldership and he helped many women get into seminary.

      He is definitely a nonbelieving heretic.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        VanderKlay definitely holds some conflicting views. This may be worthy of fisking.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Jack

        For all the clarity of Scripture. His views on women clergy is equivalent to homosexuals claiming that Scripture somehow doesn’t condemn homosexuality.

        “Did God say?” as Satan would speak to Eve.

        Like

  9. Rock Kitaro says:

    You guys… I once had a debate with a born-again Christian about being “judgmental”. I tried to explain that I don’t advocate for judging people in the sense of condemning anyone or even thinking anyone’s beyond saving. But I told him I think it is important for us to “discern” whether a behavior or action is right or wrong based on Bible principles.

    He had such an aversion to the word or even thinking whether someone else is doing something right or wrong. Even on the matter of homosexuality, he never came out and said whether it was right or wrong, even when I pointed out the scriptures, but he just kept emphasizing that we have to be open and accepting of everyone. This guy has to be probably 33. A big dude, former Atheist who rejected God because of how the church disregarded his father who was dealing with depression and ended up committing suicide. So you see… I had to be careful because I’m dealing with elements I can’t particularly relate to and I wanted to be respectful.

    When you get into these kind of discussions where you’re dealing with that peace-loving Christian who refuses to say anything is bad or wrong because they’re so cautious about offending or making the sinner feel bad (even though we’re all sinners)… what do you do? I guess I’m asking because I often walk away feeling bad, thinking to myself, “What is wrong with you, Rock… for calling a spade a spade?”

    Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      RK — What you just described in your conversation with the Christian who did not want to offend anyone is a good example of the “nice guy” approach. If you are so afraid of offending someone that you bury what you really think, or flat out deny truth, then this is bad. As in, worse than you know.

      If you apply the “nice guy” behavior to marriage, then you will end up where Deti and I were at one point. When the same “nice guy” approach is found in the church, you end up with scripture that is glossed over, ignored, or buried, so that Christianity is palatable to the masses. In reality, this is some of the most unloving behavior a man can have. In my marriage, it led to a deterioration of the relationship because I didn’t stop her bad behavior. In church, it shows up as men without the stones to point out sin, and the result is doctrine afloat in a culture that leads people astray.

      The Gospel does not spare people’s feelings. It tells the truth in a loving way, but it cannot help but be offensive. Be kind and compassionate in your delivery, but tell the truth without fear of the other person’s response.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ Rock Kitaro

      “When you get into these kind of discussions where you’re dealing with that peace-loving Christian who refuses to say anything is bad or wrong because they’re so cautious about offending or making the sinner feel bad (even though we’re all sinners)… what do you do?”

      Here’s what I do. First, note these two statements.

      “You guys…I once had a debate with a born-again Christian about being “judgmental”…”

      My response: So, you’ve judged that certain people are judgmental, and that being judgmental is wrong.

      “…he’s just emphasizing that we have to be open and accepting of everyone.”

      My response: So, you’ve judged that being “open and accepting of everyone” is right, you’ve judged that some people are not “open and accepting of everyone”, and you’ve judged that not being “open and accepting of everyone” is wrong.

      See how that works?

      Everyone — and I mean absolutely everyone — judges others. People who say, “Don’t be judgmental” are — by definition — judging those they’ve judged to be judgmental. It’s impossible to go through life without judgement.

      Everyone who says, “Don’t be judgmental” is, in fact, a judgmental hypocrite.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        lol, yep. I think with people like this, it’s sort of like when you tell them, “Hey! Is saying something like, ‘finally we have a black president’ a racist statement?” Some people will say “no” because in their minds it’s a positive statement. However, by definition, it is a racist statement because the emphasis is on his race. Same with those who judge others for being judgmental. I think it’s a shame tactic to get people to not be shaming others for things they should be shameful for.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Recognition of race is not necessarily racist. This is where wokers try to “Gotcha!” But if you try to “Gotcha” them using the same reasoning, they’ll say what you described.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “He had such an aversion to the word [discernment] or even thinking whether someone else is doing something right or wrong.”

      Here’s a clue I’ve found to be very informative. People who don’t see any difference between “judgment” and “discernment” don’t have any of the latter and probably never have. Also, these people tend to be confused, angry, or frustrated whenever the word “discernment” is used. So as soon as this becomes evident, you’re wasting your breath and fomenting a fruitless argument by talking about discernment any further.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. ramman3000 says:

    “The church won’t fall, it will just be transformed.”

    The pandemic revealed—through lockdowns and other mandates—that virtually every denomination is subservient to the state. By definition, they serve God rather than man. Those who are most spiritual knew that the church had fallen for a long time already, but now it is clear even to those who have limited (or no) spiritual understanding. It is unambiguous. Precious few churches (let alone denominations) have survived intact.

    There will be no schism, for there is nothing left to split. God’s Church—the body of believers—is no longer institutional, it is individual. One can see eras of God’s interaction with men, when he primarily spoke directly, through angels, through prophets, through Jesus, through the Church, or through the individual. We are embarking on the latter.

    This change is going to be especially difficult for those institutional orthodox types and much easier for the mystics. I do not envy the former their difficulty, and we should all be able to see why this blog has been favoring the latter for years now.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      “The pandemic revealed—through lockdowns and other mandates—that virtually every denomination is subservient to the state.”

      It also revealed that some congregations remain faithful to God, and defiant towards men who oppose God.

      https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2021/06/churches-win-lawsuits-against-california/

      Liked by 4 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “It also revealed that some congregations remain faithful to God, and defiant towards men who oppose God.”

        Indeed. Accordingly, in mid-2020, I started attending a church that explicitly ignored the mandates and stayed open.

        It is a purifying fire. It clarifies which are and are not faithful. Each congregation was forcibly tested, and everyone can clearly see what was done. Excepting those few places that didn’t have applicable mandates, each made their choice publicly.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      ramman3000,

      “The pandemic revealed—through lockdowns and other mandates—that virtually every denomination is subservient to the state. By definition, they serve God rather than man.”

      Did you mean to write, “they serve man rather than God”?

      Like

  11. locustsplease says:

    One thing nobody wants to touch on with women and homosexuality is they have been the leaders. The first homosexuality we tolerated was woman on woman. Its typical for them to make out in highschool or college. They are inherently bisexual partially because of their job during birthing breast feeding and being in harems. They admire attractive women as much as men do.

    Its sad to see my church on this slope. Sure they dont side with homosexuality publicly. For the most part they do a great job sticking to biblical principals. But they definitely let feminism in the door. I have pointed out to elders that every week talking about how great the single mother groups are and the sudden jump in divorces in the church is directly related. They let women do the announcements to the point they got totally fing hijacked. If you cant tell women no and they are bisexual you are assisting them in the inevitable. Women are all basically pry bars for the devil. They try to get just the tiniest bit of leverage on you and years later you flip.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ locustsplease

      Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

      Note that St. Paul mentions the women going lezbo first.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. Pingback: October Epilogue – Gnosticism | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s