Saturday, August 14, 2010

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Phony Decree of Damasus or Gelasius

Here's another example of why I don't trust the hierarchy of the RCC. I can never tell if what Catholics are quoting from is a genuine document. They may sincerely believe it is, but I can't trust the source.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Phony Decree of Damasus or Gelasius

100 comments:

Moonshadow said...

I have to laugh at one of the comments to that post, something about Catholics wanting Christianity to be all orderly and concise and Protestants understanding that church is "messy." Heck, it's always seemed the opposite to me: you could drive a truck through Catholic theology but a construction like, say, Calvinism is a tight ball of yarn. And what's more, the Calvinists I know think the dotted i's and crossed t's of their system strongly implies divine origin.

"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits." - Chesterton (Orthodoxy)

We really are made for romance, Jennie.

Anonymous said...

You should look up the Council of Carthage (397). Whether the decree is "phony" or not, the fact remains that the so-called apocrypha was widely accepted in the 4th century, not the 6th century as he would have you believe. In reality, those books were accepted much, much earlier, but at any rate, the Protestant claim that the books were "added" in the 16th century at Trent is manifestly false, as this so-called "phony" document makes clear.

Jennie said...

Teresa,
I have noticed that Calvinists have to be able to explain everything very concisely, and part of me likes that, though I don't agree with their conclusions in many things. But the other part of me agrees that love and romance and poetry and 'messiness' is a big part of it too. We need the structure and the doctrine to keep us on the straight and narrow, but the love is what we need to live well within those parameters; and the love helps us when we or our neighbors get outside those guidelines too.
It seems to me that Calvinists and Catholics both have 'messy' and 'concise' aspects, but in different ways.

Jennie said...

Anonymous,
I have a post with a link to a study about what the church believed from the time of Jerome until the Reformation. http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2010/08/old-testament-canon-and-apocrypha-part.html

Elena said...

OK, here is one quick way to know if a document is authentic or not - if it is listed on the Vatican Website - authentic!


That was easy.

Jennie said...

Are you sure about that Elena; I'm not. But then I've got really serious trust issues, not just with your church hierarchy, but with mine too these days, and everyone else's for that matter; and our government on both sides of the aisle, and business leaders, of course. Lord help me and all of us. I only trust God and those I'm close to. But then I see I have to trust God to be dealing with others the same as He's dealt with me. It's not easy.

Moonshadow said...

I've got really serious trust issues, not just with your church hierarchy, but with mine too these days, and everyone else's for that matter;

That's a whole 'nother matter that you shouldn't allow to get the best of you. Plenty of people are trustworthy. Really. (and I don't mean me.)

Jennie said...

You are right, lots of people are, including you and me (I try anyway). I think the Lord's been teaching me that for a while, which is why I've been trying to reach out more and connect with people around me and not hide in my shyness.

Leo said...

Elena is right. Start getting your information from the Vatican website and you will cease publishing all of your anti-Catholic nonsense.

The Catholic Church is the light on the hill and everything she teaches is there for all the world to see. The darkness hates the light and that is why you don't see your spurious sources quoting from the Vatican website.

The problem with Church hierarchy is only with middle management. The top is guided by Jesus Christ Himself. This is why there is a Catechism and why you can read everything the Holy Father teaches verbatim.

Jennie said...

Leo,
I don't think the problem with the Church hierarchy is only with the middle management.
Nor do I think that the Vatican website is any more reliable than any other source. Even if the documents are genuine, the doctrine may not be right.
The RCC teaches some things that are right, but it's the things that aren't that are the problem.

Jennie said...

Leo, I see your comment in my email, but it's not showing up here. Do you want to try posting it again? I can paste it here and you can cut and paste it if you need to.

Leo said...

Jennie,

I honestly don't remember what I posted. The main point was for you to read it and I guess that happened, but it would be great if you could post it as well.

Jennie said...

Here's your comment, Leo:

Jennie,

The problem with Protestantism is its perspective. You said that you do not think that the Vatican website is any more reliable, so show me one posting on the website that can be shown to be a fabrication. You somewhat corrected yourself by acknowledging that the documents may be genuine. Well, that's critical. You need to start with what the Church actually teaches. Then, and only then, we can talk intelligently about doctrine.

You spend 99% of your time attacking windmills, like Sancho Panza. By the way, The University of Michigan just completed a study which shows that people who are biased against anything tend to become even more biased if the facts show them to be wrong. They conclude that this is because many people today have a huge fear of acknowledging their mistakes. They simply refuse to admit to being wrong.

They were surprised because their adamance increased as more and more facts appeared to disprove their position. Christians need to flee from that, because Jesus Christ is Truth.

You have unfortunately been caught up with catch phrases like the liberals. They say 'pro choice' to distract the issue from being one of life. They talk about 'gay rights' to marriage, as if we are infringing on their rights.

So too, you talk about the Church 'adding' to the Faith, when in fact, you have been subtracting from the Faith. You see, you are starting with the premise that you believe the Truth and that everything that you don't believe must be proven to you since it is not in your core. Thus, for you, Truth is relative. It changes as your understanding changes.

The reality is that Truth never changes and we are separated from it until we come to the fullness of it. Early in my Faith walk, I disagreed with some teachings of the Church, such as on abortion in cases of rape. I was a judge of the Church, like you are now.

Eventually, by the grace of God, I came to understand that when I disagreed with a teaching, the problem was not with the Church but with my faith and understanding of Truth. I now get it and I am ever grateful. I pray for your eyes to be opened as well.

Leo said...

Thanks!

Elena said...

By the way, The University of Michigan just completed a study which shows that people who are biased against anything tend to become even more biased if the facts show them to be wrong. They conclude that this is because many people today have a huge fear of acknowledging their mistakes. They simply refuse to admit to being wrong.

If that's true it is just sad! It means people are stuck in a perpetual fantasy type of adolescence!

It wasn't my experience personally. I was a solid Democrat and became a solid conservative because that's where the logic lead me. Same with Catholicism. I wonder if it's a generational thing?

Leo said...

Another thought just struck me as to why Christ founded His Church. We can simply follow the precepts and teachings of the Church faithfully and we are assured the kingdom of heaven.

We don't need to waste our precious lives trying to determine what Truth is by analyzing and researching millions of documents in order to determine which we should believe and why.

We can instead live our lives to their fullest and share the love of God by feeding the hungry, comforting the lonely and sick and raising our families by simply letting God work through us without self-analyzing our every move in fear of somehow offending God every step of the way.

In other words, the Sacraments combine with our faithfulness to transform us into the image of Jesus Christ so that He begins to live through us. We can never make ourselves holy. Christ literally transforms us when we consume His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist.

We are His children and every fiber of our being should cry out, "Abba", just as a small child would trustingly say while raising his or her arms to be picked up by their smiling and loving Daddy...

Jennie said...

By the way, The University of Michigan just completed a study which shows that people who are biased against anything tend to become even more biased if the facts show them to be wrong. They conclude that this is because many people today have a huge fear of acknowledging their mistakes. They simply refuse to admit to being wrong.

They were surprised because their adamance increased as more and more facts appeared to disprove their position. Christians need to flee from that, because Jesus Christ is Truth.


Leo,
I'm biased toward scripture and historical truth, and you are biased toward Roman Catholicism. I have discussed many things on my blog that show that some RC teachings are contrary to scripture, and that the papacy is not scriptural, nor did it exist in the early church. You choose to accept the word of the Church. I choose to accept the scriptures and history. I have not seen anything that has made me think I am wrong about the papacy, Mary, transubstantiation, and the Church's teachings on salvation and works. All I have read has shown me that these teachings and practices are not correct.

Christine said...

Jennie - you are biased not toward scripture and historical truth but toward anti-Catholicism. You say we all have our biases. The difference is this: you are the one with a blog that specifically, unfairly, one-sidedly, and arrogantly targets Catholics. Attacks Catholicism with falsehoods that you have searched out, when you could have chosen to have a reasoned discussion that acknowledged what we REALLY believe and why, even if you disagree. Disagreement is not the problem, but rather the lack of love and respect. I feel I've been a little mean at times too, in my frustration, and for that I apologize. Please stop the attacks.

Moonshadow said...

I just finished a study of The Acts of the Apostles developed by Tim Keller who's written a couple of popular books for Evangelicals. Keller ministers in NYC and encounters a good number of skeptics especially among young professionals who have, you know, been to college and such. Too intelligent to take any stock in the Bible.

So, Keller's approach is to show how portions of the Bible, the historical sections, can be proved true. Nothing like finding Noah's Ark and all archeology. Just that the characters (in Acts) behave rationally and prudently, even wisely. And the presupposition is something akin to, "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much ..."

Leo (and the rest of us) are taking the same approach with the Church: showing how she's faithful in some verifiable portions so that the rest may be supposed.

Jennie said...

Christine,
I don't see it the way you do. I respect all of you personally and understand some of why you believe what you believe. I'm not attacking you. I truly believe that there are things in RCC doctrine and practice that are contrary to the gospel, and that the papacy is a usurpation of power. I believe the Lord Jesus is calling us all out of the traditions and systems that have sinned against Him and His people, because He is coming soon. If I didn't think you were brothers and sisters, or hope so, since I can't know people's hearts, I wouldn't bother.

Christine said...

And my response to Moonshadow's comment is - wow, that sounds really interesting. I would love to check it out. The fact that Mr. Keller is an evangelical doesn't mean that he doesn't have anything important and worthwhile to say that might benefit Catholics as much as other Christians. Why can't you find it in your heart, Jennie, to respect other people's faith without tearing them down? What bad thing would happen if on occasion you said, "You have a point there"? When you say things like "I'm biased toward Scripture and historical truth, and you are biased toward Roman Catholism", it's just really offensive, and doesn't feel at all like respectful brother-sister-hood.

Leo said...

Jennie,

You constant attacks against the Church, unfortunately, make you like the clanging gong, as Christine alluded to so well. You certainly don't display the love and charity that I would expect from someone with a deep and abiding faith. There is a bitterness deep within you as within many anti-Catholics. I honestly sense a viciousness in your remarks and in those of many of the people you quote, some of whom post on your blog from time to time.

You sound just like the disobedient members of the Church who choose to stay and criticize. It may surprise you that there are a number of Catholics who refuse to obey Church teaching as well. Now that I think about it, you are really no different than the heretical bishops, priests and lay people within, since they are just as bitter as you are. There is no evidence, whatsoever, of the oneness that Christ requested for all those who would come to believe in Him THROUGH His Apostles(the good old hierarchy).

I guess you can separate yourself even while physically remaining in the Church, just like you can by leaving and throwing rocks...

Moonshadow said...

Here's a mirror, Leo. Please look -

who choose to stay and criticize ... no different than the heretical bishops, priests and lay people within ...

Care to name names? Who's the object of your criticism? Cripes.

Jennie said...

Christine, My comment about being biased was directed to Leo to jog him into realizing that he is biased too. The part about scripture and historical truth was my attempt to avoid the word 'protestantism' since I don't really agree with any denomination's doctrines totally, nor with all their politics or historical behaviors either. My husband's ministry has been largely to get back to scripture and discipleship and away from many long held traditions that are not scriptural in the evangelical world. So I don't think we're 'protestants' in the traditional sense.
And, honestly, I WAS trying to offend Leo to get him to think about it from my perspective and see that we are both biased toward what we believe, not just me. He tries his best to offend me and then jokes about it, and I try not to get offended about being called a pharisee or someone who hates Mary (I love her for who I see in scripture, not for what the RCC says she is).

Jennie said...

you are the one with a blog that specifically, unfairly, one-sidedly, and arrogantly targets Catholics. Attacks Catholicism with falsehoods that you have searched out, when you could have chosen to have a reasoned discussion that acknowledged what we REALLY believe and why, even if you disagree.

We actually have had quite a few discussions here and on Elena's blog about doctrines, in which Elena, Moonshadow (Teresa), and others have expained what they believe or what their understanding is of what the Church teaches. What I've noticed though, is that they don't always agree on the explanations of what the Church teaches. They each interpret it according to their own understanding, just like protestants are accused of doing to the Bible. So it's just as hard to figure out what Catholics believe as it is to figure out protestants believe. Anyway, I have enjoyed those discussions in the past, but haven't gotten much clarity.

Leo said...

Jennie,

What I am interested in is Truth. You seem oblivious to that concept. When I speak of heretical priests and bishops it is historical and goes all the way back to Judas Iscariot. Martin Luther was a heretical priest. Nestorius was a heretical archbishop of Constantinople. In my role, I pray for our priests and bishops but I go to official Church teaching to understand Truth.

Let's look at Nestorianism for example. Archbishop Nestorius believed that there were two natures and that Jesus Christ was not identical to the Son but that the Son lived in him. When his teaching was condemned as heretical, the churches following him broke off from the Catholic and formed their own community. Of course, this heresy resulted in the creation of another heresy called monophysitism which held that Christ had only one nature because the divine nature absorbed the human nature. Eutychianism was a form of this. You then had adoptionism where Christ was a man selected by God.

It took the Council of Chalcedon to officially rule that Christ was one person with two natures and this is now the position held by Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. You see, the Holy Spirit needed to step in to straighten the mess out and He did.

This is why Christ left His Church with His authority to teach Truth.

Incidentally, Nestorius also disagreed with the title of Theotokos given to the Blessed Mother. He did not want her to be called the Mother of God. Once a heretic, always a heretic...

Elena said...

Elena, Moonshadow (Teresa), and others have expained what they believe or what their understanding is of what the Church teaches. What I've noticed though,is that they don't always agree on the explanations of what the Church teaches

I admit that the majority of the time cannot figure out where Teresa is coming from. I think I was surprised to find out that she actually was Catholic. I don't think I was alone in that. Teresa frequently throws Kelly for a loop as well.

Which has nothing to do with the doctrines of the church and probably more to do with personality differences.

Leo said...

Teresa,

You misunderstood what I obviously did not say clearly enough. I meant that there are those in the Church who critcize what the Church officially teaches and they criticize the Holy Father as well. They should have the integrity to leave.

The reason the Holy Spirit led the Church to produce the Catechism was precisely to get the Truth into everyone's hands so as to dispel error about what the Church teaches or doesn't teach.

Teresa, it is not acceptable for a Catholic to criticize Church teaching or for anyone within to teach that which is contrary to our Faith.

Imagine that you were a Catholic living in Constantinople at the time when Nestorius was archbishop. He was heretical in his teaching and you would have had every right to call him out on that. We have the same obligation today.

Unfortunately, it is working the opposite. Many Catholics are disagreeing with those who are holding fast to Church teaching. It is the unfaithful Catholics whom I was referring to.

Most bishops and priests are trying to be faithful to the teachings of the Church. Could I name names of some of those who are wolves in sheep's clothing? Of course I can...but I won't. That would be the sin of detraction.

I can only pray for them and confront them directly, which I have. Teresa, you will never find me criticizing the Church or her teachings because I know that I would be criticizing Jesus Christ Himself. Reread what I wrote and you will see that I was only referring to the heretics within and they deserve criticism for that. Surely you are not blind to the enemies of the Church who are within? They want to change the Church to suit their own liking. Well, that is never going to happen. It is we who are to be conformed to Truth...not the other way around...

If you ever catch me teaching anything contrary to our Faith, please do call me out on that.

Leo said...

Elena,

"I admit that the majority of the time cannot figure out where Teresa is coming from. I think I was surprised to find out that she actually was Catholic. I don't think I was alone in that."

No, you are right. The differences are related not to personality but to Theology. Teresa has been quick to attack my comments more than once. There are a number of Catholics who, I think, see the 'Jesus is love' aspect as we should just all be nice, get along and throw out all of the teachings that create discord and damage the 'koo koo kachoo' harmony of the world. Well, sorry, Jesus said that He would create division until we were all united in Truth.

I can see these same individuals chastising Jesus for turning over the moneychangers' tables, for example. Better yet, rebuking the Holy Spirit for taking the lives of Ananias and Sapphira...

Elena, I can sense that your faith is true and strong. I cannot put it in words, but I have felt the same way about where Teresa is coming from. This is where the Holy Spirit gives us that interior knowledge when something just doesn't seem right. It is like when you listen to a musical piece and you can immediately tell when there is a discordant note.

This is the Sensus Fidelium, or the sense of the faithful, whereby the Holy Spirit gives the sincere and faithful an inner knowledge of Truth to prevent us from falling into heresy.

It's like your posts, Elena. I have not read a single one where I had any disagreement with what you said. I have found that this oneness exists in all faithful and obedient Catholics.

Leo said...

Jennie,

"All I have read has shown me that these teachings and practices are not correct."

Not surprising, considering your sources...

" I don't think we're 'protestants' in the traditional sense."

Of course not...since you don't believe in Tradition, you must be protestants in the scriptural sense... ;-)

"honestly, I WAS trying to offend Leo"

Aw shucks...you do care...sniff...

" try not to get offended about being called a pharisee or someone who hates Mary (I love her for who I see in scripture, not for what the RCC says she is)."

For crying out loud...Mary is a real person. You either love her or you don't. Who ever says 'I lover her for who I see in scripture' like you're talking about some fictional character. She is clearly not real to you.

I sure hope that you don't simply love Jesus for who you see in scripture. Put the book down for a second and try to get to really know the people the book is about.
Sheesh...

Jennie said...

This is where the Holy Spirit gives us that interior knowledge when something just doesn't seem right. It is like when you listen to a musical piece and you can immediately tell when there is a discordant note.

This is the Sensus Fidelium, or the sense of the faithful, whereby the Holy Spirit gives the sincere and faithful an inner knowledge of Truth to prevent us from falling into heresy.

It's like your posts, Elena. I have not read a single one where I had any disagreement with what you said. I have found that this oneness exists in all faithful and obedient Catholics.


Funny, the same thing happens to me when I read or listen to someone else. I think most of us feel akin to someone who agrees with us, or feel an alienation from someone who doesn't. It may be the Holy Spirit or it may not.

Jennie said...

For crying out loud...Mary is a real person. You either love her or you don't. Who ever says 'I lover her for who I see in scripture' like you're talking about some fictional character. She is clearly not real to you.

I sure hope that you don't simply love Jesus for who you see in scripture. Put the book down for a second and try to get to really know the people the book is about.
Sheesh...


Leo,
the Holy Spirit gave us scripture, and He works through it to teach us, guide us, and sanctify us. That IS how we get to know Him, with prayer also.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

John 15:1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

Psalm 119: 17 Deal bountifully with Your servant,
That I may live and keep Your word.
18 Open my eyes, that I may see
Wondrous things from Your law.
19 I am a stranger in the earth;
Do not hide Your commandments from me.
20 My soul breaks with longing
For Your judgments at all times.
21 You rebuke the proud—the cursed,
Who stray from Your commandments.
22 Remove from me reproach and contempt,
For I have kept Your testimonies.
23 Princes also sit and speak against me,
But Your servant meditates on Your statutes.
24 Your testimonies also are my delight
And my counselors.

Moonshadow said...

Put the book down for a second and try to get to really know the people the book is about.

Now, look, this is one place in which Protestantism differs from Catholicism. They don't trust anything in themselves, including imagination or feelings. For them, there's no other way to know these people than through the Bible, their touchstone.

A recent post at Commonweal (hold your nose as you skim it, if necessary) quoted from Luke Timothy Johnson on "Living Jesus."

In the comments, Jim Pauwels (a priest) quotes more from Johnson:

“Jesus is best learned not as a result of an individual’s scholarly quest that is published in a book, but as a continuing process of personal transformation within a community of disciples. Jesus is learned through the faithful reading of the Scriptures, true, but he is learned as well through the sacraments (above all the Eucharist), the lives of saints (dead and living) and the strangers with whom the exalted Lord especially associates himself.” (emphasis mine)

This is the Catholic imagination and it's probably what we recognize in each other (and know when it's absent).

John said...

Just a general comment. Maybe it is wrong, but what I like about your blog is that it is like watching an accident; hard to look away. When you make comments like the " individual Catholics" in the comments related to the Jefferson post it is hard to look away. I believe you are a sincere Christian searching for truth. But sometimes I think you use half-truths and innuendo the way a drunk uses a lampost, more for support than illumination .

Leo said...

John,

I am still laughing at your analogy...good one. I am glad others find humor in this as well.

I was just going to tell Jennie that she reminds me of the cartoon where she is sitting on the branch, feverishly sawing away to be separated from the tree that the branch is connected to.

Jennie, you had better be careful not to saw all the way through by condemning the pope, accusing Mary of being sinful and disparaging the Church, lest you separate yourself from the vine for good...

Jennie said...

John, how long have you been waiting for an opportunity to use that 'drunk and the lampost' comparison?
I guess it's time to rename my blog. I thought about renaming it a while back when a Calvinist called my arguments 'skubalon'. My husband and I were rolling with laughter over that one when we came up with 'Crossing the Skubalon'. Maybe now I should change it to 'Jennie's Trainwreck' or 'An Accident Waiting to Happen'. Or maybe 'The Accidental Heretic.' Feel free to vote on it. Or come up with some suggestions of your own. Cant' wait.

John said...

I felt the lampost comment was valid when I first explored your blog. I am still seeking clarification of your not being bothered by individual Catholics being in this country comment. Would it not cause you to pause if I said I am not bothered by individual Baptists being in this country?

Christine said...

I am not too bothered by individual Baptists living in or holding office in this country. However, their loyalty to the five solas could never be compatible with a democratic republic where people must be free to have as many solas as their consciences dictate.

Rapture-believers could pervert our national sense of future planning, since the "end-times-are-near" folks are brainwashing the electorate that there's no need to provide for our children and grandchildren.

A prime example is when Mike Huckabee has Tim and Beverly LaHaye on his TV show, proving that with political power, Baptists are supremely dangerous. This has been proven time and again by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts and other enemies of true faith. I only say this because I care so much about Baptists as my brethren, even though they are idolaters of the Book and crave power in high places. Baptists who say otherwise don't know what they really believe and we must tell them what their denomination is really all about.

There, Jennie, is my lame attempt at turning the tables on you. It is meant in good fun, but also to make a point.

If anyone missed Leo's post of Aug 18 at 8:21 - it is beautiful.

John said...

Ah Christine, you are one of those Catholics I like having in "our country." Our country??

Jennie said...

You're the one who brought up the bigotry subject. I was just defending myself.

John said...

Help. I am not sure Jennie sees the problem with her statement.

Jennie said...

A prime example is when Mike Huckabee has Tim and Beverly LaHaye on his TV show, proving that with political power, Baptists are supremely dangerous. This has been proven time and again by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts and other enemies of true faith. I only say this because I care so much about Baptists as my brethren, even though they are idolaters of the Book and crave power in high places. Baptists who say otherwise don't know what they really believe and we must tell them what their denomination is really all about.
Apart from the fact that Oral Roberts isn't a Baptist (Is he?), and being 'idolaters of the Book', I'd say "go ahead, I agree." I told you all before that people in high places are mostly corrupt; that goes for evangelicals too.

Jennie said...

Jennie, you had better be careful not to saw all the way through by condemning the pope, accusing Mary of being sinful and disparaging the Church, lest you separate yourself from the vine for good...

John 15: 1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

Notice that Jesus is the True Vine, NOT the pope, Mary, or the Church. Notice that we are made clean by His word, and we are to abide in His word and have His word abiding in us, if you read the whole passage in John 15.

John said...

Leo, not really the place for this, but I think you mentioned you are a teacher in China. My wife, also a teacher, (and a Protestant that I am happy to have in "our country") is think of teaching overseas. Any thoughts? Sorry Jennie, we can go back to spirited discussion now.

Leo said...

John,

Actually, I am in charge of the Asian operations for a manufacturing company. I just happen to have been a catechist for the last 20+ years. It keeps me grounded and restores my sanity.

What does your wife teach?

Leo said...

Jennie,

You misunderstood my comment because I once again was not clear. When I reread what I wrote, I can see why you read it the way you did.

I was referring to Jesus as the vine, assuming that this was a given. My point was that you need to be careful about disparaging the Holy Father, our Blessed Mother and the Church. I assure you that you are not glorifying God by doing so.

Leo said...

Jennie,

In defense of John, you are bigoted against Catholics and Christine made an excellent comparison for you with her Baptist example.

Think about how you simply dismissed the fact that it was not the Catholic Church but the Anglican Church that the colonials were fleeing. Heck, it was punishable by death to remain a Catholic in England. The king could not stand the Church because she refused to go against God by granting him a divorce. Even though there were bishops and priests who gave in and apostasized to save their lives, many were martyred for standing firm in the Faith. You are trampling in the blood of martyrs when you disparage the Church.

When I said that you have some Jack Chick in you, you immediately responded that apparently I had not read your post that you did not like Jack Chick. Well, I had read it and you are like the 'kindler and gentler' version of Jack Chick. Here's a thought for you...

Hitler(though raised Catholic) hated the Catholic Church,
The USSR hated the Catholic Church and tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II,
China hates the Catholic Church,
King Henry VIII obviously hated the Catholic Church,
Homosexual activists hate the Catholic Church,
Abortionists hate the Catholic Church,
Satan and his followers hate the Catholic Church,
The KKK hates the Catholic Church...

Jennie, do you honestly think you are in good company? Do you remember what Jesus said about a kingdom divided against itself? He responded that way because He was accused of being aligned with Beelzebub. It seems like you are accusing the Holy Father and the Church of the same thing.

Christine said...

Amen and amen.

John said...

Jennie,
What troubles me about your statement regarding your not being bothered by individual Catholics living in "our" country is not only that it is the echo of so many bigots past and present. It also leaves the impression that we are not quite at your level. Are we to be thankful that you do not mind our being here? Are we to be thankful that you do not even mind that we hold political office. Then there is the fear that we, the Church, desire to control the government, another echo of bigots past and present. How could I make those same statements about blacks or hispanics and not expect either of those groups to be offended. Yes, this is our country, yours, mine, and everyone. Whether your statement was a defense does not justify the language.

Leo said...

Jennie,

I am reposting my comment here so we can all keep going on the same blog. It can be confusing going back to different postings all of the time and since the topic fits, here we go:

"I think the Catholic Church would do much better without the papacy."

Of course you do...you hate the concept of absolute truth and needing to align yourself with it. You are desperately trying to forget that it is the KINGDOM of God and NOT the democracy of God.

" Look up the posts on Christian liberty and see what the papacy is doing in places where it has a majority and has a concordat with the government. You believe that the papacy is infallible, but instead it is corrupted by power and always has been."

Oh, look, I have posted it and thus it is true...please, no need to bow to my brilliance, when a simple nod of the head will do...

So tell me, oh wise one, just where is the papacy corrupted by power today, just as it 'always has been'?

The Church clearly teaches that true freedom is the freedom to live according to God's will and that each person has the right to believe as they wish. In fact, we are compelled as Catholics to respect all religions, recognizing that they have their basis in God. In fact, I would just like to hear one example where the Holy Father has disparaged anyone in our lifetimes.

It's much harder when you have to deal with the facts and cannot twist them to suit your liking. Although you are an accomplished scripture pretzel maker, there is no such thing as a fact pretzel.

Jennie said...

Leo, John, and Christine,
You all persist in calling me a bigot. I say that I am not. I have close friends and family that are Catholic, and I was in the Catholic church as a child. This subject is very close to me, and I pursued it because I deeply wanted to understand the church throughout history, and why so many people are converting to Catholicism, and also why people come out of it. I wanted to know if the RCC was really the only church in the Western world for centuries (no, it wasn't). It really isn't your business to condemn me if I wanted to explore this, and what my conclusions and convictions are about it. I don't really have that many readers, so why don't you go over to Beggars All, or TurretinFan's blog and start calling them bigots, and see how they put up with it.

John said...

Look, I did not say you are a bigot. I said the language you chose in the statement in question was the same language used by bigots. How you do not see that is a mystery to me. We all enjoy your blog and mean no ill will. I look forward to your response to Leo's questions.

Jennie said...

Of course you do...you hate the concept of absolute truth and needing to align yourself with it. You are desperately trying to forget that it is the KINGDOM of God and NOT the democracy of God.

Leo,
you've learned well from the past that it works well to falsely accuse the 'heretic'. You're making wild assumptions about my personal beliefs and attitudes that have no foundation. The Truth is Christ Himself and the word He sent forth by the Holy Spirit, and I love the truth, and hate every false way. I hate the power structures of every 'church' or state that seek to trample people's freedom and lives, including the so-called conservatives or evangelical power-mongers. In the end they'll all be united against those who stand for the testimony of Jesus. I don't want to stamp these hierarches out. I'm not afraid of them. I just don't want those who truly love the Lord to be on the wrong side when judgment comes. I'm telling the word as I see it. History will repeat itself, and those who didn't learn from it will be on the wrong side.

Again, read some of the posts I have under 'The Papacy' and also 'Christian Liberty' to see what I mean.

Christine said...

No one has condemned you. We're just calling you on some untruths that you're promoting in a public forum. We want to engage you and discuss faith with you, but you don't really listen to anything that doesn't conform to your pre-conceived notions.

There's a more pervasive arrogance over at TurretinFan and Beggars All. I check them out very occasionally but they are simply bolstering themselves daily as to why they are not Catholic. The Church must be, to you-Beggars-TurretinFan, something you have to continually resist. Why else devote whole blogs to it. No one devotes whole blogs to undermining your particular Jennie-version-Christianity viewpoint.

Jennie said...

Also, I know it is a kingdom, but the King is Jesus Christ, not the pope. I know you will agree with that, but you act as if the pope is king and that I must be under his authority. Christ said His kingdom is not of this world, and He doesn't force people to accept Him, nor teach His disciples to do that. He didn't set up a human monarch.

Jennie said...

Ok John, what I really meant was 'I don't mind any person being in this country and holding office as long as they are not an illegal alien, of course.' How's that?

Leo said...

Jennie,

First of all, no ill will was meant so I apologize if you took it the wrong way. However, to be bigoted against something is to be obstinately devoted to your own opinions and prejudices about that thing. So please show me how that definition is in error. There is a difference in calling someone a bigot vs. saying that a person is bigoted against something.

Please understand that when you make false accusations about the Holy Father and our Blessed Mother, you are actually attacking our family. You would not take kindly to our making disparaging comments about any of your relatives, yet you feel okay doing so about our Church. My guess is that your brother doesn't like that all too much either.

Look back at your posts about the Church and the pope and you will see the repeated accusations and name-calling.

Christine said...

We don't act like the Pope is King. He's the prime minister, in effect, after the pattern in Isaiah 22 (the keys and succession - HANDED DOWN!!!!). The pope is The Rock. Upon whom. Christ said. "I will build my Church."

We never said the pope is King,or like a king, or kind of a king, and we wouldn't. Another example of a false accusation even though you couch it in "I know you'll agree" and "you act as though". Why do you feel compelled to say those things?

Do you not even still see the offensiveness of generously not minding that certain groups live in this country?

John said...

"how is that?" A good start. Now do you have an example of how the Church may be trying to control this government or any government today?

Jennie said...

Christine,
Why then have the popes continually acted basically as kings over other kings until they lost that influence a little over a hundred years ago? And even in the 20th century conducted forced conversions in some countries. This is the truth.
I don't believe that the loss of such great political influence has fundamentally changed the papacy. I believe there is much evidence that it is still working behind the scenes to influence and regain power. I know you may not be able to accept that. I also believe that some in the evangelical leadership, the ones that seek political influence, have bad connections that show their true agenda as well. Jerry Falwell took money from Sun Myung Moon to bail out his college some years ago. Power corrupts.

Jennie said...

John, I keep asking you to read my posts under 'the Papacy' and 'Christian Liberty' to see examples of the papacy and government influence.

John said...

I glanced at the posts and still seem to be missing it. Please help me out with a specific regarding our government.

John said...

The only reason I am asking is that I am off camping again and my iPhone reception is weak and it takes forever to open a new page and I was hoping for a fair example before the endtimes are a reality.

Jennie said...

We don't act like the Pope is King. He's the prime minister, in effect, after the pattern in Isaiah 22 (the keys and succession - HANDED DOWN!!!!). The pope is The Rock. Upon whom. Christ said. "I will build my Church."
Christine,
Scripture doesn't say there will be a succession or an apostolic prime minister. As I said recently, but don't remember if you were in the conversation, the Isaiah passage is prophetic of Christ and is quoted again at the beginning of Revelation, where Jesus is talking about Himself. The Rock is always referring to God Himself and the stones of the Apostles are built upon Him. That is what other scriptures say. Scripture does interpret scripture.

Leo said...

"And even in the 20th century conducted forced conversions in some countries. This is the truth."

Jennie, this is a perfect example. Please give us a specific factual example of what you just proclaimed to be truth. By the way, one common thread in all of the false gospels is that each started out by identifying itself(i.e.'This is the gospel of Thomas', This is the gospel of Judas', etc.)

That's similar to what you are doing when you are making an accusation which you probably subliminally know to be without conclusive evidence. You so want it to be true that you add your own 'Jennie seal' to it by saying 'this is the truth'.

When you attack the Mary and the popes falsely, that is the sin of calumny. You do not see us attacking your pastors, your husband or your church as being the 'whore of Babylon'. This is even though we believe that everything we say about the Church is true.

Can you not see that we are asking for simple discussion and exchange of ideas? You claim that some Cathlolics may be saved, thank you very much, but that would not be likely if the Church is the whore of Babylon. You cannot have it both ways.

Jennie said...

You claim that some Cathlolics may be saved, thank you very much, but that would not be likely if the Church is the whore of Babylon. You cannot have it both ways.

Leo, then why, as I've pointed out several times, does the Lord Jesus command His people to 'come out of her' so that you don't share in her judgment and her sins.

Jennie said...

"And even in the 20th century conducted forced conversions in some countries. This is the truth."

Jennie, this is a perfect example. Please give us a specific factual example of what you just proclaimed to be truth.


Here's an article I just found on a subject I read about from other sources several years ago. I have no idea what the original articles were that I read so long ago, but this has enough information to go on.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/266.html

John said...

Wow!!! That is supposed to be a reliable website? I love the further reference info. That says a lot!

Jennie said...

John,
I'm not sure if there's anything in my posts so far specifically about our own government, but there's plenty about other ones. There's plenty that I haven't linked to about how secretive societies like the Jesuits have acted in Europe and in our country to continue to gain influence politically. But certainly what I already have posted is a good beginning, and you can read it if you like when you get to a computer.

Jennie said...

John,
the information is the same no matter what the source. There are bunches of web sites that discuss what happened in Croatia, with Ante Pavelic and the Ustasi or Ustashi, and forced conversions of Orthodox, Jews, etc, with the help of Franciscans and Dominicans. Just google it. It's a shame that churches in general give athiests such fodder for their views on God and the church. Don't discount it.

Leo said...

Jennie,

Are you serious? You take atheist propoganda as truth? You say that Jesus commanded us to come out of the Catholic Church? I gave you more credit than that. Let me give you a link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp

So let's get this straight. It doesn't bother you to be on the same side as evil people and organizations that have continuously hated God and the Church, even when most respected Protestants see their bias and disagree with them? You are willing to align yourself with all of these true haters of God while rejecting all of the logical and reasonable people that disagree with them?

Jennie, your approach is truly disappointing. Be careful, lest the Lord rebuke you for your repeated and stubborn assaults on His mother, His Church, and His appointed authority on earth.

Jennie said...

Leo,
I'm not on their side at all. As I said there are many sources for this information if you google it or go to the library. What is a shame is that the 'Church' has done these things that give atheists some reason to disbelieve. Don't use this one source as a reason to discount the information.

Jennie said...

I really, really wish that everyone here would go and read my posts on 'Peter' in the sidebar that have to do with Peter and the Rock. The Bible says 'Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength.' If we trust in Peter he will fail us. If we trust in Billy Graham, he will fail us. If we trust in Jesus Christ alone as our Rock and foundation, He will never fail. Jesus knew 'what was in man' and did not entrust Himself to them. He alone is the one that never fails.

Leo said...

Jennie,

But, you ARE on the same side. Do you honestly think that all those aligned with Satan would be attacking the Church if she were the Whore of Babylon? Hardly...Satan is not divided against himself. He follows the concept that if you repeat a lie long enough, everyone will begin to believe it.

Just why on earth do you think that Satanists worship at a black mass? Why do you think their greatest ritual is the desecration of a consecrated host? Satan is a whole lot wiser than you are and you would do well to see whom he despises so you don't inadvertently align yourself with him.

You have become just like those who reject the fact that we have ever been to the moon. You are losing touch with reality because of your allegiance to sources because of their hatred of the Catholic Church as opposed to their scholarship.

Jennie said...

Leo,
please stop going on about who hates the Catholic church. A person who loves Jesus Christ, believes His word is final, and hates evil is not aligned with Satan, so I think you are the one who had better think again about that. You are so sure of yourself that all evil hates the Catholic Church, but I am just as sure that you are wrong. As I said twice already, maybe the fact that your church (and mine too) is giving atheists reason to stumble should give you pause.

Leo said...

"You are so sure of yourself that all evil hates the Catholic Church, but I am just as sure that you are wrong."

Jennie, please stop for a second to get a breath of air. Let's just stay on one topic if that is not too much to ask. Start with your quote above.

I gave you several specific
organizations and groups aligned with evil, which have pubicly assaulted and clearly hate the Church. Show me one evil organization that publicly supports the Church.

My certainty is bolstered by facts and not opinions.

Leo said...

"please stop going on about who hates the Catholic church. A person who loves Jesus Christ, believes His word is final, and hates evil is not aligned with Satan,..."

Jennie, I said you are aligned with Satan in your hatred of the Catholic Church. I did not say you were aligned with him on anything else. My caution was to think about why you two are on the same side when it comes to the topic of the Church.

If someone told me that I was aligned with Satan on any topic, it would immediately cause me to be objectively introspective as to why that was. If I did find myself to be in agreement on a topic with Satan, it would trouble me greatly because there is nothing I agree with him on. Since he is the great deceiver, I would rethink my position, realizing that I had been had by the father of lies.

Jennie said...

Unfortunately Leo, the Church itself hasn't taken your advice. The Roman Catholic Church, the puritan church, the Lutheran Church, and others have all been aligned with Satan at some points. Jesus told the Apostles in no uncertain terms when they were aligned with Satan, such as when Peter scolded Jesus for talking of His death, and when John and James wanted to call down fire from heaven on some people. He said they did not know what spirit they were of. The church, Catholic and protestant, has been of a different spirit at various times, when they killed, tortured, and imprisoned those who did not agree with them, often for political reasons with spiritual excuses. If Peter, James, and John can fall into this, so can the church.
Jesus is our only firm foundation. Churches and leaders can fail, and do.

John said...

Jennie you made an accusation and we ask for evidence you give a site that no Christian, Catholic or Protestant, should trust. You say google it. You made the accusation, it seems only fair that you provide the reliable link to the story. It leaves me wondering from what site did you get that link to begin with. More to the point is the reality that all Christians have more than their share of bad actors but we do not reject our lord because of that. We have had bad popes, priests, and bishops in the past and no doubt we will in the future. In spite of that the Church continues to proclaim the truth; that truth that is a person, Jesus Christ.

Leo said...

Jennie,

Again, please just show us one evil organization that supports the Catholic Church. I gave you plenty that condemn it.

Leo said...

"others have all been aligned with Satan at some points. Jesus told the Apostles in no uncertain terms when they were aligned with Satan, such as when Peter scolded Jesus for talking of His death, and when John and James wanted to call down fire from heaven on some people. He said they did not know what spirit they were of."

The difference is that they promptly repented. You have not. You contnue to be on Satan's side in slamming the Church and calling it the 'whore of Babylon'.

Leo said...

"Churches and leaders can fail, and do."

The Holy Father can only fail in personal sin. He can never teach error on Faith and Morals. He goes to Confession once a week at least because he is well aware of his fallen nature.

The Church as a whole can also never fail in teaching on Faith and Morals.

I hate to keep distracting you from answering my question...

John said...

Speaking of website references. If I understood correctly, the purpose of your site is to learn more about the truth or falseness of catholicism. If that is so, then I am at a loss as to why the sources you virtually always cite are those that are convinced the Church is false. At the least it is not a method for arriving at truth. At worst it is intellectual dishonesty.

Jennie said...

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/serbian_newmartyrs.aspx

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Paveli%C4%87

Leo said...

""Until now, God spoke through papal encyclicals. And? They closed their ears... Now God has decided to use other methods. He will prepare missions. European missions. World missions..."

Jennie, I don't have time to research more right now, but this very quote from your link is directly from the archdiocesan paper in Croatia. As you can see, they stopped listening to the papal encyclicals and took things into their own hands.

I do remember that there was a lot of propoganda spread by the Communists about how the Church did all of these things and how most of it has been disproven. Winesses who lived it said they were indoctrinated by nonsense much as the Islamic terrorists do in their schools about us today.

This is similar to the lies they told about the pope during WWII. Now that the truth is known, leading Jewish organizations acknowledge that he probably saved more Jews than anyone else.

Jennie said...

The Holy Father can only fail in personal sin. He can never teach error on Faith and Morals. He goes to Confession once a week at least because he is well aware of his fallen nature.

If that's so then why does Paul warn the Galatians 1: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Apparently even Apostles could possibly preach another gospel, or Paul would not warn them of this. In the next chapter of Galatians Paul tells of how Peter was to be blamed:
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

This was not just a personal sin. This was an action done in public out of fear, that jeopardized the whole message of the gospel. This was an error of faith that by action taught a false gospel.

Jennie said...

Here's a quote from the wikipedia page:
The number of the Orthodox that the Croats have massacred and sadistically tortured to death is about three hundred thousand." [15] Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican, but at no point did the Church condemn the genocide and forced conversions to Catholicism perpetrated by the Ustaše.[16] Soon after coming to power in April 1941 Pavelić was given a private audience in Rome by Pope Pius XII, an act for which the Pope was widely criticized. A British Foreign Office memo on the subject described Pius as "the greatest moral coward of our age" for receiving Pavelić.[17]. A Yugoslavian court declared that Pavelić had been responsible for the deaths of 700,000 people during his reign.

Jennie said...

More from the Wikipedia article:

In May 1945 Pavelić fled via Bleiburg to Austria, where he stayed for a few months before transferring to Rome, where he was hidden by members of the Roman Catholic Church (as is documented in de-classified US Intelligence documents)[18]).

Jennie said...

Again, please just show us one evil organization that supports the Catholic Church. I gave you plenty that condemn it.

The Jesuits and Opus Dei.

John said...

Ah those traditional whipping boys of the Church, the Jesuits. Good lord, what tripe. The favorite target of those looking for ways to justify their condemnation. It is all secret. We want one world government. The subjection of all Protestants. I think you live in a far different world than mine and most respectable Protestant theologians. Not that their difffences prove you belong to some strange fringe. But, hopefully, it may give you pause to think.

John said...

Leo, post something to my site as I would like to talk about employment as well as Catholicism and I will provide my email address. Sorry Jennie, just looking to a possible future.

Jennie said...

John, the Jesuits have always been well known for their intrigues and connections to power and money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Society_of_Jesus

Leo said...

"If that's so then why does Paul warn the Galatians 1: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

I agree. Unfortunately for your argument, no pope has ever taught a different Gospel. Doctrine develops over time but never changes. The Trinity is a good example. Remember by example about the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius? The fact that Jesus had two natures as one person and was fully human and fully divine, had never been officially stated up until that time. Yet, this does not change the fact that everyone held one faith. When all of these new concepts arose, such as adoptionism, monophysitism, etc. the Holy Spirit deemed it necessary to clarify and define the Truth about Christ's personhood.

When the Church defined it as we know it today, it was an aha moment. It put into words eloquently what all of the faithful knew in their hearts.

This is why you see official teaching come out years and centuries later, because the Truth about something has not been challenged with heretical teaching until that time.

This is also why the teachings of a Nestorius would be erased from Church annals so as not to mislead the faithful in the future. It also prevents people like you from saying, "see,the CHurch used to teach that Jesus did not have a fully divine and a fully human nature, and it was an archbishop no less, so there..." ;-)

Jennie said...

Unfortunately for your argument, no pope has ever taught a different Gospel. Doctrine develops over time but never changes.

Leo,
unfortunately for your argument, many men have studied the scriptures and seen the difference between RCC doctrines and the gospel of Christ. That's why the Reformation happened. There were also many before that who saw these differences as they 'developed' and opposed them. Many of them lost their lives because they stood for the truth of God's word. We've discussed these things in other posts, under 'justification', 'faith', 'salvation','righteousness' and others.
There are some good links here that show the differences in Catholic and biblical doctrine on justification and righteousness:
http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2010/08/some-links-on-justification-salvation.html

John said...

Yes, those evil Jesuits. But you are forgetting that most secretive and sinister group. In church at odd hours and always so innocent looking. You know, the ladies altar society. Lord knows what evil they may be up to.

Jennie said...

I never thought of that, John. You may be onto something. I'll look into it!

Leo said...

"many men have studied the scriptures and seen the difference between RCC doctrines and the gospel of Christ. That's why the Reformation happened. There were also many before that who saw these differences as they 'developed' and opposed them."

So what? That is a straw man argument, Jennie, and you know it. Archbishop Nestorius had many followers, yet he was wrong. Arius was a priest and he denied the divinity of Christ, so another council had to rule on it because so many were misled by this error.

What you seem to be oblivious to is the fact that many of the beliefs you hold to be obvious were actually in great dispute in the early Church until the pope and councils officially defined the Truth. You accept the Trinity and the fact that Jesus was fully God and fully man only because the Church officially ruled it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you have the notion that everyone always believed the same things in the early Church, you are sadly mistaken. The reason we have the Nicene Creed, for example, is to get everyone back on the same page. You see, the faithful were trying to explain the hypostatic union(God and man) just the way we are trying to explain Mary's role and the infallibility of Church teaching to you today.

As I said, it is not we who have added to the Faith but rather you who have subtracted from it.

Jennie said...

So what? That is a straw man argument, Jennie, and you know it. Archbishop Nestorius had many followers, yet he was wrong. Arius was a priest and he denied the divinity of Christ, so another council had to rule on it because so many were misled by this error.

It's not a straw man argument. It's simply the truth that many men opposed incorrect doctrines that became Roman Catholic doctrines.
If Nestorius' teachings were stricken from church records how do we know what he actually taught? Maybe he didn't really believe what the RCC says he did. Maybe he just saw the idolatry of people running through the streets of Ephesus chanting 'Theotokos!' just like they had run through the streets a few hundred years before chanting "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" Maybe he just didn't know how to explain the unexplainable doctrine of Christ's incarnation.

Jennie said...

Augustine didn't have everything right either, and some of his teachings have caused endless problems and controversies, but he wasn't exiled nor were his writings stricken from Church records.

Jennie said...

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/nestorius.htm

Apparently, it's not clear that Nestorius was a 'Nestorian'; and his main concern was the idolatry of calling a human woman 'Mother of God'. It's not surprising that goddess worship would spring up again in the same city where it had such a stronghold earlier.