My conversion story


#1

Could Martin Luther have envisioned what happened when he began his activism against the Catholic Church? Could Marcion of Sinope? Could John Calvin? Or William Tyndale? Or Uldrich Zwingli? Or John Wycliffe? I don’t know. Luther probably hoped that there would be a mass exodus, no pun intended, from the Catholic Church to his church. And there was.

But history has proved Martin Luther to be a charlatan. To be fair, Luther was very likely correct about some abuses occurring within the Catholic Church — mostly over the practice of indulgences. And he was not the first to bring up many of the issues covered in his 95 Theses.

But Luther’s Bible, like Tyndale’s Bible which helped spawn the Jehovah’s Witness cult, was flawed. It lacked books such as I and II Maccabees and the Book of Wisdom, Daniel and Esther were heavily edited, and even the New Testament was not spared Luther’s eraser. Romans 3:28 originally stated that: “For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (NAB). Martin Luther added the word “alone” between “faith” and “apart”. It changed the entire meaning of the passage and gave birth to the lie of Sola Fide (“faith alone.”) And where there was a passage that said Scripture was not a matter of private interpretation, as in the Epistle of James, Luther disputed it. He called the Epistle of James “an Epistle of straw” because it refuted his flawed logic. His response to critics would seem to indicate that Luther had a beef with the Catholic Church that went well beyond Scripture and customs:

“You tell me what a great fuss the papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone’, say right out to him: ‘Dr, Martin Luther will have it so.’ And say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text; it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.”

I think he actually reveled in insulting the Church and everything connected to her.


#2

There were those who thought Martin Luther had gone too far and the original wording was supposedly restored. However, the lie spread and became accepted as fact in Protestant churches, and five centuries later it is still espoused as fact.

It isn’t.

I recently looked up Romans 3:28 at the BibleGateway.com website and was startled to discover that the King James Version of the Bible, which, incidentally, was published in 1611 (sixty-five years after Martin Luther’s death,) still has Luther’s flawed wording: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

The New Testament was originally written in Greek and later translated into Latin. It was this translation which the Catholic Church used for centuries and Luther changed it dramatically and called it truth.

It isn’t.

Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) is another Protestant lie. There is no passage in either the 73-book Catholic Bible or the 66-book Protestant one that says it is enough for salvation. Not one. And the Catholic Church should know: it compiled the books of what we call Sacred Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and went along with councils who recommended which books should be in the Bible and which should not.

I think Michael Voris of Saint Michael’s Media stated it best in Where Did the Bible Come From?: “The choice belongs to each person alone… who do you believe? Two thousand years of unified sacred tradition held by one church, or five hundred years of chaotic disagreement resulting in thirty-five thousand different churches?”

I made my choice. Having read this, many Protestants and atheists will probably accuse me of having become an apologist or “yes man” for the Roman Catholic Church. That’s fine.

Earlier I said that I believe we need learned priests to guide us to God because of our failings and our “humanness.” However, the fact is that there are a lot of bishops, a lot of cardinals, and one pope. But still, they’re all priests and I think sometimes the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church overwhelms that fact.

The reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) which was convened to open windows and let a little fresh air into the Church, to quote one bishop, alienated many Catholics. Vatican II approving Masses in the vernacular, for instance. I can see both sides.

I once asked Fr. Terry very early on in the RCIA course at Our Lady of Sorrows about the differences in the Latin Mass and Masses in the vernacular and priests facing the congregation rather than Jesus during them.

He responded that Jesus faced His Apostles during the Last Supper.

Ouch!

It was such a simple and logical answer and it had completely eluded me!

I meekly said, “Oh…” I wouldn’t be surprised if I was a little red-faced, too.

So, I am now about six weeks or so away from being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. These next weeks should be an exciting time in my life. There will be some difficulties, such as my first confession, but that’s hardly a negative. In fact, it’s just the opposite. I know I need to do it and there are a lot of good people like Fr. Terry and Corrinne and Randy and Mike and John and Eunice around me and I am deeply indebted to them.


#3

A wealth of Catholic links


#4

God Bless you George!

May we all ask Jesus for the courage to find and to live the fullness of Truth He gave us in His Catholic Church.

"Why do you call me “Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?” Lk 6:46.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark


closed #5

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.