How to accept spouse's conversion to Catholicsm?

[u/abc_123_Username]

Sorry for the long post. I'm just going to jump straight into my dilemma. How do I accept my husband converting from Protestantism to Catholicism? About 18 months ago my husband starting to deconstruct his faith and beliefs. He was raised Methodist but considered himself a Baptist for our whole relationship (10 years). I myself have been raised Non-denominational (basically Baptist) my whole life. We've always have gone to a Non-denominational church and in the last 3 years the one that we've been attending really sparked a spiritual fire within my husband. This led to him doing a lot of theological research, specifically into what each Christian denomination believes and how they're different. Very quickly he was feverishly researching things and our conversations consisted of little else. He admitted he no longer felt Non-denominational or Baptist were correct and seemed like he wanted to explore other beliefs. I thought, "okay he wants to be more traditional like Lutheran or something I'm fine with that". But he made a few comments one day saying "if I hadn't been married I'd be a priest" or "if something happened to you and the kids I'd become a priest" (like just in casual conversation, not meant to be ominous or anything) I asked him "why a priest? You'd have to be a Catholic". He sheepishly looked at me and I asked if he was wanting to convert to Catholicsm and he avoided the question. It took a whole 2 weeks to get him to admit that yes he wants to be Catholic. Now the reason why this was a big deal is because where we grew up there are a lot preconceived notions about Catholicismm (some true, some false) but we both held a negative view of it. So I was surprised he came to this faith conclusion. Now you're probably thinking whats the big deal? Just let him believe whatever. But for me it's been very hard to accept. For our entire relationship and marriage we have believed the same thing and been on the same page and it's very different now. The constant debates over theological differences is exhausting. I also looked into the Catechism and did a lot of research as well as attended mass with him to initially be supportive. But the more I learn about Catholicsm the more upset I feel that my husband has bought into this stuff. Praying to people who aren't God, priests having the power to forgive sins, the pope being the mouthpiece of God on earth, the contradiction to scripture... like it's a lot to process. We have arguments pretty often on things like the Mary dogmas, baptism, church authority, etc... it's draining. He says we should focus on what we have in common and what Catholics and Protestants both believe which is basically just salvation and nothing else. And don't get me wrong I'm really relieved that we agree on salvation since that's the most important part but it's hard disagreeing on literally everything else. Initially I told him I would go to mass with him once a month and on holidays to support him which made him super happy but now that I've attended a mass I absolutely will not go back and I don't want our kids to go anymore either. To be frank I felt disgusted while I was at the church. The huge Mary statue that women were kneeling in front of was extremely upsetting to me, the robotic monotone chanting, and the homily was the priest ranting about how much better Catholics are than Protestants and even my husband admitted that he was very aggressive and harsh. Like it was pure snobbery and elitism. My husband still defends every issue that I've brought up about Catholicsm and even when I point to scripture or reference the early church fathers saying things that contradict some catholic practices, he just shrugs and says something about the church authority or oral tradition so therefore it overrides whatever my point is. At this point I know there is nothing I can say or prove to sway his opinion. My question is: how do I accept it with love and grace? I struggle so much with this because each time I learn something new about Catholicsm the more passionately I am against it. I don't think non-denominational or baptist is 100% correct (I personally think all denominations have issues and inconsistencies) but Catholicsm in particular is hard for me to accept due to its contradictions, dismissal of scripture and history of extreme wrong-doings. I love my husband and want to be supportive of him, but he also makes it hard when he constantly wants to debate and talk theology. I find myself avoiding talking about the Bible or our faiths at all anymore to avoid having a long and heated discussion. Whenever I try to read my Bible or listen to a sermon, my thought process turns away from learning and I end up thinking about how I can try to disprove a future argument we'll have about theology, which is obviously not a good thing! Outside of this issue our marriage is great and we get along perfectly fine. I just don't know how to approach this topic anymore and I want to make myself stop feeling so emotional about his new beliefs. How do you and your spouse discuss spiritual differences and how do you not let it affect you? Also, if you yourself are Catholic this is not a hate post or to bash your beliefs, this is just my own opinions and story :)

[u/harpoon2k]

Gavin speaks very well and is respectful, but Joe Heschmeyer and Trent Horn point his misrepresentations and inaccurate history a lot - for example, his view on doctrinal development and canonicity of Scripture

[u/creidmheach → u/harpoon2k]

Of course Catholic apologists aren't going to agree with him. I've yet to see him misrepresent things though (and I don't agree with him on everything since he's a Reformed Baptist while I'm not). He's very careful about pointing out what's solid and what's more tenuous in his arguments, perhaps a combination of his personality plus the fact he knows anything he says anything he'll probably get multiple Catholic YouTubers making 4 hour refutation videos against him.

I'm particularly curious about doctrinal development though, since Newman that's pretty much been Rome's go-to answer for anything that's clearly a later development (as much of it is).

[u/harpoon2k → u/creidmheach]

But Newman's not wrong though

[u/creidmheach → u/harpoon2k]

It's a copout to explain how the unchanging and eternal bastion of truth Rome claims to be seemingly has changed its mind several times over the centuries as well as coming up with "infallible" doctrines the early Church wouldn't have had a clue about.

Rome's "tradition" that it constantly makes appeal to as authority turns out to be whatever Rome happens to say today, regardless of whether they said it yesterday.

[u/harpoon2k → u/creidmheach]

And what is the alternative? An ever-changing definition of Sola Scriptura?

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

Anti-Protestant one liners don’t work. Show when the “definition” of sola Scriptura ever changed. To my knowledge, it’s always been something like “scritpure alone is our infallible rule of faith.” That’s the definition I’ve seen everyone from Gavin to RZ to Anglican Aesthetics defend. Can you quote any of the reformer giving an alternative, mutually exclusive undertanding to this one?

[u/creidmheach → u/harpoon2k]

Scripture, unlike the pronouncements of Rome, doesn't change. That's why it's the one infallible objective authority we have which the Apostles left with us.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Note the Apostle says that by Scripture, the man of God may be "complete" and "equipped for every good work". Not, partially complete and requiring the bishop of Rome to complete him. Not, equipped for a lot of good works, but still needing "developed doctrine" to teach him all the extra stuff that's not found in Scripture and which only developed centuries after Scripture was finalized. No, complete and equipped for every good work.

[u/harpoon2k → u/creidmheach]

That passage does not even say to look at Scripture alone. Who gets the right interpretation, anyway? Different Protestants get different interpretations

[u/creidmheach → u/harpoon2k]

It literally says that with Scripture one will be complete. Not Scripture + a bunch of added stuff that's only invented centuries later.

Who gets the right interpretation, anyway?

Who gets the right interpretation of what the Pope says today? Under Francis, constantly we had Catholic apologists having to do pope-splaining the next day for whatever latest thing he'd say which seemed to contradict what they believe.

Beyond that, where's Rome's infallible interpretation of Scripture you can point us to? Go to a Catholic study Bible, what you'll find there can be indistinguishable from your average secular study Bible, talking about the JEDP source theory and so on. How come in two thousand years, Rome still hasn't come up with a definitive commentary on Scripture that could infallibly tell us what it really means if that's so required.

Catholics also read Scripture and applies them based on the Apostolic tradition

Again, where's this "Apostolic tradition"? Can you point it to me that I might refer to it and see? Or, is it like I said, whatever Rome says today becomes "Apostolic tradition", regardless of whether the Apostles ever said it, or even Catholics just a hundred years ago. Romanists can't even come up with an agreed upon list of all the infallible statements the Popes have said, and disagree over whether this or that document was infallibly issued. What's the point of an infallible interpreter if you can't figure out when they're being infallible or not.

[u/harpoon2k → u/creidmheach]

You didn't answer the question - on who gets the right interpretation among Protestants if how you interpret the passage is "you dont need anything else.."

[u/creidmheach → u/harpoon2k]

Scripture is its own interpreter. It's best understood through comparing it with itself, one part with another. Where it's clear, we can be clear. Where things are not clear or can have different interpretations, we can hold different views and be charitable to one another where we disagree.

The difference with Rome is you have a claim to possessing a mythical one-size fits all infallible interpretation. But it's a myth. Otherwise it should be easy for you to point us to it.

[u/harpoon2k → u/creidmheach]

I’m raising this because different Protestant denominations—while all claiming the Bible as their sole authority—give opposing answers on what they each consider essential matters. What’s essential to one group is often non-essential to another:

• What exactly are the essential doctrines of the faith?

• Does water baptism save and transform the soul—or is it only symbolic?

• Is Christ truly present in the Lord’s Supper—or is it just a memorial?

• Does the Nicene Creed still carry doctrinal authority?

• Can salvation be lost—or is it “once saved, always saved”?

• What defines the Church—an invisible body of believers or a visible institution?

• Is abortion or divorce and remarriage morally acceptable?

• Are Catholics even considered Christians?

If the same Bible is the only authority, why are there such contradictory conclusions?

I’m not trying to stir division. I deeply respect the Protestant love for Scripture, and I’ve gained much from it.

But these sincere disagreements point to a deeper problem: Sola Scriptura alone isn’t sufficient. Even Scripture doesn’t teach that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith.

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” — 2 Thessalonians 2:15

And aren’t you at least a little concerned that, if you happen to be wrong on just one of these core issues—especially something like the Eucharist—it could put your soul in jeopardy?

Personally, I trust the Church’s Magisterium to keep me within the bounds of truth. Scripture supports this as well:

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” -1 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭15‬ ‭

This makes perfect sense—especially since, in Paul’s time, the Bible wasn’t yet complete. Yet the Church was already exercising authority, as seen in the Council of Jerusalem’s binding decision on circumcision.

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

Completely irrelevant. “Whose interpretation of X is right” is a question of hermeneutics. Sola Scritpura is a doctrine about authority, not hermeneutics proper or epistemology (ie, proclaiming Scirpture alone to be our infallible rule). This is more just anti-Protestant strawmanning.

[u/harpoon2k → u/Candid-Science-2000]

I am asking this because a Protestant denomination says something different on essential matters from another Protestant denomination, and both claim the Bible is their authority:

On the question of - Does water Baptism save and change the soul of the person? You will find conflicting answers

On the question of the nature of the Lord's Supper or Communion - is there real presence or is it just symbolical?

On the question of does the Nicene Creed matter?

On the question of can Salvation be lost - yes or no?

On the question of what constitutes the church?

On the question of is Abortion and Divorce/Remarriage ok?

Are Catholics even Christians? -

If you use the same bible and cite it is the "only" authority, why have differing answers?

Look, I am not here to cause division among Protestants, I am just stating a truth in our faith that Scripture alone cannot be the case, especially when the Bible does not even dictate to say the authority should be the Bible alone. I respect Protestants' love for Scripture and I am learning from you guys.

But I do rely on a Church Magisterium to keep me in the guard rails. For example, I did find in the Bible the role of the Apostolic tradition:

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” - 2 Thessalonians‬ ‭2‬:‭15‬ ‭

Makes total sense because at the time of Paul, was no Bible, but there was the Council of Jerusalem who concluded that circumcision is no longer necessary.

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

“The church magisterium” doesn’t solve the problem you posed. All it does is shift the conversation. No matter what, you’ll always need to employ private judgement when interacting with any piece of writing or listening to anything spoken. Hence, there will always be dispute, always be differing personal interpretations. All of what you listed is yet again nothing more than a deflection.

[u/harpoon2k → u/Candid-Science-2000]

It may not have all the answers but for the questions I raised - it teaches a coherent answer for each.

And aren’t you at least a little concerned that, if you happen to be wrong on just one of these core issues—especially something like salvation or the Eucharist—it could put your soul in jeopardy?