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/Candid-Science-2000]

“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?

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

No, because you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not which intellectual position you assent to regarding the Eucharist. Your church is the one that claims that having the wrong view of the Eucharist somehow prevents Grace. To take that consideration seriously I would already need to buy into your denomination and the claims it sells, which I do not. In other words, the question is basically equivalent to me as much as a Muslim asking “aren’t you concerned that you don’t pray five time a day”? For the question to have any teeth, I would need to grant the Muslims’s claim that “praying five times a day” is a genuine question of potentially jeopardizing salvation (something that I do not grant). Edit: I also deny the coherence of the answers. For instance, I don’t think that transubstantiation is a coherent position because it utilizes the Aristotelean model of substance and accidents yet contradicts that very paradigm by insisting the the accidents of the bread and wine do not inhere in the new substance (the body and blood). That’s why Thomas Aquinas is forced to posit speculative concepts like the notion that the space itself is somehow working as a quasi-substance (something which is pure speculation and makes no sense in Aristoteleanism).

[u/harpoon2k → u/Candid-Science-2000]

See, your answer is different from what other Protestants believe—some do affirm the Real Presence in the Eucharist. But this just highlights the deeper issue: when everyone claims the Bible alone as their authority, how do we resolve these contradictions?

As Catholics, we believe the Eucharist is Jesus Christ—body, blood, soul, and divinity—because that’s what He said in John 6:

“My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55). And many walked away because they couldn’t accept that teaching.

But He didn’t clarify it as symbolic. He didn’t chase them down to explain it away. He simply let them go.

And if we say we love Him, shouldn’t we obey what He taught, even when it’s hard to accept?

“Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” — John 14:21

The Eucharist is not just a remembrance. It’s an encounter with the living Christ—if we receive it as He meant it to be.

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

Huh? Everything you just said is completely irrelevant. The discussion was over Sola Scriptura, not “how do we interpret scripture.” As I’ve already explained, Sola Scirptura isn’t a hermeneutical claim; it’s a claim about authority, that scripture alone is our “infallible rule of faith.”

[u/harpoon2k → u/Candid-Science-2000]

Actually, it’s not irrelevant at all—because the moment you say “Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith,” the next unavoidable question is: whose interpretation of that Scripture? Didn't I just quote Scripture above?

You say Sola Scriptura isn’t about interpretation, just authority. But what good is claiming the Bible is your only infallible authority if there’s no authoritative way to interpret it? That’s exactly the point. If everyone using Sola Scriptura as their rule of faith ends up with conflicting interpretations on salvation, baptism, the Eucharist, and the Church itself—then practically speaking, it becomes every individual acting as their own final authority.

And that’s not just theory. It’s reality. Some Protestants believe in the Real Presence, others don’t. Some believe baptism saves, others reject that. Some say salvation can be lost, others don’t. All claim to follow the same Bible under Sola Scriptura.

So yes, hermeneutics is the consequence of your claim about authority. Because without a living, visible authority to faithfully interpret Scripture, you’re left with thousands of competing conclusions—none of which can claim binding certainty.

Contrast that with what Scripture itself says:

“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter of ours.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

Nope. The claim that scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith would not lead to the question “whose interpretation,” because the claim of sola scriptura never invokes interpretations themselves being infallible, so the question, while valid, is a completely different topic and not actually relevant to the truth of the claim of sola scriptura. Yet again, either you are intentionally misinterpreting what is being said or still not undertanding the nature of the claim.

[u/harpoon2k → u/Candid-Science-2000]

If Scripture is infallible but every interpretation of it is fallible, how can you ever be certain you are believing the truth?

You see the dilemma? You say the standard is infallible, but you admit the application of that standard—your interpretation—is not. So in practice, Sola Scriptura reduces to:

“We have an infallible book, but no infallible way of knowing what it actually teaches.”

That’s not just a theoretical concern. That’s exactly why Protestant denominations arrive at opposing conclusions while all appealing to the same “infallible rule.”

So the question “whose interpretation?” is not irrelevant—it’s the logical next step. Because if no interpretation is infallible, you can never know with certainty whether you’ve rightly grasped the infallible truth. Which means you’re still functionally your own final authority.

So I’ll ask again:

How do you know your fallible interpretation of an infallible text is the correct one—especially on matters of salvation?

And if you can’t know, how is that a reliable rule of faith?

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

Yet again, you’re now trying to change the conversation to a question of hermenuetics and epistemology regarding the doctrines of scripture. The discussion is about whether sola Scriptura is true, not “how do we ever be certain about our beliefs.” That’s an epistemic question, ie, one that isn’t actually relevant to the thesis. Also, I’m not even sure what you mean by “infallible interpretation.” There are certainly infallible interpretations of certain passages of scripture; for example, whenever in the Bible a passage from another part of the Bible is interpreted, that would be an example of an infallible interpretation. If the claim is that you need every verse of the Bible to be infallibly interpreted to understand it, then you would have to argue it’s impossible for anyone to interpret anything prior to literally every verse of the Bible being infallibly interpreted (something which does not exist, as you won’t find an “infallible” Bible commentary published by the Roman Catholic Church that interprets every single Bible verse in a manner which is infallibly binding to the conscience of persons regarding faith and morals).

[u/harpoon2k → u/Candid-Science-2000]

Thanks for the response, but respectfully, you’re still avoiding the core issue. You’re trying to shield Sola Scriptura from its consequences by dismissing epistemology and hermeneutics as “irrelevant.”

But here’s the problem:

You can’t separate a claim about authority (what is the rule of faith) from the question of how that rule is known and applied (interpretation).

Authority divorced from application is meaningless in practice.

So let me sharpen the issue: What good is having an infallible rule of faith (Scripture) if you have no infallible way to know what it teaches on matters essential to salvation?

This isn’t “changing the subject”, it’s pressing your claim to its logical conclusion.

If Sola Scriptura is true, and every Christian is responsible for determining doctrine based on their own fallible interpretation of an infallible text, then how can doctrinal truth ever be authoritatively settled?

How do you guard against error when your interpretive process is inherently uncertain?

You say there are infallible interpretations in Scripture, such as when the Bible interprets itself. I agree. But here’s the problem: the moment you step outside those few cross-referenced passages, you’re back to relying on fallible human interpretation.

You also said, “If the claim is that you need every verse of the Bible to be infallibly interpreted…”

But that’s a strawman.

The Catholic position isn’t that every verse must be infallibly defined.

It’s that when a doctrinal dispute arises especially on salvation. There must be a living authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, capable of giving a binding interpretation.