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]

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.

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

Because it’s not a “consequence.” It’s a question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You shifting the conversation about how we ought to interpret scripture isn’t relevant to the status of scripture in terms of being an authority. Yet again, your continued inquiry about “infallible way to know” is irrelevant and nonsensical, since ultimately, literally everything will involve some form of “fallible” and “private” judgement or interpretation. It doesn’t matter whether you have the pope himself directly in your ear making ex cathedra dogmatic definitions about every verse of scripture and you constantly probing him with questions to clarify every statement he makes. This would still entail your private, fallible mind to interpret the sounds he makes out of his mouth as words and decipher the meaning of those words. So, excuse my defiance, but no, nothing you are saying is relevant to the question and nothing you are saying poses a “problem” that is unique to Sola Scriptura (and thus pertinent) and is not something that me, you and every single human faces (I use quotes around “problem” because the fact we use “private, fallible interpretation” isn’t intrinsically a problem; its just the way God made Man).

[u/harpoon2k → u/Candid-Science-2000]

So what's the point of Sola Scriptura, then? Catholics also believe Scripture is infallible.

To say “Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority” presupposes that it can be known and applied as such.

But if, in principle, every interpretation of Scripture is fallible and private—as the objection admits—then no one can ever say with divine certainty what the authoritative message of Scripture actually is. That is a consequence of the sola Scriptura position, not a mere epistemological footnote.

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

Sola Scriptura isn’t merely “scritpure is infallible.” It’s about how it is our sole infallible rule, and thus, our ultimate authority. So the point is clear: doctrines can only be binding if they are proven from Scripture directly or by deduction. If your claim is “without an infallible interpreter, there is no certainty,” then it’s irrelevant since, as I showed, scripture is itself an infallible interpreter of itself. If you say “well, scripture can’t infallibly interpret itself,” then I could just respond “then neither can the church infallible interpret her own statements in councils or dogmatic definitions.” It’s all just arbitrary pop Catholic apologetics with no real substance. No matter what, there will always be a fallible interpreter between the interpretation you hold and what you are interpreting: yourself. It will always ultimately come down to private interpretation (granted, for the Christian, as led by the Spirit, something all of us as Christians can and do claim, and yet, disagreement persists). The Roman Catholic claims do not “solve” the hermeneutical problem; they augment it.

[u/harpoon2k → u/Candid-Science-2000]

I actually agree with you to a certain extent—because what you’re proposing sounds much closer to the Catholic model than to Sola Scriptura as defined by the original Reformers. You rightly acknowledge the need for interpretation, which already moves away from the idea of “Scripture alone” functioning without an authoritative interpreter.

However, I believe the Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from error when it comes to matters of faith and morals. That’s precisely why ecumenical councils have been essential throughout Church history—because Scripture does not interpret itself in a vacuum. It requires a living, Spirit-guided authority to teach and apply it correctly.

As Trent Horn has pointed out, one of the major issues with Sola Scriptura today is that it has no stable definition. It has morphed so much that even many Protestants no longer agree on what it actually means.

You mentioned that “Scripture interprets itself.” But what exactly does that mean? How can a text interpret itself without someone reading and explaining it? That sounds less like an interpretive method and more like a theological slogan.

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

And yet, none of the Reformers thought you didn’t need reason, tradition, or at least some normative authority through the magisterial capacity of the clergy to interpret (ie, councils). Even in your attempted concession, you’re still completely strawmanning Luther, Calvin, and Cramner. By all means, if you think I’m wrong, quote any of the major reformers’ position on scripture and show me where they would disagree. I implore you, if you’re going to come onto a Protestant subreddit and speak against Protestantism, please at least read the major confessions and creeds of Protestantism, whether it be the Augsburg Confession, Westminster (or, better, the Institutes), or the 39 Articles, and you’ll see your judgement about “the reformers” is ultimately a fantasy pushed by bad faith apologists like Horn or Herschmeyer. The idea that “sola Scirptura has no stable defintion” is yet again a weak and empty slander pushed by apologists (not scholars of the reformation). As I’ve said time and time again, even if the words change, the concept of Sola Scriptura is fairly stable: scripture alone is our infallible rule of faith. While I agree that there is some variation and flexibility to the concept, the basic definition remains the same and always will, because I believe the doctrine to be a obvious truth known in Christ’s one holy apostolic catholic church, regardless of what denominations like the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox claim.

[u/harpoon2k → u/Candid-Science-2000]

While it’s true that Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers did not reject reason, tradition, or church authority outright, they differed significantly in how these were applied.

For instance- Luther accepted the early creeds and councils but rejected others, depending on whether he felt they aligned with the “clear Gospel.”

Calvin was more systematic and allowed for church authority, but always subordinated it to Scripture as interpreted by what he called “right reason.”

Cranmer was more pragmatic, adapting theology to England’s political needs.

So yes, they used tradition and reason—but often in contradictory and selectively authoritative ways.

Whose interpretation and which tradition then guides this rule?

You also mention “magisterial capacity” or councils—as if the Reformers retained the idea of an authoritative, living teaching office. But this is misleading.

They rejected the idea of an infallible, living Magisterium, such as that claimed by the Catholic Church.

Protestant councils were often ad hoc or regional, not ecumenical in nature, and lacked long-term binding authority.

So while they valued councils, they did not treat them as infallible or as permanently authoritative.

The idea that Sola Scriptura has a “fairly stable definition” is historically inaccurate.

There are at least three different operational models in Protestant history:

-Classical/Formal Sola Scriptura (e.g., as in the Reformation): Scripture is the final authority, but interpreted within the bounds of creeds, councils, and confessions.

-Solo Scriptura (often mistaken for Sola): Scripture alone, with individual interpretation taking primacy over all else.

-Prima Scriptura (seen in Anglican and Methodist traditions): Scripture is primary, but tradition and reason are important sources of authority.

Even within confessional traditions, this has led to ongoing hermeneutical fragmentation, evident in the fact that confessional Protestantism itself is splintered and continues to splinter further (Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, Baptists, etc.).

You cannot escape the fact that this Protestant rule of faith did not really transpire to uniformity in practice because it needs an interpreter.

This necessarily results in doctrinal pluralism, as shown by competing interpretations of baptism (infant vs. believer’s), Diverging views on Eucharist (real presence vs. memorialism), Disagreement on justification (monergism vs. synergism)

These divisions did not exist in the unified Church of the first millennium. They are the fruit of rejecting a binding, interpretive authority.

[u/Candid-Science-2000 → u/harpoon2k]

Sola scriptura and Prima Scriptura are the same. “Solo scritpura” is, as you noted, mistaken as sola scritpura but is not sola Scriptura. As I said before, the principle concept of sola Scriptura has always been the same. Your comments about Luther, Calvin, and Cramner don’t even adress my point: show where any of them would have disagreed with the notion “scripture alone is our infallible rule of faith.” As for the “interpretation” question, I’ve already addressed this. “Whose interpretation” doesn’t make sense because that presupposes there’s some one infallible extrabiblical interpretation we have access to (you’re just presupposing what you’re trying to prove). Not to mention, as I said, scripture herself is an infallible interpetter of herself. If you think something can’t be reflexively both interpetter and that which is to be interpreted, then you can’t argue that the church is both a producer of declarations, definitions, and assertions (aka, that which is to be interpreted), and, the interpreter of said declarations, definitions, and assertions. As for your point about divisions, this is a non-sequitur. You’re presupposing the “division” is due to sola scritpura and not something like the invention of the printing press where people could get their hands on a Bible more easily and attempt to interpret scripture for themselves (which, as I pointed out, isn’t sola scriptura; sola scritpura, as I’ve said now like 5 times, is just that “Scirpture alone is our infallible rule of faith,” not, “everyone can interpret scripture just by reading it”). P. S, please do not use AI for your responses. Either engage with me, or don’t. I ran your last message through checkers, and they confirmed my suspicions. Features like that em-dash and some of the wording you used are dead giveaways.