The way things look now, no. Hubs is a cradle CofCer.
Stranger things have happened, though. I believe in miracles.
I’d also look into the original intentions of the Church of Christ movement, because if memory serves it was based on a desire to return to apostolic Christianity. You might be able to convince him that while his religious forebearers may have left the Church because of what they perceived to be (and which might have been) real abuses against the Apostolic truth, what the Church in fact taught and where it is going now are something very different.
IOW, it may be that the Catholic Church of 2013 is exactly the church that your husband’s denomination is looking for, once they get rid of prejudices they have introduced to limit their search.
For instance, you will read in their literature, “This, then, is the New 'Testament Church-pure and simple. It was organized at the command of Christ and under the direction of His Spirit-directed Apostles. Its teachings, doctrines, and ordinances, free from all pomp and ritual, were plainly revealed within the pages of God’s Word.”
But look at the Scriptures!! Look in the Acts of the Apostles! When the question came up–yes, questions do come up!–it was not answered by consulting the Bible. It was answered by Paul returning to Jerusalem and consulting Peter and the Apostles! So the idea that the Church is lead not by individual interpretation of Scriptures, but by the teaching Magisterium of the Church, is the Biblical depiction of the what the original Church looked like!
Look at this section: “The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.” Acts 4:32-35. What Christians live like that? Catholic religious communities do, that is what. Do they have that anywhere in the CofCr? Not so much, do they?
Yet also read this: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” Acts 5:4. So even Peter did not imply that the Christians could not own land in their own name. The giving depicted in Acts was the giving of generosity, not the giving of communism.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that someone truly seeking a Church that is rooted in the Apostolic Church, the church (let us be reminded) that did not spring from the New Testament but from which the New Testament sprang, will find what they are seeking in the Catholic Church. For this is the root misconception of the Church of Christ: that is, that a group of believers can return to the Apostolic Church by returning to the words of the New Testament. Do they not realize that the Apostolic church did not have a New Testament? It also did not have Talmudic experts on the Hebrew scriptures to guide it. No, it had apostles, and those apostles are depicted in the New Testament as choosing co-workers and successors and sending them out by the laying on of the hands. (The New Testament is full of accounts of this.)
They don’t believe in a Pope? Look at Acts 10. What convocation of bishops told Peter it was OK to baptize non-Jews? There wasn’t one. The Holy Spirit lead him to it. Even the Eastern Orthodox believe that Peter had a special office and that his successor, the bishop of Rome, has a special office. The only quibble is in the exact nature of it, not that this office exists.
They don’t believe in prescribed rituals? Look at this, from 1 Corinthians 11 (boldface mine):
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11:23-27) There it is, an Apostle who was made so by the laying on of hands, having never been recorded to have seen the Lord in the flesh, handing on the Traditions (with a large “t”, and some Protestants do not know that we know the difference between a tradition and a Tradition), those sacred Traditions which include ritual and a belief in the True Presence. If you get out a Sunday missal, you can find the Eucharistic Prayers for him. Compare those with the biblical texts.
And so on. I’m not suggesting that you lay this out in one big sales pitch. I am suggesting, however, that your husband belongs to a group of believers who, if they let go of prejudices about what the Apostolic Church ought to look like, will conclude that the Apostolic Church still lives, and that you are being called to join it. At least your desire may seem reasonable, from the standpoint of the aims his denomination claims to hold.
There is literature in the apologetics section of Catholic Answers which are much better than what I can do. By all means, browse them and download those that seem to speak to your husband’s fears concerning the veracity of the Catholic Church.
