Catholic Devotionals

✝️ Catholic devotionals on readings & the Church. If we’ve talked before, welcome back! I’m glad you’re here. Let’s keep growing in faith together 🙏

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

✝️ Text Without Understanding 🙏

This last Sunday, we heard from Luke 24:13–35. In this passage, the disciples already had what many would consider enough.

They had the Scriptures.

They knew the promises, the prophecies, the long arc of Israel’s hope. And yet, as they walked to Emmaus, they were disoriented by recent events, unable to see how everything fit together. The words were there, but the meaning remained just out of reach.

It’s a quiet reminder that Scripture, on its own, is not always self-disclosing. When Jesus joins them, He doesn’t hand them something new but rather leads them through what they already possess.

The same texts, now illuminated from within, stirs their hearts with recognition.

But no matter how shaken they are by Jesus’s words, that is not the end. Intellectual understanding alone was not enough for them to truly recognize Jesus for who He is.

Their hearts were stirred, but it was not until the breaking of the bread that their eyes are truly opened.

The moment is simple, almost quiet, but decisive.

The Church has always recognized this as the unveiling of the Eucharist. Christ not only explained, but encountered. Truly present.

They had listened, but now they saw.

The pattern is difficult to miss. The Scriptures are opened, not in isolation, but through a living voice. And the recognition of Christ comes to completion not in explanation alone, but in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

It’s not a contrast, but a cohesive whole. Scripture, properly understood, leads to understanding. The sacraments lead to fullness.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

@farmingandJesus Satan speaks sweetly to you in an effort to get you to open the door. He has no concern what happens to you once you let him in.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

@ronhenzel @farmingandJesus Out of curiosity, what would visible Christian unity actually look like to you in practice?

[Beauty of the Catholic Faith @advoluntas]

♰ Where is the Hail Mary in the Bible ♰

Hail Mary, full of grace; the Lord is with Thee - Luke 1:28

BLessed art thou among women - Luke 1-41-42; 48

Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. - Luke 1:42

Holy Mary, Mother of God - Luke 1:43

Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen - Luke 2:34; John 2:5

[Become A Saint @BeSaintly]

A dead man was brought back to life in 2 Kings 13 by coming into contact with the bones of Elisha.

Relics have always been a core piece of our faith

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

Objective truth is rooted in the nature of God Himself. That goodness is not something human beings invent, but rather something we all feel, even if it’s tough to articulate why.

That does not mean that Christians have always understood or applied moral truth correctly. The notion that humans are deeply flawed is a central tenet of Christianity.

But the flaws of humans do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that moral truth does not exist.

But with that … I appreciate the discussion. I wasn’t trying to frustrate you, I was just trying to understand your reasoning before sharing mine. That’s just how I roll 😉.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

These are definitely my own thoughts.

I’m just trying to follow your chain of reasoning, and doing so leads to some conclusions that I am not comfortable with.

I understand your aversion to Christian morals, but your own distaste for them is in itself the hint of the existence of an objective standard.

You can call this objective standard whatever you want. I understand you don’t want to call it “God” but it’s tough to deny objective truth while implicitly measuring against it.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

Definitely not a robot 😝

And I do understand your position. The reason I keep pressing on it is because it seems to lead to some very uncomfortable conclusions.

If morality is truly subjective, then the people you are criticizing can also just say that their moral standard is better than yours and leave it at that.

Without an objective criteria to measure against, there’s really no way to refute them or you.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

I obviously agree that the points you’re raising are serious moral questions.

And I’m not confused about your views. You’ve made them pretty clear. What I’m struggling to understand is how the different parts of your view fit together.

When you call something “sickening,” “evil,” or “unjust,” it sounds like you believe those things are truly and objectively wrong. But then your conclusion seems to be that morality itself is ultimately subjective, which seems to drain those judgments of their moral weight.

For example, I personally find most tea flavors sickening. But because taste is truly subjective, I have no basis to condemn someone who disagrees with me.

But moral systems do not seem to work that way. You describe morality as subjective while also strongly condemning moral systems you disagree with.

I still don’t see how those two ideas reconcile.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

I certainly agree that human beings are biased and capable of terrible things when convinced of their own righteousness.

But that seems very different from saying objective moral truth does not exist at all.

In fact, when you bring up something like genocide, it sounds like you believe some things really are objectively evil rather than merely unpopular or disliked.

Because if morality is purely subjective, then moral disagreements ultimately become more like preferences. If someone likes tea and dislikes coffee, I cannot condemn their preference because there is no “correct” version of tastes to compare it to.

But moral systems do not seem to fall into that category. We strongly condemn some moral systems as evil because we consider them further away from some standard.

So what is that standard?

[Hughes de Payens 🇻🇦✝️📿 @hdpayens]

Protestants love to cite the Bereans as their model. But the Bereans actually prove them wrong.

Acts 17:11 says the Bereans were "more noble" than the Thessalonians because they "searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." It is the favorite Protestant proof-text for sola scriptura and private judgment.

It refutes both.

Read the verse carefully. The Bereans had no New Testament. None of it existed yet. The "Scriptures" they searched were the Old Testament alone. Their rule of faith was: the Old Testament plus the oral preaching of an apostle standing in front of them. That is not sola scriptura. That is Scripture plus living apostolic Tradition. That is the Catholic structure.

Look at what they were doing. They "received the word with all eagerness" — the apostolic preaching of Paul, accepted as the word of God, not as a proposal up for adjudication. Then they "examined the Scriptures daily." The verb means to investigate, search, and sift — not to render verdict over. The Bereans were not auditing Paul. Luke records them as more noble precisely because their investigation of the Scriptures confirmed and illuminated the apostolic message they had already received.

Now look at the Thessalonians.

Acts 17 opens with Paul preaching in the Thessalonian synagogue. They had the Old Testament. They had a settled theological system. When Paul proclaimed that Jesus is the Christ, they measured his preaching against their prior interpretation of Scripture, found it wanting, stirred up a mob, and forced his nighttime escape.

They had Scripture. They rejected the apostle Christ had sent. They incited the crowds.

That is the exact move every Protestant makes against the Catholic Church.

The Protestant has a Bible — given to him, ironically, by the Catholic Church he rejects. He measures the historic teaching of the apostolic Church against his own private interpretation of that Bible. He finds the Church's teaching incompatible with his interpretation. He rejects it. He stirs up the crowds with pamphlets, channels, and books.

That is not the Berean playbook. That is the Thessalonian playbook.

Paul's own words to the same region close the case. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he writes: "Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." The apostle the Bereans verified taught explicitly that his oral preaching was binding tradition alongside his letters.

The Catholic is the Berean. He receives the apostolic deposit — handed on by the bishops in union with Peter — and he searches the Scriptures to see how every word testifies to it.

The Protestant is the Thessalonian. He has the text. He lacks the messenger. He sits in judgment over the Church that gave him his Bible.

If you want to be a Berean, you need an apostle standing in front of you.

There is one. He has been there for two thousand years.

The doors are open.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

But that’s the part I still don’t understand.

If personal preference is ultimately the measuring stick, then how does the discussion become anything more than “I prefer this moral system and you prefer that one”?

What turns it from a debate like coffee vs tea into something where one person is actually right and another is actually wrong?

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

@LoganCamFor @terminallyOL There’s a difference between people imperfectly understanding moral truth and moral truth not existing at all.

But if morality is ultimately just personal preference, then I still don’t see how you can claim anyone or anything is “wrong” beyond simply not liking it.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

I think this is where I get confused.

You’ve said morality is ultimately subjective and that maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering are simply personal preferences.

But then statements like “God is unjust” or “unworthy of love” seem to carry real moral condemnation rather than merely describing your personal preferences.

I guess I’m struggling to understand how any criticism can survive inside your framework where morality itself is nothing more than your preferences.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

@reformedhg How is asking someone to pray for you bypassing Jesus?

[CSW Hoosier 🇻🇦 @CSW_Hoosier]

2015: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2016: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2017: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2018: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2019: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2020: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2021: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2022: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2023: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2024: Non-denominational Baptist ✝️
2025: Questioning Protestantism, researching the early Church, and every answer came up Catholic. Started OCIA in October. ✝️
2026: Confirmed Catholic and received first Holy Communion on February 15 ✝️

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

Fair enough.

From a Christian perspective, the idea is not that someone fails a trivia test about God despite otherwise living a perfectly good life. The claim is that God is the source of goodness itself, and human beings are free to orient themselves toward or away from that good.

So separation from God is understood less as arbitrary punishment and more as the natural consequence of rejecting the source of goodness itself.

Which is also why I kept returning to the morality discussion. You seem to believe that maximizing human happiness and minimizing suffering is truly good, not merely personally preferable.

So I’m still trying to understand: under a subjective moral framework, is there any definition of “good” beyond personal preference?

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

I’m not trying to avoid your question, but I think we skipped over a pretty major shift in your position.

We started with morality being presented as something fairly simple and obvious, but now we’ve moved to morality being subjective while still calling certain outcomes objectively “better”.

I’m trying to understand how those two ideas fit together. If morality is subjective, in what sense is maximizing human happiness objectively better rather than simply something you personally value?

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

But that’s the tension I’m trying to understand.

If morality is subjective, then in what sense can one moral system actually be “better” than another rather than simply preferred by different people?

Because once morality becomes purely subjective, it seems difficult to say someone is objectively wrong rather than just operating from different preferences or instincts.

[Catholic Devotionals @DailyCatholicX]

@LoganCamFor @terminallyOL That’s a helpful clarification.

Though if morality is ultimately subjective, when two people fundamentally disagree on a moral issue, is either person actually wrong in any objective sense, or are they ultimately just expressing different preferences?